Richardson Statue Coming Down

[mav1234]

4 minutes ago, Tbe said:

Monuments are for honoring people who added value to society.

Books and museums are for remembering history.

 

In public places, you are correct on monuments.

But on a battlefield, monuments commemorate the loss of life that occurred there.  It is a bit different - they are for remembering history.

Battlefields are basically outdoor museums IMO.

[mav1234]

1 minute ago, 45catfan said:

There's the problem.  I would otherwise be all for this, except for the fact of being housed indoors, does that make it any less offensive to some people?   Changing the location only would appease some people, not all.  Maybe if they put a "disclaimer" on the door or the museums.

nobody needs a fuging disclaimer on the door of museums.  museums present slavery as the abomination it was, and tell of the confederacy's veneration and enshrinement of it.  thus, moving statues to museums provides the valuable and essential context to them.

[t96]

1 hour ago, Jeremy Igo said:

This is the most hilarious of all the arguments to keep traitors statues up.

Books are for learning and recognizing our dark history. Large bronze statues are not.

I’m not arguing for keeping statues up (I don’t really care one way or another), but books aren’t the only way to learn and many people don’t learn well when reading books and do need some sort of hands on or visual way to learn (I.e. going to a battleground and seeing statues and having a guide or teacher, etc. talk about the subject).

[45catfan]

4 minutes ago, LegioX said:

Battlefields are museums. They are owned and operated by the state or national park service. 

Who is under the Department of Interior and funded by the government.  So talk about a slippery slope.  That ultimately won't be satisfactory enough.

[LegioX]

4 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

Who is under the Department of Interior and funded by the government.  So talk about a slippery slope.  That ultimately won't be satisfactory enough.

I hope that this will be a “bridge to far” with removing history. I hope at least. 
 

again I’m all for moving monuments out of the public view, but battlefield monuments for both sides should stay on the battlefields.

i really hate writing this disclaimer almost every time I post, because I feel if I don’t someone will call me a racist. 

[45catfan]

15 minutes ago, mav1234 said:

nobody needs a fuging disclaimer on the door of museums.  museums present slavery as the abomination it was, and tell of the confederacy's veneration and enshrinement of it.  thus, moving statues to museums provides the valuable and essential context to them.

But it would be any less offensive to some people?  You say move, others say destroy (just check the top post of the previous page).  I could be completely on board with moving them to museums if that would be the end game, but it won't be.  Again, if it were that simple, fine, but it's not and I'm pretty sure you are aware of that. 

 

[45catfan]

2 minutes ago, LegioX said:

I hope that this will be a “bridge to far” with removing history. I hope at least. 
 

again I’m all for moving monuments out of the public view, but battlefield monuments for both sides should stay on the battlefields.

i really hate writing this disclaimer almost every time I post, because I feel if I don’t someone will call me a racist. 

Unfortunately they probably already think it just by daring to preserve history, even though you have jumped through hoops to say you think these things should be moved to an 'appropriate' site.  I'm in the same boat with you.    

[mav1234]

7 minutes ago, LegioX said:

I hope that this will be a “bridge to far” with removing history. I hope at least. 
 

again I’m all for moving monuments out of the public view, but battlefield monuments for both sides should stay on the battlefields.

i really hate writing this disclaimer almost every time I post, because I feel if I don’t someone will call me a racist. 

were you called a racist in this thread yet?

I agree with your stance.

so join me in saying fug you to the people that try to stop that.  let's work against it, advocate for the removal to museums, and educate people about the value of battlefields as museums and how they can provide the historical context necessary to understand the past.

you and I have the same stance, yet look at the difference in our posts.  you are worried about a slippery slope, bringing up pyramids and crap.  instead, let's just say this: we both agree that monuments in public courthouses/open spaces should be moved to battlefields and museums.  the thing is, your slippery slope stance is the same thing being used by people that don't want anything moved AT ALL under any circumstances.  and I think you actually are good withstuff being moved.

[Porn Shop Clerk]

richardson never even played for the panthers it's just another participation trophy like confederate monuments

[mav1234]

15 minutes ago, 45catfan said:

But it would be any less offensive to some people?  You say move, others say destroy (just check the top post of the previous page).  I could be completely on board with moving them to museums if that would be the end game, but it won't be.  Again, if it were that simple, fine, but it's not and I'm pretty sure you are aware of that. 

 

so what is the end game mister dude?

moving monuments out of public places is not about offense, it is about history and what monuments should stand for in public places.

instead of being all "MAN I CAN'T LET THEM TOUCH THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIER STATUE CAUSE NEXT THEY'LL COME FOR THE WHITE HOUSE" why not say "yeah man let's move that traitor's statue, I'm all for that.  in a museum it can provide valuable context."

then if they come for the white house, you can get your pitch fork out :P

[Brooklyn 3.0]

I wonder who is going to replace Washington on the $1?

[45catfan]

1 minute ago, mav1234 said:

so what is the end game mister dude?

moving monuments out of public places is not about offense, it is about history and what monuments should stand for in public places.

instead of being all "MAN I CAN'T LET THEM TOUCH THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIER STATUE CAUSE NEXT THEY'LL COME FOR THE WHITE HOUSE" why not say "yeah man let's move that traitor's statue, I'm all for that.  in a museum it can provide valuable context."

then if they come for the white house, you can get your pitch fork out :P

Exactly.  Move them. I'm saying it won't be enough for some people so the end game is when everyone's feelings are no longer hurt.  You give me a timetable on that.  

[pantherclaw]

40 minutes ago, 4Corners said:

Wow victim shaming a person who signs a NDA. A new low. 

That is what you got out of that? 

No wonder this world is fuged up. 

[pantherclaw]

2 hours ago, bull123 said:

all about the cash....people are absolutely free not to sign anything...but they want the cash & then want to break them & keep the cash

No argument.  

So they agree to sign, for the cash. 

Then break the agreement they signed. 

That's America for you.