Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Sakari

Should Confederate Statues be taken down

Should Confederate Statues be taken down   59 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Confederate Statues be taken down

    • yes
      16
    • no
      43

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

214 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

Simple yes or know. Should Confederate Statues be taken down. No need to explain or debate.

Edited by Sakari
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With the qualifier that they be carefully taken down and placed in museums. 

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ChaosRose said:

With the qualifier that they be carefully taken down and placed in museums. 

What she said^ 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No........

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984

 

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
George Orwell

Edited by Buzz_Light_Year
8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

Not only are they there as reminders of past deeds of our nation, they also mark historic sites on the battlefield and towns. They fought in towns, they fought in streets, they fought on the fields, and they even fought in the swamps. Instead of tearing them down, put up a union statue next to it as well. Then replace the stone with the history of both generations that fought, not a romanticized version, the real history that was fought. Then have another with a brief history of that area and what happen there.

I think statues should be reminders of historical events and how it affected the area.

Can't argue with that.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Uncle Sam said:

Not only are they there as reminders of past deeds of our nation, they also mark historic sites on the battlefield and towns. They fought in towns, they fought in streets, they fought on the fields, and they even fought in the swamps. Instead of tearing them down, put up a union statue next to it as well. Then replace the stone with the history of both generations that fought, not a romanticized version, the real history that was fought. Then have another with a brief history of that area and what happen there.

I think statues should be reminders of historical events and how it affected the area.

Then create a monument, not a statue of people who fought to keep slavery alive that has people worship it for that reason. I saw one black woman say that she always felt looked down upon by one of these statues and you can easily understand why.

No one is rewriting history (though that's laughable , since the US has done this since its creation. Thank you, Howard Zinn, for bringing so much of the US' real history to the light). All this stuff still happened and can be discovered and learned about by reading a book. It's not like they're rewriting history. They're just getting rid of statues of complete arseholes. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ExpandMyMind said:

No one is rewriting history (though that's laughable , since the US has done this since its creation. Thank you, Howard Zinn, for bringing so much of the US' real history to the light). All this stuff still happened and can be discovered and learned about by reading a book. It's not like they're rewriting history. They're just getting rid of statues of complete arseholes. 

Well said. The rewriting history argument is way off base in my mind. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In our politically-correct times, there's a lot of History Airbrushing going on. Buildings and streets are being renamed here in the UK.  (Many British cities, such as Liverpool and Bristol, were built on the slave trade)

Take the statues down if they cause genuine offense, but move them to museums where they can be properly exhibited and explained.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

 They're just getting rid of statues of complete arseholes. 

George Washington and Jefferson next?

I have a feeling you have a lot of trophies ;)

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

No........

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
George Orwell, 1984

 

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
George Orwell

Then that's where education picks up the slack. History lessons on the American Civil War and its causes. Evidence from both sides presented and discussed. 

Statues are erected to glorify individuals or to symbolise what they stood for. Cenotaphs and memorials are erected to commemorate history.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the statues should stay just on the principle that screaming, "I'm offended!" isn't a good enough reason to remove a civil war statue, but it should be left up to the locals.  If a city votes to remove a statue, remove it.  If they don't, then don't.  As far as statues on federal land, there's already processes in place for land/tourist management that can decide if they'll stay or not.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Then that's where education picks up the slack. History lessons on the American Civil War and its causes. Evidence from both sides presented and discussed. 

Statues are erected to glorify individuals or to symbolise what they stood for. Cenotaphs and memorials are erected to commemorate history.

The teaching of American History in U.S. schools has been on the decline for decades.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/22/why-schools-have-stopped-teaching-american-history/

I run across people on the internet and in real life who lack a basic knowledge of the subject to even start a conversation let alone debate some aspect of history.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Buzz_Light_Year said:

The teaching of American History in U.S. schools has been on the decline for decades.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/22/why-schools-have-stopped-teaching-american-history/

I run across people on the internet and in real life who lack a basic knowledge of the subject to even start a conversation let alone debate some aspect of history.

Yet the monuments have been there the whole time. 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this poll for the whole world to vote in? 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see both sides of the issue. The local people should decide whether or not to remove the statues. Each place could hold a referendum on the subject. If the voters decide to keep them, they stay. If the voters decide to move them, they go. Outsiders have no business deciding this, one way or another. I don't care if Podunk, Kansas erects a statue to Genghis Khan. That's the citizens' choice.  

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Wickian said:

I think the statues should stay just on the principle that screaming, "I'm offended!" isn't a good enough reason to remove a civil war statue, but it should be left up to the locals.  If a city votes to remove a statue, remove it.  If they don't, then don't.  As far as statues on federal land, there's already processes in place for land/tourist management that can decide if they'll stay or not.

I wrote my post before I read your post. You and I are on the same page. One would have to be naive to not question the timing of this nonsensical hysteria. The timing is suspect, and most people didn't think twice about *any* memorials in the past when news outlets weren't instigating things.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paranormal Panther said:

I wrote my post before I read your post. You and I are on the same page. One would have to be naive to not question the timing of this nonsensical hysteria. The timing is suspect, and most people didn't think twice about *any* memorials in the past when news outlets weren't instigating things.

It is only nonsensical if you lack the ability and or empathy to put yourself in the shoes of others for just a couple of minutes. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

 

I have no love for the South or Confederates in General... but playing the Taliban's sort of game is even more repulsive to me.

 

 

How about we erect some statues of Taliban leaders?  They are now a part of our history as well.  Some Isis leaders while we're at it.  How about a big Saddam statue in Central Park?  They are/were all enemies of the United States just as much as the Confederacy.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder to those who say removing monuments is erasing history-  Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is supposed to turn in his report (following Trump's executive order) on whether or not to remove monument status for 27 large monuments this Thursday.  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/347158-zinke-under-fire-from-public-lands-advocates

Profit > History after all.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Hindu and Buddhist religions regard the swastika as a symbol of good fortune. But when Hitler adopted the symbol for the Nazi Party, it became a symbol of torture and death because of the Holocaust. It's all about one's perception.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gromdor said:

Just a reminder to those who say removing monuments is erasing history-  Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke is supposed to turn in his report (following Trump's executive order) on whether or not to remove monument status for 27 large monuments this Thursday.  http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/347158-zinke-under-fire-from-public-lands-advocates

Profit > History after all.

There actually is a difference between a statue and Millions & Millions of Acres under Government control being sealed off from We The People.

Do you know how much land in the United States is owned by the Federal Government? It’s shocking:

  1. Nevada : 84.5%
  2. Alaska: 69.1%
  3. Utah: 57.4%
  4. Oregon: 53.1%
  5. Idaho: 50.2%
  6. Arizona: 48.1%
  7. California: 45.3%
  8. Wyoming: 42.3%
  9. New Mexico: 41.8%
  10. Colorado: 36.6%

 

FedLandMap

 

 

The deal was, keep it in stewardship, but let people get some use out of it. Today, it is more like the Govt deciding to block access to your highways because driving on they is doing some damage here and there. 

Enough de-railment? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnchorSteam said:

There actually is a difference between a statue and Millions & Millions of Acres under Government control being sealed off from We The People.

Do you know how much land in the United States is owned by the Federal Government? It’s shocking:

  1. Nevada : 84.5%
  2. Alaska: 69.1%
  3. Utah: 57.4%
  4. Oregon: 53.1%
  5. Idaho: 50.2%
  6. Arizona: 48.1%
  7. California: 45.3%
  8. Wyoming: 42.3%
  9. New Mexico: 41.8%
  10. Colorado: 36.6%

 

FedLandMap

 

 

The deal was, keep it in stewardship, but let people get some use out of it. Today, it is more like the Govt deciding to block access to your highways because driving on they is doing some damage here and there. 

Enough de-railment? 

 

 There is a difference between your map and the 27 large monuments.   Here is the list: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/national-monuments-under-review-trump-interior-maps/

So history is only worth preserving if it is man-made, small scale, and doesn't cut into profits?  Thousand year old trees, indian burial grounds, and the last remaining habitats of endangered animals don't qualify as history?  Given the choice I would get rid of a statue before getting rid of the last of a species. 

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, like Islam says, "The prophet himself was aware that if people saw his face portrayed by people, they would soon start worshiping him,"  There should be no images of anyone revered and no tributes to be made to anyone. That would include MLK and the countless other people who made a serious impact on our society.

You win...do not pass go and do not collect $200.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.