SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The President of the University of Texas at Austin released a letter regarding the removal of statues on the campus.
[...] The University of Texas at Austin is a public educational and research institution, first and foremost. The historical and cultural significance of the Confederate statues on our campus — and the connections that individuals have with them — are severely compromised by what they symbolize. Erected during the period of Jim Crow laws and segregation, the statues represent the subjugation of African Americans. That remains true today for white supremacists who use them to symbolize hatred and bigotry.
The University of Texas at Austin has a duty to preserve and study history. But our duty also compels us to acknowledge that those parts of our history that run counter to the university's core values, the values of our state and the enduring values of our nation do not belong on pedestals in the heart of the Forty Acres.
The issue isn't a new one, they first looked into the issue in 2015, and had a wide range of options including effectively turning the mall into an open air museum, which they eventually decided against. Should the statues be relocated from their historical context just because of the attitudes and behaviour of noisy minorities? (Your humble editor cannot forget the local riots when a historical but hostile-themed statue was relocated.)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:10PM (4 children)
It would be interesting if someone could point to other examples of statues put up to celebrate the losing side of a war.
Hitler? Goering? Goebbels? In Germany??
Doesn't happen.
Now, if there was a historical marker alongside the statue, which said when and where it was originally erected and when and why it was moved, THAT would give it historical context.
Historian James Loewen spoke with Pacifica Radio host Mitch Jeserich about this topic last week.
It's a 22MB MP3, available indefinitely. [kpfa.org]
Their talk is 08:10 - 56:20.
At 19:10 - 23:15, there is a particularly good portion about States Rights and how the Confederacy was -not- in favor of those (e.g. Pennsylvania's right to ignore the Fugitive Slave Act).
Very informative about the timing (1890 - 1940) of the surge in Confederate statuary and the rise in racism/segregation/Jim Crow in USA.
(Plessy v Ferguson was handed down in 1896.)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:18PM (2 children)
I don't think supporters of the statues will see this bit of reason, they are emotionally impacted and feel like "whites" are under attack everywhere.
I hope we're seeing the dying throws of racism in the US. It will always be around, no country has ever eliminated it, but I'm given hope by the number of racists who truly are trying hard to not be. It would go faster if they were capable of realizing that they're in a transition phase and can't just claim they are suddenly different.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:51PM (1 child)
Good word.
Even better when you spell it correctly.
http://www.google.com/search?q=throes [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:37PM
I'm sick today, I'm glad there weren't any worse typos :D
(Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Tuesday August 22 2017, @08:12PM
If you read the comment chain again, you will find the person I'm responding to makes the case that destroying these historic artifacts is okay and that their only possible function is to "celebrate" the depicted persons. I specifically addressed these two points.
I'm not addressing the subject of how they should be preserved.