a fan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:24 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:14 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 8:12 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:26 pm
It is important not to erase the history that memorializes what a difficult decision it was for Americans to choose between attacking or defending their home states.
No one is erasing the history. But I think it's not too much to ask to not CELEBRATE active rebellion to protect slavery.
Now you can say that each man fought for their own reason and all that.....but you can't escape the question that so many wish to avoid, and the question that makes each man's motivation for fighting for the South immaterial, as it relates to the outcome.
And that question is: what would have happened if the South won?
And when you answer that question, it becomes obvious to even the most obtuse observer that
celebrating these men is, to put it politely, in poor taste.
Yet we still celebrate our founding fathers.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 115579444/
Some don't want to do that, either, as you very well know. And I gotta say, I don't blame them one bit. But with founding fathers? You can argue it was the time period, blah blah blah....and at least have some reasonableness to what you're saying.
But for those who would have kept Americans in chains for......who can say how many more decades? There's no wiggle room there, IMHO.
These are all opinions, obviously, OS. And the shades of gray you are always telling me that I need to use more, and stop being an "all or nothing" guy...........
The better argument re 'founding fathers' is not that it was even further ago, but that they actually founded the country in which most of us feel blessed to live in and created and adopted a form of government which most of feel blessed to part of as voting citizens.
Was it perfect??? Certainly not.
Were those men perfect? Certainly not.
But they set the foundations upon which we are called to perfect our society peacefully.
And that is indeed worth celebrating.
In contrast, we have traitors to this country being celebrated not for their actual historical contributions in some way, but rather as a means to intimidate and control a portion of our population. That's what these specific representations, whether portraits or statues or building or street, or base names, have meant in America. Often explicitly so.
But this needn't mean that someone can't be honored, if done for sound, good reasons, with full context explicated.
So, for instance, I think that Lee's name used at Washington & Lee can be justified due to his critical contributions to that school post Civil War, in keeping with his overall actions post War. It's part of a redemptive legacy for someone who might well have been hanged as a traitor and should
never be honored for his role in that terrible war that so many lives for the cause of slavery...In that context, I also applaud the replacement, recently of the portraits of Lee in Confederate battle dress with portraits of him in civilian attire as he actually wore during his tenure as President of the school.
Indeed, it's outrageous for any portrait of Lee in Confederate uniform to ever be hung in a place of honor. But that doesn't mean his full life and contributions can't be appropriately honored in specific context.
And given his traitorous actions in the cause of slavery, any such must always be accompanied with an historical explanation of the context, lest it be misunderstood.