Maybe NOW we can stop fighting the Civil War?

[Bicycle Bill]

Monuments are removed all the time, progress marches on inexorably and entire communities have been razed and the people displaced for highways and shopping malls.

History will always live in history books. I really don’t get the passionate devotion to monuments. The vast majority of people who step over Monsiuer Pétain’s will neither absorb nor remember his name from that encounter.

"History will always live in history books."  True enough, so long as people with some agenda or another leave the fucking books alone, that is.

As for that remark about how "Time marches on" — of course it does.  But is that any reason to say to hell with older heroes like Richard the Lion-Heart, or Jeanne d'Arc, or Sir Francis Drake, or polar explorers Robert Peary and Robert Scott, or medical pioneers like Robert Lister, Louis Pasteur, and Florence Nightingale, or Harriet Tubman, or Rosa Parks.  Well, according to BSG it is.  After all, I'm sure if we dig deep enough we will find warts or worse on all these people.  Besides, what the fuck have they done for us lately?

I just wonder how twisted her undies would become if John W. Henry (the current owner of the BoSox) would decide that time has indeed marched on and that Fenway is just a quaint and curious relic of the past, and moves the team to some new $100-billion-dollar, state-of-the-art, enclosed, climate-controlled stadium somewhere out past Framingham.

-"BB"-

[MajGenl.Meade]

BB, speaking of knickers in a twist, where do you get the idea that BSG was recommending ditching the memory of Florence Nightingale, Rosa Parks and the rest of your list? Your parsing-glasses need to be replaced

[Scooter]

I think people are a lot more complex than a sound bite, and that saying someone chose to fight for their state of the Confederacy solely to defend slavery or that system could well be a misstatement (just like saying those who fought for the Union were fighting to end it). I have no problem with taking down civil war statues because they are offensive to same (and often were erected exactly because they were), but I reject the character assassination of those immortalized in bronze to the single sound bite of choosing to enslave people.

I'm comfortable drawing a bright red line that says those who fought and spilled blood in the hope that the country would be literally ripped apart (for whatever reason they did so), are not worthy of being commemorated through monuments or any other means.

[BoSoxGal]

BB, speaking of knickers in a twist, where do you get the idea that BSG was recommending ditching the memory of Florence Nightingale, Rosa Parks and the rest of your list? Your parsing-glasses need to be replaced

[dales]

As for that remark about how "Time marches on" — of course it does. But is that any reason to say to hell with older heroes like Richard the Lion-Heart, or Jeanne d'Arc, or Sir Francis Drake, or polar explorers

Speaking of Sir Frances Drake....

There are some people north of me in Marin County who want to tear down a statue of him.

It seems like the old boy didn't pass muster in view of those Marinites delicate sensibilities.

Let's erase all history that doesn't jibe with out convoluted 21st century group think.

[Joe Guy]

Statues of people should be outlawed. They’re bound to hurt someone’s feelings. It’s not nice to hurt people’s feelings.

[Big RR]

I think people are a lot more complex than a sound bite, and that saying someone chose to fight for their state of the Confederacy solely to defend slavery or that system could well be a misstatement (just like saying those who fought for the Union were fighting to end it). I have no problem with taking down civil war statues because they are offensive to same (and often were erected exactly because they were), but I reject the character assassination of those immortalized in bronze to the single sound bite of choosing to enslave people.

I'm comfortable drawing a bright red line that says those who fought and spilled blood in the hope that the country would be literally ripped apart (for whatever reason they did so), are not worthy of being commemorated through monuments or any other means.

what about the republicans who fought in the Spanish Civil War? Or others who fought against governments that didn't serve the interests of the people? Indeed, the US was founded on just that sort of rebellion, seeking to rip the colonies from British rule. IMHO, no country has the right to dominate people without the consent of the governed, so I don't see literally ripping a country apart as something inherently bad.

I can't endorse your bright line, but you are free to observe it if you really believe the reasons do not matter.

[Long Run]

Speaking of Sir Frances Drake....

There are some people north of me in Marin County who want to tear down a statue of him.

[Scooter]

It is not the goal of every civil war to break a country apart. Even when such wars are justified, would we expect the country from whom the rebels wished to secede, or were successful in doing so, to erect monuments in celebration of their cause? Did the UK commission statues of George Washington or other heroes of the American Revolution? Are there monuments in France commemorating Algerian independence? Perhaps there should be a statue of Gavrilo Princip erected in Vienna, to celebrate his role in sparking the flame that broke up the Austrian Empire.

[Big RR]

The "country" is not commemorating the persons who are immortalized in statues or other monuments, the people/groups who pay for the statues are. And FWIW, I'd bet there are a number of statues of Washington in England--I saw one in Trafalgar Square--(and I've also seen statues of Guy Fawkes and William Wallace). I can fully understand why some would object to the statues while others would celebrate them, but, to the extent it relates to their involvement in civil wars or anti-government actions, it also relates to the reasons inspiring what they did, which is why I reject your bright line test). Hell, I saw a statue to John Brown in Virginia (I think in Harpers Ferry), and in Spain I saw a pantheon that celebrated all their kings, good and bad. We have monuments to native American leaders who fought against US federal troops, including a giant one to Crazy Horse in South Dakota, and monuments for mormon leaders who stood against the troops that sought to oppress them. We even had a monument to those slain by National Guard troops at Kent State.

Again, I just cannot accept a bright line test; the reasons are important to me.

[BoSoxGal]

Did you know that in a Germany, where the Nazi swastika and all Nazi symbols are outlawed, that white supremacists and neo-Nazis carry and display the Confederate flag?

[Big RR]

No, but it doesn't surprise me.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Did you know that in a Germany, where the Nazi swastika and all Nazi symbols are outlawed, that white supremacists and neo-Nazis carry and display the Confederate flag?

What makes America so great is that it contains people, good and bad on both sides, who display Nazi symbols AND the Confederate battle flag. MAGA!

[eddieq]

We have a local issue here where the president of our school board made a transphobic slur against the secretary of health (who is a transgender woman). People are rightly up in arms about it and demanding her resignation. However, her defenders keep saying stuff like, "well, she's entitled to her opinion, you're not being very tolerant". Replace "transphobic" with "racist". "That's just her opinion that n******s suck and you're not very tolerant". I believe most of the people defending the school board member also display the confederate flag in some fashion. We live in PA. Last I looked we were NOT part of the confederacy.

[Big RR]

eddie--I agree everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but when one is representing a community in an elected or appointed position (not sure how your school boards are formed, expressing those opinions publicly can be a basis for removal if the public (s)he is represents demands it.

I don't have the same problem with private citizens expressing the same opinion or displaying confederate flags.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't have the same problem with private citizens expressing the same opinion or displaying confederate flags.

The flag should be banned, except for battlefield re-enactments. Genuine ones, not a bunch of hooligans "defending" a parking lot where the battle of Stones River began.

If people want to be rebelly outlaws, give 'em a law to rebel against (and be fined/jailed by). We need more martyrs for the Lost Cause.

[BoSoxGal]

So apparently at the prodding of Senator Warren, the Armed Services committee of the Senate has just voted behind closed doors - on a voice vote - to recommend that the Army rename all the installations named for Confederate commanders within the next 3 years. The committee is majority Republican, of course.

[Big RR]

Meade--while I understand your sentiments, I disagree that any political statement or symbol should be banned by law.

BSG--interesting, but what does "recommend" mean in this context?

[Crackpot]

It means they want to get out of this by “doing something” that is merely symbolic and won’t require making an actual change

[BoSoxGal]

It means they want to get out of this by “doing something” that is merely symbolic and won’t require making an actual change

I don’t think that’s fair. Military leadership have all indicated a willingness to do this, but Congressional action won’t mean much until January 21, 2021. Trump has stated unequivocally that he won’t sign legislation (not sure it’s required) or sign off on the removal of Confederate names from the installations. The House is moving forward with a resolution but it all comes down to November 3, I think. Unless there can be a veto proof majority on a legislative effort - which is doubtful because of the scumbag coward Trump anus-sucking Republicans.