Notes from a Small Island

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

Along those same lines, Chickamauga National Military Park was founded in the 1890s, led by veterans of both sides. They worked together in harmony to pay honor to what had happened there. And veterans of both sides often attended the various monument raisings and other events. There was no rancor to speak of between the Blue and the Gray veteran, but rather mutual respect and often affection.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Along those same lines, Chickamauga National Military Park was founded in the 1890s, led by veterans of both sides. They worked together in harmony to pay honor to what had happened there. And veterans of both sides often attended the various monument raisings and other events. There was no rancor to speak of between the Blue and the Gray veteran, but rather mutual respect and often affection.
Former enemies are frequently recognized later as brothers in arms who fought honorably without reference to the politics of their governments. The average soldier does his duty because that is what he has sworn to do, and other soldiers respect that.

Statues honoring these men/women in that spirit do not trouble me. Statues of leaders need to be accompanied by some historical context for what they were fighting for and what things were mistakes. We had a good example recently in Halifax where the statue to the city's founder was removed because of the genocidal policies against aboriginal peoples at the time. The policies were indeed horrible and should be part of a plaque describing what he accomplished and what he is reviled for. The aim is to educate the viewer on history - all of it.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

The problem with that laudable objective is that people wish to measure 1860 or 1750 people by 2019 morality. Views evolve over time, so that what was normal or acceptable then isn't today, and vice versa. We do things today that were atrocities by the standards of the 1860 population. It's very hard to navigate these waters fairly, and today's population is not doing a good job of it, IMO.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Statues were erected mostly because the aged veterans were dying. For the same reason, it was around then that southern states were enacting laws to grant pensions to veterans and their widows. It was around then that counties were having veterans prepare rosters of their units.

There are hundreds of Confederate statues in Georgia, mostly erected between 1890 and 1925. Those were not political statements, as John D. (my respected comrade) believes. There was no need to make political statements in Georgia. The state was unified (the white population, which unfortunately was all that mattered in those days). There was no contrary thought.

As for their being statues in other states, that's because Confederate veterans had moved to places like Colorado and Nevada and California and New York. Mostly it was done in tribute to comrades. In some places, there might've been a little of the old sentiment, "Fergit, hell!" (You used to see bumper stickers and t-shirts to that effect, right up into the '90s, I think.)

The more negative political statements didn't develop until the 1950s, as push-back against Supreme Court decisions and federal government policies, especially on segregation. It's then that southerners took up that lamentable "leave us alone" attitude and in defiance did things like changing the Georgia state flag. That change wasn't totally for ugly reasons - it was a mixture of defiance against perceived meddling (in things that really needed to meddled with, as it turned out), and most folks don't like outsiders meddling in their affairs, even if the meddling turns out to be needed.

Today we live in a more diverse population in which black votes are as important as white votes. In my state, the population is about 33% black, I think. With just cause (and sometimes because of the promotion of ugly grievance politics), many blacks do not revere Confederate history. It is therefore appropriate to have discussions about the place of Confederate symbols. But, as you can see, it all comes down to majority vote, just as it did 120 years ago. I don't think people today are acquitting themselves any better than the people did back then. There's a lot of ugly anger out there.

I do agree that I don't find the early-20th century mass erection of Confederate statues to be all that odd, even if some of them send clearly mixed signals with regards to simply honoring history vs. making a pro-secession political statement.

It's the later-20th century ones that, by and large, seem to have been erected with less than honorable intent.
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Lokasenna »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The problem with that laudable objective is that people wish to measure 1860 or 1750 people by 2019 morality. Views evolve over time, so that what was normal or acceptable then isn't today, and vice versa. We do things today that were atrocities by the standards of the 1860 population. It's very hard to navigate these waters fairly, and today's population is not doing a good job of it, IMO.

As you pointed out - no better or worse than people have done in the past.

Humans aren't very anatomically different today than they were 100 years ago, or 1000 years ago, or 10000. The basic structure of socialization hasn't changed all that much in the last several thousand years, either.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



Former enemies are frequently recognized later as brothers in arms who fought honorably without reference to the politics of their governments. The average soldier does his duty because that is what he has sworn to do, and other soldiers respect that.



Extremely apt word there my friend.

About fifteen years ago I was heavily into everything "Bulge". I was playing a real time tactical game engine called Command Ops that was previously available through Matrix and wrote an AAR of a beta test Bulge scenario. I was voraciously devouring every book on the bulge I could get my hands on and discovered a two volume history of the 12th SS Panzer Division written by the Divisional Chief of Staff, Hubert Meyer. Its available through Stackpole's Military History series, which includes quite a few works by former German soldiers.

One interesting aspect of the work by Meyer was a mention of a time when he met with his former British enemies on the battlefield in Belgium for a joint historical study. Passions had tempered and Nazi soldiers where were regularly branded as "fanatical" immediately post war were now being referred to as extremely dedicated and motivated soldiers.

For anyone who may be interested in books on the SS should definitely look into the works of Michael Reynolds, a former British General who commanded troops stationed in Belgium, became interested in the history of the battlefields of the area and wrote several excellent books.

Hans

User avatar
MakeeLearn
Posts: 4274
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:01 pm

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by MakeeLearn »


A couple of years in the small Tennessee town I live in they tried to remove a monument to Nathan Forrest. Is was a monument that marked where his command crossed the Tennessee River on his 2 raids into west Tennessee. The monument is still here. The effort to keep it was led by a local high school teacher, a black man whose black ancestor was one of the free men that rode with Forrest.






User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

We have to be careful with history of that kind. The number of freed blacks (and enslaved blacks) serving in the Confederate Army was nominal. Too often we southerners cite those instances in ways that suggest (at least to others) that we're contending it was commonplace. On the flip side, there's a failure to recognize that there was often affection and loyalty between master and slave. Not always, by any means. The number of abusive slave masters was vast. But the number of conscientious ones was also large. Unfortunately for our nation, they were only slowly coming to realize that "absolute power" always corrupts. They had too much of a "that's none of our business" outlook about the affairs on neighboring plantations, so that abuses, while not officially condone and while often unlawful, proliferated. So you had conscientious slave owners and depraved slaveowners, and the former tended to look down on the latter and the latter tended to resent how they were treated by "refined/genteel" people. Very complicated stuff. And since our society prefers sound bites and Tweets, complicated and nuanced discussions are not all the rage.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by mind_messing »

For a more internationalist perspective, there's been some debate within Glasgow regarding the re-naming of streets. Keep in mind that Glasgow was the second city of the empire, so this is coming from a strong post-colonial viewpoint.

Most of the city centre streets here are named after individuals who prospered significantly from slavery - either directly slave trading or through tobacco plantations.

For my part, there's a middle of the road approach that keeps everyone happy:

1. Rename the street to commemorate a more dignified person. There's plenty of people more inspirational that merchants exploiting slaves for profit.
2. Install a plaque, detailing the information about what the street was previously called and why, and why the street was renamed and who it is named after now.
3. Profit from commemoration from a person more deserving of commemoration, as well as increased historical awareness.

There's umpteen individuals that I'd sooner have on street signs for what they've achieved or contributed to the local community.

That's an approach that can be applied to just about any setting where there's a desire for change.

For the specific setting of the Southern US, I'm sure there's hundreds, if not thousands of persons that are more deserving to a statue that Confederate General X, Y or Z.

Statues are supposed to be visualizations of a societies shared and celebrated cultural values - when the values are no longer shared, it's well worth engaging in debate to effect change. That, in my view, is the key point.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

We have to be careful with history of that kind. The number of freed blacks (and enslaved blacks) serving in the Confederate Army was nominal. Too often we southerners cite those instances in ways that suggest (at least to others) that we're contending it was commonplace. On the flip side, there's a failure to recognize that there was often affection and loyalty between master and slave. Not always, by any means. The number of abusive slave masters was vast. But the number of conscientious ones was also large. Unfortunately for our nation, they were only slowly coming to realize that "absolute power" always corrupts. They had too much of a "that's none of our business" outlook about the affairs on neighboring plantations, so that abuses, while not officially condone and while often unlawful, proliferated. So you had conscientious slave owners and depraved slaveowners, and the former tended to look down on the latter and the latter tended to resent how they were treated by "refined/genteel" people. Very complicated stuff. And since our society prefers sound bites and Tweets, complicated and nuanced discussions are not all the rage.

Not to sound flippant, but "Slavery is bad" is a pretty good soundbyte, while also being true.

Granted, there was not the overwhelming consensus on the issue then as there is today, but we're a great deal more informed about the negative economic, social and psychological aspects of slavery.

Based on that, I think it's perfectly reasonable that we should not be in any rush to put more statues up to commemorate individuals who supported a secessionist, pro-slavery state. As Loka says, there's a notable degree of less than honourable intent.
User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Capt. Harlock »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The problem with that laudable objective is that people wish to measure 1860 or 1750 people by 2019 morality. Views evolve over time, so that what was normal or acceptable then isn't today, and vice versa. We do things today that were atrocities by the standards of the 1860 population. It's very hard to navigate these waters fairly, and today's population is not doing a good job of it, IMO.

I must respectfully but firmly disagree. We are not perfect, but can anyone look at this:

https://museumandmemorial.eji.org/

and tell me we are not at least a little better now than we used to be?
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 19686
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The problem with that laudable objective is that people wish to measure 1860 or 1750 people by 2019 morality. Views evolve over time, so that what was normal or acceptable then isn't today, and vice versa. We do things today that were atrocities by the standards of the 1860 population. It's very hard to navigate these waters fairly, and today's population is not doing a good job of it, IMO.

I must respectfully but firmly disagree. We are not perfect, but can anyone look at this:

https://museumandmemorial.eji.org/

and tell me we are not at least a little better now than we used to be?
Along the same lines, Winnipeg is home to the Canadian Museum of Human Rights. The recent exhibit on Nelson Mandela's life and the history of Apartheid was especially moving (there is a section of the web site devoted to that exhibit) and people come from all over the world to learn how to draft human rights codes for their countries. There is some good work being done there on current human rights issues.

https://humanrights.ca/
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

The amount of evil in the world today is equal to any time in the past, perhaps far greater. We've killed vast numbers of innocent people in the USA in the past 50 years wit the zealous support of those people who consider themselves the most tolerant and thoughtful in our society. They are earnest and well meaning in their viewpoints. I think the number of deaths dwarfs those of the worst totalitarian regimes of all time, but I don't wish to equate them as each atrocity should stand on its own for measure of the depravity of mankind. Many people today don't view our present-day atrocities as atrocities because of their views on morality....just like some of the people of 1860s didn't view slavery as immoral. Man is capable of good but also tremendous self-delusion an evil.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Statues were erected mostly because the aged veterans were dying. For the same reason, it was around then that southern states were enacting laws to grant pensions to veterans and their widows. It was around then that counties were having veterans prepare rosters of their units.

There are hundreds of Confederate statues in Georgia, mostly erected between 1890 and 1925. Those were not political statements, as John D. (my respected comrade) believes. There was no need to make political statements in Georgia. The state was unified (the white population, which unfortunately was all that mattered in those days). There was no contrary thought.

As for their being statues in other states, that's because Confederate veterans had moved to places like Colorado and Nevada and California and New York. Mostly it was done in tribute to comrades. In some places, there might've been a little of the old sentiment, "Fergit, hell!" (You used to see bumper stickers and t-shirts to that effect, right up into the '90s, I think.)

The more negative political statements didn't develop until the 1950s, as push-back against Supreme Court decisions and federal government policies, especially on segregation. It's then that southerners took up that lamentable "leave us alone" attitude and in defiance did things like changing the Georgia state flag. That change wasn't totally for ugly reasons - it was a mixture of defiance against perceived meddling (in things that really needed to meddled with, as it turned out), and most folks don't like outsiders meddling in their affairs, even if the meddling turns out to be needed.

Today we live in a more diverse population in which black votes are as important as white votes. In my state, the population is about 33% black, I think. With just cause (and sometimes because of the promotion of ugly grievance politics), many blacks do not revere Confederate history. It is therefore appropriate to have discussions about the place of Confederate symbols. But, as you can see, it all comes down to majority vote, just as it did 120 years ago. I don't think people today are acquitting themselves any better than the people did back then. There's a lot of ugly anger out there.

Well, I respectfully have to disagree. The statues were overtly political then and the current fight to hang on to them now is even more so. The growth of these icons in our society mirrors the growth of the repressive Jim Crow laws in that they both peaked at about the same time. You know I love the Civil War-especially love to study Georgia in the Civil War. However, I have no illusions about these statues. They were put up to honor people who were in direct rebellion against the US in support if one of the vilest and darkest institutions in our history. Erwin Rommel was a great general and can be honored and studied as such. But you would not think of putting up a statue to him in the middle of the Bronx. It would be a direct affront to all American Jews. American blacks have the same right to feel disgust at the sight of these statues and we all as fellow Americans have a duty to recognize the insult to the decedents of slaves who have to look upon them daily. They have no place in public venues. Never did, never will.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Lecivius »

Meanwhile, back in the mid 1940's
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

There's no comparison between Erwin Rommel and the leaders of the Confederacy. Murder is and always has been immoral. In 1945, all of civilized mankind viewed (or would view, if they knew of them) that acts of Nazi Germany were atrocities. In 1860, however, world views on slavery were evolving. Slavery had existed in various forms since the dawn of time. People were brought up under the idea that it was acceptable. As we know now, this was unfortunate beyond measure. But many didn't know it then, and society's viewpoint on the issue was changing but far too slowly.

The erection of statues in the early 20th century was meant to honor southern soldiers who had served and died. There was no need to make any other statement, at least in Georgia and the other states of the Deep South. Essentially all of the white population felt the same way and the black population was unfortunately marginalized and mattered not one bit.

But I agree that the population is no longer unified and that a large number of people - in Georgia, probably 50% - view the Confederacy with disdain. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to reconsider the placement of statues.

But, like with most pendulums, this will swing too far the other way. We'll need to take down the Confederate monuments at Chickamauga and other places. Because a majority of our population will conclude that they are inappropriate without the added context that "Southerners were evil etc," which is a broadly sweeping generalization that is flawed enough that I simply disagree with it. Slavery was evil and the sooner eradicated the better. We understand that. Society was only beginning to in 1860.

As for being in rebellion....well, yeah. That's what people do when the government of the people is no longer tolerable or responsive to a vast majority of the people in a given jurisdiction. They were wrong but they didn't think so.

"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Canoerebel »

We'll resume the real war in awhile - I'm still awaiting the next turn from Erik. [:)]
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

There's no comparison between Erwin Rommel and the leaders of the Confederacy. Murder is and always has been immoral. In 1945, all of civilized mankind viewed (or would view, if they knew of them) that acts of Nazi Germany were atrocities. In 1860, however, world views on slavery were evolving. Slavery had existed in various forms since the dawn of time. People were brought up under the idea that it was acceptable. As we know now, this was unfortunate beyond measure. But many didn't know it then, and society's viewpoint on the issue was changing but far too slowly.

The erection of statues in the early 20th century was meant to honor southern soldiers who had served and died. There was no need to make any other statement, at least in Georgia and the other states of the Deep South. Essentially all of the white population felt the same way and the black population was unfortunately marginalized and mattered not one bit.

But I agree that the population is no longer unified and that a large number of people - in Georgia, probably 50% - view the Confederacy with disdain. Under these circumstances it is appropriate to reconsider the placement of statues.

But, like with most pendulums, this will swing too far the other way. We'll need to take down the Confederate monuments at Chickamauga and other places. Because a majority of our population will conclude that they are inappropriate without the added context that "Southerners were evil etc," which is a broadly sweeping generalization that is flawed enough that I simply disagree with it. Slavery was evil and the sooner eradicated the better. We understand that. Society was only beginning to in 1860.

As for being in rebellion....well, yeah. That's what people do when the government of the people is no longer tolerable or responsive to a vast majority of the people in a given jurisdiction. They were wrong but they didn't think so.


Not saying they don't belong. But not in public spaces. Museums, battlefields, cemeteries and even historical memorial parks. But African Americans pay taxes as much as any other. As a black taxpayer I would be deeply offended to see a statue to Bedford Forrest maintained in a public setting.
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
User avatar
JohnDillworth
Posts: 3102
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 5:22 pm

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by JohnDillworth »

Well, I respectfully have to disagree. The statues were overtly political then and the current fight to hang on to them now is even more so. The growth of these icons in our society mirrors the growth of the repressive Jim Crow laws in that they both peaked at about the same time. You know I love the Civil War-especially love to study Georgia in the Civil War. However, I have no illusions about these statues. They were put up to honor people who were in direct rebellion against the US in support if one of the vilest and darkest institutions in our history. Erwin Rommel was a great general and can be honored and studied as such. But you would not think of putting up a statue to him in the middle of the Bronx. It would be a direct affront to all American Jews. American blacks have the same right to feel disgust at the sight of these statues and we all as fellow Americans have a duty to recognize the insult to the decedents of slaves who have to look upon them daily. They have no place in public venues. Never did, never will.

Cemeteries and battlefields are one thing but parks, courthouses and schools? No. And I don't except that that these monuments were put up by aging Civil War veterans. Many were put up in the 1950's and 1960's. If these were simple veterans movements you would see a similar number of monuments honoring the Army of the Potomac going up in the same time frame all across the North. The numbers simply don't bare that out. As much as we would like to think these monuments are just memorials to great Americans they inspire the worst instincts of those nostalgic for the causes of the civil war. Georgia is hardly innocent here. Stone Mountain had an old tradition of a good old fashioned cross burning every Memorial Day. One wonders what unit these "veterans" served in? The simple fact is you can't separate Stone Mountain, It's misguided Civil War glorification and it's long, sordid, association with the KKK. Their histories are impossibly intertwined to this day and little has been done until quite recently to separate those histories. Nice piece of sculpture..... too nice to destroy......but lets not kid ourselves about what Stone Mountain represents and who it might inspire
Today I come bearing an olive branch in one hand, and the freedom fighter's gun in the other. Do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. I repeat, do not let the olive branch fall from my hand. - Yasser Arafat Speech to UN General Assembly
brian800000
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 10:47 pm

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by brian800000 »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

As a black taxpayer I would be deeply offended to see a statue to Bedford Forrest maintained in a public setting.

I'm deeply offended to see it come down.

I know that sounds dramatic but if I'm being honest that is my reaction.

Maybe I'm closer to this than most--I lived with my grandfather as a kid and his grandfather was an infantry officer in the Army of Northern Virginia that was at Appomattox - with just 52 other men in his regiment that started with 1,000-1,500. I get that slavery was wrong and that the causes of the war were closely tied to that institution. But even today in the US system of government the states are considered sovereign and in 1861 they had much more independence than they do today. Regardless of one's view of slavery or secession, the Confederate states had a draft and were under attack--for many reasons most able bodied men of military age did not have much choice regarding whether to participate.

Both my grandfathers also fought against Germany in Europe in WWII - I certainly don't have any offense to public memorials to the soldiers in that conflict in Germany. I'd actually think less of Germany if it tried to remove monuments (I doubt many were built, but that is a separate topic). The reality is that at the time the monuments went up, the custom was to put the monuments up to military leaders, and that wasn't just a tribute to them but also to the men that served under them.

My point of view is that the governments of the Southern states sent basically a generation of its young men to die, and taking down the public tributes to them is in very poor taste. They also enslaved generations of black people--and that should of course be memorialized too.

I get that people will be offended by a Forrest statue--but in my point of view it shouldn't be taken down, but perhaps a contextual marker added that the state of Tennessee's point of view is that he was a son of a bitch, but the marker is being left as a tribute to the thousands of Tennessee men that were sent by the state to serve under him. If you want to add that it was a grave error for Tennessee to secede and it is now wholly committed ot the union and the equality of all races--all the better.

Statues of civilian leaders I'm fine with removing.
User avatar
Anachro
Posts: 2506
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2015 4:51 pm
Location: The Coastal Elite

RE: Notes from a Small Island

Post by Anachro »

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Not saying they don't belong. But not in public spaces. Museums, battlefields, cemeteries and even historical memorial parks. But African Americans pay taxes as much as any other. As a black taxpayer I would be deeply offended to see a statue to Bedford Forrest maintained in a public setting.

I'm offended whenever I see a Malcolm X Blvd maintained at public expense. EDIT Well, not really (although I think anything named after Malcolm X is in poor taste and one Blvd in NYC comes to mind); that was tongue-in-cheek. I think crsutton's statement is fine, personally, but I grew up on the west coast away from all this stuff. We did have an avenue in Los Angeles named after General Rosecrans, who had a minor part in the civil war. A Union general of course.
"Now excuse me while I go polish my balls ..." - BBfanboy
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”