Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
"Removal" of statues erected within the past 200 years does not equate with "destruction of ancient statues that were erected over a thousand years ago and, themselves, have historic significance."
The statue of General Lee was not an historic object of its own until very recently, comparative to the history of civilization. The statues of Buddha were carved in the 6th century.
There is no comparison to the REMOVAL of a modern-age statue and the DESTRUCTION of two statues of architectural historic significance.
|
It's part of Virginia's history as a state and also part of U.S. history. We have monuments or statues honoring those who fought in the Pacific in WWII even though the U.S. later dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and stateside put thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps., stripping them of their legally owned property and their dignity. Both were barbaric acts deemed necessary back then, but deplored now.
Nevertheless, we can separate the actions of a military or government with those of the men who sacrificed their lives for their country. It's the same with Confederate symbols and statues. They represent men who died fighting to preserve a way of life. They were proud of their cultural heritage and defended it from what they considered Northern tyranny. Being Southern in the 19th century meant a lot more than just slavery or support of such. Most Southerners didn't own slaves and many abhorred it on religious and moral grounds, like Abraham Lincoln who was from Kentucky.
Empathy, wisdom and historical context is needed when judging the past, whether it's the Taliban blowing up ancient statues that offend their religious views or those taking down a statue of a Southern icon that was a part of the state's history and dismembering it in public as the crowd (mostly young, white, pseudo-radical poseurs) cheered. Not much difference between the two that I can ascertain.