Regarding The Flap Over Confederate Statues

[Clueless Morgan]

You can learn about the history without having to memorialize it.

Absolutely.  There are some things worth memorializing; those things do not include traitors who fought a war to maintain slavery.  Fuck that shit.  And the memorials we do choose to have should not be confused with history itself or the act of learning it.

You can honor the fallen and respect the soldiers who fought on both sides, without having to memorialize the traitors.

I don't hear anyone crying about how we'll all forget 9/11 because there are no statues of the hijackers anywhere.  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Mister Agenda]

If we only had monuments to perfect people there would be no monuments.

Is there not any space in your mind between 'traitorous white supremacist rebel who needlessly helped get a bunch of Americans killed' and 'perfect'?

[A Theist]

Would you be willing to pay for their maintenance?

To my point then when you replied to CJ...

"Statues on public property are maintained by tax dollars along with everything else on the property."

Since you expressed concern about tax dollars being spent to maintain statues on public property does that include all statues of every kind? That's all I'm asking. Set aside who was a slave holder or if MLK opposed gays. That's not the point I'm making or the question I'm asking.

[Mister Agenda]

Yeah. I've stated right along that I'm only concerned with those on property maintained by taxpayer money.

That's what I was asking you dumb fuck when you replied to CJ,

"Statues on public property are maintained by tax dollars along with everything else on the property."

Since you're concerned over maintaining statues and monuments with taxpayers' money are you suggesting then that all statues and monuments of every kind on public property that are funded by taxpayers be removed....and as CJ pointed out to you will those taxpayer funded statues and monuments include the removal of those that are dedicated to MLK, Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln?

I'm wondering how anyone could possibly conclude that the statue's maintenance in the public square being paid for by taxpayers is the ONLY reason GS has a problem with confederate statues on the public square. How is it not glaringly obvious that he's objection is to CONFEDERATE monuments being maintained by taxpayer funds? There's nothing inconsistent about thinking monuments to traitors to the USA shouldn't be maintained at the expense of US taxpayers.

---

I'm personally against the statue removal.  I'd also be against the removal of Hitler statues in Berlin.  I mean. . . you don't want to have too many of them, but seeing how important figures in history looked is interesting and educational.

This shit about things representing ideas is bullshit.  So General Lee was a slaveholder.  His statue isn't enslaving anyone, and its existence doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of slavery.  He was an important player in American history, and I see no problem with his image being displayed.  Now, I wouldn't call the park, "Southern Freedom Memorial Park" or something, but that's a different issue.

There are no monuments to Hitler in Berlin.

[TheBeardedDude]

Would you be willing to pay for their maintenance?

To my point then when you replied to CJ...

"Statues on public property are maintained by tax dollars along with everything else on the property."

Since you expressed concern about tax dollars being spent to maintain statues on public property does that include all statues of every kind? That's all I'm asking. Set aside who was a slave holder or if MLK opposed gays. That's not the point I'm making or the question I'm asking.

As others note, he expressed concern over the use of taxpayer funds to maintain monuments that are monuments to traitors (the confederacy) and have been used as symbols for racist and bigoted ideologies 

Man, you must be a master-builder of Scarecrows

[Homeless Nutter]

I'm personally against the statue removal.  I'd also be against the removal of Hitler statues in Berlin.  I mean. . . you don't want to have too many of them, but seeing how important figures in history looked is interesting and educational.

Are you serious? What a ridiculous argument...

First of all - what does that matter what Hitler looked like? How is that "educational"? How does it impart any lesson on people?

Secondly - there are no Hitler statues anywhere and yet everybody knows what he looked like anyway. He's about as universally recognizable, as Mickey Mouse. On the other hand - who (besides some racist rednecks in South Carolina) can tell apart Robert E. Lee from any other old, bearded c*cksucker? How is that possible? Maybe there are more effective ways to show what historical a**holes looked like, than a deteriorating chunk of concrete in some random place, only local populations of pigeons and racist scumbags ever pay attention to? Food for thought...

This shit about things representing ideas is bullshit.

Why? Because you don't understand symbolism, or the general purpose and meaning of memorials? Tell me this - where are all the King George III statues in USA? What - would it not be "interesting and educational" to see what he looked like?

 So General Lee was a slaveholder.  His statue isn't enslaving anyone,

LOL... WTF?... What does that even mean? Are you high, or trolling? The statue of a murderer won't kill anybody, but would you like your town to be decorated with depictions of John Wayne Gacy, or Charles Manson? Most statues of Lee were erected specifically in order to remind black people of slavery and the fact, that a large proportion of Americans would like to see them back in chains.

and its existence doesn't necessarily imply endorsement of slavery.

Oh, it doesn't "necessarily" imply endorsement of slavery? What does it imply, then? In pretty much all modern cultures having a statue made in your likeness is considered an honor and a mark of respect - just because you missed that lesson in school doesn't make it any less of a fact. That's why, when tyrants are overthrown, their statues - along with all other symbols of their regimes - are torn down.

Yes - it does imply endorsement of slavery, especially if you consider when and why those statues were erected. Which is something you should have learned by now, but I guess you couldn't because... err... there are no statues to teach you that...(???)

 He was an important player in American history, and I see no problem with his image being displayed.[...]

He was a traitor and a loser. What's the point of displaying him, especially without any context? You can look him up on Wikipedia, or a history textbook - that should be more than enough of an acknowledgement of his "importance". Most "important players in history" don't have statues, especially if they were wrong and they lost.

[Amarok]

Wait stop! According to Benny the statue didn't kill millions of people. And was not placed there to intimidate the general populous . So you should continue to pay for an object honoring a man who probably killed someone you were related too. And is not about millions he killed .

[Minimalist]

There are no monuments to Hitler in Berlin.

That's only because he lost.   Oh.  Robert E Lee lost too.

[Amarok]

So benny with us putting a statue honoring bin laden right on the twin towers site. With a depiction of the twin towers burning . And people plummeting to their deaths . Oh and you Ahole and Neo get to pay for it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

What does it take to maintain a statue? It's not as if they do very much. Maybe someone coming around once a week to wash the shit and graffiti off.

How much would you be willing to pay to maintain a statue inspired by, promoted by, and funded by the Klu Klux Klan? The vast majority of these statues were put up between 1890 and 1920, the heyday of the Klan, and they were very proud of the contribution they made to Jim Crow. Do you approve of such things on government property or do you think we don't need that kind of hate/propaganda on publicly owned land?

---

Would you be willing to pay for their maintenance?

To my point then when you replied to CJ...

"Statues on public property are maintained by tax dollars along with everything else on the property."

Since you expressed concern about tax dollars being spent to maintain statues on public property does that include all statues of every kind? That's all I'm asking. Set aside who was a slave holder or if MLK opposed gays. That's not the point I'm making or the question I'm asking.

Sorry, Drano-breath, you're time is up.