Robert E. Lee was a traitor, a brute and a slaver who wouldn't even trade black union soldiers taken prisoner for the lives of his own men because he saw black people as property to be owned.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …
-
-
a museum would be a great place for it.
-
In a museum, such a statue would include a large plaque explaining how and why the post-segregation South came to build commemorative statues portraying the leaders of the secession in heroic poses. Without that plaque, it's teaching something completely different...
-
I can see that point of view
-
Most of those statues are relatively new, why put them in a museum? They aren't teaching us anything, and they have no historical significance past an artist wanting to honor the confederacy. Melt it down.
-
The Problem I see w/ that is that removing the statues doesn't remove the mindset, but looses the teaching opportunity that visible statue w/ Plaque has. Don't hide the sins of the past: explain them to not repeat them.
-
The artist's intent wasn't to teach that the confederacy was bad, the people who funded it didn't want to teach that the confederacy was bad, casual observers don't walk over to a statue commemorating this general and walk away thinking the confederacy was bad. That's nonsense.
-
Yep! Maybe they could take pics of the confederate monuments before they destroy them. Then put the pics, accurate info about the Civil War & about the Civil Rights Era all together in a museum. Explain how those monuments were made during the JimCrow era. No revisionist history
- еще 1 ответ
Новая переписка -
-
Can I have your address? I have an Osama Bin Laden statue I’d like to put up in your front yard.
-
Obviously, he was a bad man along with many other bad men. That being said there have been many statues of a bad man who are still kept today and in history such as many roman leaders.
-
I don’t remember the Romans in war against the US...
-
this statue is directly US history making for even more of an impact to keep the statue to remember our bad past such as putting it in a museum.
-
It's actually not US history, the Confederacy was a criminal, treasonous movement. You want to preserve and venerate Confederate history
-
to remember why the Confederate was so bad and why it shouldn't happen again.
-
How does a statue convey that? If you said "a plaque describing it" then what you really want is a plaque and the statue isn't necessary
-
then you wouldn't need anything visual wise. Take for example art if you described an art painting then you wouldn't need to see the actual painting. That doesn't make sense. The statue is there to bring the point home like the painting is with a description.
Конец переписки
Новая переписка -
-
-
that would be more convincing if anyone who supports confederate statues had any interest in portraying history accurately
-
that is also a good point. I just don't support removing the statue from history. That said placing it in a museum with an accurate description of general I would be supportive of removal from the place now.
-
honestly it is an interesting question, as confederate statues are both secondary sources about the civil war and primary sources about "redemption" and have historical value on that basis. but 1) their current placement is about reverence hiding behind "historical value"
-
and, more importantly, 2) this debate is only tangentially related to why the unite the right rally happened in the first place and framing it as the actual issue is buying into their own mythology
-
this is what I have been trying to claim and show. Very well said
Конец переписки
Новая переписка -
Загрузка может занять некоторое время.
Вероятно, серверы Твиттера перегружены или в их работе произошел кратковременный сбой. Повторите попытку или посетите страницу Статус Твиттера, чтобы узнать более подробную информацию.