The loss of history

a reply to: DBCowboy

What if one of the Mt Rushmore 4 were shown to have something more horrendous and unimaginable in their past that we ever thought possible?
Leave em up there?

a reply to: DBCowboy

Just goes to show you there is a bit of Taliban or ISIS in many of us when it comes to history and monuments.
youtu.be...

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: DBCowboy

What if one of the Mt Rushmore 4 were shown to have something more horrendous and unimaginable in their past that we ever thought possible?
Leave em up there?

Yes. Mt Rushmore was created to honor the achievements of those men. They aren't a representative of their entire lives.

Good history, happy history, pleasant and nice history teaches us. But so does dark, evil, violent history.

History is like a test paper that time gives you.

There are check marks for good grades, and exes for bad grades.

We determine the value of the culture by the grade that time has given it.

Deleting all the exes does not elevate the grade.

I can see not further glorifying these men/symbols with more statues and street names, however you shouldn't take away the ones already there. And yes, I realize that is a somewhat hypocritical statement, but it just seems right to me.

Gen. Robert E. Lee is part of my family tree. Did you know he was actually approached by President Lincoln and asked if he would be a general for the union army? Lee responded with the likes of, "I'm humbled, but I must fight alongside my family and friends".

Lee actually freed his slaves in1862. Years before the 13th amendment. (Might I add, these slaves were inherited, he did not purchase any slaves).

However, Grant the headliner for the union army, didn't free his slaves until the 13 amendment was enacted.

My point is, not all of these confederate generals and soldiers were bad people. Their "country" was at war and they went to defend it.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Not a big one, but if people want it then who am I to tell them they shouldn't feel that way?
Not by force, like that ridiculous ISIS or AQ comparison, that is just some BS and logical fallacy at best.


Renaming street names isn't removing history, that seems to be an exaggeration to me.
Taking them out of our books or classes would be.

Statues I would probably be more resistant to taking down for the record.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: DBCowboy

What if one of the Mt Rushmore 4 were shown to have something more horrendous and unimaginable in their past that we ever thought possible?
Leave em up there?

Yes. Mt Rushmore was created to honor the achievements of those men. They aren't a representative of their entire lives.

Good history, happy history, pleasant and nice history teaches us. But so does dark, evil, violent history.

I think I'd remove a pedophile or a serial rapist from a monument.

I'm sure a lot of history was re-written just to get some of these people to their elevated status (not representative of their entire lives, as you said)

Name changes happen all the time. There was a bridge in Sydney that in 12 years had 3 completely different names. No one cried or commented on it, thankfully it's because Aussies are more laid back and don't give a hoot about insignificant issues.

I lived on a street called Bob after a surfer, they changed it, and not one single person cared. Not One.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Maybe this City doesnt belong to the US anymore? Maybe this city is claimed?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

Name changes happen all the time. There was a bridge in Sydney that in 12 years had 3 completely different names. No one cried or commented on it, thankfully it's because Aussies are more laid back and don't give a hoot about insignificant issues.

I wouldn't quite agree with that statement. Why have we spent so many years banning graphic video games from Australia? Why are we so hardcore with the war on drugs and especially weed? Aussies claim to be laid back but in my experience we can be very uptight about certain things.

On topic: changing street names is stupid because just names shouldn't be offensive, other streets might have the same name but for a totally different reason. You cannot claim a street name to be offensive simply based on the context on which it was named. I can slightly understand wanting to remove statues because you actually have to look at the person, but I think if they did enough to earn that statue then it should stay there regardless of the errors they made. If we want to go judging every historical white man solely on the basis of whether or not he owned a slave then we will be undermining the achievements of many great people. For example Andrew Jackson was the first and only president to pay off the entire U.S. national debt. He spent a great deal of his presidency fighting the central banking institutions.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: zazzafrazz


I wouldn't quite agree with that statement. Why have we spent so many years banning graphic video games from Australia? Why are we so hardcore with the war on drugs and especially weed? Aussies claim to be laid back but in my experience we can be very uptight about certain things.

.

You don't agree the bridge had its name changed and no one cared?
or you don't agree my street name changed and no one cared?

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I don't agree that Aussies are as laid back as you make them out to be, obviously. I thought about slimming down the quote to just the part where you said we are laid back but I decided your words needed context. I'm not sure why I have to explain this.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I suppose the same goes for me, why I would have to explain no one caring about a bridge or street name.

History isn't passive. It is dynamic as anything we can learn from. History is forensics. It deals with the skeleton of the fact and tries to derive the truth from the remains.

If we continue to eliminate historical "clues" we can never get a true picture. Of course we can always rely on biased interpretations, but isn't the actual truth much more palatable?

History should remain just that.

A record of the past, something to further ourselves on - as the Human race - should be an honest, clinical factual report of what happened when ... with no malice or ego attached.

I fear history will keep repeating itself ...

This is the beginning of total control by a new power. What perfect place than to start in New Orleans, where the metaphor for the rebirth of a destroyed city can be eliminating the stains of our past???

Crock of #. #ing Federal suit better point out personal bias on the part of the mayor and likely the council (or were they coerced??) and vote in favor of preserving history.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
History isn't passive. It is dynamic as anything we can learn from. History is forensics. It deals with the skeleton of the fact and tries to derive the truth from the remains.

If we continue to eliminate historical "clues" we can never get a true picture. Of course we can always rely on biased interpretations, but isn't the actual truth much more palatable?

History is dynamic, that's the whole point - a street name isn't fixed for all time. Relatively local to me two street names were changed to capture the surnames of members of the city who had won Olympic medals in the '80s, I can't recall a whole lot of issue over the name change although doubtless the previous names had some historical connotations.

Heroes is often used word in this topic, but it seems this words means different thing to different people...

Or it might be just that someone we consider hero, might not be so much hero for someone else?!