[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Rainbows and unicorns would be an improvement over statues glorifying those who fought to preserve the institution of human slavery.
Doesn't seem to me that should be such a difficult concept to grasp.
From Robert E. Lee's great-great-great nephew, according to Smithsonian Magazine: "I see them as idolatries," Rev. Robert Lee IV told ABC News last year. "They have been created into idols of white supremacy and racism."

Those of you who claim that statues honoring the Confederacy were erected to "preserve history" are missing the boat. They were erected to glorify the concept of the Confederacy, which includes human slavery, and white supremacy.
By all means, the fact that these attitudes were considered not only normal, but just, and the divine right of the White Race should be included in every curriculum in the United States.
It should be forever taught, that Alexander H Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, proudly spoke the following, as justification for the secession of the Confederate States,
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth"

That , folks, is the essence of the Confederacy. While honorable men fought honorably for its survival, it should never be whitewashed, or forgotten, exactly what they were fighting for.

And yet, the reminders MUST be removed. Out of sight, out of mind. "Whitewash" history? Or, how about blacked out as if it never happened?
Like I have said before, those soldiers were NOT fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting for their homes. Very few soldiers ever owned slaves.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Byte1

And yet, the reminders MUST be removed. Out of sight, out of mind. "Whitewash" history? Or, how about blacked out as if it never happened?
Like I have said before, those soldiers were NOT fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting for their homes. Very few soldiers ever owned slaves.

Teaching the history, making the history available, are different tasks than glorifying the symbols of white supremacy and the defenders of slavery.

[Ben Franklin]

Originally Posted by Byte1

And yet, the reminders MUST be removed. Out of sight, out of mind. "Whitewash" history? Or, how about blacked out as if it never happened?
Like I have said before, those soldiers were NOT fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting for their homes. Very few soldiers ever owned slaves.

"The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration given by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Here's the exerpt: "..."our new government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth..."

So, no. They weren't fighting to save their homes. They actually believed they were superior to black people.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Teaching the history, making the history available, are different tasks than glorifying the symbols of white supremacy and the defenders of slavery.

You are absolutely correct. Put the statues and monuments of the traitors on any private land that will have/want them, just don't glorify that behavior on public land. True and factual history is history and will never change (except possibly by some heretofore unknown legitimate document/facts, that haven't previously been known to exist) by the location of some statue, monument or plaque. It isn't really that hard of a concept to comprehend.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Ben Franklin

"The Cornerstone Speech, also known as the Cornerstone Address, was an oration given by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861.

Here's the exerpt: "..."our new government['s] foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth..."

So, no. They weren't fighting to save their homes. They actually believed they were superior to black people.

Did you miss that 3/5s compromise demanded by the North?

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Did you miss that 3/5s compromise demanded by the North?

I didn't miss it, I just don't see your point. Please expound.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by tvbound

You are absolutely correct. Put the statues and monuments of the traitors on any private land that will have/want them, just don't glorify that behavior on public land. True and factual history is history and will never change (except possibly by some heretofore unknown legitimate document/facts, that haven't previously been known to exist) by the location of some statue, monument or plaque. It isn't really that hard of a concept to comprehend.

I can see these statues being placed in a central clearing, encircled by a round museum several stories high. So you wouldn't be able to see the statues at all unless you were inside the museum or went out into the central courtyard where they were prominently on display with plaques to explain their significance.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Laker14

I didn't miss it, I just don't see your point. Please expound.

It's called "what-aboutism." Common posting style.

[Laker14]

Originally Posted by Byte1

So, the idea is that we should tear down, remove, eliminate all references to anything in history that shows unfavorable on our country. That way, no one will ever know our blemished history. We should not have any reminders, so that when a few years or decades down the road, there will be questions without answers. Slavery never existed and the Civil War never happened. When are we going to rid ourselves of those nasty reminders in D.C. like the Vietnam Veterans wall, or the WWII memorial, etc. After all, American soldiers killed a lot of Asians and Europeans in our violent history.
History=bad
WOK = good

are you seriously worried that if we remove statues honoring slave owning generals fighting to preserve white supremacy and human slavery, that we will forget the Civil War, and the institution of slavery? Really?
Is it your position that the people who want these statues removed also want us to forget that a Great War was fought over the issue of whether or not human slavery was to be allowed to continue in our country?
Take a moment and consider that position.

[tvbound]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's called "what-aboutism." Common posting style.

Not just in posting, but in general life conversations/debates. The equivalent of someone being proved wrong, but instead of being ethical and having the integrity in admitting it, they prefer to say - "look, over there, a shiny object."

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Laker14

are you seriously worried that if we remove statues honoring slave owning generals fighting to preserve white supremacy and human slavery, that we will forget the Civil War, and the institution of slavery? Really?
Is it your position that the people who want these statues removed also want us to forget that a Great War was fought over the issue of whether or not human slavery was to be allowed to continue in our country?
Take a moment and consider that position.

I guess you want to take down Lincoln's statues too?

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by Laker14

Teaching the history, making the history available, are different tasks than glorifying the symbols of white supremacy and the defenders of slavery.

The war was not about "white supremacy and defenders of slavery." No one is "glorifying" it. If you are ashamed of YOUR history, that's a personal problem. Since it was NOT my heritage, the statues do not bother me. I am interested in why after decades, today's overly sensitive people are more worried about erasing or perverting the past than fixing, healing the present. I can understand the idea of removing the confederate battle flag from gov buildings, but being intimidated and scared of a few historic statues in pretty amusing. Personally, I don't care what you do with the statues, but I think it is pathetic to cater to a few sensitive folks. Interesting how many flags of other countries are flown daily, even in the Villages. That doesn't bother anyone? I know that some are sensitive to political flags flown.

I believe that Lincoln was president when boat loads of blacks were shipped off to what is known as Liberia, as an experiment on getting rid of all slaves. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around for anyone that lived in that period.
One of the first slave owners was a black man from Virginia.
The Civil War was more about the economics in the South than slavery as an institution.
Take reminders of President Clinton down because he was a sexist and adulterer.
Take President Kennedy's reminders down because he was a sexist and adulterer.
Take Johnson's reminders down because he was a racist.
Destroy all reminders of the internment camps for Japanese-American citizens because they are an embarrassment to our country.
But, by all means get rid or YOUR evidence of the Civil war.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Laker14

I didn't miss it, I just don't see your point. Please expound.

Just commenting on your (cherry picked) quote by Stephens, believing whites were superior to blacks, while ignoring that northerners had the exact same opinion...

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I can see these statues being placed in a central clearing, encircled by a round museum several stories high. So you wouldn't be able to see the statues at all unless you were inside the museum or went out into the central courtyard where they were prominently on display with plaques to explain their significance.

Where is this mythical museum to be constructed? Who will protect it from those who demand it be torn down?

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's called "what-aboutism." Common posting style.

No, it's called "context"...