Originally Posted by Jim in CT
I don't know that removing statues is re-writing history.
In and of itself, it might not be. But it also could be a part of rewriting history. The intent of far left, Marxist, Communist, even Socialist ideology is to replace the evils of human nature with an inflexible, inviolable, benevolent and "correct" governmental authority. That is facilitated by eliminating or "rewriting" historical facts. Authoritarianism has a history of erasing the past it wishes to change. Statues, churches, monuments, works of art, books, ideas, etc., have intentionally been destroyed, burned, erased from reality in order to promote the version of history that authoritarians wish to impose.
If there is a monument that is there just as an historical marker, that's fine. If the statue is a tribute to the man, that's something else. I was in Nashville last year, and saw a state of Robert E Lee. If the plaque said "Robert E Lee fought a battle here", I would have no problem with that. The plaque was an honor to the man, and the last line was something about thanking him "for the noble cause he dedicated to". Now, I can see where that is DEEPLY offensive to a lot of people. The noble cause, was the right to commit treason, for the sake of enslaving his fellow man. You can argue the cause was state's rights I guess.
Someone obviously thought the cause was noble. One of the definitions of noble in Meriam Webster is:
"possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals." And the following example of usage is, for instance, "a noble cause."
Biographical and historical accounts of what Lee believed are in line with how he acted. He believed in what he thought were the higher ideals of his culture, even though he believed slavery was wrong. He believed that eventually slavery would disappear. He believed in the Union and preferred that it should be preserved, but he had a moral obligation to abide by the laws of his State of Virginia. He was conflicted, but "nobly" did his duty. He was, it can be argued, an example of a noble character in his time of transition. Some note could be added to the statue's plaque to place his "nobility" in light of current thought. But he was an important person in the evolving character of this nation. And if we are to recognize the characters who shaped this country, the truth of who they were and what they believed is an important part of the story. Or we could just obliterate the past that we don't like, and make shinier the past we think is appropriate. Then we could have a beautiful fiction--which would probably offend a lot of people.
I see the left side on this one. But I also figure if Condaleeza Rice is fine with leaving them up, then why should I care if it doesn't bother her, she has a bigger dog in this hunt then me...
|