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 11-11-2017, 11:13 PM
 
Location: Baltimore area
45 posts, read 57,522 times
Reputation: 26

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by seanlax View Post
It only takes time for this general viewpoint to offer up their own counterpoint.
Exactly. There are no monuments to the majority of people in the south. The people who often disagreed with the institution, who weren't consciously racist, those who fought for moral good. No monument about them at all.
What you consider as "moral good" has certainly changed over hundreds of years, and it would come in second place behind survival. I say that based on some hidden aspects of Black history that nobody likes to talk about, and that is Blacks were slave owners too. According to the US Census of 1830 there were over 3000 free Blacks who owned 12,740 Black slaves – mostly in the South. The evidence is undeniable. Still, it raises the question of Why? I think the reason boils down to survival. White or Black you need the labor of slaves to succeed as a plantation owner. To be sure, slavery was immoral by our standards. But in the historical context of 1800s it was legal, common, and often necessary for survival.

Equally astonishing is the fact there were over 60,000 Southern Blacks who volunteered for the Confederacy. Again, it raises the question, why? I recently heard a discussion on this subject while watching a television program called "Finding Your Roots" with Henry Gates, Jr. The discussion focused on a free Black man by the name of Martin LaMotte who volunteered for the Confederacy in 1861 by joining a group called the Native Guards. Quoting from their writings, they saw themselves as "Defenders of the Native Land." So if you are inclined to vandalize a Confederate memorial you had best check you family tree.

Everyone sees something different when you look at a work of art. Proclaiming that Confederate statues are symbols of white supremacy does not make it so. The Confederate monuments that I have personally seen I would consider an impressive work of art, particularly the one representing the man called Robert E. Lee who had many positive attributes. I see Confederates as Americans who fought for their new country against overwhelming odds. Their country just happened to be the Southern States but there is no dishonor in defending your "Native Land" as the negro Confederates put it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2017, 06:06 AM
 
Location: The Triad (NC)
26,914 posts, read 58,045,364 times
Reputation: 29368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcoxusa View Post
What you consider as "moral good" has certainly changed over hundreds of years...
Not so much really. Not even over thousands of years.
Some ebb and some flow... mostly based in how much their wallet is affected.

As to the rest of the drivel: look up the term "apologist"
it applies to every position you seem to advocate for.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 09:35 AM
 
33,384 posts, read 14,592,163 times
Reputation: 7600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcoxusa View Post
Should historical monuments be removed if they offend some people?

If not a National issue - this is certainly a question that every state will need to answer for themselves. This is not ONLY about Confederate soldiers. In Maryland the former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney statue was removed from the grounds of the State House, and he was definitely not a Confederate soldier... even the Christopher Columbus monument has been attacked.
"You do not have the right to not be offended by the free speech of others..... "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 09:37 AM
 
33,384 posts, read 14,592,163 times
Reputation: 7600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcoxusa View Post
Should historical monuments be removed if they offend some people?

If not a National issue - this is certainly a question that every state will need to answer for themselves. This is not ONLY about Confederate soldiers. In Maryland the former Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney statue was removed from the grounds of the State House, and he was definitely not a Confederate soldier... even the Christopher Columbus monument has been attacked.
I posted this in another thread:

"I support the separation of church and state"

No where in the Constitution is "the separation of church and state"

It comes from letter Thomas Jefferson wrote a church in VA and it was about a LOCAL issue and had nothing to do with the fed.

It says we are FREE to worship, or not worship any what we want and that the federal gov't will NOT establish a "national religion."

Go into D.C to the federal public buildings, including the Capitol building itself, and you will see LOTS of religious statues and other art.

Many of or founders ATTENDED religious services held IN House of Representatives BUILDING which went on until the Civil War
Religious people OWN just as much of the public property as those that are so offended by seeing religious articles.

"
The State Becomes the Church: Jefferson and Madison

It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers."


https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html


I will go by what the Founding Father"s ACTIONS, NOT what someone "interprets" years later.

We have become a nation of "anytime someone is offended, me must placate them."

What ever happened to "majority rules".

Contrary to what you might hear, people of religion STILL OUTNUMBER those that are NOT here in America.

The MAJORITY are "offended" by those that want to remove everything that offends THEM!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 09:46 AM
 
33,384 posts, read 14,592,163 times
Reputation: 7600
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Not so much. It's bad enough they got snookered into fighting...
but to then keep reminding them and their descendants of that? Nope.

Find something good that g-g-g-g-g-granddad did. Celebrate that.

Nope. Just hiding it all behind the skirts of their women.
"Not so much. It's bad enough they got snookered into fighting..."

Maybe people need to be reminded of the power of the federal gov't.

I know of NO other thing that if you join, you CANNOT withdraw yourself from that thing.

States FREELY joined.

They should be ABLE to withdraw if the choose.

Even after the war was over Lincoln was advised by the Supreme Court that he would lose if he tried to bring charges of treason against anyone who sided with the South.

If Lincoln had not interfered into the states from seceding, there would NOT have been a war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2017, 09:54 AM
 
33,384 posts, read 14,592,163 times
Reputation: 7600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcoxusa View Post
I agree with you and I suspect the courts might also because I see some parallels between the Washington Redskins football team trademark and certain Confederate monuments. Some people find all that offensive. However, regarding the Redskins the Washington Times reported in June 2017:
"The government cannot censor trademarks because some people find them offensive, the Supreme Court ruled ..."

I am surprised that Baltimore city did not find themselves on the wrong end of lawsuit as in Alabama. The Attorney General's Office sued the city of Birmingham for erecting plywood around a monument to Confederate sailors and soldiers. This action violated state law preserving historic structures.

The next time someone criticizes Robert E. Lee you should ask them what they actually know about the man. Seriously – try it. I guarantee their answer will be very short and sprinkled with inaccurate statements. That is hardly the basis for an intelligent decision. Robert E. Lee actually lived in Baltimore at one time, helped build a fort to defend Baltimore, served over 30 years in the U.S. Army and fought for the U.S against Mexico .... isn't that terrible?

If you take down a statue of a white man or woman and replace it with a statue of a black man (as councilman Scott suggested) - that has the same effect as removing the statue of a black man and replacing it with a white man. In other words, it smells like racism. To be sure, I can think of several African Americans who are candidates for a memorial. Put one on every street corner if that's what people want. But doing so should not require taking down any historic structure because that just sends the wrong message. A better message came from mayor Pugh herself ... “What should go in their place is a plaque of sorts that tells what was there and why it was removed,” Pugh said.

The Baltimore Office Of Promotion & The Arts is accepting creative suggestions for replacing Baltimore’s Confederate Monuments at the following link:
https://promotionandarts.submittable.com/submit/92573/monumental-sites-creative-responses-to-baltimores-confederate-monuments


"helped build a fort to defend Baltimore, served over 30 years in the U.S. Army and fought for the U.S against Mexico" and was Commander of the United States Military Academy at West Point.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 05:19 PM
 
Location: NY
1,270 posts, read 288,319 times
Reputation: 958
Dear Zombie,
Beg to differ. Conservatives are not retarded. Holding to heart fundamental tradition and views are what made america the greatest country in the world. They appreciate fiscal responsibility and a responsible economy. They favor freedoms. Please use intellect and not emotion when stating an opinion. you will be respected more in the long run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2017, 08:16 PM
 
Location: Baltimore area
45 posts, read 57,522 times
Reputation: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRational View Post
Not so much really. Not even over thousands of years.
Some ebb and some flow... mostly based in how much their wallet is affected.

As to the rest of the drivel: look up the term "apologist"
it applies to every position you seem to advocate for.
Your reply is the first time I have seen someone refer to facts as drivel. That seems odd but I think I can explain it. The way human minds work by default is that you arrive at beliefs for largely emotional reasons – and then you employ reason more to justify those beliefs rather then to arrive at those beliefs in the first place. That statement comes from lectures on critical thinking by Professor Steven Novella, Yale School of Medicine. I suggest you look it up.

I find it interesting that you use the moniker Mr. Rational. We all want to view ourselves as rational people but that is the greatest self deception of all. The most rational character I can think of is Sherlock Holmes and his creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Some would call him super-rational. And yet Sir Arthur himself falls victim to that default emotional reasoning when taken in by a hoax called the Cottingley Fairies.

It is this Default Emotional Reasoning that I see behind the attack on historical monuments including Francis Scott Key, Christopher Columbus, Confederates, and no doubt more to come. So I say to people like you Mr. Rational ... watch out for those Fairies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2017, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Maryland not Murlin
8,188 posts, read 21,771,324 times
Reputation: 6116
To answer the question posed by the poll, no, historical monuments should not be removed if they offend some people.


But of course people will twist the question to fit what-ever view they wish to express.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gcoxusa View Post

The removal of the Confederate Women's Monument was particularly egregious. The pedestal reads, "In difficulty and danger, regardless of self, they fed the hungry, clothed the needy, nursed the wounded and comforted the dying." If you view that as a symbol of hatred there is something wrong with your thinking.
Remove the title "Confederate Women's Monument" and the message takes on a different meaning. Heck, you could simply change it to "Southern Women's Monument". Or better yet, "Women of the Civil War". I mean, those who defend the right for these statues to remain should have no problem if the word "Confederate" were removed, no?

Instead of Union and Confederate monuments, why not just have Civil War monuments?

Quote:
Originally Posted by phlinak View Post
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.
You don't have to accept it; freedom of speech implies freedom from speech.

You cannot force belief's onto people and who's to say that if someone is not speaking it they are also not thinking it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2017, 06:51 PM
 
170 posts, read 85,506 times
Reputation: 145
Only if you're some Left Wing low information moron (dope), which are plenty in this state.
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