Diversity

[Pahonu]

I'd like to step in here for a moment and thank everyone for the way they have handled this discussion. Topics like this are very interesting, and the conversation is important, yet too often these things can devolve into something not pretty quite quickly. Civility in 2018. Who knew?

Carry on .....

Thanks Conch! I hope we don't ever lose this.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

Yes let's sacrifice story for the sake of diversity. Do we care that a Latino plays a character with the very Caucasian name of Thomas Magnum? Of course not. Because... DIVERSITY! Do we care that a Korean has been cast in the role of the very Caucasian sounding Luther Gillis? Of course not. Because... DIVERSITY! That's what really pisses me off.

Yes. Am I the only one who kind of wonders why they didn't rename him to Tomás Magnum?

I did refer to him as Tomás Magnumalez at some point.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I think we may be talking about two different things. Your issue, you wrote, is that people are becoming too offended to talk about the past, and the risk is that we'll forget about it. I agree that that is a bad outcome. As you wrote, slavery and the Civil War did happen and we need to own it. This is what education and scholarly studies and oral histories and so on are for. On top of all this, I am saying that the monuments that honor enemies of the U.S. don't have a rightful place in our society. By all means, don't forget about Robert E. Lee, but let's not celebrate him. After all, this is what statues of individuals from the past do. He may have fought well, but he was on the wrong team. I don't see any statues of British generals from the Revoluationary War in the U.S.

That's just the thing. I don't see them as enemies of the U.S. but merely as brave soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life. One person's enemy may be another person's hero. Removing these monuments to me seems to suggest a whitewash of history or simply an attempt to appease the PC crowd and those easily offended. I'm sure there are many in the South who take offense to monuments of Grant but I wouldn't advocate for his removal either. The comparison to British generals in the Revolutionary War is different because they were never a part of the U.S. They were in fact outsiders. The Civil War is much more complicated - it was brother vs. brother, U.S. vs U.S.

[Kevster]

I think we may be talking about two different things. Your issue, you wrote, is that people are becoming too offended to talk about the past, and the risk is that we'll forget about it. I agree that that is a bad outcome. As you wrote, slavery and the Civil War did happen and we need to own it. This is what education and scholarly studies and oral histories and so on are for. On top of all this, I am saying that the monuments that honor enemies of the U.S. don't have a rightful place in our society. By all means, don't forget about Robert E. Lee, but let's not celebrate him. After all, this is what statues of individuals from the past do. He may have fought well, but he was on the wrong team. I don't see any statues of British generals from the Revoluationary War in the U.S.

That's just the thing. I don't see them as enemies of the U.S. but merely as brave soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life. One person's enemy may be another person's hero. Removing these monuments to me seems to suggest a whitewash of history or simply an attempt to appease the PC crowd and those easily offended. I'm sure there are many in the South who take offense to monuments of Grant but I wouldn't advocate for his removal either. The comparison to British generals in the Revolutionary War is different because they were never a part of the U.S. They were in fact outsiders. The Civil War is much more complicated - it was brother vs. brother, U.S. vs U.S.

A great point is advocated here.

If a statue of a Confederate offends a group, why remove it when ADDING something that would empower and enlighten would be an investment in unity? Clearly, if an the representation of an individal from 150+ years ago highlights an aspect of history that is painful to a particular segment of the population, then representing a counterperspective is a logical route to address that pain in an informative and insightful way. Just like the Menorah and Nativity scene are both used together, a statue of Robert E. Lee displayed in a town square could also have a statue or monument to the underground railroad, civil rights, MLK, and/or the 13th Amendment.

If we were proactive about having history honestly represented, beside the MLK statues there should be a list of of the major legislative / Constitutional achievements and the vote count by party. If there was, we wouldn't see African-American community skew support toward one party (or, at least, not the one the community's predominantly supported in recent years).

Historical revisionism, "whitewashing," sterilizing history, or mischaracterizing historical events are tools used to manipulate people, and they've proven to be effective tools. Agendas are everywhere, and selectively omitting monuments is really about hiding truth and advancing an agenda. There is a current political advantage to having the statues removed. Both in hiding the truth, and in appearing to be advocates for a specific constituent group. Again, agendas are everywhere...

[308GUY]

History="his" story......sort of depends on "who" "he" is that's telling it.....facts are facts, but as time passes....their impact wanes for most...so they can become "lost", altered, or unimportant to the story teller. Ask a native American about wounded knee.....or Custer's last stand.....you'll likely get a different version than what's in the history books.

Sorry for the interruption, but it kind of reminded me of a lecture by a renowned psychology professor who spent nearly an hour describing the relationship between himself, his brother and their mother....at which point a member of the group who knew the lecturer well turned and whispered...."You might be interested to know...he doesn't HAVE a brother!" Complete tangent...I know...but just an example of how facts often don't get recorded with some folks recollections.

We've come a long way over the centuries...but I can't help remembering that at one point...most the "scholars" ....experts and learned men of the age...agreed that the earth was flat.....

As Conch said...."Carry on.." some of us might learn something! I also applaud those who can discuss without attacking.

It IS the civilized way.

I think everybody should have to be on a debate team at some point in their schooling, just like I believe everybody should have to have at least two years in the military.

But.....that's just me. It's a new millenium...."to each his own" has a completely new meaning!

I can almost see JQH telling the story...and adding..."I was there you know."

Again, sorry for the interruption.

[sandbiscuits]

I think we may be talking about two different things. Your issue, you wrote, is that people are becoming too offended to talk about the past, and the risk is that we'll forget about it. I agree that that is a bad outcome. As you wrote, slavery and the Civil War did happen and we need to own it. This is what education and scholarly studies and oral histories and so on are for. On top of all this, I am saying that the monuments that honor enemies of the U.S. don't have a rightful place in our society. By all means, don't forget about Robert E. Lee, but let's not celebrate him. After all, this is what statues of individuals from the past do. He may have fought well, but he was on the wrong team. I don't see any statues of British generals from the Revoluationary War in the U.S.

That's just the thing. I don't see them as enemies of the U.S. but merely as brave soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life. One person's enemy may be another person's hero. Removing these monuments to me seems to suggest a whitewash of history or simply an attempt to appease the PC crowd and those easily offended. I'm sure there are many in the South who take offense to monuments of Grant but I wouldn't advocate for his removal either. The comparison to British generals in the Revolutionary War is different because they were never a part of the U.S. They were in fact outsiders. The Civil War is much more complicated - it was brother vs. brother, U.S. vs U.S.

During the Revolutionary War, brothers most cerainly fought brothers, and neighbors fought neighbors. It was extremely complicated and violent. (Quick aside, this book: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/book ... hoock.html, that came out last year is a really good peek at just how violent and complicated. People living in the same communities and towns had differing views and neighbors turned on each other in an ugly way. Many Americans colonists considered themselves British subjects and did not advocate for independence. We all know how this turned out (spoiler: the Patriots won), but at the time it was not certain which side would be victorious. If the loyalists had won and put down the revolution, we'd have a very different set of memorials today. And I doubt George Washington would be one of them no matter how well he fought. As you say, one person's enemy may be another person's hero, but the losers don't get to name the plazas and streets (or put up statues).

I agree that the Civil War was complex and soldiers fought with valor on both sides. But the Confederate States of America were, in fact, the enemy of the United States of America. Again, I am not detracting from the passion and conviction with which the Rebels fought during the Civil War, but I still believe that enemies of the State should not be honored with statues (or any other form of public celebration), no matter whether or not they were heroes to some.

At any rate, I see your viewpoint and can understand why you're upset about the feeling that people want to whitewash history. I don't want this, either. I suppose I feel confident that history isn't going anywhere (thank goodness for books and teachers!). Classrooms and other places where learning and dialogue can take place are the forums for exploring the complexity of the past. Statues are not that. In the end, you and I may just have to disagree on the statue thing. For me, not wanting a statue of Robert E. Lee in my country isn't political correctness, but rather about finding ways to celebrate individuals and ideals that represent the best of the U.S.A. as a whole.

[T.Q.]

I'd like to step in here for a moment and thank everyone for the way they have handled this discussion. Topics like this are very interesting, and the conversation is important, yet too often these things can devolve into something not pretty quite quickly. Civility in 2018. Who knew?

Carry on .....

It is pretty cool no one losing their minds.

I’m on a Canadian stock discussion board where people infest it with Trump hate, calling everyone who disagrees with them the KKK, going on and on and on, etc.

A STOCK BOARD!

So tired of it all.

We currently (in Canada) have a border crisis where 10s of thousands of people are just walking into the country.

Anyone who says anything about it is called ‘racist’ because most of the people are Haitians.

I wouldn’t care if they were Polish, I believe everyone needs to follow our immigration laws that’s all.

Somehow that makes me evil. Whatchagonnado?

[Pahonu]

I think we may be talking about two different things. Your issue, you wrote, is that people are becoming too offended to talk about the past, and the risk is that we'll forget about it. I agree that that is a bad outcome. As you wrote, slavery and the Civil War did happen and we need to own it. This is what education and scholarly studies and oral histories and so on are for. On top of all this, I am saying that the monuments that honor enemies of the U.S. don't have a rightful place in our society. By all means, don't forget about Robert E. Lee, but let's not celebrate him. After all, this is what statues of individuals from the past do. He may have fought well, but he was on the wrong team. I don't see any statues of British generals from the Revoluationary War in the U.S.

That's just the thing. I don't see them as enemies of the U.S. but merely as brave soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life. One person's enemy may be another person's hero. Removing these monuments to me seems to suggest a whitewash of history or simply an attempt to appease the PC crowd and those easily offended. I'm sure there are many in the South who take offense to monuments of Grant but I wouldn't advocate for his removal either. The comparison to British generals in the Revolutionary War is different because they were never a part of the U.S. They were in fact outsiders. The Civil War is much more complicated - it was brother vs. brother, U.S. vs U.S.

During the Revolutionary War, brothers most cerainly fought brothers, and neighbors fought neighbors. It was extremely complicated and violent. (Quick aside, this book: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/book ... hoock.html, that came out last year is a really good peek at just how violent and complicated. People living in the same communities and towns had differing views and neighbors turned on each other in an ugly way. Many Americans colonists considered themselves British subjects and did not advocate for independence. We all know how this turned out (spoiler: the Patriots won), but at the time it was not certain which side would be victorious. If the loyalists had won and put down the revolution, we'd have a very different set of memorials today. And I doubt George Washington would be one of them no matter how well he fought. As you say, one person's enemy may be another person's hero, but the losers don't get to name the plazas and streets (or put up statues).

I agree that the Civil War was complex and soldiers fought with valor on both sides. But the Confederate States of America were, in fact, the enemy of the United States of America. Again, I am not detracting from the passion and conviction with which the Rebels fought during the Civil War, but I still believe that enemies of the State should not be honored with statues (or any other form of public celebration), no matter whether or not they were heroes to some.

At any rate, I see your viewpoint and can understand why you're upset about the feeling that people want to whitewash history. I don't want this, either. I suppose I feel confident that history isn't going anywhere (thank goodness for books and teachers!). Classrooms and other places where learning and dialogue can take place are the forums for exploring the complexity of the past. Statues are not that. In the end, you and I may just have to disagree on the statue thing. For me, not wanting a statue of Robert E. Lee in my country isn't political correctness, but rather about finding ways to celebrate individuals and ideals that represent the best of the U.S.A. as a whole.

To add:

I hope you all don't feel my additions to these arguments are just making it more complex. I truly believe, and my entire educational career as a secondary and post-secondary history teacher is based on the premise that these critical historical moments are highly complex. Many people try to simplify these things, and as the husband of a psychology major, I understand the human drive to simplify things to aid with understanding. Choosing between A and B is easier than A through Z, and solving a problem with one or two variables is easier than twelve. However, as we do this the truth gets further away from us. I'm immediately very skeptical when someone says it's so simple. It's usually not.

By way of example, the argument that the Revolutionary War wasn't the same as the Civil War has some mistaken assumptions. All the colonists who participated in the conflict were indeed British subjects in the same way that all the combatants in the Civil War were Americans. It seems so foreign today to think of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin as British subjects, but it's factually true, and they thought of themselves in this way, at least initially, as many original documents of the period can attest to. As the generations have passed we think of them as Americans, but Benjamin Franklin's son, William, for example, remained loyal to the crown, and after the British withdrawal, set sail for Britain and they never saw one another again.

The defining difference then, is that Benjamin Franklin sided with the idea of independence from outside imperial rule and we hold that concept of democratic self-determination as just and right today. His son chose to support imperialism and is almost forgotten today as having chosen the "wrong" side of history, the non-democratic position. Likewise, those who chose to support the Confederate cause of the continuation of slavery are judged today as having fought for an immoral cause unsupported in modern society. I feel certain that in both of these examples, the losing side felt great conviction for their position, and honoring the self-sacrifice of their conviction is not wrong in an individual sense, such as within a family. However, the idea that society as a whole should support monuments to these clearly unacceptable views is misguided. Should we erect monuments to William Franklin in New Jersey today, where he was the last colonial governor under the crown, because he felt imperialism was just? Or should we study his views and try to understand the complexity of the situation. Learning about and remembering historical events is not the same as erecting monuments to one side or the other.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

We currently (in Canada) have a border crisis where 10s of thousands of people are just walking into the country.

Anyone who says anything about it is called ‘racist’ because most of the people are Haitians.

I wouldn’t care if they were Polish, I believe everyone needs to follow our immigration laws that’s all.

Amen, brother!!

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

To add:

I hope you all don't feel my additions to these arguments are just making it more complex. I truly believe, and my entire educational career as a secondary and post-secondary history teacher is based on the premise that these critical historical moments are highly complex. Many people try to simplify these things, and as the husband of a psychology major, I understand the human drive to simplify things to aid with understanding. Choosing between A and B is easier than A through Z, and solving a problem with one or two variables is easier than twelve. However, as we do this the truth gets further away from us. I'm immediately very skeptical when someone says it's so simple. It's usually not.

By way of example, the argument that the Revolutionary War wasn't the same as the Civil War has some mistaken assumptions. All the colonists who participated in the conflict were indeed British subjects in the same way that all the combatants in the Civil War were Americans. It seems so foreign today to think of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin as British subjects, but it's factually true, and they thought of themselves in this way, at least initially, as many original documents of the period can attest to. As the generations have passed we think of them as Americans, but Benjamin Franklin's son, William, for example, remained loyal to the crown, and after the British withdrawal, set sail for Britain and they never saw one another again.

The defining difference then, is that Benjamin Franklin sided with the idea of independence from outside imperial rule and we hold that concept of democratic self-determination as just and right today. His son chose to support imperialism and is almost forgotten today as having chosen the "wrong" side of history, the non-democratic position. Likewise, those who chose to support the Confederate cause of the continuation of slavery are judged today as having fought for an immoral cause unsupported in modern society. I feel certain that in both of these examples, the losing side felt great conviction for their position, and honoring the self-sacrifice of their conviction is not wrong in an individual sense, such as within a family. However, the idea that society as a whole should support monuments to these clearly unacceptable views is misguided. Should we erect monuments to William Franklin in New Jersey today, where he was the last colonial governor under the crown, because he felt imperialism was just? Or should we study his views and try to understand the complexity of the situation. Learning about and remembering historical events is not the same as erecting monuments to one side or the other.

Feel free to chime in, Pahonu. Personally I don't know how many are pining for a monument of William Franklin (he's not someone I'm familiar with) but if he was in fact someone very important for a huge chunk of the American population today then it wouldn't bother me if they erected a monument to him. With Robert E. Lee clearly he means a LOT to a LOT of people. I think pissing off a large segment of the population doesn't help to unite people but it certainly causes division and much strife. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself "is it worth it?".

[Kevster]

To add:

I hope you all don't feel my additions to these arguments are just making it more complex. I truly believe, and my entire educational career as a secondary and post-secondary history teacher is based on the premise that these critical historical moments are highly complex. Many people try to simplify these things, and as the husband of a psychology major, I understand the human drive to simplify things to aid with understanding. Choosing between A and B is easier than A through Z, and solving a problem with one or two variables is easier than twelve. However, as we do this the truth gets further away from us. I'm immediately very skeptical when someone says it's so simple. It's usually not.

By way of example, the argument that the Revolutionary War wasn't the same as the Civil War has some mistaken assumptions. All the colonists who participated in the conflict were indeed British subjects in the same way that all the combatants in the Civil War were Americans. It seems so foreign today to think of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin as British subjects, but it's factually true, and they thought of themselves in this way, at least initially, as many original documents of the period can attest to. As the generations have passed we think of them as Americans, but Benjamin Franklin's son, William, for example, remained loyal to the crown, and after the British withdrawal, set sail for Britain and they never saw one another again.

The defining difference then, is that Benjamin Franklin sided with the idea of independence from outside imperial rule and we hold that concept of democratic self-determination as just and right today. His son chose to support imperialism and is almost forgotten today as having chosen the "wrong" side of history, the non-democratic position. Likewise, those who chose to support the Confederate cause of the continuation of slavery are judged today as having fought for an immoral cause unsupported in modern society. I feel certain that in both of these examples, the losing side felt great conviction for their position, and honoring the self-sacrifice of their conviction is not wrong in an individual sense, such as within a family. However, the idea that society as a whole should support monuments to these clearly unacceptable views is misguided. Should we erect monuments to William Franklin in New Jersey today, where he was the last colonial governor under the crown, because he felt imperialism was just? Or should we study his views and try to understand the complexity of the situation. Learning about and remembering historical events is not the same as erecting monuments to one side or the other.

Feel free to chime in, Pahonu. Personally I don't know how many are pining for a monument of William Franklin (he's not someone I'm familiar with) but if he was in fact someone very important for a huge chunk of the American population today then it wouldn't bother me if they erected a monument to him. With Robert E. Lee clearly he means a LOT to a LOT of people. I think pissing off a large segment of the population doesn't help to unite people but it certainly causes division and much strife. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself "is it worth it?".

Most people aren't informed on Lee. He didn't agree with secession, slavery, or the war. He supported his home state when the war broke out. He was a military genius. Yet, since he was the Confederate general, he's vilified.

It doesn't mean I don't believe that he was a saint or that society shouldn't evolve, but the facts are that he wasn't the monster that he's been painted.

[Pahonu]

To add:

I hope you all don't feel my additions to these arguments are just making it more complex. I truly believe, and my entire educational career as a secondary and post-secondary history teacher is based on the premise that these critical historical moments are highly complex. Many people try to simplify these things, and as the husband of a psychology major, I understand the human drive to simplify things to aid with understanding. Choosing between A and B is easier than A through Z, and solving a problem with one or two variables is easier than twelve. However, as we do this the truth gets further away from us. I'm immediately very skeptical when someone says it's so simple. It's usually not.

By way of example, the argument that the Revolutionary War wasn't the same as the Civil War has some mistaken assumptions. All the colonists who participated in the conflict were indeed British subjects in the same way that all the combatants in the Civil War were Americans. It seems so foreign today to think of George Washington or Benjamin Franklin as British subjects, but it's factually true, and they thought of themselves in this way, at least initially, as many original documents of the period can attest to. As the generations have passed we think of them as Americans, but Benjamin Franklin's son, William, for example, remained loyal to the crown, and after the British withdrawal, set sail for Britain and they never saw one another again.

The defining difference then, is that Benjamin Franklin sided with the idea of independence from outside imperial rule and we hold that concept of democratic self-determination as just and right today. His son chose to support imperialism and is almost forgotten today as having chosen the "wrong" side of history, the non-democratic position. Likewise, those who chose to support the Confederate cause of the continuation of slavery are judged today as having fought for an immoral cause unsupported in modern society. I feel certain that in both of these examples, the losing side felt great conviction for their position, and honoring the self-sacrifice of their conviction is not wrong in an individual sense, such as within a family. However, the idea that society as a whole should support monuments to these clearly unacceptable views is misguided. Should we erect monuments to William Franklin in New Jersey today, where he was the last colonial governor under the crown, because he felt imperialism was just? Or should we study his views and try to understand the complexity of the situation. Learning about and remembering historical events is not the same as erecting monuments to one side or the other.

Feel free to chime in, Pahonu. Personally I don't know how many are pining for a monument of William Franklin (he's not someone I'm familiar with) but if he was in fact someone very important for a huge chunk of the American population today then it wouldn't bother me if they erected a monument to him. With Robert E. Lee clearly he means a LOT to a LOT of people. I think pissing off a large segment of the population doesn't help to unite people but it certainly causes division and much strife. Sometimes you just have to ask yourself "is it worth it?".

Most people aren't informed on Lee. He didn't agree with secession, slavery, or the war. He supported his home state when the war broke out. He was a military genius. Yet, since he was the Confederate general, he's vilified.

It doesn't mean I don't believe that he was a saint or that society shouldn't evolve, but the facts are that he wasn't the monster that he's been painted.

You're exactly right in your first statement. You'll find this article very interesting, I think.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/r ... laves.html

I think your second statement is not wholly accurate. Lee has come to represent the Confederacy, just as the official Stars and Bars of the Confederacy do not, but rather the battle flag that everyone refers to as the Confederate flag. I don't believe that he is personally vilified for his character, for example. He is often recognized for his military genius. However when he made the decision to support his state and fight for the Confederate government, one that specifically enshrined slavery in its constitution, he placed himself on that side. Both he and the flag have come to symbolize slavery though the history is clearly more complex. Supporting monuments to these two things carry with it that connection to slavery.

[giant_albatross]

I think we may be talking about two different things. Your issue, you wrote, is that people are becoming too offended to talk about the past, and the risk is that we'll forget about it. I agree that that is a bad outcome. As you wrote, slavery and the Civil War did happen and we need to own it. This is what education and scholarly studies and oral histories and so on are for. On top of all this, I am saying that the monuments that honor enemies of the U.S. don't have a rightful place in our society. By all means, don't forget about Robert E. Lee, but let's not celebrate him. After all, this is what statues of individuals from the past do. He may have fought well, but he was on the wrong team. I don't see any statues of British generals from the Revoluationary War in the U.S.

That's just the thing. I don't see them as enemies of the U.S. but merely as brave soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life. One person's enemy may be another person's hero. Removing these monuments to me seems to suggest a whitewash of history or simply an attempt to appease the PC crowd and those easily offended. I'm sure there are many in the South who take offense to monuments of Grant but I wouldn't advocate for his removal either. The comparison to British generals in the Revolutionary War is different because they were never a part of the U.S. They were in fact outsiders. The Civil War is much more complicated - it was brother vs. brother, U.S. vs U.S.

The Southerners were Americans as much as the Northerners. We were reconciled, north and south, for over a hundred years before a certain political party and its supporters decided to use this as another wedge issue to pit demographics against each other because its the only way they can win elections. Sorry for veering into arguably political territory here, but this discussion clearly is already political.

[giant_albatross]

...It doesn't mean I don't believe that he was a saint or that society shouldn't evolve, but the facts are that he wasn't the monster that he's been painted.

Since when has he been painted as a "monster"? Since the late 2000s/early 2010's? He was always viewed as the "politically correct" Southern general, an honorable man. This whole thing is only in the past decade.

[giant_albatross]

...We've come a long way over the centuries...but I can't help remembering that at one point...most the "scholars" ....experts and learned men of the age...agreed that the earth was flat....

In fact, they didn't. That's a myth.