Rev. Rye Wrote:My problem is with the Manichean outlook endemic to both sides of the controversy: I mean, the whitewashed view of history by many of those who support the monuments s pretty clear. The thing I've spent all this time arguing against is that a lot of us seem to have decided to react to that ideology not by looking at the nuances that might make their legacies complex, but by taking the old paradigm and simply inverting the places of the heroes and villains.
Personally, I'd like to think that they can be reclaimed by history buffs, BUT, and this has proven to be a much bigger but than I previously assumed, we evidently haven't reached the point where we can do that yet, and both sides of the argument are demonstrating this.
In Russia there is a park filled with statues moved from their original places. It's quite poignant. They were moved because they no longer represent what Russia is about (they're mostly communist monuments and the like). In what way is nuance lost if a monument to a confederate general, usually erected with the political motivation to support white supremacy, is moved from the public square to a confederate graveyard or museum? I believe a great deal of much-needed and long overdue nuance would be gained from such a project.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.
