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: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:19PM (6 children)
Your ignorance of Jefferson Davis is showing.
He was a US Congressman, US Secretary of War, and US Senator.
Both he and Lee were traitors and -that- is what should go at the top of every bio about them/plaque mentioning them.
...and, yes, where someone is considered significant enough to have a statue of him/her erected, there should be a historical marker beside that saying WHY that person was significant.
...and stop putting up statues to folks on the losing side of a war.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday August 22 2017, @09:56PM (5 children)
I mean, by that reasoning George Washington and the rest of the Founding Fathers were traitors, too. Difference is, they won.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Troll) by realDonaldTrump on Tuesday August 22 2017, @10:26PM (1 child)
They were traitors, they won, and it was a wonderful, wonderful thing. Which the alt-left wants us to erase. They want us to forget that a traitor can win hugely and do great things for a country. 🇺🇸
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @12:24AM
That is so true [google.com], mein Fuhrer! [google.com]
Sieg Heil! [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 22 2017, @11:10PM (2 children)
George Washington, et al., were about less Authoritarianism[1] in government.
Slavery is all about Authoritarianism/oppression.
By the 1860s, it was way past time for civilized countries to dump that anachronism, as they had dumped monarchy.[2]
...and the Founding Fathers knew full well what the consequences of failure would be. [google.com]
[1] OK, so we wound up with a bunch of rich guys in charge and well over half the population disenfranchised.
Hey, everything is relative.
...and a lot of that stuff has seen major improvements in the ensuing years.
[2] In the nutty-as-a-fruitcake department, The Orange Clown is giving King George III a run for his money for the top spot.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:45AM
George Washington was a land developer who was all about stealing land from savages and getting rich. In 1763, the tyrant said that all his subjects were equal and to stop stealing land. (Not to mention letting those awful Papists hold office), which upset many colonists who thought that they had a God given right to that land that was occupied by heathen savages.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday August 23 2017, @04:02PM
I mean, Italy was still a monarchy until slightly after the end of WWII (Victor Emmanuel III eventually dismissed Mussolini). And Britain is still debatably one. Several European countries like Belgium, Norway, and Montenegro had kings during WWII (or at least did until Germany invaded them).
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"