Steve_

Whut?

Confederate Monuments: Dozens Across South Have Been Removed or Renamed - NBC News

Couldn't believe that. But it's true.

mikelincs

It's because, in many people's eyes, the confederacy is seen as a symbol of racism and support of slavery, and also white supremacy which is raising it's head again.

ChocolateBabz

Just the other week...

http://http://www.chron.com/houston/article/Armed-protesters-at-Hermann-Park-protest-statue-11210583.php

Rete

I'm a proud northern now living in the bowels of the south in Mississippi. My son-in-law is a dyed in the wool southern and while he displays the confederate flag on occasion, he is anti-slavery and has taught his sons about the evils of slavery both then and now worldwide.

I'm against the removal of the statutes and the confederate monuments. It was a tragic period in US history but to remove the reminders of that era is like saying it never happened. It is not just a matter of not honoring certain men or moments in the southern campaign. It was a war, regardless of the reasons for it and yes, slavery was not the primary reason for the war but many other more mercenary reasons. Men fought on both sides on US soil. Some zealously believed in what they were fighting for. Do we negate their sacrifice by removing physical reminders of the war they fought in?

Are they now going to remove Gettysburg from federal protection. It is a monument to the casualties of the Civil War. I recently toured the last home of Jefferson Davis on the Gulf Coast here in Mississippi. Do we close that as it is a monument to a man who lead the seceded states. What about the Tomb of the Unknown Confederate Solider on his property? Do we remove that as well because it was holds the body of a soldier for "fought on the wrong side"?

Americans need to be reminded of one of the reasons why that war was fought. The need for the abolishment of slavery should be the reason why these monuments should still exist.

It is far to easy for young people to not learn history and by not learning, they are doomed to repeat it.

dc koop

The only reason anyone fought for the south was to defend the system of slavery. There was no other reason.
A great number of the men who fought for the south weren't much better off than the black people but being ignorant and uneducated they were, as has happened so many times in other wars led to believe that they were fighting for something worthwhile instead of the usual reason, that is...... to maintain the status quo of the wealthy and privileged

caretaker

This could go on for some time:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/video...c3f_video.html

ian-mstm

The north subjugated almost every native tribe that existed on this continent. Are you suggesting that they were somehow morally superior than those in the south simply because they didn't call it slavery? How convenient.

Ian

dc koop

Not suggesting anything except that those who fought for the Confederacy were fighting for the perpetuation of slavery. They weren't fighting to protect their culture or ways of life which varied from those of the North. Presidents Buchanan and Lincoln had no issues with the ways of the south except for the system of slavery which they did have an issue with.

As for subjugation that's another subject for another discussion. Included could be the native Indian tribes of Canada, The Australian aborigines , the Zulus, the New Zealand Maoris and so on.

zzrmark

And yet the Swastika is almost entirely associated with Nazi Germany and frowned upon by many educated persons who should know better. Should we start emblazoning buildings with it again, after all it had been a symbol of peace for many centuries prior to it's use for little more than a decade by the Nazis?
I'm all for not sweeping history under the carpet but are these Confederacy symbols not better located in less prominent places than the front of local court buildings?

caretaker

If the neo-nazis hadn't adopted the stars and bars it might still be tolerated, things change. If we took down the statue of every famous person who was a villain they would be thinned out pretty well. We name our streets and schools after some of them. I'm against re-writing or altering history, and am on the fence over statues. In former Warsaw Pact countries, some Soviet monuments have been relocated to museum/parks, where they are still accessible, and safer from vandals. That's one compromise.

Leslie

They belong in museums.

dc koop

They could all be relocated in a park dedicated to southern history and a place for adults and children to visit and learn of the history of their States. They should also be treated with respect and care taken not to expose them to vandalism no matter what they symbolize

In this day and age I wouldn't think of lecturing a southerner on the slavery and the civil war. Not all southerners see them as symbols of slavery but a part of their history. I might have some difficulty understanding the way they think but it has to be respected nevertheless just as anyone else's view has to be respected

Steve_

Everyone seems to have missed the point as to why I posted this, her father literally was a Confederate soldier. He was born in 1841. That completely boggled my mind. I couldn't give a toss about Confederate monuments.

I know back in ye olde days it was quite common for a rich widow/widower to shack up with a youngster, because the youngster could look after them and the youngster wanted the money (no social security back then) but still, it's 2017. I didn't realize having a parent who fought in the Civil War was still an option.

robin1234

I'll often open and read an article, but I'm much less inclined to watch a video.

I just watched this one, interesting. Her father was 82 when she was born. Does that ever happen now - a man of 81 or 82 conceives a child?

Steve_

Gaston Glock, Gun Maker 84, 'Expecting Baby With Bride Kathrin, 33' | HuffPost UK

Heart-warming isn't it.

Then read this: Glock Family Goes Down, Guns Blazing