U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should historical monuments be removed if they offend some people?
Yes 14 25.00%
No 40 71.43%
Undecided 2 3.57%
Voters: 56. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-12-2017, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
5,339 posts, read 3,954,112 times
Reputation: 4172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
I maintain that anyone who upheld racism or oppressed people of color are not worthy of being honored or commemorated with a monument in the first place.

Consequently, placing any such monument in a museum is a non-starter.
The monuments in question are already built.. so you either leave 'em be.. move them to a museum of such or destroy them... but be careful because once you start down that road.. there wont be many monuments left..

I get the clear distinction with Confederate Hero monuments... its easy to make an argument about why these monuments can offend but clearly you can't over look other less obvious monuments that also offend in the same way and the ones that don't seem offensive today but could be very offensive in the future!

The Jefferson memorial has to go. The Washington monument as well. Can't have those monuments because those founding fathers were slave holders.. large slave holders..

by using the words 'people of color' I assume you are including Native American's which means any monuments erected in honor of Gen. Grant has to go.. as well as any for Teddy Roosevelt. In fact, most of your Civil War Union heroes also fought in the Indian Wars so all those monuments have to go as well... geez.. were not gonna have much left!

Eventually, i can see a time where the Lincoln memorial will have to go as well because in 100 years or so any person found uttering a word of inequality between the races will be eviscerated and monuments destroyed... that's the road your asking us to travel on....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-12-2017, 02:11 PM
 
Location: Alaska
2,597 posts, read 2,285,649 times
Reputation: 4280
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsideboy View Post
Actually in our country it is. This court case, Matal v. Tam, was from 2016.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.e95b77bbf969



- Samuel Alito
That is one reason we cannot move forward as a country.

Because we embrace the idiotic idea that we must accept hate speech because if we don't, then it creates a "slippery slope" that endangers all speech.

I call this idiotic because it falsely assumes that as a society, we are incapable of differentiating between speech that creates enlightens and uplifts us and speech that isolates and marginalizes individuals and acts to causes division, hatred, and unravels our societal bonds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Cumberland
4,562 posts, read 7,621,816 times
Reputation: 2770
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
That is one reason we cannot move forward as a country.

Because we embrace the idiotic idea that we must accept hate speech because if we don't, then it creates a "slippery slope" that endangers all speech.

I call this idiotic because it falsely assumes that as a society, we are incapable of differentiating between speech that creates enlightens and uplifts us and speech that isolates and marginalizes individuals and acts to causes division, hatred, and unravels our societal bonds.
What is uplifting and enlightening to you could very well be isolating and marginalizing to me, and vice versa. There is no standard measure for the qualitative values you say should determine would types of speech are allowed, and which are not.

Someone will end up setting a measure though.......the people in charge...... and their decisions may or may not cut against things you hold dear to your heart and deeply believe. Imagine not being able to express yourself in place like this, or Facebook, or on the street, without being brought up on charges and possibly fined or imprisoned. That is reality in much of the world, and I believe it more contrary to American values than hate speech itself..........which like it or not, is very much part of our value system. We are allowed to have and express strong opinions on race, religion, politics, and social issues in this country, even if they are the minority opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Upper Marlboro
766 posts, read 620,588 times
Reputation: 778
I don't give two ****s what monument stands in Bozeman MT. And folks out there probably don't give a crap about the monuments in Ocean City.

Here is a novel idea: let the community decide for themselves. Want to take a statue down in your local town? Hold a referendum. Make your points heard in your community. Vote. Done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Alaska
2,597 posts, read 2,285,649 times
Reputation: 4280
Quote:
Originally Posted by westsideboy View Post
What is uplifting and enlightening to you could very well be isolating and marginalizing to me, and vice versa. There is no standard measure for the qualitative values you say should determine would types of speech are allowed, and which are not.

Someone will end up setting a measure though.......the people in charge...... and their decisions may or may not cut against things you hold dear to your heart and deeply believe. Imagine not being able to express yourself in place like this, or Facebook, or on the street, without being brought up on charges and possibly fined or imprisoned. That is reality in much of the world, and I believe it more contrary to American values than hate speech itself..........which like it or not, is very much part of our value system. We are allowed to have and express strong opinions on race, religion, politics, and social issues in this country, even if they are the minority opinion.
That's a cop-out.

The overwhelming majority of us have a pretty good idea of what constitutes hate speech and to allow it, let alone endorse it, is morally wrong.

If the slippery-slope (which is basically what you just typed) is your main argument, then that's weak and the equivalent of hiding your head in the sand.

Let's call hate speech for the vile, nasty, and repugnant cancer that it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 05:01 PM
 
Location: Cumberland
4,562 posts, read 7,621,816 times
Reputation: 2770
Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
That's a cop-out.

The overwhelming majority of us have a pretty good idea of what constitutes hate speech and to allow it, let alone endorse it, is morally wrong.

If the slippery-slope (which is basically what you just typed) is your main argument, then that's weak and the equivalent of hiding your head in the sand.

Let's call hate speech for the vile, nasty, and repugnant cancer that it is.

Who is us? You and me? You and your buddies? Me and my buddies? Federal and State governments which are overwhelmingly run by the GOP right now?

I do not evoke a "slippery slope" when I point out any of the above groups can and do have different ideas about what is "hate speech" and could legislate accordingly.

Should atheists be jailed or fined for speaking ill against Christians because comments like "religion is slavery," or "God is not real" are hurtful and isolating to people who believe otherwise?

Should groups like BLM be fined or imprisoned for shouting slogans like "Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon" because it marginalizes law enforcement and creates division and promotes hatred? (note all of these qualifiers are words you used in this thread to define what is "hate speech." I am purposefully not using examples of other types of speech that could be restricted, only "hate speech" as you define it.)

If your answer is "yes" I laud your consistency. If your answer is otherwise.............well I'll wait.

Last edited by westsideboy; 10-12-2017 at 05:16 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2017, 07:39 PM
 
Location: It's in the name!
5,590 posts, read 6,372,335 times
Reputation: 2170
I find it fascinating that the United States is practically the only nation in the world that celebrates and honors those who were enemies and traitors. If you take out money and slavery, which was the main reason for the Civil War, the Confederacy was a sworn enemy of what was then considered the United States government. Yet, some find excuses and twist words and try to squeeze the square peg of honoring sworn enemies of the State into the round hole of deserved reverential history. That's some Olympic level acrobatic reasoning right there.

Very plainly, we don't see statues and plazas dedicated to honoring and remembering Japanese Kamikaze soldiers who speared and bombed our ships in the Pacific. Quite simply, we can't find statues of Hitler or his officers gracing public plazas and in front of government buildings here or in Germany honoring and remembering his European conquest and the attempt to eliminate an entire race. Most importantly, we don't see statues of Bin Laden and Al Queda honoring them for their valiant fight against western nations and democracy on 9/11. It doesn't matter if the enemy is foreign or domestic. Nations don't get into the habit of honoring its enemies as we have here.

For some reason, people feel the need to honor and revere, no less an enemy to freedom and democracy, those of the Confederate army who felt the need to take up arms against the very government that helped to forge the nation from its infancy. THis is not about offending weakhearted liberals. It is about placing honor where honor is due. There is no honor is taking up arms against your own government. And there is certainly no honor for going so far as to start a war against your own government for the continued enslavement of a race of people. America has some growing up to do.

Tell me why we are having this debate again?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2017, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Baltimore area
45 posts, read 57,373 times
Reputation: 26
You ask why are we having this debate now . . . I suggest there are several reasons but the root cause is ignorance. By that I simply mean lack of understanding as well as lacking knowledge about history.

I could never defend the likes Roger B. Taney. But General Lee was an intensely honorable and religious man who was convinced that his first loyalty lay with his native Virginia. Judging him now, based on 21st century moral standards is both unfair and inappropriate. Lee was not a pro-slavery ideologue. On the other hand I don't see where he spoke out against slavery, at least not publically. Of course there are reasons for that. Try speaking out against Islam in Iran and see how long you live. But I digress. Of all the letters written by Lee that have been collected by historians over the years, one of the most famous was written to his wife in 1856. “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country,” he wrote.

If being called a traitor means taking down a statue then I fear for the Washington monument. It is enlightening to read the Phi Beta Kappa lectures of Charles Francis Adams who was a Union soldier during the Civil War. And I quote from him:
"If Robert E. Lee was a traitor, so also, and indisputably, were George Washington, Oliver Cromwell, John Hampden, and William of Orange. There can be no question that every one of those named violated his allegiance, and gave aid and comfort to the enemies of his sovereign. Washington furnishes a precedent at every point. A Virginian like Lee, he was also a British subject; he had fought under the British flag, as Lee had fought under that of the United States; when, in 1776, Virginia seceded from the British Empire, he went with his State, just as Lee went with it eighty-five years later."

So there you go – a perspective from a Union soldier (perhaps biased) but none-the-less making some valid points. I think it is fair to say that one must at least look at the intent of the individual, and his primary legacy, before deciding to damn him or praise him. I don't see how anyone, of any color, can read the General Lee biography and not have some reverence for that man. Put down that dumb smart phone and go read a book if you disagree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2017, 08:53 PM
 
1,443 posts, read 846,948 times
Reputation: 2708
Quote:
Originally Posted by YourWakeUpCall View Post
Historical monuments dedicated to treasonous people whose actions resulted in the death of over 2% of the population..
WakeUp, hi..
It kills me when modern people pour vitriol on the Confederates, & brand them treasonous.. Because the men who fought the Confederates largely didn't share that assessment, or vitriol following the War.

Jefferson Davis, head of the CSA, never faced a treason trial.. and he would've theoretically been more guilty than anyone. It's also overlooked, that a lot of Davis' post-War advocates were friendly Northerners. They put together his bail, bcuz they saw there were no legit treason charges, and Davis' imprisonment was languishing & unfair. If Davis' mortal enemies came to realize there was no treason, and took a compassionate attitude toward a vanquished Davis.. seems strange & vindictive that there are so many modern critics & haters.

Incidentally, treason is when u attempt to overthrow/annhilate your government, Confederates wanted to peacefully depart from their government. It was a different objective, more self-defense than subterfuge
Peace
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2017, 10:26 PM
 
668 posts, read 263,265 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by adelphi_sky View Post
I find it fascinating that the United States is practically the only nation in the world that celebrates and honors those who were enemies and traitors. If you take out money and slavery, which was the main reason for the Civil War, the Confederacy was a sworn enemy of what was then considered the United States government. Yet, some find excuses and twist words and try to squeeze the square peg of honoring sworn enemies of the State into the round hole of deserved reverential history. That's some Olympic level acrobatic reasoning right there.

Very plainly, we don't see statues and plazas dedicated to honoring and remembering Japanese Kamikaze soldiers who speared and bombed our ships in the Pacific. Quite simply, we can't find statues of Hitler or his officers gracing public plazas and in front of government buildings here or in Germany honoring and remembering his European conquest and the attempt to eliminate an entire race. Most importantly, we don't see statues of Bin Laden and Al Queda honoring them for their valiant fight against western nations and democracy on 9/11. It doesn't matter if the enemy is foreign or domestic. Nations don't get into the habit of honoring its enemies as we have here.

For some reason, people feel the need to honor and revere, no less an enemy to freedom and democracy, those of the Confederate army who felt the need to take up arms against the very government that helped to forge the nation from its infancy. THis is not about offending weakhearted liberals. It is about placing honor where honor is due. There is no honor is taking up arms against your own government. And there is certainly no honor for going so far as to start a war against your own government for the continued enslavement of a race of people. America has some growing up to do.

Tell me why we are having this debate again?
It goes back to the lost cause narrative that the south, and the right have been peddling forever.

I can remember people swearing, black people no less that uncle tom from uncle tom's cabin was a trader. They had been so brainwashed into believing the lost cause narrative that they believed the changed version of the book, not the original version.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Maryland
Similar Threads
View detailed profiles of:
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top