• Announcements

    • LaToyaADMIN

      What to do if you get a "Wrong Password" message   01/21/16

      You must reset your password (even if you know it's the right one) before you can sign into the community. Thanks to the upgrade, there's an issue with passwords and signing in. The good news is that you can click here: http://community.grandparents.com/index.php?/lostpassword/ to change your password (it'll let you reuse your old one). If you can't reach the email address connected to your account then please contact the admin at latoya@grandparents.com and I'll help you sort it out. 
    • LaToyaADMIN

      Anonymous posting is back   01/21/16

      We've removed the extra step that required you to go to the full-page editor to access the anonymous post option. Now, you can reply to a post and toggle the button to post anonymous (see photo below).    Read more on anonymous posting here:    In short, the mods can see who posts as anonymous, we moderate anonymous posts the same as revealed posts, you can reply anonymously to your own topic, you may report anonymous posts.
RoseRed135

Confederate Statues - Should they be removed or... ?

60 posts in this topic

On 8/25/2017 at 3:25 AM, RoseRed135 said:

So, people, should statues of, say, Lee and Jefferson be looked upon/handled the same way?

Yep, they're ugly and offensive every last one, with the exception of the monuments made by mother nature -- those need to be left alone- Otherwise Lee and Jeffferson are the same, manmade, symbols of white priveledge, both-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think statutes commemorating/celebrating people who fought to preserve slavery are disgusting.  If a city or town wants to take the statute down then I don't have a problem with that.  A good portion of these monuments were put up in the Jim Crow era to show the true "values" of the town/city.  It sounds about right that statues celebrating people who fought to continue to abuse, rape and own black people happened around the same time that recently freed black people were being terrorized and lynched for daring to want equal rights.  I think it's gross that there are so many of these vile monuments when we really don't see many monuments to commemorate the people who were harmed by slavery.  How many monuments were erected to honor all the black people who were abused and murdered in the South?  How many monuments have been erected to commemorate the people who were terrorized and lynched during the Jim Crow era?  I'd rather see statutes commemorating those people than the people who fought to continue slavery.  I think having statutes and monuments commemorating/celebrating people like General Lee is akin to having statutes commemorating Hitler.  I wonder how many statutes we or other countries have of Hitler?  I see the people fighting to preserve statutes commemorating Civil War "heroes" the same as I see people who would be fighting to preserve statutes of Hitler.  

And as for other statutes that commemorate Washington or Jefferson, I don't really care if those are taken down either.  They owned slaves too and I think that's disgusting.  Sure, they helped to found this country and it's values but they also preserved the value of slavery in those founding documents.  They founded a country that honored freedom and rights for white men and screw everyone else.  So, I don't really see it necessary to have monuments celebrating them.  I don't find statutes to them quite as vile as I do the ones that commemorate people who fought to preserve slavery but I wouldn't shed a tear if they were taken down.  

Edited by britomart
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a post from a FB friend... citing the absurdity.

So now that they're pulling Gone with the Wind from theaters because it's racist I guess the next ones will be the Django, roots, and on and on and on. These are movies folks telling a story that actually happened a long time ago. Is it a happy time in history no but it still is history. These are excellent films and should be preserved as artistic freedom. It appears to me that one side wants to take away freedom of speech and freedom of expression because they think it's wrong but still want to express their beliefs and feelings because they think it's right. Isn't it just a little bit ironic that everybody is telling each other how they should live their life. To quote Rodney King can't we all just get along.

I currently make my living with books...I'm one of those people who will read anything. My favorite genre is historical fiction, key word 'historical'. I will never allow anyone to censor my reading/film/tv. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Mame925 said:

This is a post from a FB friend... citing the absurdity.

So now that they're pulling Gone with the Wind from theaters because it's racist I guess the next ones will be the Django, roots, and on and on and on. These are movies folks telling a story that actually happened a long time ago. Is it a happy time in history no but it still is history. These are excellent films and should be preserved as artistic freedom. It appears to me that one side wants to take away freedom of speech and freedom of expression because they think it's wrong but still want to express their beliefs and feelings because they think it's right. Isn't it just a little bit ironic that everybody is telling each other how they should live their life. To quote Rodney King can't we all just get along.

I currently make my living with books...I'm one of those people who will read anything. My favorite genre is historical fiction, key word 'historical'. I will never allow anyone to censor my reading/film/tv. 

This is an interesting argument.  The first thing I would say to your friend is that the First Amendment protects us from Government infringement of free speech.  The First Amendment does not, in general, apply to private citizens or private companies. That's why Twitter can censor and/or ban people.

I'm not on board with the government banning movies, books, tv shows, etc., no matter how offensive they are because that's a pretty clear violation of free speech.   Plus, if I don't like it I don't have to pay to see it or read it.  So, if private movie theaters are refusing to show a particular movie or deciding to no longer show a particular movie then it's probably not going to be considered a violation of the First Amendment.  It's a pretty silly book and movie and it's portrayal of the happy slave is lame but it's illegal for the government to ban it or destroy it.  If a movie theater doesn't want to show it then that's their prerogative.  I am unaware of a law requiring them to show any particular movie.  And if someone really wants to see it or read it they can buy the book or movie.  Does your friend think movie theaters should be forced to show certain movies even if they don't want to do so?  I'm not sure how a movie theater is violating someone's free speech if it chooses not to show a particular movie or if it decides to stop showing a particular movie.  Fans of the movie can still rent or purchase it pretty easily, right?  

Now, as to "preserving history" - Is your friend saying that Gone With the Wind is historical or that it was based on a true story?  I wasn't aware that Gone with the Wind was biographical or an accurate depiction of that period of history.  

As to preserving "artistic freedom," just because a movie theater stops showing the movie does not mean that the movie is gone forever and  no one can ever see it again.  It still exists to purchase or rent, right?  And it's not like the movie is being permanently altered in some way, right?  How is it not being "preserved as artistic freedom"?  I'm actually not even sure what that phrase means in the context of your friend's quote.  

Finally, I'm sitting here trying to figure out whose free speech rights are being violated when a confederate statute is taken down.  I'm also wondering if a statute simply existing constitutes "speech."  Private citizens are not being prevented from owning or displaying confederate monuments are they?  As I understand it, these monuments are on public/government property.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.  So, if they are removed and put in a museum, for example, then how does that violate a private citizen's free speech rights?  I would never be in favor of the government preventing people from displaying offensive things like confederate flags or confederate statutes or monuments on their own private property or even carrying around one of those things in in a public protest.  However, it's not private people who are displaying these confederate monuments, right?  Aren't most of these on public property or government property?  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Wreckovation looks like:

%2521cid_9E402706-C9C1-4797-974A-70C6DB0

Our church didn't have a single statue left, the crucifix was bare- It was stripped- All that remained, basically, was the Bible i.e. the word of God -- and a building in which to house it- Attendance dropped off drastically, it tested the faith of many- But God's word stood the test of time, it took on new meaning to many- It became alive, and much more a part of every day life through the reading of the Bible, from the authorized King James version, to The American Standard, to The Living and so on- Many left the Catholic church altogether to discover new ways to practice their faith, different churches, beliefs or schools of thought- It was difficult in the beginning -- but liberating ..

As a child, when I opened that creaky, heavy, beautiful wooden door to the church and entered I actually felt I was under a spell- I didn't realize until I was an adult that it was my passion for the art and architecture that was having an effect on me- But as I child I thought that that "feeling" was God ..

Nonetheless, it worked its magic- I actually thought I was channeling God before I had ever heard the term channeling- So .. why on God's green earth wouldn't a statue of Robert E Lee have a similar effect on people? Any statue, for that matter- People get all kinds of weird ideas when they look at artists renderings- If the true beauty of the Civil Was was the emancipation of slaves, then why not honor the slaves? Because the white people who fought for and against slavery are seen as more important historically and in turn preserved that notion in metal and stone- Our monuments, memorials and statues aren't even created equal- Most are tributes to white people-

Anyway, many of the churches that were subjected to Wreckovation are ever so slowly replacing the statuary and so forth .. LMAO ..

Commerce- If a statue can get people to part with their cash, that statue is magic ..

For the record, I do believe in God, just not in the same way I was chained to as a child- Thanks to Wreckovation-  

 

Edited by SueSTx
Edited with permission

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another post in this thread has been hidden for review...It may or may not be restored.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really see both sides of this.  However, I find it hard to believe that if they move the statues from public parks to the "private" property across the street, people would be OK with it, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't feel that moving "statues" to private property will stop the protest.  Protest seem to be a common thing now.

When the statues were placed on public property fifty, sixty years or more ago...it was a common thing also.

I'm not saying it isn't time for some changes, just that it might take fifty or sixty years for some folks to see the current light.

Edited by SueSTx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'before' version of this Church is very elaborate, the after is still very beautiful.  Our local Church is very plain and has looked the same for nearly 40 years, but the important thing is the word of God is presented there and I am very comfortable there.

Edited by SueSTx
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmm....I don't know if I'd protest a private person having a confederate statute or monument on their property.  I wouldn't protest it in a museum because that's where we keep historical things (both good and bad) to remember them.  I believe there are museums that have **** flags and memorabilia and such and I don't go around protesting that stuff.  I'm just not a fan of the government endorsing the message represented by **** flags, confederate statutes and other racist monuments and memorabilia by having those statutes and memorabilia displayed on government and/or public property.  If my next door neighbor had a confederate statute or flag or decoration I'd actually kind of appreciate them not being afraid to show that they are a racist.  I'd rather know what type of person they are.  That way I don't have to waste time being friendly and getting to know them and then later realizing they're a racist.  If they visibly display that stuff then I can just make a mental note to stay away from them.  

Edited by britomart
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now