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.
why should they be "gotten rid of"? Do they hurt you?
Federal troops targeted civilians, they waged a war of terror. Are you okay with monuments to Sherman, Grant et al.?
If you took the time to watch the video, you would understand that the statues are cheap and sponsored by a group what wanted to rewrite history in favor of the confederates and also placed in predominately black areas to promote slavery. But carry on...
If you took the time to watch the video, you would understand that the statues are cheap and sponsored by a group what wanted to rewrite history in favor of the confederates and also placed in predominately black areas to promote slavery. But carry on...
Do you believe them or do you think they changed anyones mind? You think there may be a more constructive use of ones time rather than yelling at people who's minds you'll never change?
The point here is that these "monuments" are not (always) some special reflection of of a grand and honorable history. They serve as propaganda, a source of misplaced pride or even as a dying gasp of defiance to the world moving forward.
Whether they are mass produced or who commissions them is really not the point. The fact that some are emotionally attached to symbols of a fight to retain ownership of human beings as property is very creepy. And the fact that certain people identify with that cause, rather than reject it, is more to the point.
But the idea that they are "untouchable" as art or history is very questionable.
You suppose they are erecting monuments to Vlad the Impaler , so no one ever forgets the "good fight"?
I appreciate your point here, that is, if understanding your meaning. Any piece of Art, no matter the medium, & no matter the meaning or message imbued upon, is a creative human-inspired representation of reality ~ whether of a person, an event, or of an idea originating in the creator's mind. None is real, as in living, red-blooded & breathing ~ nonetheless they either are or become powerful in the heart, hands & head of those who have created & of those who are viewing. They may, especially if sufficiently powerful images, even 'inhabit' our 'headspace' while not present 'before our eyes'. Powerful too when the medium has the potential of 'immortality'. A sculpture, depending on the medium, can be nearly immortal, a film, depending on its preservation, almost certainly will outlive its actors. & so on.
These simple observations about the ways these things are, imho, wonderful, almost miraculous if I were to be perfectly honest here in my natural amazement of the ways things simple are in this very often very beautiful world.
The perhaps unnerving (cannot think of another way to describe the feeling) thing about it all, is they, all of them, can be deceiving in a various number of ways. The observer may misunderstand the creator's intent, the creator himself may lack full understanding of the person, event, or idea expressed through the work, ... & so on.
The nearly immortal nature of the object created versus the very mortal nature of the human creator is, perhaps, the most powerful however unnerving aspect of all. They may live on in this world while we certainly will not.
Consider this piece created by Percy Bysshe Shelly
Quote:
Ozymandias
I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
I stand in perfect awe & in very imperfect understanding, a perfect paradox to be sure.
The two specific periods correlate to the 50th and 100th anniversary of the war. For a college history professor not to figure that out should be pretty astounding, but we all know college is about indoctrination not knowledge.
The two specific periods correlate to the 50th and 100th anniversary of the war. For a college history professor not to figure that out should be pretty astounding, but we all know college is about indoctrination not knowledge.
And there's a plausible alternative to the Left's claim.
Thanks. I was way too lazy to research it myself.
While I don't know which claim is correct the fact that legit alternatives exist is fine by me.
The two specific periods correlate to the 50th and 100th anniversary of the war. For a college history professor not to figure that out should be pretty astounding, but we all know college is about indoctrination not knowledge.
Historical context on the centennial:
Quote:
...This approach effectively spotlights the main story of the centennial, the resonance of the sectional conflict over slavery amid the quickening of the civil rights movement in the early 1960s. The casualties in the commemoration were the participants who failed to recognize the importance of connecting interpretation of the past to vital issues of the present.
...The pivotal event in their downfall was the contretemps over the CWCC national assembly of 1961, held in Charleston, South Carolina, on the centennial of the firing on Fort Sumter. When the segregated Francis Marion Hotel in Charleston refused to accommodate an African-American member of the New Jersey commission, several northern delegations pledged to boycott the gathering. ...
...Throughout the segregated South of 1961-1965, local commemoration groups used the event to galvanize white resistance to desegregation. Throughout the segregated South of 1961-1965, local commemoration groups used the event to galvanize white resistance to desegregation. That was never truer than in this state, where the General Assembly raised the Confederate flag atop the Statehouse dome in 1961. Legislators said at the time that it was part of the Civil War commemoration. But that commemoration ended in 1965, and the flag remained. It did not come down until 2000, and then only after a bitter dispute within the state that drew nationwide ridicule and brought out the worst elements among us. In 2000, the passions and symbols of the Civil War still had the power to divide.
That was even truer in 1961. In April of that year, the Civil War Centennial Commission held its national meeting at the Francis Marion Hotel in Charleston. A member of the New Jersey delegation was a black woman who had been appointed to the job for the specific purpose of catching the Holy City at its worst behavior. Her presence caught the town and the conference off guard.
As expected, the hotel refused to accommodate the black delegate. The NAACP and the media jumped in and an obscure commission meeting became a national incident.
The issue was kicked all the way up to the White House, where President John F. Kennedy's staff engineered a compromise, moving the meeting from the Francis Marion Hotel to the desegregated Charleston Navy Yard. In another predictable turn, a rump of Southern delegates seceded from the commission and held their own meeting a few blocks down King Street at the Fort Sumter Hotel.
Now here we are ...
What has S.C. learned since the Civil War centennial?
I appreciate your point here, that is, if understanding your meaning. Any piece of Art, no matter the medium, & no matter the meaning or message imbued upon, is a creative human-inspired representation of reality ~ whether of a person, an event, or of an idea originating in the creator's mind. None is real, as in living, red-blooded & breathing ~ nonetheless they either are or become powerful in the heart, hands & head of those who have created & of those who are viewing. They may, especially if sufficiently powerful images, even 'inhabit' our 'headspace' while not present 'before our eyes'. Powerful too when the medium has the potential of 'immortality'. A sculpture, depending on the medium, can be nearly immortal, a film, depending on its preservation, almost certainly will outlive its actors. & so on.
These simple observations about the ways these things are, imho, wonderful, almost miraculous if I were to be perfectly honest here in my natural amazement of the ways things simple are in this very often very beautiful world.
The perhaps unnerving (cannot think of another way to describe the feeling) thing about it all, is they, all of them, can be deceiving in a various number of ways. The observer may misunderstand the creator's intent, the creator himself may lack full understanding of the person, event, or idea expressed through the work, ... & so on.
The nearly immortal nature of the object created versus the very mortal nature of the human creator is, perhaps, the most powerful however unnerving aspect of all. They may live on in this world while we certainly will not.
Consider this piece created by Percy Bysshe Shelly
I stand in perfect awe & in very imperfect understanding, a perfect paradox to be sure.
I forgot that Shelly poem. I haven't read it since college. Thanks for reminding me. A meaningful, and elegant post. Thank you.
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.
