mikelincs

In the era of Glasnost the Russians pulled down, removed or destroyed the vast majority of Lenin and Stalin statues, many of these were just dumped in parks for the public to deface, piss on and other such things. About 10 years later they realised just what they had done to their heritage, Stalin and Lenin were major players in their history, so many were repaired, put into sculpture parks etc so the public could see them and think about what had happened. A country's heritage can't be erased, so why not allow the people to see what did happen.

Beaverstate

Nearly every soldier to a man who fought for the south did not own a single slave, not one. The Generals and other officers did, the rank and file did not.

Leslie

That's because you made no attempt to explain what the point of the post was. I was curious whether you were opposed to the removal of the monuments or were shocked that they were still on display. Obviously it was neither but rather some obscure trivia you discovered.

Because math?

Anian

The rich always get the poor to fight their battles for them.

Rete

Charlie Chaplin? Steve Martin just father his first child while in his 70's

moneypenny20

Various Rolling Stones are still procreating.

scrubbedexpat099

i had a Grandfather who was in his 90's when he died and I was I think 12. He was a generation or so older than my Grandparents, well my Mother's parents.

moneypenny20

WEBlue

Oldest Guinness World Record "legal" father--92 years.

Oldest legal father | Guinness World Records



Wikipedia's "Oldest" father: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramjit_Raghav

rpjs

My brother-in-law's father was born in the 19th century. B-i-l is 45 or thereabouts and his father was 85 when he was conceived. He had passed on before b-i-l was born.

scrubbedexpat099

As a kid I meant my Mothers Parents when talking about my Grandparents, my Fathers Mother had died before I was born and my Fathers Father was super old and grouchy, did not see him that often.

Anian

No it isn't. What they are doing is removing the glorification of people who were fighting to continue slavery. Denying it happened would actually be worse. If you think the statues to remind people of the civil war are good then you'd be in agreement that we replace the "war heroes" with a freed slave statue, for all the people who only learn history from looking at statues.

scrubbedexpat099

I find it frightening how people take the Hollywood History version as factual. The real stuff is much more interesting.

Rete

Thank you for the attempt at reading my mind. Just so you know, it didn't work.

You can erect both and they already have. Yes, most people start to learn history from statutes and monuments. If they had 1/2 a brain it would peak their interest and make them investigate further.

Go one step further and remove all the statutes and monuments to the Union men and women who fought. Do you honesty believe they fought only because they believed in the elimination of slavery. That was a part of it but the main thrust of the war was because the south seceded from the Union over States' Rights. And yes, a major part of that right was the ability to continue to hold slaves but there were also other parts which included not having the federal government tell each state what they can and cannot do in any manner of governing within the boundaries of its state. The government at its inception left the states the ability to govern in any way that it chose. It was not until much later in history that that right was rescinded.

The people participating in the Civil War were not bad people. They were people who had a different culture and mindset from their counterparts in the north or south. Whether they wore gray or blue, they fought for the state they lived in and many for what they believed in.

scrubbedexpat099

You could write books on this, oops people have.

To be fair there has been some good stuff on TV, Ken Burns comes to mind.