More than monuments: A look at America’s Confederate symbols
More than monuments: A look at America’s Confederate symbols
From bridges and roads to parks and military bases, symbols of the Confederacy permeate many parts of American life
By Terra Ciolfe, MACLEAN'S Magazine, August 21, 2017
Protesters hold a sign during a rally to take down the Confederate flag at the South Carolina Statehouse, Tuesday, June 23, 2015, in Columbia, S.C. (AP Photo/Rainier Ehrhardt)
In the wake of the violence in Charlottesville, Va., Confederate statues across the U.S. are being torn down, vandalized or relocated. While the conversation has focused mostly on these physical monuments, symbols of the Confederacy permeate many parts of American life.
Roads, schools, jails, parks and even holidays serve as reminders of the Civil War. In 2015, in the aftermath of the massacre at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church that left nine people dead, The Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry,” started to take stock of all the publicly funded Confederate symbols in the U.S. It compiled a database that includes more than 1,500 entries. Here’s a look at some of them in the database:
Highways/roads:
According to the database, there are nearly 500 street names that have a connection to the Confederacy. General Robert E. Lee has many streets in his name (as well as lanes, drives, roads and avenues). There’s the well-travelled Jefferson Davis Highway near the nation’s capital, as well as Jefferson Davis Avenue and Jefferson Davis Drive. In fact, the city of Alexandria, Va., alone has at least 31 streets directly connected to the Confederacy, and an additional 31 that might have links, according to the database and news reports.
Schools:
More than 100 public schools are named after Confederate icons. Texas is home to nearly 40 of them, according to the database, from Stonewall Jackson Elementary School in Dallas, to Fort Davis High School in Fort Davis (named after Jefferson Davis) and Lee College in Baytown.
Counties:
Entire counties in parts of the U.S. are named in honour of Confederate generals and soldiers. Take Bartow County, a small county in Georgia about an hour and a half outside of Atlanta, which is named in honour of Col. Francis S. Bartow, a Confederate leader and soldier who died during the First Battle of Manassas. His last words: “They have killed me, boys, but never give up.”
Similarly, there are more than 20 municipalities with names linked to the Confederacy. The City of Robert Lee in Texas, for example, boasts a population of nearly 1,200.
Parks:
There are at least nine parks named Confederate Park, not to mention those named after particular generals and soldiers. Rebel State Historic Site in Louisiana was named after a Confederate soldier who split from his unit and was killed by three Union cavalrymen. As local legend goes, a family buried the soldier and in 1962 residents started holding yearly memorial services in his honour.
Holidays:
There are seven different holidays dedicated to Robert E. Lee and at least 10 in celebration of the Confederacy generally. There are also specialty Confederate days, such as Confederate Flag Day in Little Rock, Ark., Confederate Decoration Day in Nashville, Tenn., and Confederate Heroes Day in Austin, Tex.
Commemorative license plates:
At the time the database was compiled, at least nine states allowed Confederate commemorative license plates. Since then, two states stopped allowing them—Virginia and Maryland (the only non-Confederate state to ever allow them). Texas was the first to stop offering them in 2015 after a legal battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. At least seven states still offer the plates: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North and South Carolina and Tennessee.
Military bases:
Some of the largest military bases in the United States are named after Confederate generals. Fort Bragg, for example, which is home to the largest U.S. military population, was named after Confederate General Braxton Bragg, a commander of the Confederate army in Tennessee.
Flags:
Photos of the Charleston church shooter Dylann Roof holding the Confederate flag sparked its removal from locations across the United States. But the flag hasn’t disappeared. It’s still part of other symbols and flying at symbolic locations in the South. The Alabama Coat of Arms, for example, still features the Confederate flag.
Bridges:
There are at least four bridges named after Confederate icons. Most notably, the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Ala. Pettus served as a U.S. senator for two terms, but was also a Confederate general and a leader within Alabama’s Ku Klux Klan. Ironically, the bridge was the starting point of the so-called Bloody Sunday march from Selma to Montgomery in support of black voting rights.
Tags
Who is online
119 visitors
I'd venture to say that BLM and its left-leaning supporters have a lot of protesting to do - that should help to make America a pleasant place to be.
I'd venture to say that BLM and its left-leaning supporters have a lot of protesting to do - that should help to make America a pleasant place to be.
#MAPA! (Make America Pleasant Again!)
Like it was before that horrendous Civil Rights Movement in the 60's made us an unpleasant country-- and its beenn unpleasant evah since!
I'd venture to say that BLM and its left-leaning supporters have a lot of protesting to do - that should help to make America a pleasant place to be.
Being a Canadian, you wouldn't have had to experience much unpleasantness so you could be forgiven for not realizing what it takes to right the wrongs. Slavery did not tear your country apart. There was no Jim Crow in your native country (not that there isn't racism--there's plenty of that). There was no Vietnam War ( yes, Canadian soldiers did go there but not in any way comparable). And your leaders wisely didn't lead an attack into a country just to even a family/personal score with the resulting multiple disasters that has created over the past 16 years. Our "leadership" and system of government is very slow to react to public opinion which itself is a hulking slow-moving beast but when it does it often does come with vigorous public demonstrations (it's a guaranteed right here) and, sadly, occasional and regrettable violence instigated by a very small element. Of course, now you live in a country that allows no public protest so all is well and above all "pleasant," right?
Well said, Atheist.
The events surrounding Tianamnen Square weren't pleasant.
The events that led to the toppling of the Berlin Wall weren't pleasant.
The events that brought about an end to the slaughter of Jews (and gypsies, and gays, and those with disabilities) weren't pleasant.
Sometimes, it's not pleasant to stand up to oppression or bigotry. But it's necessary for a free people to do so.
Yes, none of those things were "pleasant". So perhaps we should hope that the turmoil and divisivness and polarization presently in the USA will lead to the peaceful existence that preceded those things.
So perhaps we should hope that the turmoil and divisivness and polarization presently in the USA will lead to the peaceful existence that those things preceded.
Call me an American, but I don't put a lot of trust in just hoping things will become placid and pleasant or wanting to make nice just for-the-sake-of-the-kids kind of "peace." The American "original sin" is still with us mostly as a result of allowing it to fester for so long and even when it was "abolished" to allow the elements of this country to re-impose it under another and possibly even more heinous regime for another 100 years. The stake needs to be driven into this vampire's heart once and for fucking all.
For several years after I moved to Virginia, public schools were closed for Lee-Jackson Day, but not for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. That seems wrong to me. Maybe some unpleasantness is worth the righting of wrongs.
Maybe some unpleasantness is worth the righting of wrongs.
Remember when trump used this quote (misattributing it to Ghandi):
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”
Works both ways, Donnie, boy. Works both ways.
That's because the motivation behind each has nothing to do with "history."
History is what it is warts and all. What we are in a national discussion over is how to deal with a part of history that is still unresolved 150 years after a war to resolve it.
If a community wants to rename a street then that is their choice. If they want to take down statues then that is their choice. I personally hope they would. What I can't tolerate is violence used by anyone to achieve a political goal. That is terrorism. Vigilante removal is criminal and must be prosecuted. There is a legal process for change. It is the way to let the people's will be carried out.
. . . That is terrorism. Vigilante removal is criminal and must be prosecuted. There is a legal process for change. It is the way to let the people's will be carried out.
I bet that's what king George said before they tore down his statue in 1776. Tyrany deserves no monument. As for the civil war, put up a monument to freedom instead of white supremacy and show a slave standing on a confederate flag.
"Tyranny deserves no monument."
One sides terrorist is the other side's freedom fighter.
The reason to take them down is so they can be displayed in a place where there is historical context.
I wonder what the left will find as a "cause celebre" when the statues are down? What's next? How far does it go?
The reason to take them down is so they can be displayed in a place where there is historical context.
The reason to take them down is that they celebrate white supremacy.
I wonder what the left will find as a "cause celebre" when the statues are down? What's next? How far does it go?
Racism is like weeding a garden. Pull up the weeds wherever you find them.
I don't see you as a "one trick pony" so what is the next "cause"?
This was the question I asked.
I wonder what the left will find as a "cause celebre" when the statues are down? What's next? How far does it go?
There are no Nazi symbols in Germany-- they're against the law!
(For some reason Germany, unlike those in the U.S. South, does not want to preserve their history-- warts and all! Why?)
It is proof that our men fought in a War that few even understood why, except, that they were defending their homeland.
It is proof that our men fought in a War that few even understood why, except, that they were defending their homeland.
Their "homeland" was The United States of America". Yet these traitors launched violent attacks against the U.S.A.
That's called treason-- plain and simple.
It was, indeed. However, when it became apparent that places in the South were being attacked, they left their farms, their families to protect their own.
To me that is honorable.
To me that is honorable.
Leaving their families unprotected to fend for themselves in order to fight to preserve and extend slavery is "honorable" to you? Bizarre concept of honor IMO.
They didn't fight for slavery. Again, to protect their homes which were still destroyed by Union soldiers for no other reason than pure hate.
However, when it became apparent that places in the South were being attacked, they left their farms, their families to protect their own.
As did German Nazis during WWII.
To me that is honorable.
Carry on!
They were committing treason in defense of the right to own human beings. And that ownership of human beings allowed them to beat those human beings, rape those human beings, breed those human beings like livestock, separate those human beings from their families, and even kill those human beings.
That's what they fought for.
That is not honorable.
They were committing treason in defense of the right to own human beings. And that ownership of human beings allowed them to beat those human beings, rape those human beings, breed those human beings like livestock, separate those human beings from their families, and even kill those human beings.
That's what they fought for.
That is not honorable.
They were committing treason in defense of the right to own human beings.
That was one factor for sure but there were others as well. Trade was another big issue. The north wanted protectionist tariffs for their own manufacturing industry that hurt the south's agricultural industry.
Slavery was the hot button issue that would get people to go kill each other. Nobody is taking up arms over a tariff.
It is proof that our men fought in a War that few even understood why, except, that they were defending their homeland.
"Their homeland?" Wasn't it the same homeland as the northerners lived in until their leaders decided to smash it hell? And do you mean to suggest that these ordinary farmer-soldiers didn't know that the goal was to keep slavery intact and spread it further? I think that's an insult to their intelligence. While true that the average rebel soldier didn't own slave, he certainly benefitted from slavery. If nothing else it gave him an entire class of people to feel superior to. But economically it probably hurt him since his labor was not needed. Slavery actually ground him down, too, but he was too proud and too committed to the institution to ever admit that. We see the same thing happening with their political heirs today. They'll vote for any politician who appeals to their emotions and suffer the economic consequences time and time again.
(For some reason Germany, unlike those in the U.S. South, does not want to preserve their history-- warts and all! Why?)
Very simple, the symbols were outlawed by the British, French, American, and Soviet Union governors during the occupation.
Have Germans forgotten the Holocaust?
No. Outlawing swastikas (not that I'm for outlawing symbols) did not cause Germans to forget the Holocaust.
They remember who Hitler was, even without the benefit of statues.
And, what does that have to do with the historical fact that the symbols of the Nazi Party were banned by the Allies during the occupation, Sandy? I was answering the question as to why those symbols have been banned. Not whether they remember their history.
Is Germany still under Allied control?
No.
Do they have their own government, capable of passing and enforcing its own legislation?
Yes.
And yet they still don't want Nazi symbols or monuments glorifying Nazi atrocities.
And despite not "preserving their history, warts and all", they still remember it.
the symbols of the Nazi Party were banned by the Allies during the occupation
However, post-occupation,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed horror at the racist marches that roiled Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend. “It is racist, far-right violence, and clear, forceful action must be taken against it, regardless of where in the world it happens,” she said on German television Monday.
She might have added that such a thing wouldn’t have happened in today’s Germany — because it’s illegal.
While America protects the right of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups to hold public rallies and express their views openly, Germany has strict laws banning Nazi symbols and what’s called Volksverhetzung — incitement of the people, or hate speech. Like more than a dozen European countries, Germany also has a law criminalizing Holocaust denial .
_______________________________________________
I personally don't advocate destruction of statues or symbols … BUT, THEY SHOULD BE PLACED IN MUSEUMS where they are not viewed as monuments of honor nor of commemoration, rather …
… along with clear and bold annotation as to the horrors and depravity they represent!
LEST WE FORGET as opposed to PROUDLY REMEMBER
I can go for the museums. The fact of the matter the statues are coming down one way or the other and there is nothing I can do about it. It is the will of the majority of the people. I don't have to like it or agree with it. I have no control over it at this moment in time.
There are many atrocities committed against other humans in history. What about the East India Company with their own private armies, indentured servants and although the word slave wasn't used, it was surely slavery? Millions were sent to Islands to slave for the British. Then there was the Indian Rebellion of 1857 or India's first war for independence as it was also called.
No one can stand on the top of the mountain and look down and criticize others without first accepting they also have many skeletons in their closets as well. Where would India be today if not for the British? The whole world was a different place at that time. Was the rule of India by the British with their private armies and indentured servants (slaves) a good thing? Did something good come out of it as we look at India today?
Did a country who fought the greatest war of its history and came out of it as a single nation again have any benefits other than the end of slavery? Do the people who fought against the Union deserve to be condemned and have all the family members who fought because their loyalty was to the land they lived on, not the overpowering central government who came from the north to burn down their homes and kill their love ones?
I don't see anyone, white supremacists or otherwise destroying William T Sherman's statues, do you? He was a white supremacist and cemented the feelings against the north during the Civil War.
Located Washington DC
Owned by National Park Service
Ulysses S. Grant Owned a slave as history indicates and managed his father-n-laws farm where there were many slaves.
So he is the hero to some and the enemy to others at that time in history. Grant basically saved General Robert E. Lee's life by intervening on his behalf when he was federally indicted for treason along with other Confederate generals, keeping Lee safe from prosecution and saving the nation from opening up old war wounds.
Grant was a great man in my opinion and so was Lee. They fought on opposite sides of the war, but came together to save the nation. Lee didn't want any statues dedicated to him. His objective was to rebuild the nation as fast as he could just like Grant wanted to do.
I can tell you living in the South, my experience has been, whether it is right or wrong, the issue of the statues didn't become an issue until those who want to erase our history became involved.
Putting all statues from both sides of the war in museums would be a compromise to me. That's what we have to have is a compromise, not an obliteration of history. But to go around and change everything from statues to roads named for Southern Generals or other names related to the people of the South is a big mistake, but I fear the statement:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
I guess we'll see. If I truly believed those who are wanting to make things right by these actions were truly motivated by their hearts, I would feel different, but I'm not convinced of that.
Six,
Ten wrongs don't make a right.
Hopefully, over time, humanity, or, the better part of it, will begin as a whole, to make clear distinctions between what is or was "the law," and what has always been humane, moral and ethical.
Owning slaves is not the issue. These monuments were put up as symbols of white supremacy. They were not put up to remember history but rather as message to blacks in the 1920's (during Jim Crow) and 1960's (the civil rights movement) that white supremacy is alive and well. White supremacists know why they were put up and that's why they don't want them removed. It was a national disgrace to put them up as a tribute to traitors who fought against freedom and it's a disgrace to keep them standing. They will come down . . . either intact or in pieces, after they are toppled by those who refuse to live under their shadow.
Is there anything else you think should be obliterated from history 1ofmany? I said I think we should compromise and put the statues from the Civil War in museums, but I'm wondering if you can think of any other remnants of the Civil War should be removed from history?
I feel you might not have too many other ideas, but I fear others do. You can not expect the South to accept complete subjugation and anything good come out of it. The South has always been rebellious toward an overpowering government whether it was during the Civil War or any other time in history. When you strip them of their honor for their dead relatives and expect them to take it with a grain of salt, I think you will find it will cause more division than we already have.
What about Lincoln? I mean, didn't he put a bounty on Indian scalps? If true, that was about as inhuman as anything I can think of from the President of the United States. Should we give him a pass?
I'm wondering what will be next. Once we really get started with all of this, there is no end and all the people who lived during that time from the North and South with all their imperfections will be undermined to such an extent the country itself and the Founding Fathers will all be traitors to humanity, opening a whole new chapter which I don't think I want to read.
We'll see.
Is there anything else you think should be obliterated from history 1ofmany? I said I think we should compromise and put the statues from the Civil War in museums, but I'm wondering if you can think of any other remnants of the Civil War should be removed from history? . . .
I'm not removing anything from history. All I said was that history need not be remembered by a monument celebrating white supremacy. We don't need to remember the revolutionary war with a monument to king George, or WWII with a statue commemorating the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor, or 911 with a statute of Osama bin Ladin. I've already said that the statues should be moved to cemeteries and museums. As for other "remnants" to the civil war, it depends on what they are and why they were put there.
So, what of the Confederate statues at Gettysburg? They were put up to commemorate and remember that decisive battle that started the end of the Army of Northern Virginia and the path to the surrender of the Confederate States of America at Appomattox Court House.
So, what of the Confederate statues at Gettysburg? They were put up to commemorate and remember that decisive battle that started the end of the Army of Northern Virginia and the path to the surrender of the Confederate States of America at Appomattox Court House.
Statues on battlefields commemorating battles, in museums, and in cemeteries are fine by me. They were put in other places during the 1920's (Jim crow years) and 1960s (civil rights movement) as a message to blacks that white supremacy is alive and well. That message should end.
Here is the problem with wanting to eliminate Robert E. Lee's statues, he did not support slavery; but he supported State's Rights. He chose to decline the command of the Army of the Potomac in order to support Virginia's right to decide its own fate. Frankly, in my opinion, any statue of him is a monument to the 10th Amendment.
It's not about Lee but rather the cause that's depicted by the monument. I don't want statues to the enemies of freedom that were put up as a message that white supremacy is alive and well. Take them down or I hope they are knocked down.
So, your argument in favor of removing the statue of Robert E. Lee is not about what he did, but what Virginia and every state in the Confederate States of America did. Robert E. Lee was a General whose job was to defend the Confederate States of America when he decided not to take up the proffered Union command of the Army of the Potomac. He wasn't a politician. He released his slaves and argued against slavery for the most part. But, because he believed in State's Rights and was loyal to Virginia above the Union; in your mind, he is a symbol of the promotion of slavery. This is the absurdity of the movement for removing any such statues. These statues were monuments to men whom did great deeds ala Stonewall Jackson. But, because they fought for a country that wanted to keep a heinous practice alive, they are evil and should all be torn down. Instead of using the statues as an opportunity to learn real history about the men themselves, it is all about something that was legal in the United States until after the Civil War ended. Yes, the practice of slavery was legally on the books in the Union throughout the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation only affected the states that were in the Confederate States of America, not the US.
So, your argument in favor of removing the statue of Robert E. Lee is not about what he did, but what Virginia and every state in the Confederate States of America did. Robert E. Lee was a General whose job was to defend the Confederate States of America when he decided not to take up the proffered Union command of the Army of the Potomac. He wasn't a politician. He released his slaves and argued against slavery for the most part.
I know who he was and what he did and why he did it and I don't care. There were Nazis who could say the same damn thing and I don't want statues of heroic SS men as a monument to Nazism no matter how good they were to their wives and friends and neighbors and dogs etc.
But, because he believed in State's Rights and was loyal to Virginia above the Union; in your mind, he is a symbol of the promotion of slavery. This is the absurdity of the movement for removing any such statues.
His cause was to maintain slavery and enshrine white supremacy whether he personally agreed with it or not.
These statues were monuments to men whom did great deeds ala Stonewall Jackson. But, because they fought for a country that wanted to keep a heinous practice alive, they are evil and should all be torn down. Instead of using the statues as an opportunity to learn real history about the men themselves, it is all about something that was legal in the United States until after the Civil War ended.
I didn't say they were evil but I don't want a monument to an evil cause. And neither did Lee. He didn't want any confederate statues or a statue of himself and he explained why. Listen to him.
Yes, the practice of slavery was legally on the books in the Union throughout the Civil War. The Emancipation Proclamation only affected the states that were in the Confederate States of America, not the US.
It was evil regardless of legality. If you want a statue, then put one up celebrating freedom -- of a slave breaking chains, not some old bastard who fought to keep him shackled.
He fought for STATE'S RIGHTS, not for slavery. Just because the war ended up becoming about slavery due to The Emancipation Proclamation; does not mean the war started out that way. The secession was over fear of slavery being outlawed. But, the war actually started because South Carolina got impatient and decided to take Fort Sumter by force instead of trying to get the Union forces out of there by negotiation or by purchasing it from the United States.
He fought for STATE'S RIGHTS, not for slavery. Just because the war ended up becoming about slavery due to The Emancipation Proclamation; does not mean the war started out that way. The secession was over fear of slavery being outlawed.
Your last sentence should have been the first. Each state that declared its reason for secession had a variation on the same theme: that given the ultimate choice between freedom or slavery for the black race, the white supremacists of the south choose slavery. So the war was fought over STATE'S RIGHTS . . . the right to enslave other people. As such, he was not just a traitor but also an enemy of freedom in a despicable cause.
the symbols of the Nazi Party were banned by the Allies during the occupation
However, post-occupation,
German Chancellor Angela Merkel expressed horror at the racist marches that roiled Charlottesville, Virginia, this past weekend. “It is racist, far-right violence, and clear, forceful action must be taken against it, regardless of where in the world it happens,” she said on German television Monday.
She might have added that such a thing wouldn’t have happened in today’s Germany — because it’s illegal.
While America protects the right of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, and other hate groups to hold public rallies and express their views openly, Germany has strict laws banning Nazi symbols and what’s called Volksverhetzung — incitement of the people, or hate speech. Like more than a dozen European countries, Germany also has a law criminalizing Holocaust denial .
_______________________________________________
I personally don't advocate destruction of statues or symbols … BUT, THEY SHOULD BE PLACED IN MUSEUMS where they are not viewed as monuments of honor nor of commemoration, rather …
… along with clear and bold annotation as to the horrors and depravity they represent!
LEST WE FORGET as opposed to PROUDLY REMEMBER
Here's a boy who revere's those monuments … a boy who clearly articulates his motivations … the deeds of history that guide him …
… and, who provides us with a bit of reality and perspective upon which we might reflect …
IT AIN'T ABOUT THE STATUES, FOLKS!
This is the truth that some would ignore.
Hmmm ... I wonder who he voted for.
OMG!
A-MAC you're . . . . FAMOUS!
OMG!
A-MAC You're . . . . FAMOUS!
I'll have to negotiate your agent's fee.
I wonder if any on NV will remember when, long ago, I emigrated to NT …
… and what fan or hate mail may come.
I'll have to negotiate your agent's fee.
Well, its a pretty stiff fee
But not to worry-- you can split it with Bob Nelson, as my agent also manged to seed some of his work there as well. Its here:
Monsters Are Real... ... By Bob Nelson
I wonder if any on NV will remember when, long ago, I emigrated to NT …
Well, give it a day or two then maybe take another look at it on NV (Its here: "We killed 6 million Jews, 11 million (undocumented immigrants) is nothing," )
… and what fan or hate mail may come.
That reminds me of a saying they have in Hollywood:
I don't care what they're saying about me..as long as they're talking about me!
(And the particular agent involved here is a good one
That's a Trump supporter whether Trump or his toadies want to admit it or not. In his mind, Trump is his ticket -- again whether Trump really meant to or not. When Trump goes hard on immigration and soft on white supremacy, this guy gets a hard-on.
Dang A-Mac! Now I have to take another shower and put in disinfecting eye drops!
Dang A-Mac! Now I have to take another shower and put in disinfecting eye drops!
I am merely the dispassionate chronicler of events … *
____________________________________
* NOTE: If I ever start to become that, please smack the crap out of me.
Thanks for the good chuckle! I needed it!
I would much rather slap the shit out of that asshole in the video Mac.
I would much rather slap the shit out of that asshole in the video Mac.
Then you would have to undergo decontamination and rabies shots Kav.
It would be worth it ausmth.
The tongue is sharper than any two edge sword. From what I have seen of your posting you could slice and dice better than any Veg-O-Matic. So use those skills and have at him. The nice thing is that you won't face charges while he is picking up the little pieces while wondering what happened.
ausmth, I wonder how the reporter keep her cool with this asswipe....That must have taken a great deal of restraint on her part.
That was amazing Kavika! Talk about nerves of steel!
I guess I could support taking tax money from some welfare budget and using it to remove all of these symbols. Seems like a waste of money, but the left is pretty sensitive.
I guess I could support taking tax money from some welfare budget and using it to remove all of these symbols. Seems like a waste of money, but the left is pretty sensitive.
It was a waste of money and a national disgrace to erect monuments to white supremacy in the first place. However, I'm sure there would be thousands of people who would volunteer to pull the damn things down for free. On the other hand, the city could defray costs by busting the statues into tiny pieces and selling them on eBay as mementoes. That way, racists everywhere can literally stick history up their asses so they can carry the past with them wherever they go.
It was a waste of money and a national disgrace to erect monuments to white supremacy in the first place.
Funny how some folks are against spending a penny, until they aren't. Build statues to celebrate treason and white supremacy - hell, yeah, stick it to those Yanks and blacks. Take down monuments to treason and white supremacy - oh, no, it costs too much!
That argument is fairly senseless since none of us here voiced an opinion about building any new statues this century.
Why confine it to this century? You know many were built during the Civil Rights movement, yes? Is everybody who was alive then dead now? Of course not.
And anyway, there are some new monuments from this century, so...
Nancy Pelosi's Dad explains why he put them up in Baltimore:
“Today, with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions,” D’Alesandro said during the ceremony.
“We must remain steadfast in our determination to preserve freedom, not only for ourselves, but for the other liberty-loving nations who are striving to preserve their national unity as free nations,” he added.
“Today, with our nation beset by subversive groups and propaganda which seeks to destroy our national unity, we can look for inspiration to the lives of Lee and Jackson to remind us to be resolute and determined in preserving our sacred institutions,” D’Alesandro said during the ceremony . . .
Black people, at the height of racial tensions in 1948, damn sure wouldn't be looking to symbols of white supremacy for inspiration or unity. This was a message to whites to resist change and to blacks that white supremacy was alive and well in Baltimore so don't get too cocky.