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.
No one is abolishing history, geez! There WILL be a plaque next to them in the museum, I am pretty sure. The 'history' that is being 'abolished' (although even that is not true at all) is the history of oppressing black Americans by placing monuments to slavery. What link does General Lee have to UT? Or Johnston or Reagan, for that matter?
And this move was done with pretty wide-spread support, I would guess. So, you don't want the government taking down your statues (which they haven't, I am pretty sure Paxton and Abbot are pissed)? But you are fine telling people they HAVE to have their statues? How is that not the flip-side and also Orwellian? The government creating a false focal point of unimportant people?
Whose citizen's rights have been jettisoned by taking them down? And whose are being jettisoned by leaving them up?
And why not that same plaque next to them where they were originally placed? Where people are more likely to actually read them? (Don't assume that because you read - and I'm assuming that you do - that everyone does, it's a dying art these days.)
I've read some interesting articles the past week about the history of Confederate statues and monuments, the vast number of them that exist, and how that happened.
At first, one of the reasons was daughters, wives and mothers wanted public remembrance of their lost fathers, husbands and sons. So, many were really a way for individuals to remember other individuals, not necessarily a commentary on the war or its reasons, just remembering lost souls.
Then, in one of the articles, (I can't remember the source) it explained how the "soldier" statue that a company (from Connecticut I think) marketed in both the North and the South was identical in every way except on one the belt buckle said "US" and on the other it said "CS". Every other detail was identical in every way and they marketed and sold these bronze statues to hundreds of small towns all over the north and south for about $400, which was affordable enough, and they would go up in front of libraries, court houses, churches, etc. Again, as a way for people to remember people, not a celebration of war or a cause.
Later as bronze and copper got cheaper and the technology to make larger statues and monuments got better, even bigger more elaborate things were built. And yes, eventually many were built and installed as a romantic lookback to the Confederacy and its key players.
Finally, a point with which I agree, is that because of the passing of time, these things could have meant or represented something entirely different to the people who walked past and saw them 150 years ago than they did 75 years ago, and than they do today to a UT student walking past (with their nose in their phone and probably not even noticing)
I do think the heavy handed righteousness can be counter-productive, even if it is 100% purely justifiable logic and righteousness. So many of the symbols and meanings have been co-opted and repurposed by others, that it's not fair to ascribe the worst possible meaning or intention to every opponent of removal.
Steve
Apparently I must spread some reputation around before giving you some more, Steve. Well said!
I agree with your take (& half of Fenves comments).
But just spit balling here as I contemplate the possible slippery slope:
- Washington owned Slaves. Is his statue next?
- The Bible discusses slavery (& is a lightning rod for some). If after lots of discussion & protests, Do we get rid of Guttenberg Bible?
- TJ slept with one of his slaves & Madison also a slave holder. Do we take remove the Declaration of Independence & the Constitution from all schoolbooks, history classes, or any other part of our reality?
And then there's Lincoln (from his letter to Horace Greeley one month before the Emancipation Proclamation, a military tactic, freed only those slaves in states still in rebellion against the Union, not those in any other state). Clearly the Lincoln Monument has to go.
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
"Do you realize that the past, starting from yesterday, has been actually abolished? If it survives anywhere, it's in a few solid objects with no words attached to them, like that lump of glass there. Already we know almost literally nothing about the Revolution and the years before the Revolution. Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And that process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right. I know, of course, that the past is falsified, but it would never be possible for me to prove it, even when I did the falsification myself. After the thing is done, no evidence ever remains. The only evidence is inside my own mind, and I don't know with any certainty that any other human being shares my memories. Just in that one instance, in my whole life, I did possess actual concrete evidence after the event – years after it." - 1984 by George Orwell
The problem with abolishing history is that we lose it. A much better solution would have been to put up a plaque explaining the history, and adding context. Or better yet put statues of civil rights or even Union heroes near by to add context, to add conversation and balance.
However, we have become a society of babies where peoples feelings take precedent over history, over the conversation and over common sense.
History is not supposed to make you feel safe or comfortable, and if you remove it then you are not better than book burners. Orwell nailed it, and when the policial winds change again, and they will, I wonder what other parts of history we will lose.
It's not abolishing history. It's simply not paying respect to those aspects which don't deserve it.
And then there's Lincoln (from his letter to Horace Greeley one month before the Emancipation Proclamation, a military tactic, freed only those slaves in states still in rebellion against the Union, not those in any other state). Clearly the Lincoln Monument has to go.
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
The difference is that Lincoln (and Washington, etc. that will be brought up) did not fight and literally put his life on the line to support slavery.
I know people will jump in and say the civil was about states rights and not slavery, yada, yada, yada. I suggest those people actually go and read the articles of succession. For a war that wasn't about slavery, they sure as heck mention it a lot.
And why not that same plaque next to them where they were originally placed? Where people are more likely to actually read them? (Don't assume that because you read - and I'm assuming that you do - that everyone does, it's a dying art these days.)
Tied to Texas sort of, but to the University of Texas?
I understand different 'take-aways' from a statue (see my previous post), but it is almost without an argument an honor to the individual. From my (biased) perspective, it is an enormous honor to be a statue on UT campus. I can easily think of dozens (if not hundreds) more people deserving of that honor.
Btw, Lincoln is basically saying that the war was to preserve the Union, yes, but he did oppose slavery and wanted to eliminate it through the congress and constitution. I would much rather have a statue of Lincoln, btw, but that is also not tied to U.T.
I generally agree, but would add the following observations:
- I do think each monument must be taken on its own merit and with consideration for its location and meaning. If there were statues on UT campus that involved people that were both tied to the confederacy but also individuals tied to UT, I would be much less inclined to oppose them. If RE Lee was involved in some university or whatever, go ahead and put a statue up (but maybe not in uniform?);
- Timing is key, as well - these statues at UT were installed in the 1930s at a time when there was some push-back against segregation, and very clearly represent individual civil war 'heroes', not some generally representative soldier. They definitely fall into the 'romantic look-back' - to a time when the white man enslaved the black man or, at the very least, he was 'kept in his place'.
- Conversely, I do understand that the statues do represent 'I am my own person' to a lot of people; i.e. just because Washington D.C. says so doesn't mean I have to agree with it. It is also retains a subtle (or not so subtle) hint of violent opposition, if the 'need' arise. I am actually okay with that, I think, but the problem is that the previous opposition that those figures also allude to is the opposition to freedom.
I think your posits are reasoned and well put. We, as a country, seem to have a shortage of people capable of this anymore.
Example: To one of my Activist friends I simply pondered aloud about Charlottesville "what would happen if the White Supremacists, operating within the bounds of their lawfully obtained free speech rally permit, arrived to find nobody there except themselves? No counter-protesters, no reporters, just them. Then they made a speech to themselves and left".
It was simply a what-if "thought exercise", to which my friend responded:
Friend: Hate must be met with resistance, always.
Me: Violent resistance?
Friend: If it comes to that.
Me: "OK, but you didn't answer my question. What would have happened if nobody showed up to resist?"
Friend: "So, you support White Supremacists?!"
Me: "No, I simply asked what you think would happen in the scenario I described".
It went downhill from there and I never got an answer. It's like we, as a people, can't have discussions about things anymore as everyone has their opinions set in stone, like an immovable mental statue, and can't even discuss hypotheticals.
What would happen if certain statues remain? In some cases, not much. In other cases, public outcry will demand removal and perhaps that is 100% the right thing to do. Each community should decide on a case by case basis.
The difference is that Lincoln (and Washington, etc. that will be brought up) did not fight and literally put his life on the line to support slavery.
I know people will jump in and say the civil was about states rights and not slavery, yada, yada, yada. I suggest those people actually go and read the articles of succession. For a war that wasn't about slavery, they sure as heck mention it a lot.
I suggest you actually go and read a heck of a lot more than that, as clearly you have not. The War of 1860 (the two names for it, Civil War and War Between the States, are indicative of root causes, by the way) had roots all the way back to the founding of the country and the Constitution and differing philosophies of just what kind of governance that the states (which it is stated retained their independence, mind) had signed up for. Then there are the letters to and from the people actually fighting the war, on both sides (not the generals and such, the people in the field giving their lives) that are a good indicator of what the war was about for them. Then you have to study the lives of the men at the top, their histories, their backgrounds - heck, it's never ending, and I'm still finding out things I didn't know about what they really thought and did.
As long as you are stuck on our time's interpretation and are holding it firmly between you and the people who actually lived it, you won't know what that war was about. As I keep saying, there are a heck of a lot more shades of grey in these matters then people, particularly people of our time, are comfortable with acknowledging.
I think your posits are reasoned and well put. We, as a country, seem to have a shortage of people capable of this anymore.
Example: To one of my Activist friends I simply pondered aloud about Charlottesville "what would happen if the White Supremacists, operating within the bounds of their lawfully obtained free speech rally permit, arrived to find nobody there except themselves? No counter-protesters, no reporters, just them. Then they made a speech to themselves and left".
It was simply a what-if "thought exercise", to which my friend responded:
Friend: Hate must be met with resistance, always.
Me: Violent resistance?
Friend: If it comes to that.
Me: "OK, but you didn't answer my question. What would have happened if nobody showed up to resist?"
Friend: "So, you support White Supremacists?!"
Me: "No, I simply asked what you think would happen in the scenario I described".
It went downhill from there and I never got an answer. It's like we, as a people, can't have discussions about things anymore as everyone has their opinions set in stone, like an immovable mental statue, and can't even discuss hypotheticals.
What would happen if certain statues remain? In some cases, not much. In other cases, public outcry will demand removal and perhaps that is 100% the right thing to do. Each community should decide on a case by case basis.
Steve
I'm getting this, too, Steve, from both sides. Way too much of this kind of "thinking" (which it is most assuredly not) going around right now.
I think your posits are reasoned and well put. We, as a country, seem to have a shortage of people capable of this anymore.
Example: To one of my Activist friends I simply pondered aloud about Charlottesville "what would happen if the White Supremacists, operating within the bounds of their lawfully obtained free speech rally permit, arrived to find nobody there except themselves? No counter-protesters, no reporters, just them. Then they made a speech to themselves and left".
It was simply a what-if "thought exercise", to which my friend responded:
Friend: Hate must be met with resistance, always.
Me: Violent resistance?
Friend: If it comes to that.
Me: "OK, but you didn't answer my question. What would have happened if nobody showed up to resist?"
Friend: "So, you support White Supremacists?!"
Me: "No, I simply asked what you think would happen in the scenario I described".
It went downhill from there and I never got an answer. It's like we, as a people, can't have discussions about things anymore as everyone has their opinions set in stone, like an immovable mental statue, and can't even discuss hypotheticals.
What would happen if certain statues remain? In some cases, not much. In other cases, public outcry will demand removal and perhaps that is 100% the right thing to do. Each community should decide on a case by case basis.
Steve
The counter-protesters were not react with violence. They were not the ones who drove a car into the crowd, they were not the ones who showed up with weapons or wearing protective gear. The counter-protesters were the ones who were peacefully exercising their right to free speech.
And I do not agree that it should be left up to each individual community. If we left all of these issue up to each individual community, there were still be towns in Texas that segregated schools and businesses. That is not OK.
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.
