Princeton is changing the names of a graduate school and residential college named after Woodrow Wilson, BTW: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/06/27/president-eisgrubers-message-community-removal-woodrow-wilson-name-public-policy
In many cases that’s absolutely true. In 1913, a statue of a Confederate soldier, called “Silent Sam,” was dedicated on the grounds of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Here’s a couple of choice bits from the dedication speech:
For those unaware of the history, he’s talking here about the Reconstruction era directly after the Civil War, when Congress passed the first Civil Rights Act, the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were added to the Constitution, and African Americans began to achieve at least some measure of political power in the South. That’s what he means by “the bottom rail was on top,” a situation which clearly needed fixing, with Anglo-Saxons restored to their rightful place in charge.
And how about this gem:
Nice!
It’s interesting, too, that the dedication speeches often reflect the most pressing issues of the era in which the dedication occurred.
When I was in grad school at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore, there was a statue just near campus of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. The statue was removed by the city in 2017, although the base still remains. This memorial was dedicated in 1948, and the speeches by the Maryland Governor and the Baltimore Mayor don’t really contain any strong racialized language like the speech I quoted in the previous post; they are more reflective of the concerns that Americans were feeling during the early years of the Cold War.
The Governor talks about “our unity of purpose, as a nation, to preserve those things for which our forefathers, and those of our generations, have fought.” Here’s a selection from the Mayor’s speech:
Yep, Lee and Jackson were about preserving our sacred institutions alright! Remind us again, Mr. Mayor, which particular (or should I say, peculiar?) institution they were seeking to preserve.
And they were definitely all about fighting aggression and preserving liberty, yessirree!
He betrayed his country and became a General for the traitor side. To fight and kill the loyal Americans. So, yes, to hell with him.
I wouldn’t care about the statues, except they tell a false narrative, and glorify The Enemy.
Lee was of a mind with Lincoln when it came to black people, it seems. They both stated at various times that they didn’t see a role for black people in the U.S.; that’s why, for example, Lincoln supported expatriation of freed slaves to Liberia. (He may have changed his stance somewhat after becoming friendly with Frederick Douglass, though.)
Lee was, at least, honorable in defeat, and he seemed to be fighting more for Virginia than for slavery specifically. I don’t envy the choice those southern soldiers had to make – at the time, loyalty to one’s state was at least as important as loyalty to the country as a whole. They were forced to pick one or the other to betray. So if we’re going to criticize them, let’s criticize them for picking the wrong side – not for the betrayal. Because the betrayal was inevitable.
I [quote=“DrDeth, post:164, topic:912321, full:true”]
In any case- Jackson is the fall guy here. Yes, he was in favor of tribal relocation. But Adams started the process and Van Burens notoriously corrupt administration is directly responsible for the deaths along the Trail of Tears. At worst- Jackson has partial blame, but he is given all the blame.
[/quote]
I think that there are a few thousand Choctaw who would disagree
Yes, the famous removal of the Cherokee happened after he left office, but it was just the last is a series of removals most of which were under his watch. Saying Jackson wasn’t responsible for the trail tears is like saying Roosevelt isn’t primarily responsible for winning WW2 because he wasn’t president in 1945.
That still doesn’t make infidelity abuse.
You’re missing my point- he had been a Confederate general in his youth (literally; the war ended when he was 26), but he is commemorated for being one of the first and most influential university presidents. Prior to that, he had been Governor, a state Senator and the organizer of the state Sheriff’s Association.
In other words, he did a LOT of noteworthy stuff, the least of which was his Confederate service, which nobody commemorates him for.
And “The Enemy”? Sheesh. Could you be more dramatic, some 155 years later? They were countrymen who were on the wrong side, not from another country or culture. That’s why Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address is so powerful; it recognizes that the South was part of the country.
Yes, quite a bit. Lincoln did not favor expatriation (then called “colonization”) in his final years. And in his last public speech, delivered to a crowd on the White House north lawn just three days before his assassination, he called for limited black suffrage - the first President to do so, and to the disgust of John Wilkes Booth, who was in the crowd.
I really don’t see any line being drawn here in the long run.
Just about anybody from 100+ years ago (and many less), have done something that would offend modern sensibilities. This will keep going on as long as we keep looking at people though a present day lens.
MLK would totally have been #metoo cancelled.
This a bizarre.
Lincoln might have insisted that the South was part of the country—hell, that was a central rationale of his decision to fight—but the Southerners themselves did not see it this way.
That’s why it’s called secession, you know. They seceded. They broke away from the United States and created (or attempted to create) a new nation of their own, complete with a new constitution and government. They then mobilized this new nation is a four-year war against the United States.
In what world is it inappropriate or “dramatic” to use the term “enemy” when talking about a group of people who does this?
So? If there are statues that offend our “modern sensibilities”, then why do we have to keep them around?
As Malcom Reynolds once said, "It’s my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sommbitch or another. Ain’t about you, Jayne. It’s about what they need.
It is about what is best for the community, not what is best for a piece of metal or stone. It’s not about what is best for a corpse that has been rotting in the ground for decades.
We owe them nothing, and they are not in a position to receive any offerings we are to give anyway. Stop worrying about the feelings of statues and people long dead, and give a care for those of us who are still among the living.
Also, are you really saying that you cannot see a line between statues that were put up for the purpose of honoring those who fought to free our country from Britain, and the statues that were put up to remind black people that they were and always would be second class citizens?
In a world where you see the civil war as the war of Northern aggression, and so feel that these freedom fighters that fought for independence and state’s rights should be regarded as patriots, not enemies of the country.
It is not physical abuse but it is mental abuse.
Well, I guess when I say “our”, I’m not really talking about “me”. I’m NOT in favor of ripping down statues of people that were not put up there to idolize their bad deeds (basically any non-confederate). I think, maybe, someday, there might be enough people that will want to do that, and that what I think won’t matter.
However, we’ve got a relatively small contingent of very loud people that WILL do that, if they can get away with it, and it seems like they think they can, and that now’s the time. I really don’t think that it is. Currently, there are huge swaths of people that don’t want to see that happen (IMO, I have not seen current polling on pulling down statues of the founding fathers, for example).
If this is a secondary movement to a primary movement of stopping black deaths by police, as it ostensibly was following George Floyd’s death (which was viewed overwhelmingly as a murder by pretty much everyone), then I think it will detract from the primary movement.
So, you are acknowledging that the number of people that want to do this is very small, but claiming that the existence of this small number of people is enough to get you to stop supporting police reform?
There are always going to be nuts out there. That there are flat earthers doesn’t change my opinion on the space program. That there are people out there that want to tear down a statue to Washington shouldn’t affect your opinion on police brutality.
To be clear, I don’t care about statues. I care about the people who have to look at the statues. And if the people don’t want to look at them anymore, then they shouldn’t have to. Even if the people don’t mind them, but they figure the space could be better utilized as a bike rack, I completely support that change as well.
Let the dead worry about the dead. They’ve got plenty of time for it.
Me? No. I don’t speak for everyone though. I would wager that the number of people tired of statue toppling probably outweigh the number of people doing the toppling. We are seeing a counter movement of armed citizens here and there that are protecting these statues.
Flat earthers, to my knowledge, aren’t ripping down statues of people that believed that the earth is round. I mean, perhaps they have infiltrated the protesters, since I’m pretty sure everyone they’ve ripped down so far believed the earth is round, but I somehow doubt it.
Yeah, that’s my point. The number of statue topplers is actually quite small. To even mention them is a diversion, to concentrate on them is a derailment.
Right, people who think that things are more important than people. People who are willing to kill in order to protect the feelings of those who are already dead.
Odd that there is no criticism of them and their threats of extrajudicial violence, but only at their targets.
That has nothing to do with my point, but now that I think about it, it would be a bit funny if they started ripping down statues to Magellan.
My point is that you are pointing to the small minority, and using that as a reason why the vast majority cannot move on. You insist that this small number of people be dealt with before any progress can be made.
The problem is is that there will always be a small number of people who will do something that you don’t like, and to insist that you refuse to get on board with what the vast majority is trying to do until there are no longer any people out there doing something that you don’t like is simply a refusal to ever get on board with the vast majority.