Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tend to be in the camp that Confederate monuments should come down given their association with slavery and white supremacy. But IMO Columbus statues should stay.
Not because he was a saint (he wasn't) or because he had a tangible contribution to the country (he obviously can't compare to Washington and Jefferson), but as more of a cultural artifact. Columbus was a flawed man, but sailing across the ocean in rickity boats is a pretty amazing historical feet. For better or worse, it has created the modern world. I wouldn't support new statues for Columbus today.
My thought was taking down Columbus statues is simply a vocal left wing fringe movement. But I really don't know anymore?
I guess the argument could be made that he brought disease that killed off 90% of the Natives.
But was that his intent? Like every other explorer, he was looking for resources to exploit. That was the motivation for those amazing voyages. Natives were barely an afterthought.
This is a tough one. Different than honoring traitors. Maybe a vote? I don't know anymore, either.
The Christopher Columbus story that we were all taught in school is a myth. Early Americans were looking for a non-British hero. Italian-American immigrants latched on to him during a time when they were being discriminated against. Columbus didn't discover America, and his methods (feeding indigenous babies to dogs, sex trafficking young girls, etc.) were seen as brutal even in his own time. There needs to be a reasonable discussion about what to do about his legacy, but really, the revisionist history is not taking down a Columbus statue, it's what we were all taught about him in the first place.
Tearing down statues is one more way liberals tell conservatives that they no longer have power in America, and that liberals are now "in charge".
I don't see why conservatives would want to put up a fuss about preserving statues of traitors and oppressors. If having power in America means venerating these people among conservatives then there is really something wrong with them and their vision for the country.
Columbus is a difficult one because of the mythology that surrounds him on both sides of the issue. We have lost track of the actual person and what he was trying to do and the effort and perseverance that it took to make that first voyage and make it back home. Would things be any different if it wasn't Columbus? Certainly, others would have soon stumbled on the Americas -- maybe the Portuguese already did. Once word was out, the flood gates opened and things went off the rails.
Some statues are just stupid and poorly conceived in their design and maybe could be replaced. The Teddy Roosevelt statue would probably be fine if it was just him. The La Jornada statue in Albuquerque would probably be mostly ignored if Onate wasn't part of it.
I'm not going to say that I'm a history buff exactly, because I don't do a lot of historical reading. But over the years I have spent a lot of time visiting historical places and absorbing history that way, with some follow-up reading. It isn't unusual for me to talk to others about history. In particular, I lived in Virginia most of my adult life, and I did a lot of traveling throughout Virginia and the surrounding states visiting historical places such as Civil War battlefields. There are times when the statue issue has flared that I would get into discussions about whether a particular statue was deserving of protection. I think I'm on the reasonable side of the issue -- that there's a place for such statues: museums and battlefield parks, where there can be context provided.
I have come to conclusion, however, that for many statue-supporters (for wont of a better term) it's actually a false issue. What they don't want is change. They're cowards when it comes to change. Far more often than not, those I've talked with who are adamant about the Civil War statues, for example, know little or NOTHING about the person represented. Most of the pro-statue people can't tell you anything of significance about Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis or Stonewall Jackson. They don't care enough about those man and many others to, for example, read a biography of them, or take a little trip to visit their home, or even go to a history museum. They can walk right past a statue of one of those major Confederate figures every day, and not once would they stop and read the inscription on the statue.
The last history museum I went into was here in Phoenix. Not Civil War history...but still history. Beautiful building. Good displays. Middle of the afternoon. There were 5 people that I saw in the museum -- me, two ladies working at the front desk, a janitor, and someone who worked in the office of the museum. That's how much most of America cares about history.
For the vast majority of Americans who are even talking about the statue issue, the issue is the issue. The issue has nothing to do with history or honoring anyone. It's a culture wars issue and little more.
For the vast majority of Americans who are even talking about the statue issue, the issue is the issue. The issue has nothing to do with history or honoring anyone. It's a culture wars issue and little more.
[Moderator cut]
America and it's history and cultural fabric were fought and died for, ... not acquired by looting, burning, protesting in the streets and tearing down statues.
The current notion of re-writing history, because it offends the sensibilities of modern-day anarchists ... is more akin to the Bolshevik revolution, than America.
Neither. Revise the statue's associated plaque/inscription message to present a more relevant view of the purpose behind the thing. If it was moved to a museum and displayed, wouldn't that occur there as well? Save everyone the transport costs. Interpret it differently. Give viewers a chance to use their brains. As usual, some will, some won't. The latter will tend to blame the former anyway.
The Christopher Columbus story that we were all taught in school is a myth. Early Americans were looking for a non-British hero. Italian-American immigrants latched on to him during a time when they were being discriminated against. Columbus didn't discover America, and his methods (feeding indigenous babies to dogs, sex trafficking young girls, etc.) were seen as brutal even in his own time. There needs to be a reasonable discussion about what to do about his legacy, but really, the revisionist history is not taking down a Columbus statue, it's what we were all taught about him in the first place.
Do you have a legitimate source for these accusations or is it just gossip you heard "somewhere"?
For the vast majority of Americans who are even talking about the statue issue, the issue is the issue. The issue has nothing to do with history or honoring anyone. It's a culture wars issue and little more.
[Moderator cut]
America and it's history and cultural fabric were fought and died for, ... not acquired by looting, burning, protesting in the streets and tearing down statues.
The current notion of re-writing history, because it offends the sensibilities of modern-day anarchists ... is more akin to the Bolshevik revolution, than America.
That has nothing to do with my post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
