You're right, the statues didn't remind people who was in charge, Washington and Jefferson showed that by owning slaves. And the people who would tear down Washington and Jefferson's monuments won't care about any of your argument anyway. Because slavery.

Perhaps. The question is whether those people can win those debates in the relevant assemblies and then I'm all for local people deciding local issues. The only Washington or Jefferson monuments which really matter are in D.C., so there would likely have to be some action taken by Congress or the National Parks Service or both for anything to happen to those. And if those who want to tear it down get the votes to do so, elections have consequences. And if that's how you feel about Washington and Jefferson and anyone who owned slaves, I can certainly respect that. I just don't think the behavior justified by that belief is something I can support. Are we next to demand Italy and Greece tear down their ancient ruins because they were built with slave labor? Time to tear down the Pyramids? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line?

Oh yeah. I don't know how we've gotten by without their help in understanding and defending our own culture.

Maybe they can give us driving tips soon, too.

Uh, no. Not even close. Missouri had more than most southern states, but nowhere near as many as Virginia had. Tennessee had more, too.

Yes, I have thought about that, and that could have been an issue. But the historical record simply doesn't bear out that it was the primary reason for most statues not being erected until later. FYI, this chart at Wikipedia provides a pretty good visual of the timeline on these Confederate monuments. Notice the spikes during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement.

I'm trying to understand why this riles you up so much, Tom. I mean, I get that people have strong feelings, but it seems like your strong feelings are getting in the way of looking at the facts objectively. It's almost as if you started this thread just so that others could join in and decry the removal of Confederate memorials as A Bad Thing™, only to get pissed when others not only disagreed but suggested a different view of history from yours.

As for Washington, Jefferson and the like, my $0.02 is that what makes them different is that they are not being honored for trying to protect the institution of slavery or white supremacy, directly or indirectly.¹ They are being honored for their central role in establishing this country and its constitutional government, despite being slave owners—and in Jefferson's case, horribly abusive of slaves. In other words, what Kevin said.

¹ Regardless of what motives one assigns to secession of the various Southern states, protecting the institution of slavery was a, if not the, primary motivation.

Maybe. Until the wind changes. ;)

So instead of what can reasonably be inferred or even confirmed from the historical record, which is what myself and almost everyone else has provided for you, you're going to invent a reason for the statues out of whole cloth and then land on that as your solid conclusion? You're not going to win friends and influence people using those tactics.

MLK is not known for his anti-gay speeches or philandering. He is known as a great martyr and icon of the Civil Rights Movement. Show me the monument built to MLK gay-shaming and then we can talk about the appropriateness of that monument. Maybe that stands somewhere on the campus of Bob Jones University, but I have my doubts.

Tom, when you have little actual knowledge about a subject, it's best to do your research. Google is your friend. Hit unbiased sites, stay away from left and right wing propaganda (of which there is plenty on this subject). If you don't know what sites to trust, listen to folks who you do have reason to trust who are interested in nothing other than giving you just the facts.

If everyone who reads books is telling you that the statues in question are monuments to White Power, and there is actual evidence that the members of organized White Power movements revere these statues and believe them of import to their cause, why argue? Why make up reasons to rehabilitate these statues? Removing statues doesn't change history. Unless you can invent a time machine, history isn't subject to change. How we view and interpret history, however, will always change--and generally speaking, the further we are from historical events, the clearer the view of them gets.

We just can't help ourselves there. :D

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...67&oe=5A13004C

Yes, but Southerners have the sense God gave them and know to stay home when it snows or gets icy. It's the Yankees who've moved down here who think that because they know how to drive in the never-ending snow up there, they know how to drive in the once-or-twice-a-year snow/ice storm down here.

That picture, by the way, was taken a few miles from my house. I remember that day—that's a fairly thick layer of ice, not snow, on the road. But I'm sure y'all can help us learn to drive on that—once you learn how yourselves, of course.

Bless your hearts. :p

I'd have to stay home all winter if I didn't drive when it snowed or was icy. *sigh*

I took drivers' ed. in December/January, on a stick shift car. At the time, I thought my parents were sadists, but I learned a lot about winter driving.

When I was going to school in Maryland, waiting/melting seemed to be way to deal with the snow, and we're used to salt trucks, sand trucks, plow trucks, etc. That makes a HUGE difference, and I think most northerners take those services for granted and don't realize that states with less need don't have access to all those interventions. No one can defy physics.

You're the second person who's told me they live right by the location of that NC picture. The first person is one of my chapter sisters who now lives in NC and said the same thing about the ice. I asked her about the explosion, but she didn't know. Do you know what happened, MC?

ETA: I almost forgot. I'm Sciencewoman. I CAN defy physics. :D

This, exactly this. (Sciencewoman excepted from the last statement, of course.)

Why yes, I do indeed.

It wasn't an explosion. As I recall, that storm got bad—meaning the road got covered in a layer of ice (maybe 1/2 inch?)—surprisingly quickly. The woman driving that car, as with lots of the other cars in the picture, was trying to get up the hill, but as you've noted is usually the case, physics wouldn't cooperate. She kept trying though. I think some (well-intentioned but stupid) people might even have been trying to help her out by pushing while she tried to will the car—through her foot and the accelerator—up and over the hill.

Anyway, she tried to the point that things under the hood overheated and caught fire. And that was it for the car. Someone took the picture with her phone and sent it to a local TV station. And the rest is Facebook history.

And here's my problem with this whole deal...who decides where the line is drawn? As someone pointed out, you can't erase history. It sure seems that some people want to white wash (no pun intended) history though.

I have a hard time labeling Lee as a traitor. He was American as they came, but there was no way in hell he was going to take up arms against his home state of Virginia.

Thanks for the explanation, MC. I'm just glad no one died, because I had the sense that I shouldn't have been making light of the photo.

To prove my physics-defying ability, I point to the fact that I have successfully derailed this thread. Granted, it's not quite as physics-defying as derailing a moving locomotive, ala Superman, but still.

And now I'm going to "rail" it -- given Kevin's comments about Robert E. Lee not being comfortable with war memorials, I wonder what he would think about the sculpture of himself in Lee Chapel, lying in repose on a camp bed. It reminds me of the tombs of some English monarchs. It was installed in 1975, and the sculptor Edward Valentine seems to have focused on famous southerners in his work.

I've also wondered what he would think about the "party shuttle bus" at W&L being named after his horse, Traveller. It's a clever name for a bus, but given Lee's personal focus on honor, it just seems...wrong.

ETA: Well, humph. Jon "railed" it back first.

On the other hand, I've encountered extreme panic, stores and businesses shut down, and demands to stay off the road when it's basically just wet outside. When I lived in Houston, it rained one night and dipped slightly below 32 degrees for a couple hours, and my office was closed the next day and no one was on the road. People were amazed that I chose to be out driving around. One woman asked me why I was risking my life to shop for food :rolleyes:

Well in this country, we elect officials who preside either as executive actors or in some legislative body. Those people vote on things as a group and it's usually majority rule, but not always. In some cases, you have leaders of educational institutions who can make those decisions on their own or with an appointed board of some sort. Generally speaking, that's who draws these lines.

There has been considerable effort to sanitize the record where it comes to Lee. At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. He took up arms against the United States in a war regarding slavery and Lee himself owned slaves and there is considerable debate as to whether he interceded against his father in law who wished to release his own slaves upon his death to prevent that release.

Fredrick Douglas upon Lee's death wrote: "“We can scarcely take up a newspaper . . . that is not filled with nauseating flatteries” of Lee, from which “it would seem . . . that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven.”

and

No. I don't think he's that complicated at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/u...s.html?mcubz=0

What Frederick Douglas thought is anecdotal. I could quote someone with a differing opinion and it would bring no more or less of anything of value to the discussion.

Here's something from snopes:

"Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and (from 1865) the general-in-chief of Confederate forces, neither owned slaves nor inherited any, thus it is not correct to assert that he “freed his slaves” (in 1862 or at any other time).
As in the case of Ulysses S. Grant, the slaves that Lee supposedly owned actually belonged to his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, and lived and worked on the three estates owned by Custis (Arlington, White House, and Romancoke). Upon Custis’ death in 1857, Lee did not “inherit” those slaves; rather, he carried out the directions expressed in Custis’ will regarding those slaves (and other property) according to his position as executor of Custis’ estate.
Custis’ will stipulated that all of his slaves were to be freed within five years: “… upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executor in such manner as he deems expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease.” So while Lee did technically free those slaves at the end of 1862, it was not his choice to do so; he was required to emancipate them by the conditions of his father-in-law’s will."

And in those communities that handle this well, those elected or university officials and other community leaders will facilitate hard but necessary conversations in the community about the statues, the meanings that they had and the meanings that they have now.

Informed viewpoints—and I think that the viewpoint of Frederick Douglass qualifies as "informed"—always bring something valuable to the conversation. In this case, it illustrates how at least one former slave, and probably many more former slaves, viewed and experienced the canonization of Lee. It also serves as a reminder of the majority's indifference and even antagonism to that point of view.

My guess is he would be horrified by the former, which really is way over the top, and saddened by the latter.

Here's an outstanding article in the Atlantic about Lee. Worth a read if you still think he was in any sense a decent human being.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...al-lee/529038/

I tend to think that "in any sense" goes a bit too far. I won't deny at all his shortcomings or his significant moral failures, nor the consequences of them.

But like most of us, he was a mix of good and bad. There are very few people who I would deny were "in any sense a decent human being." I can't put Lee in the same category as Caligula, Hitler or Pol Pot, nor do I think history suggests that I should.

To suggest that he wasn't decent in any way is not accurate, I don't think. And I think it's the mirror image of the mistake of making him the noble hero that the Lost Cause myth does. The truth, I suspect, is somewhere in the middle.

I wonder what would have happened had he lived longer—whether any development might have been seen in his views. Who knows?

Which is what keeps you our MysticCat! Good to see you, my Jamestown cousin!

As long as I can remember, I've not been a fan of statues or the need to "worship" statues. Few, if any, mere mortals should be venerated to this extent, I don't really know how unique that feeling is, but maybe that's what has kept me out of most of these discussions.

I do question who is going to pay for the removal of these statues and the changing of millions of street/school/town/state names. We're in a time when we need public funding for such things as infrastructure, education, poverty, and massive governmental debt. I can remember all too well when a group of small, rural communities changed their street numbering system to help emergency vehicles find their destinations quickly. People's heads were exploding over having to (horrors!) buy new return address labels and house numbers!

So, I have no immediate answers, but offer these questions.

Doubting that I'll be commenting any further, but I'll keep my popcorn at the ready and will be reading.

In OKC, we are changing the names of 3 schools. That is being paid for with private donations.

Interesting point was brought up that statues were built to honor someone.

That is what the statues of Southern Officers and soldiers were built for, not to pronounce that slavery was such a great thing. As I stated before, of course they were not built right after The Civil War because the South was beaten and trampled on the Carpetbaggers sent down from the North just like the American Indians were from the time whites were landing in The New World.

I would imagine the same could be said of American soldiers who fought in Viet Nam and came home and were spat on and to this day, The Wall is vandalized. Is this that much different than what is being done to Southern Statues?

I think we are all in agreement today that slavery was bad, but that is not today but way back when it was a norm of the times. Were there slaves up north, of course there was but they worked in the homes and were called servants and did not pick cotton in the fields.

Are all wars bad, yes because people get killed but try to get the worlds peoples to get along with out killing each other whether in this (OUR) or other Countries.

I first posted this to have a common sense discussion not turn it into a The South will rise again post bit just talk about it and now, we are getting down to something using some niggle of common sense. Oh, that means using some common sense which seems to be lacking in the Country at the moment. That is what I love about chatting with my G C Friends!

Thank you!!

I don't think anyone has supplied much if any evidence of that. There is far more evidence to support that these statues were built as part of the Lost Cause propaganda campaign to glorify those who fought to preserve the institution of slavery. You have been asked to explain why you think these are honorable men or why they deserve participation trophies. You have yet to respond in any meaningful way.

That is your second theory. Do you have anything to back it up?

If the Vietnam Memorial was built to honor Ho Chi Minh, I think you might have a fair point.

It depends on what you mean by "up north," but generally speaking, by 1860, there were no slaves up North as slavery was illegal.

It happened like this:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._1789-1861.gif

Well the subject of these statues necessarily involves talk of the South rising again because those are the people who erected these statues. Now local communities are having some tough conversations and making local decisions to make changes which reflect their community values.

Not to mention hurricane clean-up.... :(

That would be a good thing.

Sorry, I did include hurricane clean-up in my first draft, and accidentally omitted it prior to posting here.

I've hesitated to jump into this but will despite my reservations. I am a 13th generation Virginian and descendant of large land and slave owners. From the cradle on, the romance and glory of the Old South was drummed into my little blond-curled head. I'll offer up something to perhaps offer some more understanding of the controversy around the statues. As Kevin already posted, yes, these statues were erected in the same time frame as the ascendancy of Jim Crow in the South along with the resurgence of the KKK in far greater numbers than it had earlier existed and then with an entirely different population. Most were erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy and yes, it was an attempted revival of the Old Virginia with her notions of supremacy.

But these had less to do with slavery than it did with White Supremacy. Was RE Lee a White Supremacist? Yes! of course he was! Virginia was established with a new world aristocracy from the get-go. Early colonists coming to Virginia came bearing their family coats of arms, and a commission was even created in colonial Virginia to ensure the legitimacy of the bearers of these coats of arms. There was from the beginning a clear caste system from the "aristocratic "whites at the very top all the way down to the black slaves, particularly where marriage was concerned. There was even a class/caste system among the slaves. This class/caste system continued all the way up to and after the Civil War. RE Lee descended from the Washington and "King" Carter families along with the Lees, at the very top of the Virginia aristocracy. This still exists to some but much lesser extent today.

The young men in these families were taught from the cradle on that they were born to rule and that blacks were inherently inferior and only by the grace of God were they brought to Virginia to save them from life in Africa and their primitive religions. Whites not of their social status were considered inferior as well. Great wealth and even more enhanced social status came with these large land holdings which depended on owning slaves to work these lands. Also to have servants in the homes. There was a certain honor code, but it was based greatly upon noblesse oblige of the upper classes toward their inferiors, the slaves occupying the lowest spot on the totem pole.

There was economic devastation in Virginia as a result of the Civil War, and white
Virginians feared that their alleged racial superiority would disappear. There was a saying in the county that my ancestors helped settle that "All we have left is our good names and the family silver, which we buried." RE Lee and some of the other Virginia generals exemplified to them Southern honor and nobility of the highest order. I'm not sure how I escaped this mind set, but neither slavery nor white supremacy in any form is a part of my heritage that I want to embrace or perpetuate. They all belong in the dust bin of history. I have many friends with deep Southern roots who have also come to terms with deeply flawed aspects of their ancestry and have long since discarded them as part of their now value system. The reality is that these statues conjure up the fantasy of the ante bellum South to some and cause great pain to others.

I would hope other Southerners would take a clear-headed look and understanding of what these statues represent. I personally would like these statues put into museums of history along with reality-based teaching opportunities.

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Johnson, Ulysses S Grant

These are all US Presidents that owned slaves. If we should take down Confederate statues "because slavery" then we need to take down any statues of those people too. Many if not all of these criticisms of Lee can be leveled against those people as well.

No, their roles in the history and development of our country was very different from that of Confederates who withdrew from and fought against our nation in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

But I do agree that we need to understand the role of slavery in the formation of our country. And that of White Supremacy. For that matter, only white male land owners were originally permitted to vote. Our founding fathers were also flawed human beings.

This Tar Heel (though with some old Virginia roots thrown in) appreciates very much that you've jumped in. Thank you.

Admittedly, relatively few people have posted about this topic, so it's certainly not a representative sampling, but I find it interesting that the Southerners¹ who've weighed in have, I think, been uniform in saying that the statues were primarily erected in order to reinforce White Supremacy and no longer have a place in the public squares of our communities, while those who have talked about things like erasing history, honoring the dead or where to draw lines have been from outside the states of the Confederacy. FWIW.


¹ Meaning here people from states that seceded to join the Confederacy. (Though now that I think about it, and without going back and looking through the thread, that may just be you and me. There are others who have posted with family roots in the South.)


This. There's a big difference between honoring people specifically because they fought to preserve slavery (and preserving monuments built to reinforce and perpetuate racial division) and honoring people who were instrumental in founding or leading this country despite being slave owners.

Yes. Monticello, for example, does a good job of exploring the history of Jefferson and his slaves.

Washington, Jefferson, et al didn't fight against slavery because they were PRO-SLAVERY. They were perfectly fine with owning slaves.
You can't spin that away.

So if we're going to be consistent in this overly binary way of classifying people as "good" or "evil", let's keep that in mind.

It's probably inaccurate to describe Washington as "pro-slavery." Accepting of slavery up to a point is probably closer.

But regardless, that's still not the point. People are not being honored for being "good" or "evil." They're being honored for what they did for their state or their country. There's nothing binary about it—the salient question is "Why did we build monuments or memorials to honor this person?"

Monuments were built to honor Washington and Jefferson for the many positive things they did relative to the establishment of the country and its government, despite the fact that they owned (and in Jefferson's case, severely mistreated) slaves. The monuments to them were not built to honor their role in the preservation of slavery. And in the case of Jefferson, I would argue that the monuments to him were built to honor his vision for the country—"All men are created equal . . . ," etc.—which we now acknowledge compels recognition of the rights of all people even if Jefferson himself did not fully appreciate that.

The monuments to specific or generic Confederate soldiers were built to honor their role in a war that was about preservation of slavery, as well as to send a message about continuing white supremacy.

Apples and oranges.

I think there may be more, who are either conflicted or simply not speaking up. I have Southern roots, but I have yet to be able to prove that any of my ancestors owned slaves. Sadly, there is one line which may have done so, but I'm still working on that proof. It's not as if I can change the fact, either way.


As do both Mount Vernon and Colonial Wiliamsburg. I can only imagine that the trend will continue throughout other antebellum mansions or sites.

My grandmother married into what I believe is the Johnston family, which produced two Confederate generals, Joseph E. Johnston and Albert Sidney Johnston. Step-grandfather's last name was Johnson (without the t) so I'm not quite sure how they were related, but in 1963 (or thereabouts), they went on a tour of the South with stepdad.

One of the stops along the way included a visit to see "Uncle Al" at the Johnston Plantation. I assume he was a descendant of General Albert Sidney Johnston. The Plantation was spared from Sherman's army as General Joseph E. Johnston fortified the Plantation with the Army of the Tennessee. Sherman simply left that Army alone and went about his destruction of the South. The Plantation was still in full operation. The Slave Quarters were occupied by whom you'd probably safely assume were the direct descendants of the former slaves of the Plantation. They were compensated only in company script which was only redeemable at the Company Store.

They met "Uncle Al" who was at the time wheelchair bound. He descended to greet them on an automatic chair lift. Across his lap was draped a Confederate Battle Flag. He lectured them regarding the black race (using the most pejorative term), that they were subhuman, needed to be governed by white men, etc. His wife challenged him on that point because she observed he required them to bow down and accept Jesus into their hearts when in his presence (he was a former travelling evangelist) and that his views were inconsistent if he believed blacks to be less than human.. my father reports that even despite his upbringing in then very segregated Enid, Oklahoma, this was all pretty terrifying stuff.

I thought that anecdote to be fairly instructive as to the views of the southerners who erected these statues as Uncle Al would have been around the right age to have had a hand in those statues erection. Someone from the midwest may simply lack the context to be able to understand why many southerners are eager to distance themselves from the views held by their forebears. Locally, Oklahoma has sort have been a wanna be Southern State. The KKK was such a force to be reckoned with locally that in the 1920s, following the Tulsa Race Riots, the Governor at the time declared marshal law in two counties and suspended habeas corpus. The KKK had such power that they were able to shut down the legislature and impeach said Governor within the year. Around that same time period many schools bearing the names of Confederate Generals were founded, all of our monuments were built between 1910 and 1917 with the notable exception of a monument in Wynnewood built in 2004. If you've been to Wynnewood, you'd understand.

Sure. That's why I was trying to be careful about how I phrased it in terms of people who had actually expressed an opinion. (Whether I succeeded in being careful is a different question. ;) )

I think this is probably true. I also think that people who don't live here may lack the context or the first-hand experience to understand how the Lost Cause mythology/romanticism permeates things (though much less than it did when I was a child), the state (good and bad) of race relations now, or how these issues actually affect communities now.

In some ways, I think it may be a case of to "outsiders" (for want of a better term), this looks like a debate about monuments and history, while to many of us in the South—on both sides of the issue—it's more a debate about "who are we and what do we stand for?"

I've asked on Wikipedia that this slideshow to be fixed to show that Missouri added the Platte Purchase in its Northwest Corner for all slides after 1837. (That land was added to Missouri in March of 1837, so that slide could go either way)

[QUOTE=MysticCat

"I think this is probably true. I also think that people who don't live here may lack the context or the first-hand experience to understand how the Lost Cause mythology/romanticism permeates things (though much less than it did when I was a child), the state (good and bad) of race relations now, or how these issues actually affect communities now.

In some ways, I think it may be a case of to "outsiders" (for want of a better term), this looks like a debate about monuments and history, while to many of us in the South—on both sides of the issue—it's more a debate about "who are we and what do we stand for?"

Yes, absolutely. The romanticism of the Old South goes far beyond the issue of slavery. I never had the kind of encounters as Kevin did with his "Uncle Al", but it went without saying that Blacks, other people of color, and even the lower classes of whites were of inferior stock. I was taught to never, EVER, be rude or disrespectful to Blacks (or darkies as they were called in Virginia) as that was the behavior a lower class white would exhibit. I was not to be rude or disrespectful to anyone. The Blacks on my family farms (they had stopped calling them plantations) were also descendants of slaves and still lived in the former slave cabins. They would run out and wave to us as we drove by.

The KKK as revived in the 20th century was also strongly opposed to immigrants, except those from northern European countries, Catholics (which came from Mediterranean European countries and Central and South America) and was very powerful nationwide! So a new form of White Supremacy arose. And along with it a focus on pedigree among whites. My Virginia belle grandmother was the first in my family to marry outside the very small list of Virginia families that were considered acceptable. She married -GASP- a first generation Swede! And didn't bring him home to marry! The fact that he had a Ph D from Yale was completely irrelevant. After I inherited a good many of the family documents, I discovered a card engraved on heavy paper stock an announcement by my great grandparents that my grandmother had married a Dr. so and so, whose name had been anglicized. The announcement was bordered in black, which was customary for death announcements! All of her siblings except one younger brother married within the "approved" families. The next generation went further afield, but not entirely. Mine went even further, but not entirely as well.

Pedigree became everything. Our horses had pedigrees, our dogs and cats, even my great uncles' prized Black Angus, which they were proud to display pictures of. No Confederate flags displayed, but I still have Confederate money issued and signed by my great grandfather. It is out of sight in a drawer. My grandmother had the coats of arms of each of her parents displayed, which I now have hanging in our library. When I pledged Chi Omega in another much more southern Confederate state maaaany years ago, those old family lines were still the ones recommendations were written for. That has changed, of course. Thankfully.

As [B]Mystic Cat [/B]stated, it is now a question of "who we are and what do we stand for." I don't deny my heritage, which was a mixture of good and not so good. I don't pay homage to that which was not so good. It is not part of my value system, and I haven't passed it on to my son except to be aware of it.

That wasn't my encounter to be clear, that was something my father did with his stepdad and sister the year prior to starting college in 1963. It was just relayed to me. I have no reason to believe it is untrue or an exaggeration. It has always struck me as to how nearly 100 years post-war how little things had changed. Prior to the Civil Rights Movement, one might have thought the South had won the War and simply declined to tell anyone about it.

Life long Southerner, 3 states all of which were part of the Confederacy. Descendant of slave owners, and while not plantation sized, they were owners nonetheless. Both my grandfathers routinely used the N word and exhibited overt signs of racism. Attended a white, suburban high school with "Rebels" as our mascot and the Rebel Flag as our symbol. Currently live in an area where multiple Civil War battles were fought and monuments/statues are everywhere. Was always far better at math than organizing my swirling thoughts into succinct and coherent words on paper, thus have been slow to participate in this thread. But that doesn't change how strongly I feel about this subject.

I could not agree more that the monuments and statues (as well as my high school mascot and flag) need to be permanently removed. Children who simply want to play in a park or visit the library should never have to walk by a monument of an individual who fought to keep their ancestors in chains and as property. The subtle social class message of these statues is not lost on anyone.

I also concur with the others that these were erected by white individuals during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights era to be a symbol of power classes vs oppressed classes. If we all took more time to genuinely -->listen<--- to people of color, oppressed groups, and those who are not in positions of power or majority we could learn so much. Seeing issues through the lenses of others and not simply our own life prism should be what guides decisions such as these. When white people say "but history" we just look well, white and uninformed.

I'm putting this on a shirt.

Yes. What those who insist on having public monuments to preserve their "history and heritage" seem to completely overlook is the fact that Blacks and other oppressed groups have their own history and heritage that has been passed down to them in stories of the past just as we have had ours. But theirs is a very painful, oppressive and dehumanizing one and one that often resulted in death. It IS as if the Civil War is not over and is being fought over and over again. And this despite laws passed in the Civil Rights era of the 60s. I can remember some of my family members and associates protesting that while laws can be passed, that no one could legislate how they felt. And they continued to perpetuate the mythology of the Southern glory. So we have had two very different narratives being perpetuated for generations. As far as I am concerned, the Civil War is a stain on our country that needs to STOP! There is no future in it for any of us and certainly not the foundation of our national values today.

We settled the issue of Nazi racial superiority in WWII. Do we really want to go back to that?!! I am sickened by the displays of White Supremacists and was horrified by what happened in Charlottesville, just on the other side of the mountain from where I live.

My mother BTW would have washed my mouth out with soap had I ever used the N word.

Wow.

I loved every word of this.

Thank you.

My family is from Southampton County, VA, by the way.