Whatever is torn down you can't change history. What's done is done and if you eradicate all images of past leaders, whether they were deemed good or bad or indifferent at that point in time or at some point in the future, you're going to lose half of history. The same applies to religious icons of past civilisations which are no longer viewed appropriate by current regimes. What sort of a present is left if there's not a complete record of the past - 'warts and all'?
We must find a way to stop this ugly trend from growing. We have embarked upon a very slippery slope that will destroy us in the end. What's next? Is it book burning? If we eradicate our past, we will undoubtedly repeat the mistakes we made. Common sense must prevail.
So you are saying that it won't stop at statue destruction? I think your right. I find it strange that that is what dictators do. And yet it is the people who are against POTUS for that reason that are doing it. Kind of whacko.
To answer your question directly, no. I don't like Custer or Stonewall Jackson because they both tried to wipe out my Native American Ancestors. Stonewall Jackson is a Confederate hero, so some people like and respect him. I just don't think we should be able to pull down anything that offends us personally.
I think that taking down any statues is in violation of the First Amendment. It is the same as censorship, book burning, etc. The First Amendment means we can"t go around desecrating or destroying anything we don't agree with because other citizens have rights, too. These very people who are calling for diversity are themselves not respecting diversity at the same time. Diversity always brings polarization, and they can't have it both ways. We are either diverse or we are amalgamous. To be amalgamous, some factions must be brainwashed to the other person's viewpoint. That is antithesis to what these people are calling for unless it is their own way of thinking. They really are as bad as the White Supremacists.
Unfortunately, the White Supremacists appear to be the only ones who obeyed the law and got a permit to demonstrate. The black robes (counter-protestors) did not, if we can believe the media, so why is their right to protest being defended. I only deplore the fact that some crazy drove into the people and killed a woman. Would there have been as big a frenzy if the driver had been a black robe?
Quite well written. Planned group protests must be permitted just about everywhere. I think the Heller decision made clear that gov. may charge and/or deny a right to march. Clearly they would not have permitted the anti protestors a permit.
Apparently, there is footage that show the driver being attacked in his car right before the horrible incident. Police feel he may have hit the gas by accident. We'll see. In any event, both sides were disgusting.
BP....I don't buy that BS about the driver doing anything "accidentally!" Some quick, desperate attorney, no doubt, sparking a crooked defense. This guy has a history of being violent, abusive & mentally deranged, even attacking his own mother!
Paula I think you are right. A psycho. I see it a little different though -- an insanity defense and ten years in a psych ward is all he'll get.
by Hxprof20 months ago
Who is the greatest military general in history?
by I am DB Cooper7 years ago
http://i.imgur.com/779Vw.jpgI've got to hand it to Fox News/Fox Nation, they didn't lie at all in this headline.
by L a d y f a c e7 years ago
Currently there are two new measures in place at the airport for screening. There is the 3D machine (Advanced Imaging Technology) which sees through clothing; and there is the new pat down option where people are...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.