Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
-- Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5
Frankie and Slim
Happy New Year
Saturday, June 13, 2020
THEN AND NOW
How does the United States justify censorship and historical site destruction when we condemned other countries for the same things?
It is a very tricky question. The statues in question are undeniably part of your history. However I can also understand the concern of African Americans. Perhaps they see the statues as a celebration of a very dark part of their histories, and as a celebration of men who fought to keep them enslaved. Hitler was part of Germany's history but I would be very surprised to learn that statues of him can still be seen in streets and boulevards. Perhaps the statues which cause offence could be housed in a museum? Keeping them 'front and centre' seems to be celebrating them... Sorry, I don't think this is expressed very well.
I agree with EC about keeping them in a museum, with notes about who they are and what they did, so the history is not forgotten, but also not celebrated. So that the past will not be repeated.
I think EC has expressed it well. I find little to honor about the confederacy. But I also think the victors did an abysmal job of reintegrating the South after the war. Carpetbaggers, corruption, etc. That didn't help.
Defintely in a museum. We shouldn't destroy them because that's almost denying what they did. Museums can help teach everyone about slavery and what it involved. Belsen & Auschwitz became museums to let the world see & remember what happened. Slavery is still happening in many parts of the world where people are trafficked, it hasn't gone away.
Yes, in a museum. The statues themselves are not history--they're memorials to the men who led the rebellion. I can't think of any other country that would allow statues of defeated generals to be on public display. The statues are art, and should not be defaced or destroyed, although I understand the anger and frustration driving this. But in a museum with the whole story is the best idea.
It is a very tricky question. The statues in question are undeniably part of your history.
ReplyDeleteHowever I can also understand the concern of African Americans. Perhaps they see the statues as a celebration of a very dark part of their histories, and as a celebration of men who fought to keep them enslaved.
Hitler was part of Germany's history but I would be very surprised to learn that statues of him can still be seen in streets and boulevards.
Perhaps the statues which cause offence could be housed in a museum? Keeping them 'front and centre' seems to be celebrating them...
Sorry, I don't think this is expressed very well.
Excellent response. Thanks E.C.
DeleteI agree with EC about keeping them in a museum, with notes about who they are and what they did, so the history is not forgotten, but also not celebrated. So that the past will not be repeated.
ReplyDeleteI think EC has expressed it well. I find little to honor about the confederacy. But I also think the victors did an abysmal job of reintegrating the South after the war. Carpetbaggers, corruption, etc. That didn't help.
ReplyDeleteI like the idea of them being in a museum too, that way seeing them is a choice but destroying them is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the museum idea. Then seeing them is history and optional.
ReplyDeleteExcellent points.
ReplyDeleteDefintely in a museum. We shouldn't destroy them because that's almost denying what they did. Museums can help teach everyone about slavery and what it involved.
ReplyDeleteBelsen & Auschwitz became museums to let the world see & remember what happened.
Slavery is still happening in many parts of the world where people are trafficked, it hasn't gone away.
Yes, in a museum. The statues themselves are not history--they're memorials to the men who led the rebellion. I can't think of any other country that would allow statues of defeated generals to be on public display. The statues are art, and should not be defaced or destroyed, although I understand the anger and frustration driving this. But in a museum with the whole story is the best idea.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone else. The museum is a perfect place to put them with an explanation of their history, because it is our history.
ReplyDeletesad times..
ReplyDelete