Destroy the monuments?

[Deleted User 310]

That is debatable....but doesn't erase the fact that they're problematic figures by today's standards. Doesn't mean their legacy should be erased. But might mean museums is the best place to memorialize them? I don't know the right answer or where you draw the line. It isn't an easy topic to evaluate imo. The confederate figures aren't the only problematic people in our history, but they're an easy place to start is kind of how it feels.

[MICHHAWK]

No, it is not debatable.

We didn’t make history. We can’t change history.

[zsn]

Agreed. But we can and should continually be evaluating who we honor and why

[Leawood]

There are a number of court houses in Missouri that have monuments on court house grounds with the names of those who fought and died for the Confederacy.

I don’t think those monuments should be taken down.

[Mjl]

Wouldn’t be a United States without George Washington.

If there wasn't a US, slavery would have ended in 1807 in this land.

[Deleted User 310]

No, it is not debatable.

We didn’t make history. We can’t change history.

It is debatable. George Washington wasn't the ONLY founding father. Without him there would still be a United States imo. He didnt come up with the idea all by himself.

[Deleted User 310]

Agreed. But we can and should continually be evaluating who we honor and why

Agreed.

[PhDhawk]

Wouldn’t be a United States without George Washington.

If there wasn't a US, slavery would have ended in 1807 in this land.

1807 ended the slave trade, not slavery in British colonies, it continued for decades.

Washington's slaves were freed in 1801 fwiw.

[Deleted User 310]

Wouldn’t be a United States without George Washington.

If there wasn't a US, slavery would have ended in 1807 in this land.

1807 ended the slave trade, not slavery in British colonies, it continued for decades.

Washington's slaves were freed in 1801 fwiw.

After his wife died iirc? Didn't he leave that request in his will?

[Mjl]

Wouldn’t be a United States without George Washington.

If there wasn't a US, slavery would have ended in 1807 in this land.

1807 ended the slave trade, not slavery in British colonies, it continued for decades.

Washington's slaves were freed in 1801 fwiw.

Huh.

Re: Washington's slaves, that's the thing, right? Slavery was not considered ok anymore by the time the South seceded over it. Which is why it's ok to bestow honors upon the founders but not to Confederates.

[PhDhawk]

If there wasn't a US, slavery would have ended in 1807 in this land.

1807 ended the slave trade, not slavery in British colonies, it continued for decades.

Washington's slaves were freed in 1801 fwiw.

After his wife died iirc? Didn't he leave that request in his will?

Yes, because so many marriages existed between his and her slaves. (I believe she had a lot more wealth). But prior to his death he insisted none could be sold or moved away. Keep in mind, most slaveholders did not do this...so if we're judging in the context of time...

He also left money to take care of many of them for decades after his death.

[sdoyel]

Agreed. But we can and should continually be evaluating who we honor and why

Thank you.

[Deleted User 289]

God Bless America!

https://twitter.com/AntiFashGordon/stat ... 4610643970

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ExgX7Hb2XU

[ousdahl]

I dunno how you can claim heritage and history and not racism, without addressing the racism of that heritage and history.

if they really do wanna make it about history, then someone should set up a vendor booth and sell those guys beads, and blankets laced with small pox.

and is it just me or are these guys disproportionately obese?

[PhDhawk]

It's also a period of about 5 years and it was a loss. Is anything that short and unsuccessful really a heritage?

[sdoyel]

https://twitter.com/ava/status/1271839159301201925?s=21

[ousdahl]

It's also a period of about 5 years and it was a loss. Is anything that short and unsuccessful really a heritage?

Yeah, it’s worth reminding the “heritage” folks it’s a heritage of loosers.

[twocoach]

No, it is not debatable.

We didn’t make history. We can’t change history.

A statue isn't history.

We can choose to reevaluate how we commemorate and celebrate our history at any time. Museums change displays all the time.

Evolution as a society is the ability to evaluate yourself and adjust to meet you current and future needs.

[seahawk]

If there wasn't a US, slavery would have ended in 1807 in this land.

1807 ended the slave trade, not slavery in British colonies, it continued for decades.

Washington's slaves were freed in 1801 fwiw.

Huh.

Re: Washington's slaves, that's the thing, right? Slavery was not considered ok anymore by the time the South seceded over it. Which is why it's ok to bestow honors upon the founders but not to Confederates.

Washington's wife Martha freed George's slaves a year after his death as she feared that they would poison her. Many of them did have families with her slaves, who were part of her estate and were passed on to her heirs. Some of them were inherited by George Custis, Mary Custis Lee's father (R.E.Lee's wife). He freed them in his will, but Robert E. Lee managed to extend their enslavement until the Civil War--about 5 years, for his own personal financial benefit.

[japhy]

https://www.bet.com/news/national/2019/ ... black.html

It's important to understand the backdrop of what was going on in the US at the time these statues were placed in front of courthouses; symbolic buildings that represent justice and the rule of law. The majority of the "confederate monuments" were put in place between 1900 and 1930. They served two purposes, to rewrite history to promote the "lost cause" narrative and romanticize the confederacy into something noble. And to reinforce the fact that in spite of losing the war against slavery, the confederate rule of white supremacy was continuing. The racists lost the war for slavery but they won the battle for white supremacy.

So if you want to claim that removing the statues is to deny history, keep in mind they they are objects of propaganda, made in an attempt to deny the subject's history. They are not symbols of generalized US history, they are specific symbols to commemorate the continuation of black oppression and the lawless brutality of white supremacist ideology.

Think of these statues as institutionalized vandalism placed at a symbolic house of justice. Strategically placed racist symbols to commemorate white supremacy at the doors of the buildings where black citizens were supposed to try and claim justice for their oppression and brutal treatment. So if vandals paint swastikas on the walls of a Jewish synagogue, should the congregation leave the symbols of hate in place as a historical reminder of what could happen again, or should they paint over them to symbolically let the racists know their ideology will continue to be fought against by people of conscience?