jump to last post 1-37 of 37 discussions (242 posts)

Should relics of slavery be displayed for historical preservation

  1. dianetrotter profile image75
    dianetrotterposted 2 months ago

    Condoleeza Rice said symbols of confederacy, the flag and statutes, should be displayed to remind us of the injustice that took place.  Those whose ancestors participated in the confederacy consider them symbols of their ancestors and historical pride.

    Should there be ropes hanging from trees, display of colored only/white only signs, statutes of slaves and other relics to remind us of this period of time.

    What is the most positive thing to do for all mankind?

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Diane, the current riots in Charlottesville are not far from where I live, so I have been following them closely.

      I'll ask you a few questions in return: Is a statue of Robert E. Lee a monument to southern history, a symbol of racism or a combination of both?

      Should we allow monuments of southern Civil War generals who did not own slaves to stay up and take down the ones who did? Or should we take all of them down?

      Personally, I find the confederate flag in a courthouse more offensive than a statue of a general. I'm just can't make up my mind yet if a statue of Lee should be taken down or left up for the sake of history.

      1. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Maybe we should take them all down.  I took school kids to Washington, DC, in  2005.  We went to Mt. Vernon.  It made a great impact on the several Black kids that were with me.  Most of the kids were Hispanic and a few were white.

        The slave shacks were horrible, with the beds lined up to stack as many in as possible.  We saw the chains and the whips.  We walked the path that they walked from their shacks to the fields where they worked.  We ended up on the back yarad of the mansion which had a beautiful view of Washington, DC, across the Potomac.  I was thinking, the slaves couldn't even swim to freedom.  There was nowhere to go.

        The colored fountain/white fountain/colored bathroom/white bathroom/no n*gg*rs/ and other symbols are engraved in my head.  I don't let them make me hate anybody.

        The symbols don't bother me.  What does both me is the vitriolic speech of people, regardless of race, who feel that American is theirs and others should leave.

        As a Christian, I say, "All things work for the good of those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose."  Simply stated, horrible things happen that we should learn from and be better people.  Unfortunately, some don't learn.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Diane, I have thought about this issue quite a bit more.

          Maybe the answer lies in the fact that many of these statues stand on public land. Because they are on public land, it's up to the public through their elected representatives to decide if they should stay up or be taken down. The majority rules.

          I'm betting that some southern communities are more likely to keep them standing.

          It would take either a state law or a national law to override the community.

          As another option, some organizations can move them to privately owned land.

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Promise, many people, like 45 don't know "JACK" about history.   Trump has the River of Blood on his gold course and it never even happened.  The emotional attachment is more to romanticize and fantasize whatever their ideology is.

            If people could love (not tolerate) people for who they are, we wouldn't need statues to remind us of anything.  If the Confederacy has the statues of Lee and Jackson, what at the relics that former slaves have?  They would be very offensive and be considered race bait.

            America is a nation of many people(s) from many places.  We all made a contribution.  Many of my people lost their lives in the belly of the ships on the way over.  I'm sure that was better than slavery.  if they had had a choice, I'm sured that would have stayed where in whatever place they were kidnapped from.

            I remember it but I will not let it destroy me.

        2. Ghost WriterTN profile image76
          Ghost WriterTNposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          Those who erase history are those that will eventually uneducate those that need the most education. By that standard all history will be erased. No individual, past or present is a saint. Will you also erase the fact that black tribesman sold thier own into slavery? All these lessons must be learned and heeded by society. I hope you have a wonderful day!

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            Hi Ghost!

            Since we've already discussed here, no one else should read....unless you choose to do so!

            Those who erase history are those that will eventually uneducate those that need the most education. By that standard all history will be erased.

            Reply:  We have already discussed here that history was sanitized to omit slavery.  I was in high school before I started learning about slavery.  All I knew is colored people were not to ingratiate themselves on white people by drinking from their fountains, going to their bathrooms and sitting on the back of the bus.  We never knew this was the result of slavery.

            No individual, past or present is a saint.

            Reply:  No one is perfect.  People who have accepted Christ are called "saints."

            Will you also erase the fact that black tribesman sold thier own into slavery?

            Reply:  Since slavery has not been in history books, there was no need to talk about people on the other end of the transaction.

            All these lessons must be learned and heeded by society. I hope you have a wonderful day!

            Reply:  Why don't you stick around and read some of the other comments.  It puts what I said in perspective.  I did read your article!

            Thank you for commenting!

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      It cannot be a positive to hide our head in the sand and pretend that nothing happened - that slavery did not exist.  No, let those monuments and momentos remain, reminding us of a dark time in our past, that we never, ever repeat it.

      Germany used to require school children to visit a concentration camp.  Don't know if they still do, but it sounded (and still sounds) like a great idea.  Never, ever, allow such actions again.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Well said.

      2. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Great points Wilderness!

      3. Jean Bakula profile image93
        Jean Bakulaposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        We can't pretend the Civil War and slavery didn't exist. Should we be like the old USSR and keep removing monuments to history? But at some point certain groups have to get over it and move on. I think it is right that Confederate flags should not be displayed. A statue of Robert E. Lee? He was respected in the North too, he was even asked to be the Union General, but chose to fight for VA because he was born there and had family there.

        That War was a terrible time in America's history, and I doubt that those who fought and died in it would still want us to keep fighting it. My Dad was in the Navy in the Korean War, but he and my Mom lived out of Charleston, and she said even then (early 1950s) people acted like the Civil War was still being fought. That was already more than 100 years later. None of those generations of mine or your families, or the generation before, had slaves either.

        Can't we just honor our heritage and come together? We need to plan for the future and not get stuck in the past. Everyone except the Native Americans are immigrants. That mix of people is what made America great. Reviving old grudges that no surviving Americans took part in has no place here.

        1. jo miller profile image85
          jo millerposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Robert E. Lee took up arms against our country in support of slavery.  He was not punished for his behavior after the war and I believe that was fitting.  That helped bring the country together; however, I see no reason for this country, during the Civil Rights era no less, to erect monuments to him.   Those monuments were put up by the good citizens of Charlottesville during that era.  Now the good citizens of that city have voted to take it down.  And they have the right to do that.  I applaud their decision.

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            It was interesting to hear that the monument wa erected in the 1920s.

          2. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Was he defending slavery, the South, states' rights or a combination of all three?

            1. jo miller profile image85
              jo millerposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Well, when the rights the states wanted were to have slaves, I see little difference.  I do think Lee was conflicted about his decision and had a great allegiance to his homeland.  The Union also wanted him as a general and he made the wrong choice.  He was, however we look at it, complicit in supporting slavery and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Americans.  Lets don't honor that.

        2. abwilliams profile image84
          abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          My apologies Jean, I responded to Jo and failed to read your comment. I repeated many of the things you had already stated.

      4. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Such questions and answers are complex and deep but really they should apply across all examples of human inhumanity.
        The only factor that will bring improvement for the future is the message that gets told and told, accepted and accepted; honestly, completely, without hiding behind "convenient untruths."
        When we stop lying to our selves and the children - then those relics and monuments can mean something useful.
        Yes, I hear someone about to retort: "This guy is an outside. What does he know about it?"  Well, we are talking about a phenomenon of barbarity which can raise its ugly head across the human family.  Not one of us can step back and say, "it's got nothing to do with me."
        We each have to answer our own questions: "Where do I stand?"

        1. dianetrotter profile image75
          dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Amen!  Long time Jonny!

      5. rhamson profile image78
        rhamsonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        As with everything new age there is a train of thought that presenting subjects that were disdainful should be on a tact of feeling good. Yes the Civil War happened but we overcame seems to be the idea trumpeted by those who would like it to be more of a feel good experience. The statues that remain as a reminder have a stark contrast to that whelm of thinking. I read something that said if people want to know about the Civil War they should read about it in books and not on statues. I have to ask how well has that worked for us now as educators choose what is important and what to throw away. The statues to some is a horrible reminder of what still exists to many. The conflict brought to light a serious flaw in the character of the new world that people could be dehumanized and treated as cattle for the profit of others. We still suffer from that thinking that people can be used for others profit only now we have expanded the base we subjugate. Should the statues remain? Society will decide but what that society has become should be the more pertinent question.

        1. abwilliams profile image84
          abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Well stated rhamson, worth reflecting on.

    3. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      There is a great deal of legitimate history surrounding the Confederacy and its role in the Civil War. I do not want to give honor to the concept of secession or those that fought so passionately to maintain the "Southern Way of Live" which included human bondage.

      These people that are interested could display the statues of their heroes and such on private property or have it available for museum exhibits.

    4. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Dianne, Do you equate statues of Confederate soldiers with those other symbols you mention? Do you think there is a significant segment of people of color that equate the two?

      GA

      1. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Hi Dianne, Do you equate statues of Confederate soldiers with those other symbols you mention? Interesting question

        It depends on what is valued.  Do I value the efforts of someone (confederate army) to keep my people enslaved? No!
        Do I value the Jim Crow laws meant to dehumanize us? No!

        Is all of the information accurate? Yes!

        Do you think there is a significant segment of people of color that equate the two?

        When doing a survey, if they were rated 1-10, I would slavery as far worse than having to colored bathrooms and drink from colored fountains.  This is actually over simplistic.

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Diane, It looks like you hedged on your answer, let me ask another way.

          I don't think racism and slavery are one issue. Of course slavery is the ultimate racism, but we also have racism without slavery. That is why I asked if you saw the differing symbols you mentioned as standing for the same thing.

          If you turned a corner and saw a sign saying "whites only," or an art piece depicting a lynching noose, I suspect you might be offended by such an obvious sign of racism. Would you have the same reaction to coming upon a statue of a Civil War military hero from the South? Do both symbolize the same thing in your mind?

          You speak of what is valued. What if the intent of the statue was to recognize a military hero for the same reasons we honor post-Civil War military heroes - do your values deny that possibility because it is a hero of the South?

          GA

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            GA I think what makes it difficult for me is that I have not lived through slavery.  I am sorting through records to put my family tree together.  As I do that I think about how brutally and inhumanly they were treated but I can only imagine what it was like.  I'm sure whatever I imagine is not nearly what it was like.

            I personally experienced the dehumanization of the "white only/colored" only."  During that time, we saw KKK do horrible things openly.  Those not in garb daily called us the "n" world, made threats, and spat on us.  We often crossed the street to avoid trouble and were sometimes chased.  So I am able to give testimony about it.

            I'm not trying to hedge.  I'm not angry about any of it.  I don't necessarily feel one way or the other about removing statues of confederate leaders.

            My problem is with the vitriol and mindset of people who say that "Black people can't take their places."  I don't even think they know what it means for us to "take their places."  I would really like for them to explain that.

            I looked to see if BLM was there Saturday and was glad I was not able to recognize a large group.  I media focused in on antifa until I heard them discussed on social media.  I know I'm straying but I'm getting frustrated about what I'm hearing from everywhere.  Too much social media!

            Uh, what was your question?  I can't answer it!

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              "My problem is with the vitriol and mindset of people who say that "Black people can't take their places."  I don't even think they know what it means for us to "take their places."  I would really like for them to explain that."

              I would like to know what this is supposed to mean as well.

              1. dianetrotter profile image75
                dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                It sounds like they want us to be subservient, work for little or nothing, and treated in a way that makes them feel superior.

                1. Credence2 profile image84
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Are they intimidated with upcoming demographic trends? I don't know what so many are nervous about, their groups have always had the money, power and prestige. It is going to take more than just a superiority in numbers by other groups to change that advantage anytime soon, so why are they whining?

                  1. dianetrotter profile image75
                    dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    You are so right.

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image81
                    Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    You are making the very mistakes you put on others.

                    This is the difficulty discussing things with you Credence, you often slip into the "all you conservatives" or "all you whites", in your responses, you read into things that aren't there just because you see me as white first, or conservative first, just go look back at your many responses.

                    As I have tried to point out on here, there is no large unified group of whites. The majority of whites have never known the 'elite' or even 'upper middle class privileges' you think 'we' take for granted.   There always were, and always have been, more poor whites than the total amount of blacks in this country.

                    Yes, until the 70s blacks suffered from laws and divisions in society based on race.  And yes there are extremists, violent extremists, on all sides, of all races, and they EQUALLY must be treated as such in the eyes of the law and those who serve and uphold it.

                    That goes for BLM, Antifa, Anarchists, White Supremacists, no one gets a pass, as soon as they start chanting 'kill blacks', 'kill cops', and acting out  violently they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and pursued with the vigilance by our law enforcement that they reserve for drug users and sellers today.

                    When the government declares war on the terrorists and extremists harbored among us, we might reverse the growing trend of murders and violent mobs taking to the streets.

                    Police/DEA/SWAT teams can raid a home based on suspicion of drugs being present on the premises (as if there were ever a real threat from people smoking pot or growing a few plants, not that I have or want to, but I have the common sense to know what is a threat to the life and liberty of others, and what is not) ... maybe we should focus a little less on that, and a little more on those intent to bringing harm to others based on race or religion.

                    The biggest tragedy now is all those focused on looking back, rather than looking forward.  You can't move forward towards bigger and better things if you are focused on and angry over the past.   Doubly so when they aren't 'crimes' that were done against you personally, but some abstract injustice that you have no idea of knowing from experience, and that did not impact you or your parents directly.

                    My Grandfather owned a company on Cape Cod which had been partly responsible for building the Cape Cod Canal, and many of the public schools and government buildings, the company owned large sums of land back when land wasn't worth a great deal.

                    All of it was lost before I was born, he passed away before my father and his brothers could inherit it and keep it going.  Had things gone slightly differently perhaps I could have been one of the 'elites' who get to sit around in judgement of others in my secure, well educated, well insulated circle/society.

                    If I dwell on that, or if my father had dwelt on that, we damned sure would be in much worse shape than we are today, had we accepted past failures, or injustices perceived or real, done in the past, on ancestors that are no longer alive.

            2. GA Anderson profile image83
              GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              Hi Diane, I did try to follow your "straying," and if I got it right, It appears that you don't see those differing symbols as meaning the same thing. Which I think is a good perspective, and not just because that is how I see it too.

              To my mind, one is only about racism, (the signs and other stuff), and the other, (the statues), is about something else -  but that "something else" also includes aspects of racism. That makes a difference to me. That is only my opinion, and it may not be a valid one for someone of color, even if I think it should be.

              Obviously I am against removing the statues. I think it is a damaging PC effort to push a damaging agenda. As unsupportable as it is, and as callous as it sounds, I think those pushing for their removal should get a grip - everything isn't about racism. Whether they think so or not.

              GA

              1. dianetrotter profile image75
                dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                It's good when all of us are able to express our opinions and hear those of others.  I have a sister that dwells on the past as she sees it and is very bitter.  I told her that she is going to die alone.  I was her first target for her anxiety.  Then it spread to other family members.  She has unfriended most of the people she knows on Facebook.  People where she lives hate to see her coming. 

                The past, good or bad, must be used to do positive things.  What agenda do you think is being pushed?

    5. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Who was the "other" group in Charlottesville?  Today 45 talked about the people who were there to peacefully protest removal of the statute.  I didn't see those clips.  If someone has clips or pics,  please give me a look.

      Today 45 discussed some of the points made here about George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

      I didn't see anyone giving a speech about keeping the statue.  All I heard was "blood and soil", "you will not not replace us", etc.

      In Durham, a group took it upon themselves to pull down a statue.  That was WRONG!  The process for removal should be respected and followed.

      I think we are going to have a rough weekend.

    6. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      University of Nevada student explained why he was there:

      "I came to this march for the message that white European culture has a right to be here just like every other culture," Cvjetanovic told KTVN-TV. "It is not perfect. There are flaws to it, of course. However, I do believe that the replacement of the statue will be the slow replacement of white heritage within the U.S. and the people who fought and defended and built their homeland. Robert E. Lee is a great example of that. He wasn't a perfect man, but I want to honor and respect what he stood for during his time."

      I'd love to understand
      1.  How is European culture being threatened?
      2.  Replacement will be the slow replacement of white heritage - how?
      3.  What is slow replacement of people who fought and defended and built their homeland?

      To me it sounds like the European race card.  My opinion.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I have always wondered about this. Who is qualified to provide an answer? I don't really think that those that promulgate all this stuff really know......

        1. dianetrotter profile image75
          dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Credence, I keep asking because I really want to know these things.  That's how you have a productive convo.  The thing about "European" is quite worrisome.

          1.  People here are supposed to be American.
          2.  People left Europe for a reason.
          3.  Native Americans, who were actually here and had reason to be concerned, have been banished to reservations.
          4.  What is keeping Europeans from promoting their culture?
          5.  In school I studied 4 years of European music history.  African and Latino music were considered art/folk music.

          Side discussion
          As I play classical music on the piano, I think about how the music was used for plot movers on cartoons and movies.  It does seem to be disappearing from the mainstream; however, universities still require it for completion of a degree.  Many cities have an orchestra.

          Interest in classical music is waning because younger people prefer what they hear.  I love teaching classical when I have students who want to develop the discipline.

        2. Ivan Tod profile image59
          Ivan Todposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I think that mans comment concerning his "heritage" was produced by his lack of understanding. The true heritage of white America is one of racist violence, which at the time was the dominant force behind just about everything. Not wanting to lose the memory of that heritage would be a positive for the whole country as it reminds us of how not to be. The problem comes in when some want to keep the memory alive not for what it shows us how not to be, but that how some still wish it was. So, it's not as much his heritage he wants kept alive but rather it is the notion of white superiority that he and those like him wish to keep in the minds of us all. Fine if you happen to be a white supremacist waiting for the big "return" to the old ways. Unfortunately for those people that isn't going to happen. The present day "supremacy" is not one of race but one of financial means...You are either one of the extremely wealthy, or you are just one of the the rest. The whole racism thing is simply something held on to in order to belong and not see the truth of the modern class system. Aside from the super wealthy, we are all looked upon as fodder to fuel said 1%. It's truly not about race anymore, even if race is at the forefront of the news.

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Ivan, thanks for your attempting to grapple at this question..
            ================================================

            lack of understanding. The true heritage of white America is one of racist violence, which at the time was the dominant force behind just about everything.

            I certainly did not want to have to resign myself to coming to that conclusion without further input. Say that it is not so.
            ================================================

            Not wanting to lose the memory of that heritage would be a positive for the whole country as it reminds us of how not to be. The problem comes in when some want to keep the memory alive not for what it shows us how not to be, but that how some still wish it was. So, it's not as much his heritage he wants kept alive but rather it is the notion of white superiority that he and those like him wish to keep in the minds of us all.
            ==============================
            It is a pretty false basis for security, much like building a foundation on a sandbar. If retaining a "heritage' is based upon the oppression of others it was not much of a heritage to begin with. I am reminded by the fervor southerners had for the "Southern Way of Life", which as a part included the subjugation of almost half of its population.
            ====================================
            Fine if you happen to be a white supremacist waiting for the big "return" to the old ways. Unfortunately for those people that isn't going to happen. The present day "supremacy" is not one of race but one of financial means...You are either one of the extremely wealthy, or you are just one of the the rest. The whole racism thing is simply something held on to in order to belong and not see the truth of the modern class system. Aside from the super wealthy, we are all looked upon as fodder to fuel said 1%. It's truly not about race anymore, even if race is at the forefront of the news.
            =======================================
            I have read articles that said that people of this thinking would subordinate everything, religious faith, economic self-interest, etc to promote this idea? As I said before, the real culprits are the money changers, the corporate culture and the oligarchs that benefit by pitting identically poor people against each other based on the relatively insignificant differences between them. This, drawing attention away from them and their attempt to remove the very floor on which we stand. But for those hooked on white supremacy, their hatred and determination blinds them to this fact as well.

            Thanks again, Ivan, I certainly concur.

    7. Ivan Tod profile image59
      Ivan Todposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Hey Diane. As a matter of America showing its true colors (A white country that tolerates multi-culturalism...To an extent) I would say that keeping the old symbols of racism is something we should absolutely keep as they alert the rest of us to the locations of diehard racists and bigots. The real question is whether or not the public displaying of these old symbols are to be considered free speech. Not only that, but the constitution does insure all of us the right to the pursuit of happiness and who is to say what does, should or should not make someone happy? And if someone doesn't like the fact that someone else has a confederate flag in their front yard...As long as that person doesn't accost you or attempt to infringe on your rights...Get over it. Most importantly, the one thing that most American whatevers (Chinese American, African American, American etc..) don't realize is that America doesn't belong to just those who choose to hide or keep their beliefs behind closed doors. It belongs to all of us, at least in modern day theory. At any rate, rights are rights and all rights are supposed to be extended to all citizens, not just to those who choose not to exercise them.
      One last semi-associated thing; President Trump says that all new immigrants are welcome...But they have to speak english BEFORE they come here. In comparison; President Roosevelt basically said the same things as President Trump: To be an American you must speak english and only english, you must be completely American, period. It didn't work for him and I'm sure it won't work for Trump either.

      The ability to perpetually amend the American constitution is the "Frankensteins Monster" of
      the country's forefathers. If they had known that the white race would be overrun 200 years down the road I'm sure they would have made the constitution non-amendable or at least non-applicable to non-whites.

      1. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Hi Ivan!

        If they had foreseen the freeing of slaves maybe they wouldn't have dragged them from their homeland.

        I don't know if there is some explanation below the statues but so many young people are unaware of the particulars of slavery and the Civil War.  I took students to the House of Jazz to see a re-enactment of activity in The Middle Passage.  Kids laughed.  One of the actresses stopped and admonished them.  Watching this was entertainment to them.  They could not relate to the pain, death and travesty.

        With monuments there should be teaching.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image85
          jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Dianne, that is sad:  young people not being taught reality.  I wonder what was behind that laugh.  Could they not believe that fellow human beings were packed into ships like sardines, with 18-inches lying space per individual, for days on end?  Could they not imagine the blisters, pressure sores, the vomitus from sea-sickness, faeces and urine, the fowl air below decks, the whip.....?
          Or is it that they have become so accustomed to the Virtual Image, with make-believe yet life-like characters hunting, chasing, killing, and treating any obstacle to free choice as something (or someone) to be eliminated.  But then we can laugh at it - it's not real, is it? 
          Yet a human person is just like me - human, actual, real, with feelings and needs and hopes and desires and fear.  If we laugh at misfortune we perpetuate it.  It's something of our own doing, surely.
          Regardless of skin colour.  Get those kids away from virtual into the real world.

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            jonny, kids learn about Rosa Parks and Dr. MLK ... during Black History Month.  What I learned about slavery I learned from hearsay and then doing my own research.  There are those who feel there shouldn't be a Black History Month.  So how will ancestors of slaves learn their history.

            Textbook publishers have not covered slavery with accuracy.  A teacher filed a complaint against one of the textbook publishers last year because they stated that slaves were paid.  I have no idea of what else was said.  Slavery was so cruel that those who are able to get it into textbooks consider it either too embarrassing or too painful. 

            Slavery is America's great sin and there are those who would rather just not talk about it.  So it is better to cover only Dr. MLK, Rosa Parks and not get into the nitty gritty.

            So, no!  Students no absolutely nothing about The Middle Passage, the lives of slaves, reasons for Civil War, etc.

            So....they laughed!

    8. Ken Burgess profile image81
      Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      First Condoleezza Rice is one of my favorite 'political figures' of my lifetime.  I had wanted her to run for President, I would have actively campaigned for her.

      To quote what I typed many years ago:
      "After all, when the world looks to America, they look to us because we are the most successful political and economic experiment in human history. That is the true basis of “American Exceptionalism.” The essence of America – that which really unites us — is not ethnicity, or nationality or religion – it is an idea — and what an idea it is: That you can come from humble circumstances and do great things. That it doesn’t matter where you came from but where you are going.

      Ours has never been a narrative of grievance and entitlement. We have not believed that I am doing poorly because you are doing well. We have not been envious of one another and jealous of each other’s success. Ours has been a belief in opportunity and a constant battle – long and hard — to extend the benefits of the American dream to all – without regard to circumstances of birth."

      A rich white male is not going to be able to sell that to the voters who have turned away from the Republican party and who believe it to represent what the Democrats have painted it to be. But Condoleezza Rice can, those are her exact words at the 2012 RNC, and when she speaks them, people will believe her.

      "And on a personal note– a little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham – the most segregated big city in America - her parents can’t take her to a movie theater or a restaurant – but they make her believe that even though she can’t have a hamburger at the Woolworth’s lunch counter – she can be President of the United States and she becomes the Secretary of State
      .
      Yes, America has a way of making the impossible seem inevitable in retrospect. But of course it has never been inevitable – it has taken leadership, courage and an unwavering faith in our values."

      Condoleezza Rice can say those things, can speak to America, and the Democrats will have nowhere to go against her. Certainly they will not be able to say she is anti-women's rights, nor will they be able to say she is out of touch with struggling Americans, and that she would not be able to relate to the hardships they face. She has lived through those hardships, and succeeded in spite of all the obstacles placed before her.

      It's not the message the Republicans need to change so much as the person who is delivering it to America.

      Connie was EXACTLY what America needed, she was the perfect leader for this time, and this divisive point in our history.  She was undoubtably patriotic, a believer in America's exceptionalism, fully understanding and aware of its history and the GOOD it brought to the world, and the OPPORTUNITY it offered to people of any race, color or creed.

      I am not one who would blindly follow anyone, never have been, but she is as close as it comes to a political figure I would support fully, and unwaveringly under just about any circumstances.

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        While far from conservative, I have no problem with Condelezza Rice as a reasonable alternative presented from the other side. She is all that you say and more.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image81
          Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Sadly she will never run, that she backed Romney so openly, is what sold me on him more than anything.  That's as close as I think she will ever get to being involved in D.C. again.

          I voted for Obama VS. McCain, as a Vet you too probably know there is something wrong there, you don't survive five years of being tortured and not have your wires get crossed.  Its an absolute impossibility. 

          I also thought at that time, that once Obama had been in office for a while, enough people would see his true colors, and would not repeat the same mistake, especially if they had someone better to choose from than McCain.

          My problem with Obama was not that he was black, my problem with him was that he didn't believe in America, certainly not the way Condoleezza does, he did not see it as a land of opportunity... he saw it as a global oppressor, and as a oppressor of minorities within.  He sees America as a nation that has to be torn down and rebuilt in a new image (and he is far from alone in this), not as a place where people have more opportunity to achieve their dreams (if they are willing to work, to struggle to achieve them) than any nation that ever existed.

          I was mistaken, I did not know the make up of our nation well enough at that time, and I didn't realize how many voted based on the color of his skin more than the merit of his actions and words.

          Contrary to what you may believe, the fact that 'white' people can't see past the color of a person's skin rubs both ways, just as many 'whites' voted for Obama because of his skin color as those that voted against him because of it... that's just the truth of it, he would never have won re-election without that type of race based support. 

          The economy was still in the gutters, he put tens of thousands of people in FL out of work (shut down NASA programs) a state that could barely be carried by either side he could not afford to alienate like that, but he did.  He alienated police, small business owners .. anyone else would have been faced with a worse defeat than Carter under those circumstances if people weren't over-riding their economic self-interests and convincing themselves they were doing the right thing, not because he was a great President that was leading the country and uniting us all, but because of the color of his skin.

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Sadly she will never run, that she backed Romney so openly, is what sold me on him more than anything.  That's as close as I think she will ever get to being involved in D.C. again.

            I voted for Obama VS. McCain, as a Vet you too probably know there is something wrong there, you don't survive five years of being tortured and not have your wires get crossed.  Its an absolute impossibility. 

            I also thought at that time, that once Obama had been in office for a while, enough people would see his true colors, and would not repeat the same mistake, especially if they had someone better to choose from than McCain.
            ==================================

            I did not have a problem with Obama as a center left, or just left of center candidate. I had and have a lot more respect for John McCain than I did most of the GOP contenders out there.
            ==================
            My problem with Obama was not that he was black, my problem with him was that he didn't believe in America, certainly not the way Condoleezza does, he did not see it as a land of opportunity... he saw it as a global oppressor, and as a oppressor of minorities within.  He sees America as a nation that has to be torn down and rebuilt in a new image (and he is far from alone in this), not as a place where people have more opportunity to achieve their dreams (if they are willing to work, to struggle to achieve them) than any nation that ever existed.
            ====================
            Obama not believe in America? That is another myth that has no basis in fact. Secy Rice is still conservative and as such would not get my immediate support. But, I am sure that she would do well for a Republican. Where do people get this idea that Obama was not for America, how did he get to be President of the United States? I question Trump's desire to remain in the job and fulfil its duties more so. Do you think that as a black man he was going to deny his past and it not influence his point of view? I did not see an administration that was focused on race, but on making sure that the 'little guy' had a fair shake. For someone that saw America as a global oppressor he certainly did not disappoint with the death of Bin Laden. Obama was not tearing anything down, he is more progressive than not, only conservatives see this natural progression as 'tearing down' the system. In your other posts, you make the point that there are a lot of people that are still left out of that dream, from blacks to whites in trailer parks. Happy talk is not enough.
            ==========================
            I was mistaken, I did not know the make up of our nation well enough at that time, and I didn't realize how many voted based on the color of his skin more than the merit of his actions and words.
            ==============================
            Another myth, Ken. I have told those on the Right side of things that people voted for Obama for

            a. The Republicans were blamed for the tsunami of 2008, rightfully so. It hit just prior to the election. Even if the GOP ran Jesus Christ, they could not win.

            b. Progressives vote progressive, why are we going to support someone clearly contrary to our view of things? Conservatives certainly don't.

            c. As for this color/race thing. I voted Democratic all of my life and do not trust the GOP. As they have never given me reason to do so. I don't care what color they are, if you are on the wrong side from my perspective.....Blacks and most minorities are a Democratic constituency, Obama did better than Kerry but those constituencies are clearly Democratic regardless.
            ============================

            Contrary to what you may believe, the fact that 'white' people can't see past the color of a person's skin rubs both ways, just as many 'whites' voted for Obama because of his skin color as those that voted against him because of it... that's just the truth of it, he would never have won re-election without that type of race based support. 
            ================================
            Whites voted for Obama for the reasons that I gave above. The GOP was blamed for the cluster-**** economy. In spite of that, it was the people of color that gave Obama the winning edge. We are determined to continue to make our mark in American politics. You are in error, there were fewer white votes percentage wise for Obama in 2012 than in 2008. You are so sure that any reasonable person would virtually fall in love with the conservative view of things and something bizarre had to happen in order for Obama to win. I don't think so. Why would whites vote for Obama because of his skin color? Romney was a lackluster and weak candidate and that did not help.
            ====================
            The economy was still in the gutters, he put tens of thousands of people in FL out of work (shut down NASA programs) a state that could barely be carried by either side he could not afford to alienate like that, but he did.  He alienated police, small business owners .. anyone else would have been faced with a worse defeat than Carter under those circumstances if people weren't over-riding their economic self-interests and convincing themselves they were doing the right thing, not because he was a great President that was leading the country and uniting us all, but because of the color of his skin.
            ===================

            I do blame him for failing to fund NASA so that our Space Program can continue. There were structural reasons behind the failing American economy that went far beyond Obama or his ability to correct. Handing money to rich people in the hope that they would invest in the economy was certainly not the answer, but was pushed by the GOP. You really have an phobia or obsession with blacks and black skin and I would not have thought this was you.

            Condi Rice is a well educated well versed individual that could bridge the gap between many of us on the left and the conservatives. But, she is not your typical Republican of today, neither her nor Colin Powell (moderates) would work with the Trump administration in any capacity, or with the GOP as they currently are constructed. Trump even asked her to join his team and she said NO.  She is reasonable....

            1. Ken Burgess profile image81
              Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              You are correct, Rice would not work for Trump and that is fully understandable.  Powell would not either, but I would not support him, so I don't see the relevancy.

              Rice doesn't belong working for anyone in government, she is more qualified, more intelligent and more capable than any of them.  That is the reason why I would have worked to help her get elected, probably with more effort than I have put into anything in decades, because there are so very few people of the right moral fiber, experience, and capability for the Presidency out there that when I do come across such a person they are immediately recognizable by me as being such.

              One additional caveat to that, is the background she came from, and the ability to see America as the land of opportunity not despite that so much as because of it.  Her story combined with her leadership ability would have led this nation to a better place than it has ever seen in my lifetime, that I am positive of.

              But I can't blame her for not making the attempt, the road to get there would have been brutal, and then the fight to do what was right while at the job would have likely been an even worse hardship.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4WC7NGzvto

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zNmx7h0sJ8

      2. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        What a beautiful tribute Ken!  I'm sure Condi would love to see this.  I'm following her on Twitter.  I'm going to see if I can get it to her ... if you don't mind.

        Thank you for sharing!

        1. Ken Burgess profile image81
          Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I'm not sure there is a point, but if you think it would be a positive thing for her to see, by all means.

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I think it is always good to give praise when it is deserved.

    9. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      The most positive thing to do is to allow freedom: Freedom to display relics of slavery. Freedom to expose the past. History is interesting. Human beings are interesting. One thing these relics reveal is that they are no longer in use and will never be used again and that we are a much more enlightened people. The past is the past ...
      and the past teaches the present.

      1. Will Apse profile image89
        Will Apseposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Wonderful thing, freedom. A short list.

        Freedom to be a bigot.
        Freedom to distort history.
        Freedom to persuade others that your lies are true.
        Freedom to demonize large sections of the population
        Freedom to crush the dreams of anyone who is not quite like you.

        Any chance of the freedom to get past that stuff?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          what in the world are you talking about? I dare you to explain exactly what then heck you are referring to ----> til then:
          lol lol lol lol !!!!

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I fully understand what he is saying and agree with him.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
              Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              … so enlighten us, specifically, please!

              1. dianetrotter profile image75
                dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Freedom to be a bigot.
                   Freedom to believe Black people are less intellient than white people.

                   Freedom to say every Black person that gets killed deserves it.  Good examples:  Trayvon Martin and others.  I'm not including those who were caught committing a crime.  Those who did absolutely nothing to be killed.
                   Freedom to say President Obama and Michelle were baboons.

                Freedom to distort history.
                   Freedom to say there was no holocaust.  Freedom to say slaveowners did slaves a favor. 

                Freedom to persuade others that your lies are true.

                  See all of the above

                Freedom to demonize large sections of the population

                  Freedom to lie about groups of people and people buy it hook, line and sinker because they are bigoted.
                   Freedom to say Black people are violent.
                   freedom to say that people can't get jobs because of immigrants.

                Freedom to crush the dreams of anyone who is not quite like you.
                   See all of the above

                Any chance of the freedom to get past that stuff?

                   It all starts in the heart Will.  You are most perceptive.  Each person has to make a decision.  If you don't think there is a problem, then there is nothing to solve.

                1. Will Apse profile image89
                  Will Apseposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  I think you probably nailed it, Diane.

    10. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      People are saying "They are trying to take away our culture." 

      Can someone explain who "they" are?

      and

      What is the "our culture" that is in danger?

      Maybe if people communicate their concerns more explicitly it will be easier to have a productive discussion.

      1. Ewent profile image81
        Ewentposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        Diane, "They" are the people who never take accountability for their own actions because they were never taught the definition of the word "honor." In their "culture," honor is being a trigger happy, cammo wearing bully. Who would tolerate that in a reasonable society?

        Furthermore, as any professional psychiatrist would tell you, people who cannot be reasoned with are mentally unbalanced. They see things ONLY from their own point of view and as such, so should we all. Now really. How do they propose to change what we were all taught by our parents and teachers is right and wrong?

        The reality for these people is they hate change. Mentally unbalanced people all fear change that upsets their own self created realities.

  2. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago

    I'm torn on this one. History is history. I used to live near Richmond, VA. I remember the debate when the Arthur Ash statue was being considered for Monument Ave.  I was in favor of the statue being added. That was part of our history. I am not a fan of the idea of pulling the monuments of the generals down. That is part of our history. But, confederate flags being displayed at government buildings is not, in my mind, acceptable. To me that makes it less history and more current events.

    1. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Good points live!  Thank you!

  3. William F. Torpey profile image83
    William F. Torpeyposted 2 months ago

    Relics of slavery should only be displayed as part of a lesson of history that clearly is designed to show how wrong this was -- along with the clear message that this kind of abhorrent behavior should never be repeated. There should never be monuments or photos or any kind of public display that does not clearly condemn such behavior. It would be wrong to ban educational displays designed to show that neither government nor private organizations should ever have a hand in such behavior. It's not enough to avoid knowledge of such bad behavior. Bad behavior must be acknowledged --- and condemned !!!

    1. IslandBites profile image88
      IslandBitesposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Agree 100%

  4. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 2 months ago

    Germany has eliminated any places that could become become shrines for neo-nazis. It has carefully preserved the concentration camps, so that no one forgets what fascism is all about.

    Seems a good approach to me.

    Get rid of the rallying points. Remember the atrocities.

  5. aware profile image68
    awareposted 2 months ago

    The United States flag. The one with the Stars the white and red stripes. It flew over slavery in this country long before the Confederate flag. Let's get rid of it too.

    1. jo miller profile image85
      jo millerposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Soldiers carrying that American flag also fought and died to rid our country of slavery.  Those who fought under the Confederate flag took up arms against our country in support of slavery.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Slavery was brought to this country by the Europeans who built the colonies.

      Slaves existed here for nearly 200 years before the Revolution. After the Revolution, the country immediately went into conflicts over what to do about them.

      Slave imports were banned in 1808. A total of 17 out of 32 states banned slavery by 1858. The war cost 640,000 Union dead and wounded. Some slaves alive during the Revolution were freed in their lifetimes.

      Yes, the country was not pure about slavery. But condemning it for having slavery is not a simple judgment.

      1. Will Apse profile image89
        Will Apseposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It took around 60 years to end the Atlantic slave trade after the 1807 abolition act in the UK. Part of that was naval enforcement, part was diplomacy, persuading other nations to involve themselves in the effort, part was the American Civil War that enforced the end of American participation in the trade.

        It was a huge multinational effort. And one of the drivers of the development of International Law.

        Just saying this to put the 'Lost Cause' narrative into perspective.

        Romanticizing the past means a short trip to hell.

  6. aware profile image68
    awareposted 2 months ago

    I would also like to remind everyone that George Washington and Ulysses S Grant were slave owners they are on our money. Where is the outcry for their removal?

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I have to admit, that is a good point. I may have to rethink this.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Context makes a difference. Washington lived according to the dictates of his time. Grant apparently freed the one slave he owed in 1859.

      http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/presid … ed-slaves/

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        One thing, Promisem, Andrew Jackson is on the $20.
        I did not know that Grant owned any slaves, I need to check that out...

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Good point, Credence. Now the question is, did the good that Jackson produce for the country outweigh the bad or the other way around?

          It wouldn't surprise me if he gets taken off the $20 at some point in the future. I read his biography. He did some good for the country, but he also had backward thinking about the slaves and was brutal toward the Indians.

          1. Credence2 profile image84
            Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Promisem, I have heard much positive feedback in regard to Andrew Jackson and his times, by historians.

            I don't need to take his image from the 20, maybe if others of historical note could be included along with his, I could live with it.

            Historians say that he was strong executive, the first populist that introduced the concept of Democracy to all white males over 21, stepping away from advantages given to those of property. It had to all start somewhere. Then we had Biddle and the Bank of the U.S.

            Jackson and James k. Polk were the only Presidents since Monroe and before Lincoln whose terms were deserving of note.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image81
              Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              You have an interesting take... Jackson's greatest act for the country was his battle to 'kill the bank before they kill me' so few of us know our history, or the perils those leaders faced for their beliefs.

              As you point out, originally only male property owners were allowed to vote... initially that was regardless of race in most of America.  Only 6% of the population was allowed to vote for the first President.  It wasn't until ten years after 1776 that the movement to ban all non-whites from voting became established in law, varying from state to state.

              Also, up until that time, indentured servants often faired worse than slaves, because their owners knew they could only hold them for a few years, if they died it was no great loss (and a majority did die before they completed their servitude) where many estate slaves were considered more than property but less than family by most, they were expected to be owned forever and therefore taken care of and more often than is told in our revisionist history treated well, and even granted their freedoms.

              There were crimes against people that abound in the 1800s, slavers that would capture northerners and sell them as slaves down south, whites, blacks, Hispanics, being taken a couple states away was akin to being taken half the world away today. Once they were taken, they had little hope of being found.

              Its tough to know just how bad things were, and when, as we try to look back over hundreds of years.  But the truth was, for most of that time, if you were not a land owner, you weren't exactly guaranteed to be better off than a slave.  Life was hard back then, for all but the richest of people, and even they did not have nearly the advantages that technology and advancements in medicine provide today... no running water, no daily showers, no grocery stores, no government/social supports, no electricity, traveling just a few hundred miles took days, not hours. etc. etc.

              That said, take the statues down, Confederate generals do not need to hold prominent places anywhere in the public arena.  We should not forget those times, but we should not hold in idolatry any of them for any reason... doubly so if people in today's generation find them offensive.

              When it comes to the first Presidents of the United States however, that is an entirely different matter, as without acknowledging them and their sacrifices and efforts, how can we acknowledge the Nation's history and those who were responsible for its creation?

              1. dianetrotter profile image75
                dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Ken, some good points here!
                Where my great great grandfather and gg grandmother lived in Darlington, SC on the S. H. Wilds Plantation
                https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13662666_f1024.jpg


                Where S. H. Wilds family lived - better condition 150 years ago!

                https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/13662669_f1024.jpg


                https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13662670_f1024.jpg


                https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13662672_f1024.jpg

                My 11 year old cousin, history/computer buff, at the door.

                1. Credence2 profile image84
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Fascinating, Diane, thanks for sharing the photos. Like, I said I made a point while both of my grandmothers were still alive to have them give me their story. I knew that they were going to church every Sunday in their old age, but what  did they do when they were young? I, mean, really. I got one of them to tell me about her grandmother born approximately 1840 and died in about 1925. My grandmother was 10 at the time of her death. While those that were freedman were reluctant to speak on the topic as in the case of my great-great grandmother, she, my grandmother, picked up enough to know that there was no nostalgic longing for the 'slavery days'. That was just so much propaganda from the Whites about the 'happy darky' and such. It dominated American cinema up till the 1960's. I could not watch a Bugs Bunny cartoon without this old myth being spread about. It was just another tool of oppression used by a nasty majority here in America to maintain control.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image75
                    dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    It is very rewarding to work on our family tree.  I'm working with 3 different relatives, who are possibly 2nd cousins, to find that missing link.

                    Trying to find our relatives before the 1870 Census requires out of the box thinking.  They were clever enough to name their children after their parents, siblings and aunts and uncles.  We can see how a name is a continuing theme throughout the generations.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image81
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  I appreciate you sharing this, and it makes me want to ask many questions, but without really knowing one another, it could invite plenty of misunderstanding so I have hesitated in my response...

                  I do wonder, what your ancestors would think of you, and the opportunity you and your siblings and future children have, and what they would think of this country today?

                  1. dianetrotter profile image75
                    dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Ken, I'm not sensitive.  You can ask me anything.  My ancestors would be very proud

                    My dad had an 8th grade education.  He worked a full time job as a baggage carrier for MOPAC Railroad and then worked odd jobs 6 days a week to provide for our family.  He always said, "Get yourself a good education."

                    My mother lived with me after she got Alzheimers.  At Staples, a white clerk carried things to my car for me.  When I got in the car, my mother frantically said, "Girl you'd better be careful.  That white man is going to get you." 

                    While discussing family history with my aunt, she said daddy could have gone to jail for running over a white man back in the 40s.  I was shocked.  He never talked about it.  There was a trial because the man did die.  White people went to court to testify for my father.  The man he ran over was a known drunk.  He stumbled out onto Cantrell Road, a curvy street with no light back then.  The judge declared my dad "Not Guilty!"

                    I think everything should be kept in perspective.  We must speak of the good and the bad.  That's the only way to get a true picture and history.  I now understand why my dad used to say how blessed he was.  He often said, "I could have gone to jail."  He never said why.

              2. Credence2 profile image84
                Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                You have an interesting take... Jackson's greatest act for the country was his battle to 'kill the bank before they kill me' so few of us know our history, or the perils those leaders faced for their beliefs.
                --------------------------------------
                Good to find another soul with a passion for American History, Ken

                Andrew Jackson's focus on the "common man" and what that meant for the time was a stark departure from what was before. Universal suffrage for white males over 21 was now the focus. He was the start of expansion of the franchise to those who before were prohibited.
                ------------------------

                Also, up until that time, indentured servants often faired worse than slaves, because their owners knew they could only hold them for a few years, if they died it was no great loss (and a majority did die before they completed their servitude) where many estate slaves were considered more than property but less than family by most, they were expected to be owned forever and therefore taken care of and more often than is told in our revisionist history treated well, and even granted their freedoms.
                --------------------------------------------
                I was under the impression that most of these indentured people had to work for 7 years or more. But as a slave, who wants to think that during their entire lives, one is not to have control of their own destiny? Their marriage bonds and family ties are ignored and have not legal standing. I did not hear of that denial of humanity for indentured servants. Unfortunately, I have read more negative accounts of slavery than positive ones. The passage of the "Fugitive Slave Act", in addition to illegal abduction made the lives of blacks, slave or free, unbearable.

                During the first half of the 19th century, only the rich planters and the extreme wealthy otherwise could be said to be living the 'life of riley'. But as Lincoln said, in his debates with Stephen Douglas, "it is the age old issue about you till the soil, grow the food, while another man eats it." Everyman should be able to enjoy the fruits of his own labor, Black or White. Abe was ahead of his time in the understanding of this basic truth.  Who wants to be a slave or take his place? Life was generally brutish and short, while I cling to history, I am more than content to be a 21st century man.

                I had a more pleasant encounter with Charlottesville during 1991. I had the privilege of visiting Jefferson's home at Monticello for a tour. Amazing how the littlest things were a 'big deal', to getting chicken dinner to the hassle involved in having no matches and the sanitation problems of chamber pots. Jefferson had frequent headaches and aspirin was not invented yet. Stereoscopic vision as seen in eyeglasses with drawings was their idea of entertainment. He was quite the sage when he lived in a period where it was possible for a man to have a knowledge that could encompass the world as known in that time. That cannot be done today. What would this agrarian fellow make of trillion dollar budgets? Has any of these fellows ever contemplate the future or speculate on the potential changes it would bring? I have heard an account that James Monroe visited Jefferson at his estate, it took more than a day to traverse the 30 miles, dragging the horses and oxen along.
                -------------------

                "That said, take the statues down, Confederate generals do not need to hold prominent places anywhere in the public arena.  We should not forget those times, but we should not hold in idolatry any of them for any reason... doubly so if people in today's generation find them offensive."
                -------------------------
                It is not worth the hassle to get involved in major excavation of all these monuments. I would have them remain but maintained on private property and maintained through private funding, except in Museums designed to preserve history in such a way.
                ----------------
                'When it comes to the first Presidents of the United States however, that is an entirely different matter, as without acknowledging them and their sacrifices and efforts, how can we acknowledge the Nation's history and those who were responsible for its creation?"
                ---------------------

                I have got Jefferson's image on my nickel, that of a slave holder. But Jefferson was more than that. I would not want to judge him solely on that.

                1. Ken Burgess profile image81
                  Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  I will be brief, in regards to indentured servants only...
                  Men, women and children signed these 'contracts'. Many families were broken up on arrival. They were classed as property, had few rights and they could be inherited or re-sold.
                  Indentured Servants could not marry or have children. Their contracts could be extended if a woman became pregnant or if they ran away, were captured and then returned to their owner. A servant could not keep any money earned nor could he or she work for anyone else while employed under their master.
                  A servant could be legally whipped or punished for improper behavior. Due to poor living conditions, hard labor, adjusting to the climate and contracting new diseases, many servants did not live long enough to see their freedom or the expiration of their contract.
                  This was actually sought by most 'owners' of indentured servants, because if the servant reached the end of their contract, they had to be paid “freedom dues” of food, tools, clothing and sometimes wages.  If they died before then, it wasn't an issue.
                  Since most runaways spoke English and were white, they were more difficult to capture than black slaves. Records of the number of Indentures were not recorded so most information about them is sketchy but it is estimated that up to 70% of those who came to America as indentured servants died before they achieved their freedom.

                  1. Credence2 profile image84
                    Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Most interesting, I will research this further, thanks...

                  2. Credence2 profile image84
                    Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Sorry, after reviewing considerable amount of literature explaining the two systems, slavery, in my opinion, was worse. While the indentured servant's life expectancy was brief, from what I understand no one really had a lot of life expectancy in Colonial America and prior to the Civil War. If it was bad for the indentured servant, it had to be worse for the slave, without any chance or relief for a lifetime.

                    So, what advantage was there in being a slave over an indentured servant?

  7. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    aware?
    On June 14th, 1777, the Continental Congress declared the Flag of the 13 United States be thirteen stripes, alternate red and white; that the Union be thirteen stars, while in a blue field, representing a new constellation.

    "A new constellation" represents American Patriots declaring Independence from the British Empire.

    1. abwilliams profile image84
      abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      *white in a blue field

  8. aware profile image68
    awareposted 2 months ago

    Total of 12 presidents were slave owners.Their pictures still hang in the White House.

    1. Will Apse profile image89
      Will Apseposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      You can understand why that might upset some people. On the other hand, they are not currently being used as propaganda tools by neo-nazis. If those portraits started to become rallying points, it might be worth thinking of moving them. Or giving them a context.

      Statues and public monuments always imply approval.

      The power of symbols to shape understanding shouldn't be underestimated.

      1. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        It appears, in this case, that Bob Lee was just an excuse to plan wickedness.

  9. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    Jo Miller - Robert E. Lee did not support slavery, he abhorred it. He inherited slaves and immediately freed them.
    He wanted no part of slavery.
    Lincoln offered Lee command of the U.S. Army and Lee was torn, but knew he could not take up arms against his native State of Virginia, against his friends and neighbors. Lee admired  Gen. Washington and came to believe that he was fighting for the same Freedom, Liberty and Principle as Washington, when he fought against the British Empire. He saw it as a second fight for independence.
    Ulysses S. Grant said of Robert E. Lee, "There was not a man in the Confederacy whose influence with the whole people was as great as his."

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      While he may have said he opposed slavery, he had no problem with its accommodation in his world. How many Southerners were not slave owners but accommodated the "peculiar institution' for their own convenience?
      ---------
      A key source cited by defenders and critics is Lee's 1856 letter to his wife:[68]


      ... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

      — Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

      Isn't this interesting AB?

      1. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        How could they be "morally, socially and physically better off," having been transported across the ocean, in cramped and inhumane conditions, to be employed in the most laborious and unpleasant jobs, such as sugar cane and cotton, which their lords and masters (and mistresses) were loath to do?  They were not even regarded as equally human, but closer to being aligned with the "animals." 
        It's so easy to come up with convenient excuses when the choices are ignorance and "turning the blind eye."  But then, who am I to judge?

      2. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        The arrogance, lack of compassion and greed of an opportunist!

    2. jo miller profile image85
      jo millerposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Lee took up arms against our country in support of slavery.  He may have abhorred it, but not enough to fight against it instead of for it.  I am aware that Lee was offered a position with the Union army and was conflicted about his decision.  There may have been Nazis who were conflicted about their decisions to support Hitler.  Lee just made the wrong decision,  a very, very bad decision and I believe we should not be honoring that.  Forgive him, sure.  Acknowledge that he was conflicted.  But don't put up statues of him in Southern cities where that awful war was fought.  Let's move forward in this country for goodness sake.

  10. aware profile image68
    awareposted 2 months ago

    There are an estimated 30 million people currently being enslaved in one form or fashion around this world the most problematic place for slavery today is Africa. The Confederacy and the United States did not invent slavery. Maybe these African Americans should go too Africa and fix the problem there. Heads up you won't be fighting  Nazis or white supremacist there.

  11. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    What's interesting to me Cred is how many people condemn Gen. Lee knowing nothing of the man or the situation that he wanted no part of, but was placed right in the middle of.
    It is also interesting to me how often bogus information is picked up from
    a quick 1st page Google search and shared over and over, as if it is the gospel truth.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I am a student of history and can certainly appreciate General Lee's superb skills as military commander in the face of impossible odds, but that in itself does not make him the flawless humanitarian. The history of his generous spirit did not extend to the Black population, in general, the slave population or to the new freedmen after the war.

      Far from condemning him, I am just pointing out that he is a hero only within certain circles.

      AB, what is the source of your 'truth' that conflicts with the 'bogus info'?

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        We should only honor or remember "flawless humanitarians"?  Going to be a very short list - even JC himself got violent, and more than once!

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, Jesus expressed righteous  anger, at least according to Father, because of merchants turning a place of worship into a den of thieves.

          Being neutral toward slavery over which the war was primarily fought when it does not affect you directly is a little more than an innocent character flaw.

          Just like Woodrow Wilson, I think that the actual reality concerning Robert E. Lee is overrated.

  12. abwilliams profile image84
    abwilliamsposted 2 months ago

    I've never suggested he's flawless. "Ye who is without sin cast the first stone."

    Do you believe all statues of him should be dismantled?

    I have a library of books and encyclopedias from long ago. (I do not trust google searches)

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      There has been a lot of 'revisionist' history over the last half century or so. I don't know that I really want to take down all the statues. Because someone had said that if I did that I would have to get after all the slave owners, many who were American presidents. There are two prominent images depicted on our national currency. Before the civil rights movements and the sixties and seventies, our national heroes and the messages were pretty uniform. Good guys and bad guys were identified and accepted without question. After that, 'the story' as told from other perspectives began to emerge and take root.

      I said earlier that I would have to rethink this issue. I can not say that it is fair to have a King Holiday, a Medgar Evers Ave, enshrined without allowing 'the other side' to present their heroes in the same way.

      The advocates for keeping the statues say that it is heritage, not hate. There is a lot to be proud of as to how these men kept a superior Union Army at bay for so long. But can I define good verses bad?The foundation of America is the equality of all under the law, one side promoted it and one did not. So should those on the wrong side of that principle be given honor?

      Most of the people that are being enshrined as military heroes from the Civil War were accomodationalists who simply saw the preservation of  Southern way of life as more important than slavery and the slavery issue.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        "I can not say that it is fair to have a King Holiday, a Medgar Evers Ave, enshrined without allowing 'the other side' to present their heroes in the same way. "

        I don't see it that way - there is no need for "fairness".  Only that a person has done great good or played a great part in the country.  No person has not made mistakes, and we need to understand that the thinking of the time was not what it is.  That we have developed morally does not mean that ancestors were evil - no doubt our progeny will one day think of us the same way - it mostly means that the times were different.

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          There is always a need for fairness, Wilderness, that is what this is all about isn't it. There were plenty of contemporaries of Gen. Lee, that neither  excused nor accommodated slavery at any level. So, even though the times were different, there were people that took the courageous path to be different as well.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            No, it isn't about fairness.  Nor is it about picking people that agree with our stance on slavery as the only thing that matters.  It's about honoring the people that built this country, and that means that in nearly every case there will be things they did that we disagree with.

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              "No, it isn't about fairness.  Nor is it about picking people that agree with our stance on slavery as the only thing that matters.  It's about honoring the people that built this country, and that means that in nearly every case there will be things they did that we disagree with."

              Wilderness, is there really a 'side' on the ethics of slavery? It is the typical attitude of the Anglo-Saxon male that says that all of this is just a footnote relative to who it is you consider to be a hero. Well, from my perspective, I am naturally going to see thing somewhat differently.

              What you consider building, I could well see as denigrating?

              1. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                "Wilderness, is there really a 'side' on the ethics of slavery?"

                Honestly?  I don't know.  I think of "indentured servants", who didn't have it a lot better.  But mostly I say that because if there isn't, it is one of a vanishingly small number of things that truly ARE black and white.  And because I'm 'way too far to one side to even imagine what the other side is - I find the holocaust and the inquisition superior to slavery - so I'm pretty blind when it comes to finding an acceptable "side" to it.

                "Give me liberty or give me death"; I struggle intellectually to understand how and why those people chose slavery over death.  Fear of torture, maybe.

                1. Credence2 profile image84
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  Honestly?  I don't know.  I think of "indentured servants", who didn't have it a lot better.  But mostly I say that because if there isn't, it is one of a vanishingly small number of things that truly ARE black and white.  And because I'm 'way too far to one side to even imagine what the other side is - I find the holocaust and the inquisition superior to slavery - so I'm pretty blind when it comes to finding an acceptable "side" to it.
                  ---------------
                  Indentured servitude was usually temporary and was linked to cost of passage to the New World. It cannot compare to a lifetime of servitude with your progeny being forced into the same arrangement. Indentured servants were for the most part white and their humanity they were able to retain. Slavery in America was consigned to Blacks and for there to exist an acceptable moral position for its continuation, its victims had to be dehumanized. That was slavery.
                  -----------------------
                  "Give me liberty or give me death"; I struggle intellectually to understand how and why those people chose slavery over death.  Fear of torture, maybe.
                  ---------------------------
                  Ask the Concentration Camp victims/survivors of Europe how desperately one clings on to life? Is that not the nature of every living thing?

                  1. wilderness profile image94
                    wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Maybe it's just me.  But I would choose death over a known lifetime of slavery.  Not necessarily "servitude" (thinking of children and spouses sold away from me), but actual slavery.  Probably by attempting to take my "owner" with me into death.

      2. abwilliams profile image84
        abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        This Revisionist History of which you speak, brought to us courtesy of Progressives and so very destructive!
        There is a reason that so many are laser-focused on destroying the name of Robert E. Lee, while putting Ulysses S. Grant upon a pedestal.
        We aren't supposed to know that Lee was adamantly opposed to slavery and freed those he was to inherit or that Grant (to the North) was a slave owner.
        We are simply supposed to blame the south.
        We aren't supposed to know anything about the character of Lee, only envision a man with red eyes and horns coming out of his head, leading the charge for slavery.
        We aren't supposed to ever consider Northern aggression or the battles that found their way to the front doors of southern farmers that had no part of slavery and wanted no part of it or this horrible war.
        We aren't supposed to think about the destruction and economic damage which was done to the south, we are instructed to hate the south and paint all of the south as racists and that only white people can be racists.

        This is the mantra of Progressives.

        Slavery is a horrible thing. It is a shame that it existed here, long before there were States that would become United, but thank God, America didn't start it, America ended it.
        We study our History, we learn from our History, we don't dismantle it and we move forward always seeking to be the best 'Americans' that we can be. (After the War, Lee was often heard saying, "make your sons Americans.")

        1. Credence2 profile image84
          Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

          This Revisionist History of which you speak, brought to us courtesy of Progressives and so very destructive!
          -------------------------------
          As the late Paul Harvey used to say, "now for the rest of the story".

          Destructive? Is it? I grew up watching Cowboy and Indian movies as a kid and never wondered how a hoard of Anglo-Saxons could virtually decimate a continent, assign Native people to reservations to starve and yet they are the heroes of the stories? Growing up Black, I was so naïve to think that I would want to be a Cowboy, but who wanted to be an Indian? In the early 1970's, I saw a film entitled "Little Big Man" with Dustin Hoffman which was the beginning of a revisionist view as opposed to age old distortions and lies.

          I refer also to the old view promulgated by Whites about slavery. In the films "Birth of a Nation"(1915) and "Gone With the Wind" (1939) we had this image of the 'happy darky', who was content and well suited for his role as a slave. It would have seen unnatural for him or her to be anything else. But then we had "Roots" (1977), and boy, were my white coworkers walking around me as if they had a complex. It reminded me of intimidation of men after the Lorena Bobbit story hit the papers.

          So, if truth is what we seek, I am certainly not going to accept it from one side, or one set of voices with clear political and racial motivation. If that is what it means to be a 'Progressive' than I am proud and you have paid me a compliment.
          -------------------------------------
          "There is a reason that so many are laser-focused on destroying the name of Robert E. Lee, while putting Ulysses S. Grant upon a pedestal"
          -------------------------------
          I am not one who wants to denigrate General Lee, but from the vantage point of the slave and new freemen, he was no help.
          --------------------------

          We aren't supposed to know that Lee was adamantly opposed to slavery and freed those he was to inherit or that Grant (to the North) was a slave owner.

          We are simply supposed to blame the south.
          -----------------------------------------------
          If he considered slavery such a moral wrong, why did he side with the Confederacy? Was the fact that he hailed from Virginia so much more important as to his taking arms against the Union? Grant had his faults as well, I did not say that he was flawless.
          -------------------------------------
          We aren't supposed to know anything about the character of Lee, only envision a man with red eyes and horns coming out of his head, leading the charge for slavery.
          -----------------------------------------------
          You are creating that image, I have never implied any of this in my correspondence with you.
          --------------------------------
          We aren't supposed to ever consider Northern aggression or the battles that found their way to the front doors of southern farmers that had no part of slavery and wanted no part of it or this horrible war.

          You can thank the attack on Fort Sumter and Jeff Davis for that. War is not a neat and concise concept that is why it is a thing to be avoided. Secession was not to be allowed. From a white perspective, it is easy to take on that perspective of "Northern Aggression" and "States Rights" but for the thousands of slaves in the South that were put upon and their progeny that lived with another century of Jim Crow soon after, not so much. So, from my point of view, the landscape is different.
          -------------------------------------
          We aren't supposed to think about the destruction and economic damage which was done to the south, we are instructed to hate the south and paint all of the south as racists and that only white people can be racists.
          --------------------------------------------------------------
          The South started the war and I can think no more about the outcome in its regard than that experienced by Germany and Japan after World War II. I currently live in the South on my own accord. I could live anywhere I want, but chose to live here because of the low cost of living and the gentler pace of life. It has had an ugly history, but has moved along 'progressively' forward where it is now nicely inhabitable. Check out the "Great Migration" period in the South from about 1910-1970 to see how things really were. My forebears was a part of it. Anybody can be a racist, but only with the added advantage of power, wealth and privilege can that racism be detrimental on any reasonable scale. Black people do not have that in this society, but I certainly know who does.
          ---------------------------
          This is the mantra of Progressives.
          -------------------------

          As I said earlier, it is a mantra that I am proud of...
          ---------------------------------------------

          Slavery is a horrible thing. It is a shame that it existed here, long before there were States that would become United, but thank God, America didn't start it, America ended it.
          We study our History, we learn from our History, we don't dismantle it and we move forward always seeking to be the best 'Americans' that we can be. (After the War, Lee was often heard saying, "make your sons Americans.")

          But, for us to move on, the real causes and the truth has to be ferreted out and accepted as such, regardless of celestial ideas reflected in quotes that roll from the tongue so easily, but involves a great deal more in practice.

          1. abwilliams profile image84
            abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I never implied that you created the image described. I was speaking in generalities about the slant and Robert E. Lee is a perfect example of it.

            I am not really sure what is going on in this Country.  Last night people were filmed destroying a statue, kicking the heck out of it and making a big scene for show. (there may have been more than one pummeled, not sure)
            More than likely, the individuals doing this know nothing of the statue itself or the story behind it and they don't care, they are caught up in whatever this is, that's happening.  It is not helping any great cause and it isn't bringing us closer together as a Country.

            1. Credence2 profile image84
              Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

              'I never implied that you created the image described. I was speaking in generalities about the slant and Robert E. Lee is a perfect example of it.'

              I never want to universally denigrate Robert E. Lee, just point out that there were some crucial areas where he fell short, just like many of his contemporaries.

              I do not approve of mobs taking action independent of the legal process. If I were to bring down Lee, or Stonewall's statues I would need a compelling reason. The mob is the antithesis of reason.

        2. Jean Bakula profile image93
          Jean Bakulaposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          ab,
          Why are you turning a forum about whether some symbols should stand and others shouldn't on a rant against Progressives?

          I am a liberal Democrat, and wrote a lot here in admiration of Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jefferson. I even gave him a pass on Sally Hemmings. I think each war or period of history has to be seen in context. There are always going to be factors we don't know, or may not truly understand the thinking of people at different points of history. But we have pretty good records of really happened.

          I do believe the South should stop this "War of Northern Aggression" nonsense. They wanted the slaves to pick their cotton, but not have any other voice in society. Why didn't they pick their own cotton and feed the slaves or treat them like human beings? I don't think Sherman should have destroyed the South the way he did either, but I have always been anti war. Whoops--there's that damn Democratic part of me coming out!

          If it's bringing people to violence, however, then maybe we need to take another look. Or maybe not. I like History, but never professed to be an expert. That's all.

          1. abwilliams profile image84
            abwilliamsposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Jean -
            I was responding to Cred, he mentioned Revisionist History.
            Also, there are Republican Progressives and Democratic Progressives, I wasn't
            singling out anyone other than those continually attempting to rewrite or omit History.

            As far as those who are easily angered and brought to violence, they'll never be pleased, no matter what we dismantle or destroy.  Sadly, while most of us are just trying to live our lives, they're continually out looking for things to find offense in.

  13. aware profile image68
    awareposted 2 months ago

    Slavery isn't a relic. Statue of Lee should remind people of this. The African continent is the symbol of modern day slavery. And it ain't no white guy doing it

  14. aware profile image68
    awareposted 2 months ago

    One more time. Erasing what you think is a symbol of slavery in the past. Does nothing for the 30 million people on earth today that are still enslaved. Ask any of these 30 million people today who robert e lee was? And you will see how unimportant your little statue is to their current situation.and how its removal does jack shit for them.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Aware, they throw Gay people down from tall buildings in Iran.
      Much of Africa and the Middle East practices female circumcision.
      There are all sort of versions of unacceptable circumstance around the world.

      I cannot stop this, I can only hope to control those events that occur in this country. This place where I live and have some voice over how things are done.

      I cannot prevent the travesties that take place around the planet.

  15. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 2 months ago

    After following this thread, I need to mix a couple martinis.

    Sanitizing history is a good thing - because we don't want to offend anybody, or remind anyone ours isn't perfect?

    This topic isn't talking about statues of serial lynchers, shrines of "Whites Only" type signage, or monuments of Southern leaders posing on the bent backs of slaves. It is addressing what may be, possibly, the most defensible, (if any are), of any Southern military personality - Lee. (just one example of those monuments and statues targeted nationally)

    It appears that to be unacceptably offensive in today's societal setting, only requires one be on the losing side of the Civil War - regardless of why one was on that side. Context, mores, and moral values of the times don't have any bearing, right? Geesh!

    GA

  16. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 2 months ago

    I knew an American woman in London who kept a small collection of genuine slave collars in her kitchen. They froze be to the bone. I couldn't look at the things without a feeling of horror.

    I could never visit a concentration camp because I am too aware of what happened in them.

    How people react to symbols of oppression, sadism and violence is very individual. These things have a great deal of power for some and are virtually meaningless to others.

    Never been a fan of meaninglessness.

    1. jo miller profile image85
      jo millerposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      And imagine, Will, if there were some who wanted to put up a statue of Hitler near those concentration camps.

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      We visited the holocaust museum in DC many years ago.  Not sorry I went...but would never, ever go back again.  Just as you say, some of those exhibits froze a visitor to the bone. Man's inhumanity to man can be incredible.

      1. Jean Bakula profile image93
        Jean Bakulaposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        When we speak of history, and what is important and what isn't, or what's unconscionable and what isn't, I think we have to consider the context of the time period in history.

        Robert E. Lee had a difficult choice to make, as many of us non flawless people do. He decided if he HAD to fight, he would fight for his own state. When one decides to fight for a cause, that person has the right to decide what side of that cause to fight for. Civil Wars are one of the worst, because many soldiers fought their own family members, and in other countries today, continue to do so..

        I admire Thomas Jefferson as one of our Founding Fathers and for his work on our Constitution. Yet he had many children with his slave, Sally Hemmings. It was after the death of his wife, and from my readings it didn't seem like he was forcing himself on her. I believe they had a true bond. He did allow the children to go free, and I think she stayed with him. He knew slavery was wrong, But he did a lot for the fledgling new America, and felt that slavery was a fight for the next generation. Sadly, it took many more generations. How do we fight ideas about what is right and what is wrong? It's not that simple to change hearts and minds. And even though slavery is wrong and no longer practiced in the US., so much racism exists. 

        Everyone says we "need to have a conversation about race in this country." You must be as sick of hearing that as I am. We have to do more.

        1. Will Apse profile image89
          Will Apseposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I once lived in a very pleasant French town, half way between Paris and the Alps. The houses were ancient and built of almost white stone.

          The people were very formal in their behavior, You had to use 'madame' or 'monsieur' in every interaction.

          I was aware of no crime and saw no graffiti or vandalism to speak of. There were no drunken Saturday night fights of the kind you can guarentee in an English town.

          Then a black friend came to visit. As we walked around that idyllic provincial town we were offered skunk, cocaine and heroin. Someone even offered to sell us a gun.

          What did I learn? The world is not the same for black people. The war on drugs was lost long ago. I should probably be less of a Francophile.

  17. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 2 months ago

    There is nothing wrong with picking out the strands of your nations' traditions that you identify with.

    I identify with the UK's literary tradition. It gives me the majority of my understanding of what it is to be human.

    I identify with the scientific tradition. I try to think straight.

    I identify with the UK's tradition of dissent. It has helped to humanize the world, and of relevance here is the UK's rejection of slavery, and its determination to police that rejection, worldwide, in the 19th century.

    I also respect the tradition of not crushing dissent. It is just as important to have a ruling class with decent values, as it is to have a population that cares about justice.

    Empire and colonialism, plus the ideology of racism in the service of those objectives, I have no time for.

  18. Randy Godwin profile image94
    Randy Godwinposted 2 months ago

    Diane, imagine my trying to explain to my mother--she's almost 96--what the hoopla was about in Charlottesville. Her grandfather fought under the battle flag of the Confederacy and she's flown it for many years in honor of him. She still claims the war wasn't about slavery but was for states rights. I simply do not have the heart to argue with her...

    1. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Through my ancestry research, I've found that there are family members who have been sworn to secrecy.  They don't want their Black family to know who they are until the elderly (90s) die.  So the person(s) will be devastated to know that they have Black relatives.  That is so weird!

      I said all of that to say I understand about your 96 year old mom.  Has she ever (in younger days) talked about how she felt about slavery?  Actually, the states' rights they wanted was to continue to have slavery.  I have elderly aunts (close to 90) who have intense views also...the opposite direction of course.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image94
        Randy Godwinposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Diane, I have to say she explains the flag is to honor her grandfather to any black people who visit her, and they are many who she considers friends or as close as family. I suppose she relates the war to "Gone With The Wind" type slavery but she does know there's difference. It's tough to live where I do and keep my mouth shut about the equality of people and not just black people either.

        I know it will get better but dang...

        1. dianetrotter profile image75
          dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          I understand.  I try to talk to my aunts but am not successful.  However, their experiences have been painful.  When they left Arkansas, Colored people were unable to get jobs in addition to full throttle Jim Crow.

  19. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 2 months ago

    It occurred to me today that maybe, the answer to the problem is to leave the memorials up, as being representative of a part of our history, but to add other monuments and plaques in the vicinity of these monuments documenting the passage of history and the changing values we embraced. A statue of Robert E. Lee beside a statue of Martin Luther King or a plaque commemorating other significant moments in our history which stand in contrast to the values we equate with that time. So we can remember the past and celebrate its passage. I wonder if that would appease any sides.

    1. Credence2 profile image84
      Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Maybe, you have a point. I am not exactly comfortable with crowds bringing down or defacing statues without legal authority to do so. Smacks of anarchy and I never like where that leads, from either side. It all needs to be put in the proper perspective, ripping down statues because the people depicted were part of failed idea and concept, might appeal extreme. But, how many commemorative statues to Nazi and Nazism are found in today's Germany? This is touchy, perhaps it is best to let each community decide for themselves and/ or confine such remembrances to private property maintained at private expense.

  20. wilderness profile image94
    wildernessposted 2 months ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/20799255_997736353701438_6318509955466330327_n.jpg?oh=288b589f9ebe25744225c96f7d2267d6&oe=59EE3D7D

    Rather says it all, doesn't it?

    1. jonnycomelately profile image85
      jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Sure!  For those who feel guilt - deny it, turn our backs to it, out of sight-out of mind, no longer a problem.

    2. Jean Bakula profile image93
      Jean Bakulaposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I ordered a new copy of 1984 early this year, and Amazon was out of them for weeks. I think we need to remember. The statues should remain in parks and museums, maybe moved from court and federal buildings. Randy makes a good point in his telling of the story about his Mom. The people who fought the Civil War thought they were doing the right thing at the time (both sides).They died for a cause they believed in. Should we go desecrate their graves? But new generations have to know our history. What's that quote, "Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

      This isn't all about statues or flags either. We need to get people who are isolated from people different
      from them to meet others from different races, to see we have more in common than things that are different. We are all just people.

      Bob Marley took the words of Haile Selassie's famous speech in his song "War" and said "Until the color of a man's skin is of no more significance than the color of his eyes--there will be war."

      Do we want to destroy the Earth over ignorance? Racism is about fear. Most of the worst racists can't stand the thought that in a few years, if not already, white people will be in the minority. We should be showing HS students Roots (the first one) and Schindler's List. They need to read books like 1984 and get off their cell phones for a few hours, or their ignorance will grow.

      Older people in their communities who can still remember fighting in wars should be welcome to speak about their harrowing experiences, and the terrible personal sacrifices they made to go and fight these wars. I remember protesting the Vietnam war as a teen, and now those who fought there are aging. It's now considered an unnecessary war, but at the time some thought it would stop Communism from coming to the U.S.

      HS students in my area are happily forming groups of "rednecks" and carrying around confederate flags. They are such dim bulbs they don't even know what they are doing. NW NJ has a very conservative area. It's only blue by the coasts, racism is alive in the North too.

      We can't change the past, but we can change the future.

      1. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        Good thoughts Jean!  Students should learn about history in classrooms and get all of the information.  How they respond to it depends on how they process it.

        Robert E. Lee did not want to have a statue erected of himself.  It would seem that is the significant point.  he wanted re-unification not to have people look at statues and stew over the war.  That should be most poignant of what is taken away from Robert E. Lee's participation.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Few people would want a statue erected to themselves.  But Lee also wanted the battlegrounds erased, with no monuments there, either.  Basically he wanted to war to quietly disappear into the mists of time, never to be remembered, and that is a mistake.  It may have been the best thing for the nation and people at the time, but it is not the best for the future; it is imperative that we remember our past and not repeat it.

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            I agree.  Looking at a statue gives you a  picture.  Studying in school should give you the facts with views from several sides.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

              It should.  Unfortunately, our textbooks (and classes) are being "sanitized" to agree with school and/or instructor prejudices. 

              But I would disagree that school is the best method anyway.  When I visited the holocaust museum in DC I came out of it shaken and appalled in a way that no school class could ever equal - even if courses were allowed to teach what the museum showed it would not have the same impact.

              1. dianetrotter profile image75
                dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                They've always been sanitized.  I never studied anything about Black people when I was in school.  A lady complained to prentice-Hall last year because they said the slaves were paid.  I don't know what other sanitation they are doing.

                1. Credence2 profile image84
                  Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  I did learn that George Washington Carver invented peanut butter. Because of the dearth of contributions to America by people of color relative to white males, ethnic studies had to be created.

                  1. dianetrotter profile image75
                    dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    And note - it had to be under "ethnic studies."

              2. Jean Bakula profile image93
                Jean Bakulaposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                Yes, I agree with that Dan. Schools may not be the best way, most of the textbooks are old and sanitized. But they don't do as many "field trips" as they used to when we were kids, claiming there isn't enough money in the budget.

                My teacher son has become so disgusted with the lack of imagination the schools allow in their lesson plans, he has turned more towards his 2nd career option, the running of his martial arts school. Apparently elementary school's every class has one lesson plan approved, and all the teachers follow it forever. Really. The same lesson out of a book for 30 yrs. or so. And it's a book we used in our school days! It never deviates.

                How can anyone learn like that? This is grades K-5. I just asked him and he says in those grades there is no "History", it's Social Studies, about reading maps and learning about your own state. There is no real history until middle school, or what we called Junior High School. He says they spend one or two days on the Civil War and read Elie Weisel's Night to learn about the Holocaust. Nobody teaches Geography anymore.

                I've never been to a Holocaust museum, it must be a truly horrifying experience. I guess it's up to parents to take their children to these places to show them what atrocities happened in other times. My parents took my brother and I to Washington DC, and we often went to the museum of Natural History and the Art Museums in NY. We all liked history and humanities, and were all readers.

                I see the statue removal is going on a lot again today, and think it's wrong. Or at least they could be moved to museums or other buildings as we have discussed here. History is very important. Then what next, change all the school names and airport and street names who honor people? It would be endless.

                1. dianetrotter profile image75
                  dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                  It's a great idea for parents to take their kids places to learn; however a) many parents have abdicated their responsibility and b) many parents can't afford to take their kids to these places.

                  I taught in inner city.  Many of those kids have not been outside of their neighborhoods.  They buy clothing at  local swap meets rather than going to department stores.  Stuff is muuuuch cheaper. 

                  It is the responsibility of the education system.  It is part of history and should seamlessly be woven in.  We studied Columbus coming to America but nothing was mentioned about bring slaves or slave ships.  There shouldn't be a separate class for that.

                  We studied the Civil War and states wanting to secede the union.  We were not told about the Articles of Secession and the desire to continue slavery.  It seems harder to leave parts out than to include everything.

                  1. Jean Bakula profile image93
                    Jean Bakulaposted 2 months agoin reply to this

                    Diane,
                    I agree, and understand that families are stretched so far, that schools should be doing more. That's why my son left teaching. Schools get a lot of money, and normally spend it on remodeling their buildings with unnecessary features. They should be buying new books, visiting more museums, having more educated speakers in who remember historical events. They just don't. They teach the most minimum they can to get the kids to pass the standardized tests.

                    Also, I see a lot of "helicopter parents" threatening teachers who won't give their precious D or F level students an A or B. I saw the Superintendent of a local school run out by parents like that. He had the nerve to tell them the truth--that their kids were two years behind where they should academically be. The parents are more concerned about what birthday treats the kids bring in than what they learn. All of them seem to be allergic to almost everything. I would think that child should just bring in their own snack that day, or know not to eat what he/she is allergic to, instead of placing stringent rules on something so trivial. Idiotic issues like this is what takes place in class all day.

                    And yes, the last time I went to a museum in NY, I was shocked at the "suggested" donation.

  21. IslandBites profile image88
    IslandBitesposted 2 months ago

    The great-great grandchildren of Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson have a message for those who adamantly want to preserve the Confederate leaders' monuments:

    "Eventually, someone is going to have to make a decision, and if that's the local lawmaker, so be it. But we have to be able to have that conversation without all of the hatred and the violence. And if they choose to take those statues down, fine. Maybe it's appropriate to have them in museums or to put them in some sort of historical context in that regard." Robert E. Lee V

    "In a public place, if it is offensive and people are taking issue with it, let's move it. Let's put it somewhere where historically it fits with the area around it so you can have people come to see it, who want to understand that history and that individual... The Confederate battle flag, in my estimation, has been hijacked by that group of racist individuals and should be in a museum which indicates it's a military flag and not a flag of the Confederate States of America." Bertram Hayes-Davis

    "We are writing to say that we understand justice very differently from our grandfather's grandfather, and we wish to make it clear his statue does not represent us... We cannot ignore his decision to own slaves, his decision to go to war for the Confederacy, and, ultimately, the fact that he was a white man fighting on the side of white supremacy...While we are not ashamed of our great great grandfather, we are ashamed to benefit from white supremacy while our black family and friends suffer. We are ashamed of the monument." William Jackson Christian and Warren Edmund Christian, great-great grandsons of Stonewall Jackson

    1. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Possibly a re-enactment of a scene from the war.  Confederate soldiers on one side and Union on the other.  That gives a more complete picture.  A point for discussion; however, it should be based on facts, supported by evidence.

  22. GA Anderson profile image83
    GA Andersonposted 2 months ago

    After following one of Misfit Chick's links, I have a thought (I know, I know, I should just let it go). But...

    Initially I strongly felt that the "remove the statues" movement was just a PC effort. I still do, but, I do find some credence in a comment in the link - relative to a Charlottesville monument.

    The person, (Afro-American), said something like; "No matter where you are in Charlottesville you can see the 'Masser' staring down at you." - referring to a Charlottsville monument.

    Well... how can I argue with that. That is a real feeling, not a PC response.

    So... I contemplate the consideration that Confederate-related statues be moved to contextually appropriate placements. For instance; a Robert E. Lee statue might be moved from a location that had nothing to do with any of his battles, or accomplishments, to a contextually related battle site. Like all the monuments you find at Gettysburg, or other dedicated National Parks sites. Or a site appropriate to national or military heroes - like D.C.

    Yep, I think I will go with that. If the motive is just a PC revisionist effort to tar or remove anything that had any connection with slavery, (or the South) - then I think you are wrong, but, if the thought behind removal is to be contextually appropriate - then I think I can see your point.

    GA

  23. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    The biggest thing we need to remove is the Electoral College, which was only established to give the south the same power in the voting booth as the north without giving Black people the right to vote - a large portion of their population.  I could care less about stone and steel.  This institution has done too much harm to our nation to be allowed to continue.

  24. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

    Statues are rock and metal.  They do nothing.  The electoral college is based on racism and has impacted two of our last three presidencies.  This is the issue you should be fighting.  National Popular Vote Movement.  Is your state in?

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      Hi Kathleen, I see your repeated mentions of the Electoral College, (EC), and wonder if you have looked into the thoughts behind it's creation - beyond the race component you focus on? (there were three primary goals - balancing slave vs. non-slave populations was only one of them)

      Obviously I disagree with your perspective, but to pass on that, there are other documented thoughts on the concept of a national popular vote. Thoughts which both support the concept of the EC, and stand alone as reasons for constructing the Constitution as they did.

      The writers of our Constitution were strongly opposed to a popular vote election of the president. There is ample writings of the Founders that note their fear of the dangers of Pure Democracy.

      What do you think has changed to make a national popular vote for president less dangerous now than it was perceived to be back then? Do you disagree that a pure democracy vote is the same as mob rule - just on a national scale?

      GA

      1. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        GA I was looking for your comment on something MisFit directed you to.  Thank you!

        Have you noticed that we are all discussing politely?  That's what is important ... listening to someone else's side.

        1. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Hi Diane, you may be referring to this comment: http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1425 … ost2906650

          It was a Misfit Chick link, but it wasn't directed at me, I merely followed her link. In it, a Charlotsville resident said something like; "From all four corners of Charlotsville you can see "Masser" staring down at you."  It seemed a sincere remark.

          So even though I still don't think Confederate statues should be removed just because they are Confederate statues, I can see the logic that it should be a community choice - regardless of their reasons.

          GA

          1. dianetrotter profile image75
            dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            Yep!  That's the one.  Thank you!

      2. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 2 months agoin reply to this

        GA. For both you and Katherine, I have a revelation on this issue.

        1. I don't believe the EC was of a racist intent but more of a stop gap by the powers that were to prevent the rabble from being mesmerized by a demagogue. The Founding Fathers did not trust Democracy as a concept to run it all...

        2. It is highly unlikely that it can be changed as it will probably take a Constitutional Convention to change it substantially or abolish it. There are too many small states that would not support something that would take away their advantage or leverage.

        3. And most important, we liberals and progressives need to recognize is that we did not lose because of the Electoral College or influence by Russia or anything like this. We lost because Candidate Clinton, by failing to properly read the tea leaves, managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This was her contest to lose. There is no way that traditionally solid Democratic states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania should have been lost to the GOP under any circumstance.

              a. She underestimated Trump and his appeal and should have had her ears to ground and not have take anything for granted.

               b. She tried to have it both ways, to offer a lukewarm olive branch to Bernie supporters while kissing up to conservatives and the Wall Street machine. There were never enough conservatives to take her seriously while she dismissed a huge Sanders constituency that was much more on message as to where the party needed to be moving.

        The Electoral College system did not fail, we as progressives failed, with candidate Clinton leading us in the wrong direction.

        1. Ken Burgess profile image81
          Ken Burgessposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Yes, she was even more out of touch and out of tune with the American people than Trump, and that fact couldn't be hidden, the Democrats lost first and foremost because she was the worst candidate they could put up... she was an Establishment Crony.

        2. GA Anderson profile image83
          GA Andersonposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Hey bud, As an Electoral College supporter, of course I agree with you, but I bet there are a lot of anti-Trump folks that think reason #1 - the anti-demagogue - state electors mechanism failed miserably. ;-)

          GA

  25. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    … FREEDOM
    "to be a bigot,
    to believe Black people are less intellient than white people,
    to say every Black person that gets killed deserves it,
    to say President Obama and Michelle were baboons,
    to distort history,
    to say there was no holocaust,
    to say slaveowners did slaves a favor,
    to persuade others that your lies are true,
    to demonize large sections of the population,
    to lie about groups of people and people buy it hook, line and sinker because they are bigoted,
    to say Black people are violent,
    to say people can't get jobs because of immigrants,
    to crush the dreams of anyone who is not quite like you."

    W H O takes this freedom???

    1. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

      I suppose that is a rhetorical question.  You had to have heard of the birther fake news that went on for more than 5 years.

      Holocaust denial  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial

      DNA Discoverer: Blacks Less Intelligent Than Whites  http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/10/18 … hites.html

      Barack and Michelle Obama
      https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13666320.jpg

      I rest my case!!!!!

      1. dianetrotter profile image75
        dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        This came from a site "godlike productions!"  This is a website that is "private" and has a code of conduct that should preclude one from doing something like this.

        This is not even Michelle Obama's body.  She is physically fit.  Black women are continually compared to white women and said to be less attractive.

        https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13666330.jpg

        Michelle Obama Monkey Side By Side https://autodo.info/pages/m/michelle-ob … e-by-side/ 

        It might not be racist, but I question a person's motives that can witness and see these things and act like they don't exist.

      2. jonnycomelately profile image85
        jonnycomelatelyposted 2 months agoin reply to this

        I regard this picture as utterly offensive.  It's presumably made up by a person who enjoys the freedom to express him/her self as they please.  That's a very great freedom compared to the relative lack of freedom experienced in many other countries of the world.....where you are likely to be simply thrown into prison .... if you are lucky.

        1. dianetrotter profile image75
          dianetrotterposted 2 months agoin reply to this

          Thank you Jonny!  I was hesitant to post them but the best proof is something people can see with their own eyes.

          More images are available by searching Google and then click images.

          If people continue to say, "You can't be sick because I feel great!", in the face of the evidence, there is a heart issue.  Taking statues downs will embitter them more. 

          Like Judge Milian says, "I can't believe my lying eyes!"  That expression extends to ears. 

          Kathleen, thank you for asking about freedom to be bigots.  It allowed me the opportunity to present concrete examples.

          They things aren't done by "ALL" white people.  They are done by people who hate enough to spend their time writing things that are blatantly false and take time to use PhotoShop, a computer and social media to display racist images of people.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
            Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months agoin reply to this

            They are done anonymously on the internet.  Perhaps there is another issue emerging in all this.
            If these "people" are actual people, (not planted by who knows who,) they are expressing a sickness:
            a psychological one.  Why, where and how is this sickness manifesting? I believe it is being instilled by very angry people which are being produced by society itself.

            There is something so wrong with everything:

            School systems.
            Religious institutions which are driving people away from Great Spirit.
            Politicians which don't give a crap about The People anymore.
            Adulterated and Non-foods.
            Reliance on pharmaceuticals.
            Boredom.
            Broken Family structures.


            We are at war, and per usual with democracies after about 200 years, it is from within.
            And yeah, abuse of freedom of speech should not be happening. You can't have a democractic form of government without morals and apparently we don't.


            Hitler was an unhappy, deranged person. The people who latch onto his ideologies are the same. What in our civilized society has produced such people? The Pure Evil which leaks into civilized society starts with unhappy children in unstable family structures, who are not successful at school or with their peers. They need power and are so desperate for it, they choose a backward negative destructive direction rather than a positive constructive forward direction.

            They are negatively guiding their free will instead of positively.

            There is the real problem.

            The solution: We need to relearn on a common sense level how to raise happy humans who are motivated to go in positive directions. This is an across the board solution, involving all people, not just these and these.

            1. dianetrotter profile image75
              dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              I really don't get this Kathryn.  I'm guilty of running on and try to stop myself.

              There are cowards who hide behind the internet.  There are many who want you to know who and what they are.  They tell you.  When they tell me, I believe them.

              Bottom line, what is the point.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                who are they?

  26. Ewent profile image81
    Ewentposted 2 months ago

    No matter what Confederate or Nazi sympathizers claim to the contrary, the Confederacy was intended to split the Union of the United States, was it not? Show me where in the US Constitution, splitting the country in two is not considered treason.

    When George Washington, himself a slave owner rallied his troops in the American Revolution, it was to UNITE the colonies. The Confederacy, under Jeffeson Davis, sought to divide it.

    That states right malarkey is just as distorted as the use of the Confederate flag and the Swastika the worst racists in this country use as their symbols of hate.

    What has Nazi Germany to do with the Confederacy? See their connection? This isn't about statues. Condoleeza Rice has NEVER EVER not acted in concert with her party. To this former CEO turned college professor, Republicanism is foremost. Sorry if I am not falling for her partisan bias.

    I can go 10 minutes from my home and find a Revolutionary War monument of some other site where Washinton's troops were barracked.

    Monuments are a tribute to honor. Where is the honor in dividing the country to own, keep, buy and sell free slave labor? That's the connection between the Confederacy and Nazis. Both relied heavily on free slave labor in one form or another.

    Let's pretend for one minute that Confederates are great at hiding the truth. In Ken Burns documentary "The Civil War," it was pointed out that over 900,000 rebels died not in battle but from disease. When that war ended, it was the Yankees up north who paid dearly for southern reconstructions.

    Sorry but those Neo Nazis have NO rights in our country. Neither does that stupid rebel flag or those statues honoring heroes who sought to divide the country in two.

  27. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 months ago

    … we should ignore those who clam to be neo nazis. We need to learn how to starve some (demented groups of) people of any kind of attention since, attention is probably all they really want.

    Freedom of Speech has turned into Abuse of Free Speech.


    What can be done????

    Take down the whole internet?

    1. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      I am sure Heather Hyer's family can't ignore the fact that they can't talk to her anymore.

      A person's use of the internet just "shows" their character.  Some people, curse, rant, rave, etc.  They are telling you who they are.

      Shutting down the internet is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.  People should be held accountable for what they do.  Ignoring will not make that happen.

      When thousands of people walk down the street with guns, chanting hate, dressed to fight, they are hard to ignore.  To ignore someone calling me the "n" can be the difference between life and death.  Those epitaphs are often warnings of physical violence.

      Kathryn, it is good when you live in a simplistic existence.  Many of us don't have that opportunity.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
        Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        Ignore. What else can we do... besides throwing the baby out with bathwater? These people are despicable and are an example of how not to be. No one, by the way, is pro slavery in this day. Unless they are totally mentally deranged, in which case… they need a shrink.

        Can we legislate these cases of abuse of freedom of speech?

        1. dianetrotter profile image75
          dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          You haven't heard of the slavery rings going on in present times?  Wow!

          Girls, Human Trafficking, And Modern Slavery In America
          https://thinkprogress.org/girls-human-t … cbf08523a/

          Human trafficking: Modern day slavery
          http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/08/ … avery.html

          Slavery is alive todoay.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
            Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            They are mentally deranged in their sexual perversion and evil ways of making money. They prey on homeless children, teens,  young men and women who are so desperate to survive they end up becoming victims.

  28. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 8 weeks ago

    You overlook the fact that our founding fathers were slave holders themselves and were concerned about balancing the vote for the states that were less populated by whites.  Their intentions may have been understandable in their era, but that time is passed.  Mob rule?  How is today's system any different when a vote in one state counts for more than a vote in another state.  When was the last time you saw a candidate spend any significant time or money in a state with only a few electoral votes?

    In the modern era, where every voter has plenty of access to information about all the candidates, there is no reason to have a convoluted system that denies the majority of voters the election of their chosen candidate.  We did away with the Fairness Doctrine for this same reason.  Why keep a system that denies one person one vote equal to any other person's vote?

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hello again Kathleen,

      I am aware that there were slave-holders among the writers of our Constitution. Historical documents also tell us they were aware that slavery should/needed to be abolished, (particularly George Washington's writings), but, could not be done by a new constitution - it would never be ratified, the birth of our new form of government would have been a stillborn. That is the reality of the times.

      Also, that aspect of the Electoral College, (EC),  was not solely for the benefit of slave-holding states. Delaware, and the smaller Northern states also demanded an 'equalizer' to counter the potential power monopoly of the large states. Your own statement; "When was the last time you saw a candidate spend any significant time or money in a state with only a few electoral votes?" is proof of that consideration.

      Without EC votes, only the most populous states would matter in our presidential elections. You may not consider those less populous states important, but I am sure their citizens do. Just as I am sure they have as much right to representation in the presidential elections as the larger states. The EC does not make theirs an equal representation, but at least it keeps them from becoming political non-entities. Is that a possible consideration for you?

      As to your one person - one vote, we do have that, in all state elections, and all the legislative elections. A state's members are its citizens, our nation's members are its states.

      Your reference about "mob rule" doesn't make sense. The EC allows all states a seat at the table. Think of it like a booster seat. It doesn't give them anymore say, it just helps them reach the table.Mob rule is a table of 6 wolves and four sheep deciding what, (or who), is for dinner.

      You are certainly welcome to your "National Popular Vote" opinion, but you must first change the structure of our nation for it to have any validity. Until then, your criticisms of the EC don't hold water. I also think your criticisms fail to understand the aspects of human nature that our Constitutional writers had the foresight to address over two hundred years ago. Surely you don't think the basics of our human nature have changed too?

      Denying the majority the raw power of pure democracy to ignore the minority is exactly the purpose of the EC, and many other aspects of our Constitution. Do you also want to remove those minority status protections too?

      GA

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
      Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      The size of states matters.  Why even discuss the EC?

      " You overlook the fact that our founding fathers were slave holders themselves and were concerned about balancing the vote for the states that were less populated by whites."
        HUH??????

      1. Ewent profile image81
        Ewentposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        The Founding Fathers were slave owners. But, most of them also recognized that in order to comply with their own definition of Constitutional freedom, they had to release men from bondage.

        Trying to use that as an excuse for the south and midwest to get their syrupy mitts on free slave labor is absurd. Hypothetically, if the right wingers were allowed free rein to place their arcane culture on all Americans, the first thing they would do is remove Civil Rights so they can take back their slaves. Who is kidding whom here?

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          Those who believe anyone on either side in America would  reinstitute slavery would be better served working toward coming to a better understanding of their fellow citizens than making bizarre and unsupportable accusations.

  29. Will Apse profile image89
    Will Apseposted 8 weeks ago

    For what my opinion is worth, I think there is a bleakness at the heart of American life. I see it in the literature as much as the people and the stats. And that comes directly out the nation's violent history.

    I will just focus on the damage done to the white community by slavery because it is usually ignored.

    For many generations, across the US, white children were brought up to think that the everyday sadism involved in owning slaves was OK and necessary. The beatings, the forced separation of families, the rapes and hard labor were all part of white families lives.

    This does not promote healthy development. Human beings are pretty decent creatures blessed with empathy and concern for others from birth. Getting them to the point that slavery is experienced as OK involves huge distortions in thought and feeling.

    And I don't think that mindset has gone away. Racism has not gone away. Cruel attitudes to any vulnerable group are pretty normal.

    Other nations have very violent histories, including my own, but I don't see the same levels of damage or pessimism.

    Dunno how the US proceeds, but I wish it luck.

    1. dianetrotter profile image75
      dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Thank you for your comments Will.  The issue is soooo complex from both sides!

      AA
      1.  There are some who like to blame people today for what their ancestors did.  (I try to talk to my aunt but there is no changing of her mine.  Many young people who know NOTHING about slavery have heard it and repeat it.)
      2.  There are some that will say they hate white people for whatever reason.  One reason I've heard is "Because they are devils!"
      3.  There are those who hate white people because of a past experience or an experience related to them.  (When I was young I heard that Elvis Presley hated Black people.  I later learned from documentaries and bio how he would go to a Black church because he liked the way they sing and wanted to learn tips)


      White
      1.  There are Nazis/White Supremcist who make their feelings known daily.
      2.  There are those who have a need to feel superior.  (feel they are more attractive, smarter, and deserving of higher positions and find a way to let you know it)
      3.  There are those who want to blame Black people because they are not successful in life.  (He/she deserved a job but they gave it to a Black person)
      4.  There are those who holler "race bait" anytime a Black person makes a comment (Michelle Obama with the point that slaves built the white house.)

      Not everybody wants peace and love because they are self-absorbed.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
        Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        who?

        1. dianetrotter profile image75
          dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          AA=African American

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
            Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            and why are you discussing them? Why can't we just let them and their stupid viewpoints be. Just ignore them. We all know there are always a few bad apples. The majority are not this way.

            1. dianetrotter profile image75
              dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              I'm sure you addressing the people I enumerated rather than AA's in general.

              Ignoring people is a judgment call.  Last night my aunt was talking about how long the devil's tail is.  I told her, "There is nowhere in the Bible that says Lucifer had a tail and he was actually very attractive."  I'll provide evidence to her.  I couldn't let that go by.

              If I hear/see someone speaking racist words, I will let them know I disagree.  They need to know!

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
                Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yer choice, but why bother?

                1. Ewent profile image81
                  Ewentposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Correction: Lucifer in the Old Testament supposedly was one of the original angels who angered Michael and Archangel and both duked it out until God stepped in and tossed Lucifer into hell. Supposedly, there are Four Hells. The hell of the damned for all eternity, Purgatory, Limbo of the Fathers and Limbo of the Innocents. St. Thomas Aquinas referred to hell of the damned as "Gehenna."

                  1. dianetrotter profile image75
                    dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Ah!  You are Catholic or you went to Catholic school.  I went for 6 years.  As an adult, I went to Catholic church for another 6 years.

  30. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks ago

    Can we legislate abuse of freedom of speech? Can we decide what IS abuse of freedom of speech?
    Freedom of speech was to be used for good. Shall we ignore those who are not using it for good?? or fine them, jail them, kill them? what?

  31. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks ago

    we can take note and abhor them. thats about it. We can let them ruin themselves and remember those who ruin their own integrity.

    and have nothing to do with them.

    1. Ewent profile image81
      Ewentposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      Americans with any sense of honor do not allow Nazis in our streets, wearing cammos like they are US soldiers. I'm told by several of my friends in the military that their wearing of any military garb is a violation of the military code. That's point number one.

      Point number two. We do not allow Nazis FREEDOM in the US. Germany doesn't. And I believe Germany knows best how to demolish Nazis in that country.

      The very idea that we should remain silent while a bunch of beer swilling, high school drops outs armed with assault weapons have the "right" to parade in our streets, streets OUR tax dollars pay for, is absurd.

  32. Kathryn L Hill profile image88
    Kathryn L Hillposted 8 weeks ago

    Ignore em. That's our only choice for the sake of peace. You know and they know they are wrong.
    Why stir up the muddy water, as you are doing here. How helpful is it ... ?

  33. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago

    I see now some are advocating removing Stone Mountain in GA. Reminds me of the Taliban and ISIS. Sadly, I don't see a collective raised eyebrow at the insanity.

  34. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 8 weeks ago

    The EC does nothing to protect the small states.  It makes the votes of a large state count for more. 

    "our nation's members are its states"  If I thought that was true, I'd never again say the Pledge of Allegiance, or sing the National Anthem, or be proud of the years my husband served in the Army.  I am a citizen of the United States not the state of Georgia.

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      "It makes the votes of the large states count for more"? Com'on Kathleen, you can't have it both ways. First you said it, (Electoral College, EC), made the votes of small states count for more, and now it's the larger state votes that count for more?

      As for your citizenship... of course you are a citizen of the United States, but you are also a citizen of Georgia, and in every election you have ever voted in, you are voting as a citizen of Georgia, (unless of course you held residence in another state). For your local Georgian elections, your Georgia state legislature and chief executive elections, your national legislative representative elections, and finally for your Georgia state electors to represent your state'svote for our national chief executive.

      And for this distinction you feel a loss of your U.S. citizenship? Do you vote for any other state's local or state elections? Do you vote for any other state's governor? Do you vote for any other state's national legislative representatives? Did you ever consider any of this, or haven't you ever voted in any Georgia-related elections?

      But you are right on one point... I should have said "our nations voting members are its states."

      GA

  35. Credence2 profile image84
    Credence2posted 8 weeks ago

    As much as it hurt me to have lost to the EC this last election cycle, after considerable thought I have to support its being there. But not for the reason of protecting racists or aristocrats (who think that they know better)

    Without it, why would I as a candidate bother with the flyover states? I simply go to the states with the population centers and win. Everybody has to have a  little skin in the game to agree with outcome. Wyoming still has greater influence under the electoral college relative to California when population is considered. But is not debilitating, we lost 3 big democratic strongholds, and when you think of where they are clustered, the loss is in the rust belt where promises to reinvigorate the economy were tantamount . We did not make that clear to them as they grasped at anyone would could offer revitalization. Did Clinton really listen? For the kind of voters on the left in Colorado, Washington, California or New York, living in generally more prosperous states, the issues are different. People do not all have the same reasons to support the Democrats.We have to be able to sort the wheat from the chaff and realize that one size does not fit all. We Democrats have to look at ourselves closely and reexamine our message so that what happened in 2016, does not happen again.

    As progressives we got the pasting we deserved this last time because our candidate and message was not on point. 2000 was a fluke, like the times that the EC overrode the popular vote over a century before.

    Constitutional Convention requires a 3/4 concurrence before any change is possible. We cannot get the support for changing this from 38 states.

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      ... and there is a very reasonable response. Careful Cred, The Force is strong.

      GA

    2. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      "As progressives we got the pasting we deserved this last time because our candidate and message was not on point."

      Would it not be preferable to change actions, philosophy and attitude rather than just the message from lying lips?  The party might even find a candidate that works for the people that way...

      1. Credence2 profile image84
        Credence2posted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        We are Democrats, Wilderness, not rightwingers, conservatives and such. If I slight HC it is for failure to the true philosophy of the party not because she failed to move the party toward the ideology of the Republicans.

        Sanders and Warren are my ideal, no lying nor no need for change of philosophy or action from either of them. For me, they are on point.

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          That was kind of the point; the "leaders" ARE the party, including Sanders and Warren.  For the most part they promote the same things Clinton (and the party) does, which led to their failure in the last election.  This wasn't a sudden change in the electorate - it had been building for years.  The DNC just failed to change into what the people wanted, that's all. 

          So did the GOP, but that's not the topic here.  I'd go so far as to say that had Trump been the Democratic candidate, with concepts just a little left of center instead of right, he'd have won as easily as he did while on the right.

  36. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 8 weeks ago

    And, the insanity spreads.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/busi … ville.html

    What next? Are demonstrators going to topple and burn anyone whose name they find offensive?

    1. Ewent profile image81
      Ewentposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      No. Demonstrators are going to fight to stop Neo Nazis who have NO right in our public places. Germany doesn't allow the, why do you? You know why your pacificist attitude toward Neo Nazis is such. Neo Nazis want to turn our democracy into a dictatorship. To those who cannot stop trying out their FORCE others acts, maybe a shrink would help.

      1. wilderness profile image94
        wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        Please give a link to the law denying Neo Nazis any right to enter public places?

        1. Ewent profile image81
          Ewentposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          Read your U.S. Constitution...the part about citizens being traitors who espouse ANY but the U.S. Government and democracy. Also, since Neo Nazis opens those big anti Semitic and bigot mouths, they are violating the Civil Rights Act.

          Obviously, no one taught you that you cannot use racial or anti semitic slurs in public en masse. But you go right ahead and give Nazis rights and see if we don't make sure you end up in Moscow, with your comrades.

          1. wilderness profile image94
            wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            I don't see anything linking to a law here.  I presume, then, that the statement was nothing more than personal desire on how we should (but don't) treat those we disagree with?  That there IS no reason to deny access to public areas to Neo-Nazi's?

            (Unless you can link to a portion of the Civil Rights Act that says if one exercises free speech they shall be denied access to public streets?  Good luck with that one!)

            1. Ewent profile image81
              Ewentposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              Of course you don't. Even if you did, right winger contrarians would deny they did. Time for you little boys of the right to grow up. If your parents did not raise you to know you cannot walk around in cammos armed with AK47s and AR15 while using racial and anti semitic slurs, maybe you self proclaimed Anarchists need a refresher course in history.

              By the way, I'm sure you know of the Civil Rights Act of 1974? Or is that another of the coward boys of the right doing their grand denial? How many of YOUR ancestors were involved in lynchings, bombings and cross burnings?

              Get with 2017. Learn to read and understand the Declaration of Independence..."ALL men are CREATED equal." By the way, several of the world's greatest historical biologers would tell you that the entire human race began in Africa. Oooooh I'll bet you hate that don't you?

              Now..Here is the Preamble to the US Constitution: WE the PEOPLE of the UNITED STATES,  in order to form a more perfect UNION, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, PROVIDE for the common defence, promote the GENERAL WLEFARE, and secure the Blessings of LIBERTY, to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of  America.

              Where do you see the word Nazi or Neo Nazi in that preamble? And you phonies prove the only states where you love to show off in your pretend wannabe GI Joe cammos armed to the teeth are the same hick states.

              Try that in front of  Trump Tower. I dare you.

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                Freedom of speech.. It's a b***h but someone's got to understand it. Unfortunately those of us who understand it can't explain it to those willfully blind to it.

              2. wilderness profile image94
                wildernessposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                "Of course you don't."  (see a link)

                Because, of course, you didn't include one.  I get that, but why blame me for your failure to support your allegation?  You're the one that made an unsupportable statement, not me!

                "ALL men are CREATED equal."

                Yes they are!  And they all have equal rights to express their ideology, whether you approve or agree with it or not.

                From your quote of the preamble (which is not a law): "... secure the Blessings of LIBERTY..."  Guess that means liberty to only say and do things you approve of, right?  Except, of course, that while I don't see the word Nazi in it, I also don't see any limitation on Nazi speech.  Not even a limitation on public spaces they can't enter.  That is apparently purely from your own imagination, not the law and not the preamble to the constitution.  Just another phony, then; allowing voices and words you approve of but not allowing people to do or say what you don't like, all while calling it "liberty".  Thank goodness our forefathers were wiser than that!

                Ever come across the phrase "I disapprove of what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it"?  It's often attributed to Voltaire, incorrectly, and addresses the attitude that ONLY things you want to hear will be allowed.  Addresses it most effectively, I might add.

              3. GA Anderson profile image83
                GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                Oops, I am sure it must just be a typo, but you did mean the Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't you?

                Surely you would like to have at least one part of your comment that was correct.

                GA

      2. Live to Learn profile image80
        Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

        A lot of people have wanted to do a lot of things throughout our history. I am not in favor of denying others the liberties I hold dear simply because I find their ideas abhorrent.

        1. dianetrotter profile image75
          dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

          I just want to understand  "THEY are trying to take away our CULTURE."

          1.WHO is trying to take away the culture?  the aliens?
          2.WHAT is the culture?  sitting on the porch drinking tea?
          3. WHOSE culture is it.  the United States of America??

          I'd love for someone to answer these questions specifically.  Once that is established, it is easier to discuss it.

          1. Live to Learn profile image80
            Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

            I have no idea what you are talking about since I've never heard anyone say this or read this anywhere. My only problem with this new development in our dysfunctional country is that we are not seeing change by way of the democratic process. We are seeing mob rule and we are seeing people advocating the violence entailed in that rule. Our history is what it is. I saw a woman on tv advocating burning effigies of George Washington and pulling down all statues. She advocated pulling down statues of Lincoln. This has gone beyond ridiculous. It is time for people to understand that the past is the past and their insecure need to feel somehow damaged by events they were not alive to participate in is something for the psychiatric couch.

            1. dianetrotter profile image75
              dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

              Donald Trump has said it at least 3 or 4 times in the past week .. most recently last night in Arizona.  I'll see if I can link it for you.

              Trump on removing Confederate statues: 'They’re trying to take away our culture'

              http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat … e-away-our

              "They’re trying to take away our culture. They’re trying to take away our history," Trump said at a rally in Phoenix, Ariz. "And our weak leaders, they do it overnight. These things have been there for 150 years, for a hundred years. You go back to a university and it's gone. Weak, weak people."


              True there are nuts out there of every stripe; however, DJT is the president.  He is not the only one who has said this.  Someone, I can't remember who, has mentioned it here.  That was when I initially asked, before hearing DJT.  It has now turned into a mantra.

              1. Live to Learn profile image80
                Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                OK. Let's look at it from that statement. Are we to hide our history?

                1. dianetrotter profile image75
                  dianetrotterposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                  History deals with the growth of a particular country or land.
                  Culture deals with the interests shown by the people of the particular country or land.

                  I'm interested in understanding what the culture means.  Is the culture from Europe.  Is it something that was developed here.  What does it include?  Dress, way of talking, foods, activities?

                  1. Live to Learn profile image80
                    Live to Learnposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I suppose you'd have to get clarification from Trump, since that is who you said said it. As far as I am concerned our culture is the result of all of our history and contributions. Which is why America is so great a place to live.

  37. Kathleen Cochran profile image85
    Kathleen Cochranposted 8 weeks ago

    "First you said it, (Electoral College, EC), made the votes of small states count for more, and now it's the larger state votes that count for more?"

    I never said it made the votes of small states count for more.  And the candidates already ignore the fly-over states.  It's not as simple as "large states votes count for more".  Some do and some don't.  Which is why I'm asking for one vote to count the same no matter where you happen to live.  Simple.  Fair.

    1. GA Anderson profile image83
      GA Andersonposted 8 weeks agoin reply to this

      You may be right Kathleen, I may have misunderstood what you meant. I was referring to this;

      "How is today's system any different when a vote in one state counts for more than a vote in another state.  When was the last time you saw a candidate spend any significant time or money in a state with only a few electoral votes?"  - http://hubpages.com/politics/forum/1425 … ost2907379

      I may have added 2+2, (a vote counting for more in one state + in a state with only a few electoral votes) and gotten 5, (that you were talking about votes in small, (less populated), states)

      Either way, the point is the same, the votes remain equally powerful - by population ratios. I don't understand what you mean when you say "some do and some don't." Are you saying that EC Electors are proportioned differently in different states?

      And I have an addition to your comment ending; "Simple. Fair. ..." and inapplicable to our Constitutional structure.

      GA

 
working