http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/what_is_the_clotilda_last_slav.html
Would be a great historical find.
Would be a great historical find.
Yes.oragator said:
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/what_is_the_clotilda_last_slav.html
Would be a great historical find.
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:Yes.oragator said:
http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01/what_is_the_clotilda_last_slav.html
Would be a great historical find.
That is until the SJW types get wind of it and demand it be destroyed.
edit - just read the article. Ok, so not destroyed, but ripped from the ground in however many pieces and burned for firewood.
So it's only credentialed Historians get to decide what "glorified" means? BS. The HISTORY of the pontifications of "Historians" is replete with CONSTANTLY changing views on what should be "glorified" and what should not.Quote:
It's what is glorified in that history that causes arguments.
NormanAg said:So it's only credentialed Historians get to decide what "glorified" means? BS. The HISTORY of the pontifications of "Historians" is replete with CONSTANTLY changing views on what should be "glorified" and what should not.Quote:
It's what is glorified in that history that causes arguments.
Your posts just parrot the current view of what should be glorified and what should not.
How about this idea? Don't try and rewrite history. What was "glorified" in the past was done so as a reflection of the times.
Report that, don't endorse it, but DON'T CONDEMN it either! For better or worse - it happened. Condemning it now is a fools errand - no way in hell does it change "history"
Report it - analyze the culture of the time, provide a description of the that culture, and describe the rational for the "glorification". And in the closing paragraph, describe how "times have changed" and what was once "glorified" is no longer viewed in the same light.
Quote:
Your posts just parrot the current view of what should be glorified and what should not.
Removing statues doesn't erase the past if you're talking about history in a literate age. For example, without trying to go Godwin, we haven't kept Nazi monuments up in Germany for a reason. Those that are left are left for a very specific reason and are intended to convey shame in our era. That hasn't prevented historians from interpreting history accurately or prevented people from learning from the Nazi's mistakes. The same can be said for monuments honoring slavery advocates. There's no reason they have to stand just because they've been there. Removing them doesn't deny history or erase it. It does change the myth and narrative of what actually happened from celebratory to more measured.NormanAg said:
I posted this:Quote:
Your posts just parrot the current view of what should be glorified and what should not.
IMO Historians should recognize what was "glorified" in the past and explain the reasons why it was. And then acknowledge that our "times and our culture" have changed and what was ONCE glorified is no longer glorified.
To condemn the past without acknowledging the culture of the time is wrong. Removing statues and monuments that were erected a 100 years ago or so denies history and is an attempt to erase it. And has already pointed out on this thread - THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ISIS HAS DONE!
Interpret history - don't deny it, rewrite it, or attempt to erase it. We LEARN from history - if we erase it, we aren't going to learn anything from it. And we will continue to make the same mistakes.
I challenge you to spend 20 minutes on Twitter or Facebook and say we live in a literate age. I swear, I think we're dumber today than we were 100 years ago.Dr. Watso said:
Removing statues doesn't erase the past if you're talking about history in a literate age.
Spot on! It appears to me that some on this thread seem to think that "History" is primarily for - Historians. We don't need statues and memorials to remind us of the Civil War, etc. "Everyone" knows about those events - except the fact is 'everyone" DOES NOT KNOW very much about those events.Quote:
I swear, I think we're dumber today than we were 100 years ago.
NormanAg said:Spot on! It appears to me that some on this thread seem to think that "History" is primarily for - Historians. We don't need statues and memorials to remind us of the Civil War, etc. "Everyone" knows about those events - except the fact is 'everyone" DOES NOT KNOW very much about those events.Quote:
I swear, I think we're dumber today than we were 100 years ago.
It is well documented that most Americans (including college grads) knowledge of history is abysmal. Even many college grads can't tell you the dates for the American Revolution, the Civil War, and even WWII.
Historical statues and monuments, at the very least, serve as reminders to those who lack historical knowledge that yes, we did fight a war to gain our independence from Great Britain, we did fight a Civil War, and we did fight two "World Wars" that cost millions of lives and untold destruction.
The fact that so many of our citizens are "offended" by these statues and monuments (from throughout our history - not just the Civil War) is proof we have become a nation of snowflakes. We would never have won WWII with this kind of viewpoint and outlook. And hell -even WWI might have ended in a fashion that would have severely altered the future advancement of our country.
SRBS said:
Folks like you who should be open minded but are instead blinded by ideology are certainly a problem.
I understand exactly what it means - your lib bias is showing with this statement you posted:Quote:
What does this even mean?
That is YOUR opinion - and a very biased opinion at that.Quote:
Those statues tell a very specific story. Often not one that tells history honestly or openly.
NormanAg said:I understand exactly what it means - your lib bias is showing with this statement you posted:Quote:
What does this even mean?That is YOUR opinion - and a very biased opinion at that.Quote:
Those statues tell a very specific story. Often not one that tells history honestly or openly.
Just who gets to decide which statues/monuments are "Often not one that tells history honestly or openly."
IMO historians should evaluate past history with a mind to the prevailing cultural beliefs, customs, etc of the time - NOT "interpret" that history based on CURRENT cultural beliefs, customs, etc.
This is where your earlier point about the context of when and why the statues were emplaced comes in. However many of the statues in question aren't about the Civil War itself so much as the postwar South. Many of these statues were paid for and emplaced by people who wanted to honor the Confederate leaders and further the lost cause narrative.NormanAg said:Spot on! It appears to me that some on this thread seem to think that "History" is primarily for - Historians. We don't need statues and memorials to remind us of the Civil War, etc. "Everyone" knows about those events - except the fact is 'everyone" DOES NOT KNOW very much about those events.Quote:
I swear, I think we're dumber today than we were 100 years ago.
It is well documented that most Americans (including college grads) knowledge of history is abysmal. Even many college grads can't tell you the dates for the American Revolution, the Civil War, and even WWII.
Historical statues and monuments, at the very least, serve as reminders to those who lack historical knowledge that yes, we did fight a war to gain our independence from Great Britain, we did fight a Civil War, and we did fight two "World Wars" that cost millions of lives and untold destruction.
The fact that so many of our citizens are "offended" by these statues and monuments (from throughout our history - not just the Civil War) is proof we have become a nation of snowflakes. We would never have won WWII with this kind of viewpoint and outlook. And hell -even WWI might have ended in a fashion that would have severely altered the future advancement of our country.
Are you familiar with the Lost Cause myth? That's what many of the statues were raised to propagate.NormanAg said:I understand exactly what it means - your lib bias is showing with this statement you posted:Quote:
What does this even mean?That is YOUR opinion - and a very biased opinion at that.Quote:
Those statues tell a very specific story. Often not one that tells history honestly or openly.
Just who gets to decide which statues/monuments are "Often not one that tells history honestly or openly."
IMO historians should evaluate past history with a mind to the prevailing cultural beliefs, customs, etc of the time - NOT "interpret" that history based on CURRENT cultural beliefs, customs, etc.
So are we pissed at the Patriots tearing down the statue of King George?NormanAg said:
I posted this:Quote:
Your posts just parrot the current view of what should be glorified and what should not.
IMO Historians should recognize what was "glorified" in the past and explain the reasons why it was. And then acknowledge that our "times and our culture" have changed and what was ONCE glorified is no longer glorified.
To condemn the past without acknowledging the culture of the time is wrong. Removing statues and monuments that were erected a 100 years ago or so denies history and is an attempt to erase it. And has already pointed out on this thread - THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT ISIS HAS DONE!
Interpret history - don't deny it, rewrite it, or attempt to erase it. We LEARN from history - if we erase it, we aren't going to learn anything from it. And we will continue to make the same mistakes.
BQ78 said:
Watson:
Your "final aribitor" of worthy statues, historians, aren't the ones calling for the removal of Confederate statues, it is liberal SJWs and liberal city councils now that they control major inner cities where the statues are located.
BTW the Confederate comparison to Nazis is over the top and wrong.
As a history major, I wasn't going to write a long winded response, but this pretty much covers it. The idea isn't to not remember, it's to remember in context - most civil war confederate statues for instance weren't erected after the war, they went up in the 20th century, largely in the context of and in backlash to the racial strife of their eras. That is partly why they are so offensive to so many.Ag_EQ12 said:BQ78 said:
Watson:
Your "final aribitor" of worthy statues, historians, aren't the ones calling for the removal of Confederate statues, it is liberal SJWs and liberal city councils now that they control major inner cities where the statues are located.
BTW the Confederate comparison to Nazis is over the top and wrong.
I posted this last summer:
The AHA, one of the biggest associations of historians in the US, has released a statement on Confederate statues and memorials. Basically they state that discussions about how we memorialize the Civil War are important and that more historical context to both the War and the memorials are necessary. If statues are under consideration to be removed they say the communities should debate the statue in question with full understanding of how and why it was raised in the first place and the AHA offers to put officials from any level of government in touch with an expert to help the community better understand the historical context. If the community still choses to remove the statue, it must be put in a museum or history park that allows the statue to be part of the broader historical narrative.
I think we can all agree that more context and a comprehensive discussion about the history would be really beneficial in these situations.
Absolutely! Could't agree more.Quote:
I think we can all agree that more context and a comprehensive discussion about the history would be really beneficial in these situations.