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.
I'm more worried about the danger of depicting the past as nothing but good guys and bad guys. I'd prefer people to wonder why the Confederates were viewed as heroes and see the statues built to honor them. Get them to wonder about the power of propaganda, and how powerful the feeling of duty to our local area can be...just because we see them regularly and we don't see the "bad guys."
I don't know enough about history to know why the Confederate soldiers fought their war. I don't know that much about the Civil war...but they fought hard, and unlike Isis, it seemed like it was for some kind of secular reason.
Come now. We're all anon here. No need to float silly stuff on how keeping around stone statues and monuments to traitors is important because it encourages people to "wonder about the power of propaganda.":roll eyes:
Apparently, these statutes didn't even get you wondering enough to Google information on what the Civil War was all about. So then, imagine the effect they would have on someone who has grown up hearing about the dreadful Yankees, the War of Northern Aggression, and the sainted Robert E. Lee.
As to what war religion played in the Civil War, well...
Though there is no merit to the argument, Christians used the Old Testament as grounds for believing in the inferiority of black people. Inexplicably, they use the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9 as an origin story for the “degeneracy” of Africans, which designates "slavery as God’s righteous punishment for their sin."
Some believed that, according to the Bible, God set it up for Africans to be slaves. There were endless sermons on this very topic. Others, such as Quakers, held different views.
Religion played at key part in the Civil War as both the South as well as the North believed God was on their side.
That removes the entire idea of a monument being a place of honor.
Then I think we need a new view of monuments, because many of the people depicted as sculptures greatly impacted history, but really weren't that great of people, like a 40 meter tall statue of Genghis Khan:
Then I think we need a new view of monuments, because many of the people depicted as sculptures greatly impacted history, but really weren't that great of people, like a 40 meter tall statue of Genghis Khan:
I don't want to take that down. Too much historical significance.
It's a tourist attraction erected in 2008 about a hero of the people of Mongolia, where, as luck would have it, the statue is located.
To the rest of the world, Genghis Kahn was a brutal Mongolian conquerer, but to "Mongolians, he is a national hero, a larger-than-life figure and the symbol of Mongolian culture, and for good reasons. Genghis Khan founded the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history, revived the Silk Road, uniting warring tribes and was responsible for cementing the position of Mongols in the world’s map."
Come now. We're all anon here. No need to float silly stuff on how keeping around stone statues and monuments to traitors is important because it encourages people to "wonder about the power of propaganda.":roll eyes:
I don't know what "silly stuff" you're talking about. I'm being very serious.
Quote:
Apparently, these statutes didn't even get you wondering enough to Google information on what the Civil War was all about. So then, imagine the effect they would have on someone who has grown up hearing about the dreadful Yankees, the War of Northern Aggression, and the sainted Robert E. Lee.
They would probably be inspired by them, and depending on who else was nearby, they might be inspired to join some kind of horrible group or other.
I don't see it as too likely that a statue would inspire someone to join some horrible group or other though. It's just a statue. We have PBS programs like Sesame street with diverse castes. We have laws preventing people from firing people exclusively because of race. That's the sort of thing I'd see as defending people. I don't know what a statue removal is going to do. That seems like just firing a shotgun, blindfolded, in the dark and hoping to hit something...and that's the problem I see with taking the statues down, that recklessness.
I could understand training society to behave the way we'd prefer through children's shows like Sesame Street, or through certain forms of political correctness such as our culture having disdain for celebrities who state bigoted views, and that sort of thing, but do we really want to go so far as attacking things we merely see (personally) as symbols of bigotry? Do we really want to use so much energy attacking symbols?
Quote:
As to what war religion played in the Civil War, well...
Though there is no merit to the argument, Christians used the Old Testament as grounds for believing in the inferiority of black people. Inexplicably, they use the “curse of Ham” in Gen. 9 as an origin story for the “degeneracy” of Africans, which designates "slavery as God’s righteous punishment for their sin."
Some believed that, according to the Bible, God set it up for Africans to be slaves. There were endless sermons on this very topic. Others, such as Quakers, held different views.
Religion played at key part in the Civil War as both the South as well as the North believed God was on their side.
It's a tourist attraction erected in 2008 about a hero of the people of Mongolia, where, as luck would have it, the statue is located.
To the rest of the world, Genghis Kahn was a brutal Mongolian conquerer, but to "Mongolians, he is a national hero, a larger-than-life figure and the symbol of Mongolian culture, and for good reasons. Genghis Khan founded the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history, revived the Silk Road, uniting warring tribes and was responsible for cementing the position of Mongols in the world’s map."
I don't believe he is an actual hero to Mongolians, anymore than to anyone else. They never knew the guy. They have no reason to be thankful to him. I think they just like the idea of having such a famous, influential person associated with their nation...and he's not completely horrible, because he did some good things in addition to the bad, so they figure that's good enough to call him their national hero.
I think in the Mongolian people's minds he's closer to the Confederates a guy I knew played as when doing civil war reenactments, or the Aztecs to the Mexicans, or the Roman emperors to the people living near them. He's just part of history. I doubt they like him or dislike him more than anyone else.
We can find flaws in all sorts of past historical figures, flaws that at times make them horrible compared to modern day people, but they're historical figures anyway. I don't know why we even associate statues with the person the statue is of being honored. It probably means they once were honored, but times change, and that doesn't mean we should necessarily take them down, I think.
"erasing history" probably top 5 weakest arguments ever.
It's a weak argument...but I don't see much of a reason to remove the statues in the first place, so I don't see a strong argument for keeping them as particularly important.
Why remove them? They've been around for a century. If they're annoying...good. That's what learning about history is supposed to do. If it's not all horribly depressing, you're probably not reading anything accurate.
It's a weak argument...but I don't see much of a reason to remove the statues in the first place, so I don't see a strong argument for keeping them as particularly important.
Why remove them? They've been around for a century. If they're annoying...good. That's what learning about history is supposed to do. If it's not all horribly depressing, you're probably not reading anything accurate.
The issue..for me...is that they are a rallying point for some pretty unsavory people:
It's a weak argument...but I don't see much of a reason to remove the statues in the first place, so I don't see a strong argument for keeping them as particularly important.
Why remove them? They've been around for a century. If they're annoying...good. That's what learning about history is supposed to do. If it's not all horribly depressing, you're probably not reading anything accurate.
The reason being you shouldn't celebrate people that fought to keep slavery going. Why is this hard to grasp? History will still be taught in books and school. And I can tell you haven't read the whole thread where I laid out lots of quotes from confederates stating my very point. The only thing being proven here is you either A) see this as some kind of personal defeat at the hand of lefties or a certain race....or B)You agree with what the people depicted as statues believed in.
The main thing we are seeing is certain people really depend on symbols to let them know that this is their country.
This, to me, is about the best reason to take them down. I saw this earlier.
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.
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.
