As someone who just finished their undergrad at a South Carolina college, I have to say while statues of the Civil War may offend some students, it does not mean they should be removed. Most Confederate monuments are not erected to honor the slave holding elite but private Confederate soldiers. A lot of rage has been set against these men, most of whom were too poor to resist the draft/swept up as 16-20 year olds in the furor of defending their homeland/etc. They were just like Union soldiers in that regard. Their cause was wrong, but that doesn't mean we have to go vandalizing monuments to dead soldiers. Leave them be and build new monuments to honor new heroes.
5
Symbols = artifacts from the past. They're history . Like it or not. I believe Germany has outlawed the swaztika. Holocaust = genocide and extermination.
Civil war didn't include genocide and extermination just extension of policy .
The good side won a victory for humanity..... Next....
Civil war didn't include genocide and extermination just extension of policy .
The good side won a victory for humanity..... Next....
1
The 'good side.' Because the Union Army was so racially progressive in its equal treatment of African Americans and the Irish and Catholics and Jews. Next.
2
Symbols abound. They are protected by the First Amendment. Apart from their power to invoke solidarity or enmity, admiration or disgust, they serve to identify. Top-down bans dilute the identifying function of symbols. The display of racist or fascist symbolism serves to identify the racist and fascist individuals on campus, in a city or town, and in the marketplace. Their proliferation serves to identify racist campuses, cities and towns, and businesses.
(Remember, racist, fascist, homophobic or anti-feminist philosophies and beliefs are not illegal, and are protected. Some behaviors and actions are illegal; not so the underlying world views.)
Labeling something "hate speech" in order to punish or ban it is wrong-headed and weak, and relies on a great deal of subjective "reasoning" to support the charges. It is symptom of our national competition to be more outraged and offended than the next guy. Better to simply document it, make note.
Confederate flags on campus? Let 'em hang. Serves to identify. The flag hangers will be ostracized or embattled by their peers, learning their lesson better than top-down law making can hope to teach it. Or they will be accepted, thereby identifying the campus itself as racist or at least accommodating to racism. Then it's time to condemn and ostracize the campus as a whole. Unless our society is too racist. Then it's time to admit that we are and bring that to the conversation. Outlawing racism only serves to solidify it.
(Remember, racist, fascist, homophobic or anti-feminist philosophies and beliefs are not illegal, and are protected. Some behaviors and actions are illegal; not so the underlying world views.)
Labeling something "hate speech" in order to punish or ban it is wrong-headed and weak, and relies on a great deal of subjective "reasoning" to support the charges. It is symptom of our national competition to be more outraged and offended than the next guy. Better to simply document it, make note.
Confederate flags on campus? Let 'em hang. Serves to identify. The flag hangers will be ostracized or embattled by their peers, learning their lesson better than top-down law making can hope to teach it. Or they will be accepted, thereby identifying the campus itself as racist or at least accommodating to racism. Then it's time to condemn and ostracize the campus as a whole. Unless our society is too racist. Then it's time to admit that we are and bring that to the conversation. Outlawing racism only serves to solidify it.
4
I am now 80 years (young) and grew up during the rise of Hitler and all the other aggressors following him. I learned my American history during that time as well. Free speech, while defined over many years by amendments to the Constitution and in case law, I don't believe should include signs that have defined HATE. Even hate speech should not be part of our national fabric and, certainly. it is not what our founders had in mind when they wrote the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. They had all escaped oppression from whence they came and they could not have foreseen what has come about since they set us in motion. The sign of the Swastika is just as repugnant to me as is the flag of the Conferacy, if not more so. I will not attend anything that shows either flag and, while I believe the history of both should be taught to our children so those events are learned and, then, never happen again, they are hateful symbols of a past that, while not forgotten, should never be alloed to happen again.
3
I do not what the "government" to be in the business of determining whether or not something is within the definition of permitted free speech. To quote from The American President: "America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
3
Seems like we need to:
Remove Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson from our currency as they either held slaves or were a significant part of the government of the
United States when slavery was permitted.
Toss out their statues also.
Any city/town/state or district named after them will have to find a new name.
Feminists are you not up in arms about JFK's philandering ???
Native Americans - just about every president from Washington to
Teddy did you wrong.
When will the Ethical Cleansing end ?
When will we worry more about the homeless than argue old
historical battles that will never be resolved ?
Remove Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Hamilton, Jackson from our currency as they either held slaves or were a significant part of the government of the
United States when slavery was permitted.
Toss out their statues also.
Any city/town/state or district named after them will have to find a new name.
Feminists are you not up in arms about JFK's philandering ???
Native Americans - just about every president from Washington to
Teddy did you wrong.
When will the Ethical Cleansing end ?
When will we worry more about the homeless than argue old
historical battles that will never be resolved ?
8
What you fail to distinguish is that, while many leaders have significant flaws, we honor them for their significant contributions. What exactly was Jefferson Davis' contribution to the country? His claim to fame is that he was a traitor who sought to preserve slavery. That historical battle is pretty well resolved.
12
Traitor is a loaded subjective term that cannot be used in serious historical dialogue (as if such a thing could be possible on the NYT comments list anyway). Furthermore, he was a U.S. Senator, Mexican War veteran, etc. The Founding Fathers were mere traitors to England if we are using your terminology. Not to say I like Davis (I don't), but please stop using that word to describe people you don't like and with a modern political bias that cannot be applied to a historical figure.
3
I don't think there is anything wrong with removing a statue, or historical monument if it doesn't represent the values of contemporary society. We have seen it done in many other countries when a colony became independent, or during the collapse of communism. Remember how happy it was supposed to be when the statues of Saddam Hussein came down? Out with the old, in with the new. We should not be afraid to change, just as long as we don't forget.
4
Just try this on:
Past Lives Matter.
I know the actual truth value of that sentence is widely denied today, but if so the value of your individual life is a passing triviality that will expire with your last breath.
All men and women who ever lived, including everyone alive today, have lived and acted in a fog of unrecognized error and bigotry that will only be exposed by the passage of centuries. People who think we are finally enlightened now, in the 21st century, are simpletons. All notable historical acts have occurred in a mixed context of error, confusion, and plain unrecognized evil.
The U.S. began paying for the supercharged economic benefits of slavery with the Civil War, and is continuing to pay with deep class division and hatred. Masking any phase of this reality is pure hypocrisy.
The best and bravest individuals of the highest possible integrity from one section of this country fought for the worst possible cause 100 years ago, because they placed regional loyalty over human justice. They wasted their lives in the defense of a warped value system - and that is why we should have their names and faces right in front of us, all the time, every day, because the assumption that our values couldn't possibly be just as warped is foolish.
Past Lives Matter.
I know the actual truth value of that sentence is widely denied today, but if so the value of your individual life is a passing triviality that will expire with your last breath.
All men and women who ever lived, including everyone alive today, have lived and acted in a fog of unrecognized error and bigotry that will only be exposed by the passage of centuries. People who think we are finally enlightened now, in the 21st century, are simpletons. All notable historical acts have occurred in a mixed context of error, confusion, and plain unrecognized evil.
The U.S. began paying for the supercharged economic benefits of slavery with the Civil War, and is continuing to pay with deep class division and hatred. Masking any phase of this reality is pure hypocrisy.
The best and bravest individuals of the highest possible integrity from one section of this country fought for the worst possible cause 100 years ago, because they placed regional loyalty over human justice. They wasted their lives in the defense of a warped value system - and that is why we should have their names and faces right in front of us, all the time, every day, because the assumption that our values couldn't possibly be just as warped is foolish.
2
Statues of history's villains are rarely raised as a lesson to us all. A statue is universally recognized as a respectful homage. The one of JD was not intended to make people say, "Look at that bad, bad man." It was intended to remind the viewer that the South once ruled itself. That it broke away from the US because it wanted to continue to own people and make them work for free is not part of the presentation. Perhaps that is the problem.
Years ago campus police at an area college were summoned to one of the quads, where the trees were hung with dozens of nooses. It turned out that they were hung by a black student who wanted people to think about the legacy of racism. Unfortunately there was nothing at the site to indicate that, so police—and most of the college community—assumed it was a hate crime intended to terrorize black students, and the place was in a frenzy until the student came forward to identify it as an art project. Had there been a sign explaining this, the viewer would have first reacted in fear at the sight of the nooses, then read and understood.
Yes, a college should be open to uncomfortable ideas. But as institutes of learning, it must insist that they are presented in context. Those who would hang a noose, a brass swastika, a Southern flag should be prepared to debate the matter with those who are offended, and they should be prepared to learn why their symbols are rejected by some. And really, that's what being a student is all about.
Years ago campus police at an area college were summoned to one of the quads, where the trees were hung with dozens of nooses. It turned out that they were hung by a black student who wanted people to think about the legacy of racism. Unfortunately there was nothing at the site to indicate that, so police—and most of the college community—assumed it was a hate crime intended to terrorize black students, and the place was in a frenzy until the student came forward to identify it as an art project. Had there been a sign explaining this, the viewer would have first reacted in fear at the sight of the nooses, then read and understood.
Yes, a college should be open to uncomfortable ideas. But as institutes of learning, it must insist that they are presented in context. Those who would hang a noose, a brass swastika, a Southern flag should be prepared to debate the matter with those who are offended, and they should be prepared to learn why their symbols are rejected by some. And really, that's what being a student is all about.
3
Imagine two societies: one in which mementoes of history are left to stand as they are, continuing to say whatever they say about the past - and the present; and one seized by a constant anxiety to eradicate offensive or embarrassing iconography, to avoid violating current moral imperatives.
Which society is healthy, and which is neurotic?
Which society is healthy, and which is neurotic?
1
If Duke is admitting the caliber of student who is (supposedly) too culturally obtuse to know what a noose means in southern America, then they have fallen far from the academically respected institution they once were.
18
I remember arguing with my Southern cousins because they insisted that the South won the Civil War. It may be perfectly possible to grow up in the South and never learn about this horrifying practice.
For that matter, I never learned that lynching took place in the North until I was in college. So: Three cheers for the intellectual broadening effect of college!
For that matter, I never learned that lynching took place in the North until I was in college. So: Three cheers for the intellectual broadening effect of college!
5
This is gratuitous Duke-bashing. Many people, especially young people, don't know the history of lynching. They know that a noose practically is made for hanging, but not generally that it symbolizes this history. The reason? We choose intentionally not to feature or even in some cases to include it in our elementary or high school textbooks because we want the history we teach our children whenever possible to reflect our best selves. (That's a nice way of putting the longstanding practice of cleansing history for posterity.) Students who are from abroad are especially unlikely to have learned this history--indeed, misunderstanding cultural symbols is a pervasive phenomenon both here and abroad. Duke's administration chose to use the incident as a teaching moment. We can debate whether accepting the student's apology was an appropriate part of that lesson, but not the fact that we raise children with the intention of sparing ourselves and them these and other bad historical facts.
3
Putting up a statue of Jeffereson Davis is about the same as the Germans putting up a statue of Hitler. The leaders of the confederacy were traitors to both the Union and common decency. They are NOT heroes. This is a "heritage" that the slave states should be ashamed of, not proud of. Other parts of the country are not PROUD of what they did to native americans. Why does the south persist in trying to be proud of their heritage of slavery? They didn't have a "states right" to be evil. No statue or symbol of a confederate traitor belongs in any public place except perhaps a museum.
22
Please don't compare Jeff Davis to the man who killed and gassed my great grandmother and great aunt. Furthermore, while slavery was horrible, Jeff Davis was far from a genocidal maniac who created the institution. Sure he took part in it, but your comparison is highly offensive to me.
3
A couple of weeks ago I was at George Washington's Mt. Vernon. A young lady employee was walking a couple of hounds, similar to those of Washington's day. The dogs weren't at all like Basset hounds, more like Rhodesian Ridgebacks. From what little I know, Washington was very aggressive in pursuing his runaway 'property.' His dogs were there in large part to track, intimidate and sometimes maim his human property.
Slavery is vile. Washington was in charge of at least four times as many slaves as Jefferson Davis. Lincoln fought against Native Americans. Gandhi beat his wife. If we remove the monuments of every historical figure who was less than perfect, we're going to have a lot of free space on our hands.
Slavery is vile. Washington was in charge of at least four times as many slaves as Jefferson Davis. Lincoln fought against Native Americans. Gandhi beat his wife. If we remove the monuments of every historical figure who was less than perfect, we're going to have a lot of free space on our hands.
6
You do realize that your argument is the equivalent of shrugging and saying, "Nobody's perfect."
3
Why stop with the Rebel flag, President Davis, and General Lee?
In US history there are many more evil memorials to folks such as George & Martha Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, John Randolph, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Benton, Andrew Jackson, John Calhoun, Auguste Choteau, Henry Clay, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Merriweather Lee, Ursuline Nuns of N.O., and Sam Houston.
Although slavery was perfectly legal when they owned slaves, the names above
must be anathema to any moral person because they were directly associated
with slavery. Starting with the currency and moving to all memorials, their names should be vilified and any memorials to them either removed to a rogue's gallery or destroyed -- à la Taliban/ISIS.
Moreover, other historical figures associated with slavery should be similarly expunged. These include Abraham (also a patriarch), Solomon, Moses, Ptolemys I-XIV, Mohammed, Plato, Demosthenes, Augustus & Julius Caesar, Hadrian, Hannibal, Horace,Cicero, Cato, Brennus, Barbarossa, Magellan, Balboa, Montezuma, Columbus, Pope Innocent VIII, John Gladstone, Simon Bolivar, St Philemon, and Ibn Sharif. As evil slaveholders, each of these persons must be
unquestionably damned.
Only when every vestige of slavery's stain is removed from public places shall we be morally pure and free. If we just follow the example of ISIS, the Taliban, and
al-Qaeda, then, in time we shall be as morally pure and free as they are.
In US history there are many more evil memorials to folks such as George & Martha Washington, James Madison, James Monroe, John Randolph, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Benton, Andrew Jackson, John Calhoun, Auguste Choteau, Henry Clay, James Polk, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, Merriweather Lee, Ursuline Nuns of N.O., and Sam Houston.
Although slavery was perfectly legal when they owned slaves, the names above
must be anathema to any moral person because they were directly associated
with slavery. Starting with the currency and moving to all memorials, their names should be vilified and any memorials to them either removed to a rogue's gallery or destroyed -- à la Taliban/ISIS.
Moreover, other historical figures associated with slavery should be similarly expunged. These include Abraham (also a patriarch), Solomon, Moses, Ptolemys I-XIV, Mohammed, Plato, Demosthenes, Augustus & Julius Caesar, Hadrian, Hannibal, Horace,Cicero, Cato, Brennus, Barbarossa, Magellan, Balboa, Montezuma, Columbus, Pope Innocent VIII, John Gladstone, Simon Bolivar, St Philemon, and Ibn Sharif. As evil slaveholders, each of these persons must be
unquestionably damned.
Only when every vestige of slavery's stain is removed from public places shall we be morally pure and free. If we just follow the example of ISIS, the Taliban, and
al-Qaeda, then, in time we shall be as morally pure and free as they are.
6
Wait a minute... a kid was accepted at Duke University and did not know that a noose hanging from a tree limb could be a symbol of lynching?
Didn't Duke used to be a good school?
Didn't Duke used to be a good school?
11
The inevitable outcome of the blatantly unconstitutional categorization of 'hate crimes' (are some lives more important than others, based on race or sexual preference, so only some deserve equal protection?) is that a large percentage of Americans think the First Amendment does not protect 'hate speech', which is not only incorrect, but is always in the eye of the beholder.
Anyone, especially a student or professor, who uses the words 'hurtful', 'insensitive', or 'triggering' is firmly in the censorship camp. It should come as no surprise that these are the same people who burn the books, posters, and pamphlets of anyone who speech offends their delicate sensibilities. They are the same people who shout down any dissenting viewpoints of speakers, as they believe that no one should be allowed to speak, unless they toe the party line.
These are the young liberal Joe McCarthys. The most frightening part of these witch hunts is that they occur on campuses throughout America with their teachers encouragement, so that young people, whose minds are still unformed, so are naive and vulnerable to influence, become more close-minded year by year, decade by decade.
(FYI: The First Amendment not only protects offensive speech, that is why it was written by our Founding Fathers, as otherwise, who defines 'offensive'? The government?)
Anyone, especially a student or professor, who uses the words 'hurtful', 'insensitive', or 'triggering' is firmly in the censorship camp. It should come as no surprise that these are the same people who burn the books, posters, and pamphlets of anyone who speech offends their delicate sensibilities. They are the same people who shout down any dissenting viewpoints of speakers, as they believe that no one should be allowed to speak, unless they toe the party line.
These are the young liberal Joe McCarthys. The most frightening part of these witch hunts is that they occur on campuses throughout America with their teachers encouragement, so that young people, whose minds are still unformed, so are naive and vulnerable to influence, become more close-minded year by year, decade by decade.
(FYI: The First Amendment not only protects offensive speech, that is why it was written by our Founding Fathers, as otherwise, who defines 'offensive'? The government?)
10
Shall we extend the Taliban-like progressive purge of all Rebel symbols to a
flag which has overseen the oppression of Native American people for centuries?
From the Trail of Tears to Ash Hollow to Lincoln's order to kill Minnesota Chiefs to Grant's relocation decrees to the Sand Creek Massacre to Wounded Knee to the current Indian ghettoes like Pine Ridge, the US flag has been a symbol of ethnic-cleansing directed against American Indians. Out of respect for the First People shouldn't this hateful symbol be removed from all public places and its sale prohibited?
Moreover, all public memorials to politicians which in any way contributed to the oppression of Native Americans should be removed. Lincoln and Grant should be at the top of the list.
Perhaps all people of European descent should also be removed from North America. They are the recipients of the stolen property their ancestors took
from Native Americans.
Imagine how hurtful all of these memorials and symbols, living and inanimate, must be to Native Americans. Starting with the US flag, they must go!
flag which has overseen the oppression of Native American people for centuries?
From the Trail of Tears to Ash Hollow to Lincoln's order to kill Minnesota Chiefs to Grant's relocation decrees to the Sand Creek Massacre to Wounded Knee to the current Indian ghettoes like Pine Ridge, the US flag has been a symbol of ethnic-cleansing directed against American Indians. Out of respect for the First People shouldn't this hateful symbol be removed from all public places and its sale prohibited?
Moreover, all public memorials to politicians which in any way contributed to the oppression of Native Americans should be removed. Lincoln and Grant should be at the top of the list.
Perhaps all people of European descent should also be removed from North America. They are the recipients of the stolen property their ancestors took
from Native Americans.
Imagine how hurtful all of these memorials and symbols, living and inanimate, must be to Native Americans. Starting with the US flag, they must go!
5
My sympathy for students these days. Some of these campuses have cooked up such ridiculous speech regulations that you can get into trouble for simply describing yourself as 'American'. Unfortunately, it's not enough to avoid obvious insults these days - if you're not a member of some officially designated minority you're supposed to be 'sensitive', to the point where you're almost expected to be psychic. It's enough to make you wonder if the world's gone psycho.
Back in the day, when they had questionnaires with the question 'Race?' followed by a blank (The pre-PC or Mac and 'smartphone' days, when dinosaurs ruled the earth), I'd answer 'Human'. If someone tried that now, I wonder if a good lawyer could get them probation instead of prison time?
Back in the day, when they had questionnaires with the question 'Race?' followed by a blank (The pre-PC or Mac and 'smartphone' days, when dinosaurs ruled the earth), I'd answer 'Human'. If someone tried that now, I wonder if a good lawyer could get them probation instead of prison time?
5
In 1988, when I was a young Virginian and a first year student at the University of Virginia, listening to the privileged, white, Richmond Good Old Boys in my dorm rant constantly about affirmative action being unnecessary and unfair since "slavery had ended over a hundred years ago" and "these people simply needed to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps" (btw-not saying the 1980’s application of affirmative action was not flawed), I would dream of dynamiting all of the Confederate “hero” statues along patrician Monument Avenue in our commonwealth’s fair capitol. Of course, such an act would have been stupid, shortsighted and dangerous.
In recent years, I have been joking to family in Richmond that Christo and Jean-Claude should wrap the entire stretch, including the absurd Arthur Ashe statue that was since installed. Perhaps their work would inspire honest introspection and more citizens might find themselves able to admit that the “States Rights” General Lee allegedly fought for, as one was taught in Virginia public schools, were rights to an economy and “way of life” based on the government-sanctioned kidnapping, enslavement, sale, torture, murder, rape, dehumanization, terrorizing, humiliation and much worse of millions of human beings.
The horrific and mortifying sculptures could be moved to a Museum of the American Slavery Holocaust and replaced so that the otherwise now vibrant city of Richmond would no longer be hamstrung by its past and state of denial?
In recent years, I have been joking to family in Richmond that Christo and Jean-Claude should wrap the entire stretch, including the absurd Arthur Ashe statue that was since installed. Perhaps their work would inspire honest introspection and more citizens might find themselves able to admit that the “States Rights” General Lee allegedly fought for, as one was taught in Virginia public schools, were rights to an economy and “way of life” based on the government-sanctioned kidnapping, enslavement, sale, torture, murder, rape, dehumanization, terrorizing, humiliation and much worse of millions of human beings.
The horrific and mortifying sculptures could be moved to a Museum of the American Slavery Holocaust and replaced so that the otherwise now vibrant city of Richmond would no longer be hamstrung by its past and state of denial?
11
Why call it the American slavery 'holocaust.' Holocaust is a loaded term to describe an ethnic cleansing program. While slavery was horrible and racist and evil, this term you use is problematic for 2 reasons. First, slavery preexisted the United States by thousands of years, and existed on the American continent for at least 200 years prior to the shot heard round the world. Secondly, Britain/France/Spain/Portugal have far more to be blamed for than the US ever did. The Slave trade was banned by our federal government merely 20 years after the Constitution was signed.
2
Be aware that any blind acceptance of the wrong-thinking view that the display of the Confederate battle flag by Southerners in general is mean to be racist can itself be construed as a PRO-white supremacist standpoint.
http://southernfriedcommonsense.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-hatred-of-confe...
http://southernfriedcommonsense.blogspot.com/2015/03/why-hatred-of-confe...
1
"Black lives matter" everyone pretends they can't see the unpolitical correctness (racism) of that statement! If we are going to chastise one group for what we perceive as racism we need to apply that same logic to all symbols or slogans that claims one group over another! People have a right to chant slogans or wave flags but lets not pretend we don't see the fallacy of both!
1
"Black lives matter", and "all lives matter" are both true. Neither is "racist", but to deny the current and historical reasons why "black lives matter" is necessary is part of racism.
9
"The statue was one of three vandalized in June, leading the university to form a task force to evaluate its statuary."
This needs a task force? Get rid of memorials to slavery. How difficult is that to "evaluate"?
This needs a task force? Get rid of memorials to slavery. How difficult is that to "evaluate"?
21
Putting up a statue of Jefferson Davis--or one for the Confederacy in any manner--is vandalism.
11
I am glad to see the twisted Nazi x-based swastika shown side-by-side with the cross-based Hindu swastika that denotes well-being.
The Ananda Marga Yoga Society of India has a symbol that incorporates what Americans would recognize as the Star of David, a Rising Sun in the lower middle and within the rising sun a cross-based Hindu swastika denoting well-being.
I have a pendant with this symbol that I acquired while in India that my children found and they were horrified and demanded to know whether I was a secret Nazi!
The Ananda Marga Yoga Society of India has a symbol that incorporates what Americans would recognize as the Star of David, a Rising Sun in the lower middle and within the rising sun a cross-based Hindu swastika denoting well-being.
I have a pendant with this symbol that I acquired while in India that my children found and they were horrified and demanded to know whether I was a secret Nazi!
10
Its good to scare your children every now and then, it keeps them on Their toes, lol!
2
This is going to be a very difficult issue for those former slave states that, in their infinite wisdom, decided to erect Confederate tributes on state university property.
It's clearly indefensible, and always has been, but now, finally, those chickens are coming home to roost. These schools can now look forward to alumni groups, donors, student groups, faculty groups, and also local citizens, hashing out something that should never have been done in the first place.
And on a related note, I fail to see how Georgia can ever justify Stone Mountain. It is an explicit tribute to the Confederacy, depicting its leaders as near saints. People are starting to see through the verbal dance the defenders of such things always go through. Heritage today, heritage yesterday, heritage forever?
It's clearly indefensible, and always has been, but now, finally, those chickens are coming home to roost. These schools can now look forward to alumni groups, donors, student groups, faculty groups, and also local citizens, hashing out something that should never have been done in the first place.
And on a related note, I fail to see how Georgia can ever justify Stone Mountain. It is an explicit tribute to the Confederacy, depicting its leaders as near saints. People are starting to see through the verbal dance the defenders of such things always go through. Heritage today, heritage yesterday, heritage forever?
19
Ummm none of these schools are loosing donor money, and perhaps you should reassess what they are monuments to. They are monuments to private soldiers, not slavery. And the Union leaders were far from saints. Look at how your statesman (Sherman from Ohio) treated the Indians.
2
These are all teachable moments. Perhaps we can keep the statues on campus but erect a large bronze plaque next to it explaining the confederates faults and crimes and their negative impact on slaves, union soldiers as well as their own confederate soldiers and families. The South was devastated by the war and took a century to move back economically. Instead of burying their memory, ensure that the true story is passed on to the next generations. Slavery, failed reconstruction and Jim Crow unjustly kept an entire race from rising to their rightful place in society.
2
The South was devastated by the war and has never recovered economically.
That is what happens when the only work ethic a culture has is to sit on the front porch, sip Mint Juleps, and watch their slaves work away in the hot sun.
If the South would accept that they not only lost the war, which was about slavery, as much as they insist otherwise, they were solidly trounced, they could move on and make the best of it.
Any culture that lost a war and does not accept that fact keeps fighting an internal battle, always looking to the past, never to the future, as their culture decays around them.
That is what happens when the only work ethic a culture has is to sit on the front porch, sip Mint Juleps, and watch their slaves work away in the hot sun.
If the South would accept that they not only lost the war, which was about slavery, as much as they insist otherwise, they were solidly trounced, they could move on and make the best of it.
Any culture that lost a war and does not accept that fact keeps fighting an internal battle, always looking to the past, never to the future, as their culture decays around them.
16
Shouldn't someone be concerned with vile racist words and laws, rather than mere symbols? I have in mind the Alabama Constitution which still mandates separate schools for the races. The citizens have voted to maintain that clause twice in the last 10 years, the second time by a substantially increased margin. ISOLATE ALABAMA!
18
Those who claim it's a battle flag and nothing more are ignorant of history. The battle it represents was fought in order to retain slavery in the south. And that's according to Alexander Stephens, the VP of the confederacy's Cornerstone Speech and South Carolina's (the 1st state to secede) Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. Both documents clearly state slavery as the reason for secession. I agree with free speech, no symbol should be banished. But symbols with a history of racial intimidation should not be be displayed on federal ground. Fly your prejudices at home or better yet, clearly label yourself a racist and wear it on your person..
18
Those who claim it is a battle flag use that as a socially passable defense. The dog whistle message is the same. The swastica can't be displayed in Germany.
The only difference between Hitler and Southern slavery is Hitler thought he had too many slaves and killed more of them.
Keeping statues or paintings of those demons in public spaces is at a minimum a crime against decency.
The only difference between Hitler and Southern slavery is Hitler thought he had too many slaves and killed more of them.
Keeping statues or paintings of those demons in public spaces is at a minimum a crime against decency.
12
The only difference between Germany under Hitler and the reconstruction South is that the Germans accepted their loss, while the South never has.
Whose economy and people are thriving and whose economy and people are dependent on handouts from their victors?
Whose economy and people are thriving and whose economy and people are dependent on handouts from their victors?
9
Sure, free speech is a right... and a responsibility. One has to own what is said and be prepared for the consequences, such as people recoiling in horror at the brutally ignorant. So, for those posting that they have every right to use a symbol of hate under free speech, yes, you do. On private property. You may also be called upon to defend the utter stupidity of your opinions and actions before public opinion, which is the public's use of that same freedom. When you do something dumb, you get called on it. Man up, whiners.
15
and not a single word about all the buildings, roads and parks named after Robert Byrd...
2
I live in Byrd territory. You are so right.
What started off as a rebel battle flag is now a symbol of racial discrimination. What started off as a Hindu sign of success is now one of the most well known symbols of discrimination ever. Living in the South, I see the Confederate flag almost daily. Growing up, my mother would always call people who flew it "ignorant". Never would she hide the truth, telling me about slavery and the South's history at a very young age. I felt disgusted at how someone could OWN another person. As I got older, I saw the flag more and more around town, and on the news. "It's Southern Pride!", they'd say. At one point, it was. Now, in a world where everything is based on race, even if you say it isn't, people who fly this flag either truly holding onto "Southern Pride", or people flying it to discriminate others, they all have to come to grips with the changing times.
12
Civil War monuments are the target now. Is history changing
1
Instead of removing the statues, why not let them become forums for speech, like Pasquino and the other "talking statues" of Rome, where people post handbills, etc. -- pasquinades.
1
One of the curses of being an American is having to listen to the ideas other Americans come up with. But we'd rather hear those ideas than trust anyone else to tell us which ideas have merit and which should be silenced. So the kids had better get used to it.
3
At university, it is the professors and administrator who teach their vulnerable students that they have the right to silence any speech they disagree with...terrifying that these are our future generations.
1
A Nazi swastika IS "a threat of imminent violence".
7
I’m glad that most Americans are finally acknowledging that Confederate symbols are not only symbols of hate and intimidation towards minorities, but they are symbols of violent rebellion against the United States. All of those symbols should have been left behind as a condition for the rebels to be once again treated as full citizens instead of being treated as traitors who renounced citizenship in the US in order to go to war against the union.
Currently, Confederate symbols should only be displayed in museums along with symbols and historic displays of other US wars.
Currently, Confederate symbols should only be displayed in museums along with symbols and historic displays of other US wars.
26
Or on private property, which is the owner's Constitutional right.
Or the entire South below the Mason Dixon line could secede, as Texas occasionally threatens, which would mean the states above the line would no longer have to support them, as they have done for decades upon decades.
3
What if Rome decided to discard every statue of a Roman emperor persecuted Christians? We can look at the equestrian statue of Marcus Aurelius and admire it a (1) a remarkable work of ancient art, and as (2) a remembrance of a certain time in history, and as (3) a portrait of the author of a book of philosophical reflections that still speaks to some people today, AND as (4) a portrait of an Emperor who ordered the death of Christians when they disturbed the peace of his Empire and could not be "controlled" otherwise.
I never want to see another monument put up to any of the "heroes" of the Confederacy, who were traitors to the United States, conspired the dismemberment of their nation, and were responsible for the deaths of more American soldiers than any enemy our army has ever faced, all the because they thought their treasured institution of slavery was threatened.
But that does not mean that the monuments put up by earlier generations should be defaced or destroyed. If the University community doesn't want Jefferson Davis on their campus anymore (and I can't entirely blame them for that), they ought still to respect it, and sell it to some collector of such things.
I personally would leave it alone, though I would like to see a sign telling visitors when it was erected and by whom, and perhaps even disclaiming that the college community any longer considered Davis a figure worth of honor.
I never want to see another monument put up to any of the "heroes" of the Confederacy, who were traitors to the United States, conspired the dismemberment of their nation, and were responsible for the deaths of more American soldiers than any enemy our army has ever faced, all the because they thought their treasured institution of slavery was threatened.
But that does not mean that the monuments put up by earlier generations should be defaced or destroyed. If the University community doesn't want Jefferson Davis on their campus anymore (and I can't entirely blame them for that), they ought still to respect it, and sell it to some collector of such things.
I personally would leave it alone, though I would like to see a sign telling visitors when it was erected and by whom, and perhaps even disclaiming that the college community any longer considered Davis a figure worth of honor.
7
My sense is that Christianity was an upstart of a religion---just didn't fit in with those Roman household gods and godesses! And it was perceived as a threat to the social and political order. Some charismatic preacher? Bah! But that's not the same as slavery. And the Romans allowed some Jewish rulers to continue ruling, such as Herod, to maintain stability of his region. I do believe there is a significant difference.
4
-- “I never want to see another monument put up to any of the "heroes" of the Confederacy, who were traitors to the United States, conspired the dismemberment of their nation, and were responsible for the deaths of more American soldiers than any enemy our army has ever faced, all the because they thought their treasured institution of slavery was threatened.”
May I suggest that you study history more and sound less emotional about it?
1. The Confederacy did not “conspire to dismember” this nation. Read prof. Walter Williams’ essays on Civil War. The original 13 States joined on a VOLUNTARY basis, i.e., they could secede if they so desired, without someone breathlessly whining that they are "dismembering" the Union.
2. They were not responsible for the human losses that resulted from war launched by pres. Lincoln.
3. As for slavery – did you know that Lincoln offered the Southern States to keep slavery AS LONG AS they remained in the Union? His was a war over keeping the States in the Union -- not about abolishing slavery.
May I suggest that you study history more and sound less emotional about it?
1. The Confederacy did not “conspire to dismember” this nation. Read prof. Walter Williams’ essays on Civil War. The original 13 States joined on a VOLUNTARY basis, i.e., they could secede if they so desired, without someone breathlessly whining that they are "dismembering" the Union.
2. They were not responsible for the human losses that resulted from war launched by pres. Lincoln.
3. As for slavery – did you know that Lincoln offered the Southern States to keep slavery AS LONG AS they remained in the Union? His was a war over keeping the States in the Union -- not about abolishing slavery.
2
Very creative, Mr. Ehrlich. Based on your conclusions, I suppose President Lincoln also ordered South Carolina militia to open fire on the Federal Territory of Ft. Sumter on April 11, 1861, because the Federal garrison refused to surrender to South Carolina State Authority. Apparently, that rascal Lincoln could do it all. Too bad he wasn't also in command of Confederate forces at Gettysburg. He'd likely have given his own yankees the whooping they deserved.
12
No no no! Don't sanitize history! Offense is such a flimsy reason to pretend the civil war didn't happen. It did.
Vandalism is not a good response. It demeans the important message and confirms the nasty stereotypes that racists want to sell.
Let's look at our history with all its warts and remember. Let's not look for the peace of the sanitized mind. It won't work and it's wrong.
Vandalism is not a good response. It demeans the important message and confirms the nasty stereotypes that racists want to sell.
Let's look at our history with all its warts and remember. Let's not look for the peace of the sanitized mind. It won't work and it's wrong.
10
A statue is put up to memorialize the subject. Commemorating slavery and its perpetrators is oppressive. These statues are vandalizing public places wherever they appear.
Get a clue.
Get a clue.
1
And if Palestinian students in a US university find displaying the Star of David threatening...what then?
20
To COO- you are told wrong, or perhaps are all these international scholarship opportunites for Palestinian students not real:
http://www.scholars4dev.com/tag/scholarships-for-palestinian-territories...
You also seem to be confused about "concentration camp-style" policies. My late father-in-law spent 6 years in such camps and believe me they had nothing to do with "second class citizens", but then you seem to be confused about many things.
http://www.scholars4dev.com/tag/scholarships-for-palestinian-territories...
You also seem to be confused about "concentration camp-style" policies. My late father-in-law spent 6 years in such camps and believe me they had nothing to do with "second class citizens", but then you seem to be confused about many things.
1
They will be given safe rooms to sit in filled with toys, coloring books, and stuffed animals, as no college student should ever hear any words that make them 'uncomfortable'.
Snark aside, the universities should get rid of the statues, which belong in history museums with plaques stating the facts about the Civil War and the person's part in it. (Hint: The South lost.)
Snark aside, the universities should get rid of the statues, which belong in history museums with plaques stating the facts about the Civil War and the person's part in it. (Hint: The South lost.)
As the Times reported, Anne Frank is practically required reading in America, but there is only 1 small, museum (privately funded) devoted to American slavery. Yet the country is awash in public monuments to the men who enslaved and killed more Americans than ISIS. As the Times asks, what would anyone conclude if Germans put up memorials to Africans who died in America, but remained silent about Auschwitz?
33
"[T]he country is awash in public monuments to [Confederate leaders]." Don't you mean "the South" is awash with such monuments? I know of no Confederate monument in New England (where a statue of a union soldier seems to stand in every town common or green) and I would be surprised to hear there are Confederate monuments in your neck of the woods.
This is really a challenge for the South and not just for their colleges and universities. It will be interesting to see how people in that region choose to deal with this history. Will they leave these memorials where they are, will they remove them and leave markers explaining what used to be there, or will they remove them as though they had never existed?
This is really a challenge for the South and not just for their colleges and universities. It will be interesting to see how people in that region choose to deal with this history. Will they leave these memorials where they are, will they remove them and leave markers explaining what used to be there, or will they remove them as though they had never existed?
10
What relevance does Anne Frank have to the confederacy? Being acquainted with the horrors of war and the holocaust does not preclude also learning about our history of slavery.
Just as employees can be disciplined for posting ignorant or offensive speech, students should be held accountable for symbols that are known to be hateful or offensive because it reflects poorly on the University.