• Statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee removed from Dallas park under armed police guard
    76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52683590]Wasn't the democratic party who wanted to secede from the United States? Didn't they found the KKK? When you dismantle statues because of history, how about banning the party which was responsible for the civil war in the first place?[/QUOTE] People associated with the Democratic Party in the South, yes. But this was before the days of the polar flip between the Democrats and Republicans, before Presidents like W. Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt.
[QUOTE=BF;52683137]The statue was erected in 1936, 70 years after the Civil War. It doesn't need to go in a museum. Besides, there's probably enough Confederate shit in museums anyways. [editline]15th September 2017[/editline] This 'put it in a museum' meme needs to die[/QUOTE] Contrary to what you may think, belated symbols such as these are equally as important if not more than those erected in a timely manner. Some of the most important eras of our combined civilizations have been represented by the revival of ancient, often deprecated symbols, to try and appropriate them, to appeal to their old meaning or to give them a brand new one. It's an important aspect of history that needs to be researched and cataloged the same way as every other aspect of history. Claiming something "doesn't need to go in a museum" despite falling into a trend that's been observable for centuries is absurdly short-sighted and bound to bite you in the ass some time in the future.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;52682895]The removal alone is costing the city around half a million dollars.[/QUOTE] Can someone fill me in on how pulling a statue out of the ground and carting it off to some government storage space costs half a million dollars?
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52683590]Wasn't the democratic party who wanted to secede from the United States? Didn't they found the KKK? When you dismantle statues because of history, how about banning the party which was responsible for the civil war in the first place?[/QUOTE] This line of thinking that the democrat party did bad thing once and Republican party did good thing once and their platforms obviously never switched is flawed logic at the very best. At worst it's intentional ignorance.
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52683656]Are there any other non-racist old dudes who look kinda similar to Robert E Lee? Could save some money by just rebranding the statues and pretending they're someone else[/QUOTE] Robert E. Lee wasn't even fond of slavery and is an important American historical figure, it's just that he's become a symbol of the South and a rallying point for white nationalism, probably because he was the only figure from the Civil War on the Southern side that Northerners didn't shame them about. Honestly, if anyone from the Confederacy is deserving to keep a statue, it would be Lee. Sadly however, he has become a rallying symbol of white nationalism and such a thing cannot be tolerated.
[QUOTE=BF;52683687]People associated with the Democratic Party in the South, yes. But this was before the days of the polar flip between the Democrats and Republicans, before Presidents like W. Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt.[/QUOTE] Well FDR, Wilson was incredibly racist.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52683976]Robert E. Lee wasn't even fond of slavery and is an important American historical figure, it's just that he's become a symbol of the South and a rallying point for white nationalism, probably because he was the only figure from the Civil War on the Southern side that Northerners didn't shame them about. Honestly, if anyone from the Confederacy is deserving to keep a statue, it would be Lee. Sadly however, he has become a rallying symbol of white nationalism and such a thing cannot be tolerated.[/QUOTE] There's a lot to suggest that this narrative that Robert E Lee was an outstanding guy is little more than a thinly veiled attempt to lend some sympathy to the plight of the south. [url]http://www.history.com/news/how-the-cult-of-robert-e-lee-was-born[/url] An interesting read, for sure. [editline]15th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52683981]Well FDR, Wilson was incredibly racist.[/QUOTE] Yeah I don't see why anyone puts FDR on a pedestal either. Dude did miracles on the economy, and during a war of all things, but he still rounded people up into camps based on their nationality alone.
[QUOTE=TheMrFailz;52683148]Or replace it with a real sherman. Doesn't need to have any historical significance at all in relation to that particular spot. Just put one there and watch the kids go crazy. :terrists: [T]https://www.normandywarguide.com/place-images/leclerc-monument/l/landings-monument-sherman-tank.jpg[/T][/QUOTE] Or put a Sherman with a statue of Sherman in the hatch
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;52683663]Colonel Sanders[/QUOTE] I think we are on to something here, just ask the average citizen which of these two guys is more deserving of a statue Guy 1 - owned slaves - fought to defend slavery - fought against the United States Guy 2 - never owned slaves - made delicious chicken-based meals - brought jobs, prosperity
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;52683986] Yeah I don't see why anyone puts FDR on a pedestal either. Dude did miracles on the economy, and during a war of all things, but he still rounded people up into camps based on their nationality alone.[/QUOTE] IIRC he personally thought it was awful but the demand was too great from the public.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;52682895]The removal alone is costing the city around half a million dollars. Dallas has fucking shit streets, homeless people around every corner, horrible inner city schools. Not to mention the understaffed police force and growing crime in some parts of town. I'm sure dropping half a mill removing an old statue that 90% of the people of Dallas didn't even know existed will fix all of the problems. No one in the city got to vote on this, it's the shit mayor virtue signaling with tax payer dollars.[/QUOTE] the potential damages that could result from an event akin to Charlottesville is more than enough to justify it's removal, 500k is not insubstantial but it's an adequate use of money to avoid huge risk
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52683590]Wasn't the democratic party who wanted to secede from the United States? Didn't they found the KKK? When you dismantle statues because of history, how about banning the party which was responsible for the civil war in the first place?[/QUOTE] Thanks for letting us all know that you're not worth listening to, very thoughtful of you.
[QUOTE=Shibbey;52683949]Can someone fill me in on how pulling a statue out of the ground and carting it off to some government storage space costs half a million dollars?[/QUOTE] The armed escort probably took up a good chunk of that, so did the removal without damaging it. If they just flattened it with sledgehammers it probably would have still cost a hundred thousand or so. That's just how it is when you do a rush job for any size government entity.
[QUOTE=discofex;52682838]Now replace it with General Sherman.[/QUOTE] Who can top this badass dude? Just look at this motherfucker [T]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/19/William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg/1200px-William-Tecumseh-Sherman.jpg[/T]
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;52682895]The removal alone is costing the city around half a million dollars. Dallas has fucking shit streets, homeless people around every corner, horrible inner city schools. Not to mention the understaffed police force and growing crime in some parts of town. I'm sure dropping half a mill removing an old statue that 90% of the people of Dallas didn't even know existed will fix all of the problems. No one in the city got to vote on this, it's the shit mayor virtue signaling with tax payer dollars.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if 500,000 is much for the cost of a large city.
Robert E Lee didn't want statues of himself made, or other symbols of the confederacy for that matter. He wanted the south to move on. I don't think Lee would agree with this big fight we're having with statues today. I don't think he would like that some of the south is still salty about the loss. [quote]Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, R. E. Lee.[/quote] [url]http://www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=/xml_docs/valley_news/newspaper_catalog.xml&style=/xml_docs/valley_news/news_cat.xsl&level=edition&paper=rv&year=1869&month=09&day=03&edition=rv1869/va.au.rv.1869.09.03.xml[/url] In fact they should just put that above text on a plaque where the statue used to be. Keep the parked named after Lee.
[QUOTE=discofex;52682838]Now replace it with General Sherman.[/QUOTE] For a moment I read this as General Patton, who would also not be a bad choice as far as I'm aware?
[QUOTE=Shibbey;52683949]Can someone fill me in on how pulling a statue out of the ground and carting it off to some government storage space costs half a million dollars?[/QUOTE] The government never does anything cheap because it's spending other people's money.
It's already called Lee Park, just replace it with a statue of Bruce Lee. Problem solved.
[QUOTE=Itachi_Crow;52683385]Doing anything political is a signal of virtue apparently. Having good virtues is just virtue signaling.[/QUOTE] Calling people out for "virtue signaling" is always just a desperate attempt at some sort of gotcha by someone who [I]wishes[/I] they could take the moral high ground, but can't.
[QUOTE=IKTM;52684678]Calling people out for "virtue signaling" is always just a desperate attempt at some sort of gotcha by someone who [I]wishes[/I] they could take the moral high ground, but can't.[/QUOTE] Sometimes you can call people out for it if they're hypocritical, or are able to put their money where their mouth is but don't. The origin of the term quite literally is about people who complain a lot, and do nothing except from vote labor every few years in the UK. This case really isn't it though, they're representatives doing their job.
What just reason is there for a statue of Lee in Texas to begin with? There must be plenty of generals from Texas and even more notable public servants from Dallas who served in the Civil War, why not change the statue to resemble one of them?
[QUOTE=matt000024;52683664]Nah, he stole his recipe from his slaves.[/QUOTE] Not sure if this is irony but slavery was abolished for 30 years or so before he was born, and he was born in the North.
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52683590]Wasn't the democratic party who wanted to secede from the United States? Didn't they found the KKK? When you dismantle statues because of history, how about banning the party which was responsible for the civil war in the first place?[/QUOTE] Technically yes, but that was a very long time ago and the polls switched during and after the civil rights movement. The reasons behind each party's positions and their eventual switch are extremely complex and I couldn't hope to cover them all in a quick post. But in short, the Democratic leadership realized they could gain support of minorities and progressives by cautiously embracing these movements, at the cost of many racist supporters. The Republican party in turn capitalized on these disfranchised Democrats, particularly in the south, as well as improving economic conditions in the south, thus turning the blue stronghold into a red one.
Lees acceptance of the resolution of the civil war, and his encouragement to lay down arms from a figure well respected by many in the south was a major reason we did not suffer a serious insurgency after the civil war. He was a major important figure that helped shape the close of one of America's most violent periods of history. Removing his statue signals that his legacy is something entirely terrible, or something that does not belong in the public space. A terrible shame.
[QUOTE=Mr_Razzums;52682895]The removal alone is costing the city around half a million dollars. Dallas has fucking shit streets, homeless people around every corner, horrible inner city schools. Not to mention the understaffed police force and growing crime in some parts of town. I'm sure dropping half a mill removing an old statue that 90% of the people of Dallas didn't even know existed will fix all of the problems. No one in the city got to vote on this, it's the shit mayor virtue signaling with tax payer dollars.[/QUOTE] Can you fix shit streets in a day? Fix the homeless problem overnight? Overhaul the school system in 24 hours? No, but you can remove a statue pretty quickly. The big problems can't be fixed in an instant. This isn't delaying the solution to those problems.
[QUOTE=richard9311;52685704]Lees acceptance of the resolution of the civil war, and his encouragement to lay down arms from a figure well respected by many in the south was a major reason we did not suffer a serious insurgency after the civil war. He was a major important figure that helped shape the close of one of America's most violent periods of history. Removing his statue signals that his legacy is something entirely terrible, or something that does not belong in the public space. A terrible shame.[/QUOTE] Where do you draw the line between celebrating and commemorating? Is removing statues the same as digging up confederate graveyards?
[QUOTE=richard9311;52685704]Lees acceptance of the resolution of the civil war, and his encouragement to lay down arms from a figure well respected by many in the south was a major reason we did not suffer a serious insurgency after the civil war. He was a major important figure that helped shape the close of one of America's most violent periods of history. Removing his statue signals that his legacy is something entirely terrible, or something that does not belong in the public space. A terrible shame.[/QUOTE] I think the main criticism was why the statue was there in the first place. Robert E Lee wasn't really a big part of local history. (He did spend some time in Texas before the war), and Texas' role in the Civil war was fairly minimal. The park was originally named Oak Lawn park, then renamed in the 1930s during the heyday of the Lost Cause movement. It's not so much that Lee is a bad person, but that the Lost Cause movement and similar efforts to portray the Confederacy in a positive light do more harm than good. [editline]16th September 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Lambeth;52683981]Well FDR, Wilson was incredibly racist.[/QUOTE] Fun fact: FDR was at the dedication of this statue, where he gave a speech about Lee. [IMG]http://www.usa-civil-war.com/Lee/fdr_rmks.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52683981]Well FDR, Wilson was incredibly racist.[/QUOTE] FDR did come right before Truman, though, who actually was a pro-civil rights Democrat (albeit not very successful in that regard).
[QUOTE=CarnolfMeatla;52683590]Wasn't the democratic party who wanted to secede from the United States? Didn't they found the KKK? When you dismantle statues because of history, how about banning the party which was responsible for the civil war in the first place?[/QUOTE] Sure, in the same way that modern Germans founded the Nazis. The political landscape has [B]dramatically[/B] changed in the ~160 years since the civil war. There has, in effect, been a complete reversal in perspective and policy between the GOP and the Democrats in the time since. The GOP, for example, is still often hailed by its supporters as "The Party of Lincoln," but it would be completely unrecognizable by him.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.