Ok. Thanks for your response. I can respect that. But I am curious, what if enough people here in Texas from Spanish/Mexican descent started saying all the monumnents to the heros of the Texas Revolution were offensive to them and wanted them removed? Or the SAN Jacinto monument torn down? How would you feel about that? Those things are as much a part of Texas history as the monuments in NOLA are to that cities history and the South's in general.
I'm not trying to debate you just trying to gage at what point would you be bothered by certain groups trying to change history.
I find this very different personally. The Texas monuments are about fighting a entirely different country. If they find it offensive they can kindly take their butt back to Spain/Mexico.
I personally don't like the other monuments taken down either, but it's a different can of worms I think since it's about a civil war instead of a war against a foreign nation.
I find this very different personally. The Texas monuments are about fighting a entirely different country. If they find it offensive they can kindly take their butt back to Spain/Mexico.
I personally don't like the other monuments taken down either, but it's a different can of worms I think since it's about a civil war instead of a war against a foreign nation.
I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't change the fact that Robert E. Lee was a respected General in the greatest conflict this country has ever seen.
I find this very different personally. The Texas monuments are about fighting a entirely different country. If they find it offensive they can kindly take their butt back to Spain/Mexico.
I personally don't like the other monuments taken down either, but it's a different can of worms I think since it's about a civil war instead of a war against a foreign nation.
Obviously the Texas monuments relate to a very dear and close issue to us native Texans. On a scale greater than Texas, taking down civil war history is worse.
Was a good read and thanks for sharing, I don't agree with the first paragraph that stated Lee was responsible for the war though. Lee wanted to preserve the union but when Virginia succeeded he went with his home state. Much the way I would should Texas ever succeed.
Was a good read and thanks for sharing, I don't agree with the first paragraph that stated Lee was responsible for the war though. Lee wanted to preserve the union but when Virginia succeeded he went with his home state. Much the way I would should Texas ever succeed.
The concept of a monument is to pay tribute to a person, place, or thing. A monument to a Civil War general is in essence hailing them as heros. Many simply don't see it that way. The Civil War was fought for state's rights, but also was fought over slavery. The south wanted to keep the institution of slavery intact. Therefore, the people who fought for the south were in part fighting for slavery.
I don't think this is a matter of erasing history so much as determining which parts of history and what historic figures best represent the general population. NO has a lot of black residents and they certainly aren't that interested in celebrating people that fought to keep their ancestors as slaves. There are of course exceptions, and this is only about generalities.
I grew up in the south and have many ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. Many of my relatives are still butt-hurt over losing it.
The Civil War and the actions/ thoughts that led up to it are an important part of our history and it has been well documented in history books and is still debated today. But, when it comes to monuments, there should be some rights for the locals to decide who should be celebrated and who should not.
The concept of a monument is to pay tribute to a person, place, or thing. A monument to a Civil War general is in essence hailing them as heros. Many simply don't see it that way. The Civil War was fought for state's rights, but also was fought over slavery. The south wanted to keep the institution of slavery intact. Therefore, the people who fought for the south were in part fighting for slavery.
I don't think this is a matter of erasing history so much as determining which parts of history and what historic figures best represent the general population. NO has a lot of black residents and they certainly aren't that interested in celebrating people that fought to keep their ancestors as slaves. There are of course exceptions, and this is only about generalities.
I grew up in the south and have many ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. Many of my relatives are still butt-hurt over losing it.
The Civil War and the actions/ thoughts that led up to it are an important part of our history and it has been well documented in history books and is still debated today. But, when it comes to monuments, there should be some rights for the locals to decide who should be celebrated and who should not.
Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
The locals were NOT given the right to decide. It was shoved down their throats by an executive action of one single man.
Comment