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: 2) by stretch611 on Tuesday August 22 2017, @11:46PM (2 children)
And of course, back then, like now, the affluent had the time to become the politicians because, well, ofc, the working man had to work for a living.
So the people writing these statements were the wealthy plantation owners that loved slavery because it was hugely profitable.
As with most wars, the enlisted men during the civil war were not the wealthy... yet they fought anyway. Do you think the average soldier did so to protect slavery? I doubt it, they weren't making any money off of it. Many of them did so to protect their state's sovereign rights. (or because they had little choice; i.e. go and fight for us or die now)
I am not saying that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, but to act as it was the only thing is ignorant as hell.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @01:02PM (1 child)
So Johnny Reb didn't have the free time to philosophize about the moral implications of slavery, but did have time to contemplate the nature of states' rights vs. fed government. I think I understand why your user name is stretch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 23 2017, @06:39PM
fair point, but i think you can imagine what the common thought process was like. it's just like now. the newspaper told them stories about northern aggression (substitute iraq, north korea, whatever other BS) and control and they wanted to fight for their independence/defend their homeland. It would have been pretty easy to sell the protection of slavery to someone who might have job/social competition otherwise. that's what happened once they were freed and what fueled the social unrest like jim crow and the kkk. fighting amoungst the poor over the scraps from the fat cats who had pitted them against each other. now we're supposed to demonize one side and chant together like assimilated drones or fight over it like hyenas? false choice, man!