Petition wants Stone Mt. Confederate carving removed (Stone Mountain, Avalon: to buy, exemption)

[Robbyb03]

So the people displayed on Stone Mountain fought for state rights and some of you agree that it needs to be removed? It isn't racist in any way...

[chiatldal]

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

That's the poorest written news snippet I've ever read! Where did it run?

Originally Posted by ATLTJL

It was probably just in some lame internal klan newsletter. Nothing that crappy would ever run in any real media outlet.

Originally Posted by gregm

It's from wikimedia. Who knows who created it. If you are using Firefox right click on the image and select "view property's".

It's from Nov. 28, 1915 the Atlanta Constitution.

Stone Mountain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by JoeTarheel

Whatever you think of the subject matter, it is an historical work of art that should not be altered. Period.

Maybe the entire mountain should be destroyed since the Klan met there?

That's not what I said. The klan was behind the support for building it and funding it. It's the klan art basically. It's get weird, a story of off's and on's. Gutzon Borglum the original sculptor is from Idaho, but he becomes associated with klan mans. He and the UDC created the SMCMA for funding, and over seeing the projected in which again were klan mans. Borglum and SMCMA bumped heads, then Borglum destroy part of the caving and fled the state. The SMCMA some how got the US government to mint coins of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson I guess because they served in the US military as well. SMCMA also wanted Jefferson Davis but the US government said hell naw. The coins were unsuccessful. But it took nearly 50 years to build finally finishing in the early 60's. Through the state purchased the mountain in the late 1950's ridding of the klan. Weird story.



I don't care if it's change or not, but let's pretend it's not what it is. Posters are saying it could be Georgia's most famous work of art.. No. As I said Their's a differences in teaching history and romanticism. If this is to stay it should serve as a banner of how far we came from ignorance, not something to celebrate and honor as civic pride.

But if it's to be changed I think adding to it is a great ideal. I don't know how someone would be against that. The concept of what was being built change several times anyways. Think of the beltline project it's a over time generational thing. Adding to it would change the meaning, and give it a positive one. Than it may become something worth civic pride. but yet again this is pricey.

[CSD610]

Originally Posted by ThreeSides

This guy is probably pro Atlanta Housewives and all of the other cockamamie shows that we across the nation LOVE to watch, laud, DVR, etc. What a waste of time and energy.

You are correct, watching those programs is a waste of time and energy and keep your WE to yourself.

I haven't watched television in about 15 years and what little I've seen while at someone else's home is beyond trash so I know I am not missing a thing.

[Iconographer]

It's really quite simple. Not all history is pretty. But history must be preserved, not altered. To do such to this carving is defacement.
Picasso's Guernica has violent content and is an upsetting reminder of a terrible civil war. Shall we paint in some happy faces to make it more palatable? Or perhaps we should destroy the films of Leni Riefenstahl because they present a pro-Nazi point of view?
You're really getting into dangerous territory when you begin adopting this attitude.
Respect the carving for what it is...our history, warts and all.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by Robbyb03

So the people displayed on Stone Mountain fought for state rights and some of you agree that it needs to be removed? It isn't racist in any way...

The argument that the Civil War was fought for states rights seems disingenuous to me, since the "right" in question was the alleged authority to continue the practice of human slavery.

[cislga]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

It's really quite simple. Not all history is pretty. But history must be preserved, not altered. To do such to this carving is defacement.
Picasso's Guernica has violent content and is an upsetting reminder of a terrible civil war. Shall we paint in some happy faces to make it more palatable? Or perhaps we should destroy the films of Leni Riefenstahl because they present a pro-Nazi point of view?
You're really getting into dangerous territory when you begin adopting this attitude.
Respect the carving for what it is...our history, warts and all.

Stop! Just stop! Your making way too much sense

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

It's really quite simple. Not all history is pretty. But history must be preserved, not altered. To do such to this carving is defacement.
Picasso's Guernica has violent content and is an upsetting reminder of a terrible civil war. Shall we paint in some happy faces to make it more palatable? Or perhaps we should destroy the films of Leni Riefenstahl because they present a pro-Nazi point of view?
You're really getting into dangerous territory when you begin adopting this attitude.
Respect the carving for what it is...our history, warts and all.

Well said!

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by Robbyb03

So the people displayed on Stone Mountain fought for state rights and some of you agree that it needs to be removed? It isn't racist in any way...

Do you even know what the word racism means?Its absolutely ludicrous that you would somehow try to equate this attempt as somehow being a "reverse racism " type thing.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by chiatldal

I don't care if it's change or not, but let's pretend it's not what it is. Posters are saying it could be Georgia's most famous work of art.. No. As I said Their's a differences in teaching history and romanticism. If this is to stay it should serve as a banner of how far we came from ignorance, not something to celebrate and honor as civic pride.

But if it's to be changed I think adding to it is a great ideal. I don't know how someone would be against that. The concept of what was being built change several times anyways. Think of the beltline project it's a over time generational thing. Adding to it would change the meaning, and give it a positive one. Than it may become something worth civic pride. but yet again this is pricey.

So what is your proposal on controlling how people view a work of art? Some people may see it as a banner of how far we've come, and others celebrate and honor it with civic pride. Others may see it in a different way. You can't control how anyone sees anything, and you can't decide what is "worth civic pride" for everyone else.

As someone already pointed out, works of art are not to be altered no matter what the subject matter.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by arjay57

The argument that the Civil War was fought for states rights seems disingenuous to me, since the "right" in question was the alleged authority to continue the practice of human slavery.

Yes...states rights is very often used as a smoke screen for the real cause.