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: 4, Insightful) by Entropy on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:21PM (4 children)
Well, we committed treason against the British empire right? So there's a long standing history of treason being possibly a good thing. How about Chelsea Manning's Treason?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rcamera on Tuesday August 22 2017, @07:44PM (3 children)
manning was found guilty and served time in a military prison until her sentence was commuted. are you suggesting his actions weren't treason? i might agree, but i'm not a member of that particular military tribunal, so my opinion is worth nothing - the same as yours.
/* no comment */
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:36AM
Actually it was established in the middle ages that as long as you believed you were following the legitimate monarch (government), it wasn't treason. That's why you had things like Henry Tudor back dating his crowning so he could attain the followers of Richard the 3rd with treason.
(Score: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday August 23 2017, @03:29PM (1 child)
Except in this case, where for some reason the defeated were allowed to rewrite history as if they had won anyway. Probably because - and this is a dirty secret - the northerners were and are just as racist.
If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @09:50PM
Wow. Projection much?