Agnostic.com

6 2

Abrams calls for removal of Confederate faces off Stone Mountain

[politics.myajc.com]

The Democrats are now reminding me of the Taliban destroying Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan. [scmp.com]

doug6352 7 May 22
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

The much more equivalent action (than the conservative's destroying the Buddhist statuary in Afghanistan) to the removal of confederate faces off Stone Mountain would be the Firdos Square statue destruction. The eradication of history related to the removal of the Firdos Square statue has resulted in no-one remembering who the statue was of, why there was such a statue, or even why someone might want to destroy the statue, other than he must have been a loser. Can we ever piece it together with the history eradicated?

1

Not surprised to hear such, the democrats find just about everything and anything to get offended at.

1

I suppose some Democrat Talibaner needs to tell the Germans to destroy the Field Marshal Rommel Barracks, in 2018 the largest base of the German army. Obviously it must be a tribute to Nazism.

I wish that Robert E Lee had accepted Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army, but that's not what happened. He decided that his highest loyalty was to Virginia, and so did Thomas J Jackson. Monuments of the past must be preserved, otherwise we really do live in Orwell's horrible dystopian future.

0

WHY would we want to celebrate such a horrid time in our history? This is ignorant.

1

We're wasting our time in Afghanistan. The real threat to the USA is here at home from the Democrat Talibaners.

1

I agree. They're trying to eradicate history.

@mudhen : When we take down a statue or sandblast the face off it, it's like book burning. It is an attempt at alteration of what happened.

If a part of history offends us and is depicted on a monument, perhaps a plaque explaining how times have changed or a criticism of the piece should be added.

There is a difference. No one would complain if the statues and monuments are kept in museums. But in public squares, the impression is that they are glorifying it. Many of the confederate "hero" statues were erected during the Civil Rights era, perhaps in reaction against it. Just as no one thought Hitler or his generals should be wiped out in history - their military triumphs should remain known - but no one would think it was a good idea to erect statues of, say, Rommel in public.

@Geoff: I agree that it should be clear that it is not being glorified.

@Geoff You mean like this statue? [en.wikipedia.org]

I have no objection to building additional monuments to Black heros, and/or commentary explaining the full context of the statue; but sandblasting Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson is fanaticism, just like the Taliban!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:88067
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.