Two news articles regarding the removal of four monuments in New Orleans.

Interesting to note how the two different articles emphasize different points in their reporting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-...ls-n750036

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/24/new...ments.html

This is what happens when politics, history, and changes in society collide.

It will probably happen again, so is there a better way to handle this issue, or was this the best solution?

Based upon all the feedback and comments, it's unanimous,

Instead of taking down the statues, lets add four more of equal size of
- Abraham Lincoln,
- David Farragut,
- everyone's favorite Major General Benjamin Butler, and
- the Corps De Afrique.

We are not happy in Louisiana that Mayor Landrieu in New Orleans is in the process of removing our statues. I am broken hearted. I don't know what you all have heard but we are not happy at all. I have no idea what started all of this but I do know that people here are furious about it.

---

(04-24-2017 06:42 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Two news articles regarding the removal of four monuments in New Orleans.

Interesting to note how the two different articles emphasize different points in their reporting.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-...ls-n750036

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/24/new...ments.html

This is what happens when politics, history, and changes in society collide.

It will probably happen again, so is there a better way to handle this issue, or was this the best solution?

I don't see how any of this will solve anything. While I know that there are people everyday who are trying to change history or rewrite it, these statues have meaning to all of us. I don't see how removing flags and statues are going to make things better. Its about history, not politics or anything else. Honestly, I believe that education has more to do with this than any politics ever could. That and the fact that we don't have public servants anymore who know how to appreciate their power and educate the public. I don't understand why there are not more teachers and professors who should be speaking out about all of this and why the schools are not allowing the students to voice their feelings about what they are studying about American History and what these symbols mean. it all makes no sense to me and I am very angry with the Mayor of New Orleans for removing our statues from the city. I have lived with those monuments all of my life and I have been proud of them. They represent a history of that great city and since it is one of the oldest cities in this country, I just don't understand why Mitch believes that this will change anything.

I can see why African-Americans in New Orleans do not want to drive by any statue which commemorates or celebrates the Confederacy. These four statues are offensive to them because the statues represent to them the racist past of New Orleans and the South. Of course the other view is that the statues are part of the history of New Orleans and the South and are in themselves artifacts. The problem is that however we may wish it otherwise, the two points of view are inseparable. So, isn't a reasonable solution to the problem not to destroy them but to remove the statues and relocate them to a museum or other similar place? That's what Mayor Landrieu says he wants to do. For example, the statue of General Lee in Lee Circle is not far from the Confederate Museum, so maybe that's a fit.

But I do think it is silly of the mayor to say that the monuments are an "aberration of our history" and merely represent a "four-year period in our 1000-year march to where we are today." No, Mr. Mayor, they are part of your history, for much more than four years.

Politicians have made bad decisions based on race here in the U.S. for nearly 400 years, and it has cost us dearly. It will be impossible to erase all evidence of slavery and racism throughout that period, and I feel that attempts to do so only stir the pot of hatred. Tearing down statues will not solve the problems of the inner city (drugs, unemployment, poor education). And, many of these problems hold down citizens of other races also.

I grew up in a segregated world, but my family had many black friends and were around them daily since my uncle ran the country store. I began teaching when the schools in my county were being desegregated via busing. The black students in my school were just as angry about being bused to a white school as their white counterparts were. Despite that, I have seen great strides being made, and my county in Maryland happens to be the home to the highest economic class of African Americans in America.

It has only been recently that Marylander Roger B. Taney's statue has been removed from Annapolis - despite the protest that Taney has been judged as one of the best Constitutional defenders in our history. That statue did nothing to hinder economic prosperity obviously. None of the ones that New Orleans (and other cities) is proposing to move have hindered progress either. What's next? Tear down Mt. Vernon, Monticello, Stratford Hall, Jackson's Hermitage, Arlington House, Surratt House?

Work on where the current problems exist. Use the "destruction" money instead to fix those problems. Teach the masses to walk by those statues with head held high, knowing that a good education - and the good use of such - overcame the hardships of yesteryear.

I'm climbing down from my soap box now and waiting for lashes from the cat o'nine tails...

(05-01-2017 11:54 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Politicians have made bad decisions based on race here in the U.S. for nearly 400 years, and it has cost us dearly.

Here, Here. In the heart of Detroit there stands a 12 foot long representation of Joe Louis' fist. It was erected by Mayor Coleman Young, not as a remembrance of Joe Louis's life or accomplishments but as a symbol of the toughness of blacks in Detroit.

It's a real eyesore for anyone contemplating doing business in the city and since Detroit's bankruptcy, cartoonists often redraw it as an arm with his palm out. Yet no politician dare remove it under threat of the "race card" being played.

One hundred years from now, when no one remembers Joe Louis - they'll probably get the courage (like New Orleans) to take it down.

The demand for removal of statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Linccoln cannot be far off...

There is one thing to remember about the Civil War that cost at least a combined 750 dead according to the latest figures. Namely, there was no peace treaty. There was a cease fire. This lack of protocol has cost the North dearly. It has given the white South an opportunity to act without admitting to surrender. Abetted by a North that sympathized more with the South on race, the North has failed to get the South to admit to surrender.

Indeed, Reconstruction was ended with the North withdrawing its troops and going home, allowing the South to set up a segregated society. For the next 100 years the North tried in vain to "Force" the South to knuckle under, despite the fact that the North failed to pass five or six voting rights acts to be supervised by Federal agents or the Army and no civil rights acts (in the South they are called Force Acts) from 1873 to a meagre effort in 1957.

Then came Lyndon Johnson as president and aided by the murder of President JFK and the legislative ability of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, Johnson shamed the North into passing a Public Accommodations (Civil Rights) Act in 1964 and a Voting Rights Act in 1965. This is frequently called the Second Reconstruction, and at first it has suffered from the same foot-dragging as the First, as Northerners ducked behind the Southern segs like William Fulbright for the opposition to the war in Viet Nam and behind Sam Ervin for the Watergate episode. The Southerners knew Congressional rules better than the Northerners and how to prolong debate and delay votes.

But now the Yankees want to show they won the Civil War, 150 years late, of course. So aided by Southern Scalawags like Mayor Landrieu they strike at the Confederate flag and statues. They are as much a heritage of the white South than an aberration as ahistorical moderns want us to believe. It has taken 50 years since the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts for the Black Revolution to gain enough steam to scare white politicians into supporting this nonsense and erasing our Southern history and culture. And you still have not got your peace treaty.

Deo vindice.

(05-01-2017 11:54 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Politicians have made bad decisions based on race here in the U.S. for nearly 400 years, and it has cost us dearly. It will be impossible to erase all evidence of slavery and racism throughout that period, and I feel that attempts to do so only stir the pot of hatred. Tearing down statues will not solve the problems of the inner city (drugs, unemployment, poor education). And, many of these problems hold down citizens of other races also.

I grew up in a segregated world, but my family had many black friends and were around them daily since my uncle ran the country store. I began teaching when the schools in my county were being desegregated via busing. The black students in my school were just as angry about being bused to a white school as their white counterparts were. Despite that, I have seen great strides being made, and my county in Maryland happens to be the home to the highest economic class of African Americans in America.

It has only been recently that Marylander Roger B. Taney's statue has been removed from Annapolis - despite the protest that Taney has been judged as one of the best Constitutional defenders in our history. That statue did nothing to hinder economic prosperity obviously. None of the ones that New Orleans (and other cities) is proposing to move have hindered progress either. What's next? Tear down Mt. Vernon, Monticello, Stratford Hall, Jackson's Hermitage, Arlington House, Surratt House?

Work on where the current problems exist. Use the "destruction" money instead to fix those problems. Teach the masses to walk by those statues with head held high, knowing that a good education - and the good use of such - overcame the hardships of yesteryear.

I'm climbing down from my soap box now and waiting for lashes from the cat o'nine tails...

---

You will get no argument from me. I agree with you. I actually believe that education or the lack of it is what is contributing to this problem. I said this earlier, in another post, the lack of education, the teaching of American History is lost in our schools today. I think that school curriculum today is not geared to broad education and it is leaving out so much that people only get their education on these subjects by the latest publications and in most cases, they are not correct.

I don't want to get on my soap box either, Laurie, but the best example of this is our own President. He has no clue that people have questioned why we fought the Civil War and he actually thinks that Andrew Jackson played a big part in it. Laurie, he lives in the White House!

---

(05-02-2017 11:00 AM)Wild Bill Wrote:  There is one thing to remember about the Civil War that cost at least a combined 750 dead according to the latest figures. Namely, there was no peace treaty. There was a cease fire. This lack of protocol has cost the North dearly. It has given the white South an opportunity to act without admitting to surrender. Abetted by a North that sympathized more with the South on race, the North has failed to get the South to admit to surrender.

Indeed, Reconstruction was ended with the North withdrawing its troops and going home, allowing the South to set up a segregated society. For the next 100 years the North tried in vain to "Force" the South to knuckle under, despite the fact that the North failed to pass five or six voting rights acts to be supervised by Federal agents or the Army and no civil rights acts (in the South they are called Force Acts) from 1873 to a meagre effort in 1957.

Then came Lyndon Johnson as president and aided by the murder of President JFK and the legislative ability of Republican Senator Everett Dirksen of Illinois, Johnson shamed the North into passing a Public Accommodations (Civil Rights) Act in 1964 and a Voting Rights Act in 1965. This is frequently called the Second Reconstruction, and at first it has suffered from the same foot-dragging as the First, as Northerners ducked behind the Southern segs like William Fulbright for the opposition to the war in Viet Nam and behind Sam Ervin for the Watergate episode. The Southerners knew Congressional rules better than the Northerners and how to prolong debate and delay votes.

But now the Yankees want to show they won the Civil War, 150 years late, of course. So aided by Southern Scalawags like Mayor Landrieu they strike at the Confederate flag and statues. They are as much a heritage of the white South than an aberration as ahistorical moderns want us to believe. It has taken 50 years since the 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Acts for the Black Revolution to gain enough steam to scare white politicians into supporting this nonsense and erasing our Southern history and culture. And you still have not got your peace treaty.

Deo vindice.

Amen! All of this is costing the tax payers of New Orleans a small fortune and to store them on the land that Mitch is talking about is not going to be as simple as you make it sound. We are all very upset about this because Mitch is only putting a band aide on a problem that has a much deeper roots than this will solve. New Orleans, along with Natchez, Mississippi are probably two of the most historical monuments left in the south that serve as reminders of life both before and after the Civil War and historians and preservationist have worked very hard and raised millions of dollars to preserve this rich history. We are all very upset with Mitch and the way he has handled all of this. There were other ways to address this and you can bet his father would have never handled this the way he has. Mitch is looking for votes, not history or New Orleans preservation. Things are different in New Orleans, since Hurricane Katrina and the demographics of the city and the parish have changed a great deal. Mitch is reacting to pressure that is purely political and we all know it. That is why there is so much protest to this action.

Those who have read Ray Bradbury's futuristic dystopic Fahrenheit 451 will recall that the prohibition of books was started when minorities of various kinds objected to works they found to be offensive.

After we have white washed all traces of Confederate Generals and monuments from the public, how long will it take to start removing Union General's and monuments from the public? I'm sure there are many Native American Tribes that felt mistreated by our Government and Military Leaders. That being said, perhaps we should re-sculpt Mount Rushmore? After all Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and Roosevelt dared say that immigrants should assimilate.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

I understand the argument about the Virginia Battle Flag and what it has evolved into. I accept and agree that it should not be on display in a public forum such as a state or federal building. After all, I never understood why a conquered nation would be allowed to fly it's colors. I fully understand that certain groups have hijacked its representation and use it for hate.
I do not agree that it should be banished all together. I believe people, for the most part are intelligent enough to differentiate between an ignorant person and a historical event. It belongs in monuments and museums, on battlefields and cemeteries.

I do not understand the outrage over monuments. These are historical. It is important to retain our History. Not the History of the Confederacy, the history of our Nation. Many of these statues are not just dedications to War time heroes, some are icons and forefathers of these states.

These are not simply monuments to racists. Slavery was legal at the outset of the war and there is enough blame for its existence on both sides, not to mention the rest of the world. This wasn't simply about race. There were black slave owners as well. Even Native Americans are not clean from the abomination of slavery (Separate Topics).

It is important to see the bright AND dark moments in our History and talk about it. It is our duty as citizens to pass on this knowledge of what was right and wrong and educate our children that look upon these with confusion and answer their questions. We can not turn a blind eye to our past, nor can we look at our History through the lenses of our current time.

I am only speaking on my own belief, I would not force it upon anyone else. I understand that no conversation about slavery cannot happen without emotion. Emotion is powerful, so I can see the other side. The argument that some people may make. I believe that the argument is healthy, The argument is the point. It lets people see a side that they may not have seen before. It educates.

We should never do anything based solely on emotion.

(05-04-2017 06:57 AM)ELCore Wrote:  Those who have read Ray Bradbury's futuristic dystopic Fahrenheit 451 will recall that the prohibition of books was started when minorities of various kinds objected to works they found to be offensive.

That is a good book, much betterthan the movie.

(05-04-2017 08:37 AM)brtmchl Wrote:  After we have white washed all traces of Confederate Generals and monuments from the public, how long will it take to start removing Union General's and monuments from the public? I'm sure there are many Native American Tribes that felt mistreated by our Government and Military Leaders. That being said, perhaps we should re-sculpt Mount Rushmore? After all Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and Roosevelt dared say that immigrants should assimilate.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American … There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag … We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language … and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

I understand the argument about the Virginia Battle Flag and what it has evolved into. I accept and agree that it should not be on display in a public forum such as a state or federal building. After all, I never understood why a conquered nation would be allowed to fly it's colors. I fully understand that certain groups have hijacked its representation and use it for hate.
I do not agree that it should be banished all together. I believe people, for the most part are intelligent enough to differentiate between an ignorant person and a historical event. It belongs in monuments and museums, on battlefields and cemeteries.

I do not understand the outrage over monuments. These are historical. It is important to retain our History. Not the History of the Confederacy, the history of our Nation. Many of these statues are not just dedications to War time heroes, some are icons and forefathers of these states.

These are not simply monuments to racists. Slavery was legal at the outset of the war and there is enough blame for its existence on both sides, not to mention the rest of the world. This wasn't simply about race. There were black slave owners as well. Even Native Americans are not clean from the abomination of slavery (Separate Topics).

It is important to see the bright AND dark moments in our History and talk about it. It is our duty as citizens to pass on this knowledge of what was right and wrong and educate our children that look upon these with confusion and answer their questions. We can not turn a blind eye to our past, nor can we look at our History through the lenses of our current time.

I am only speaking on my own belief, I would not force it upon anyone else. I understand that no conversation about slavery cannot happen without emotion. Emotion is powerful, so I can see the other side. The argument that some people may make. I believe that the argument is healthy, The argument is the point. It lets people see a side that they may not have seen before. It educates.

We should never do anything based solely on emotion.

What an excellent response to this topic. Thank you.

I remember a professor in college listing about five ways that conquerors can wipe out another culture. A chief way is to destroy its heritage by controlling the education of future generations.

(05-04-2017 10:50 AM)Gene C Wrote:  That is a good book, much better than the movie.

I agree. But I understand Bradbury liked the movie.

I remember the term "cultural genocide" in a history class when learning about WWII and the Nazi attempt to wipe out the Jewish culture.