185 replies to this topic

[mweb08]

Well I don't know much about the history of Bryd, but I'm all for getting rid of Columbus Day and his monuments. That type of stuff should be reserved for better examples of humankind.

 
When I was still in school, there was very little if any mention of the explorers that reached the Americas before Columbus. I'm sure you would know better, but hopefully that has changed. And just as importantly, I hope that both sides of him are being taught. But I still don't think trying to erase him from history is the answer.
 
Of course, it would be a perfect chance for Ohio to change the name of their capital to McKinley, since some of them are miffed about the Alaskan peak being renamed Denali.

I don't really know the answer since I teach US History after the Civil War. But in the modern history curriculum is pretty good in terms of telling both sides, it just comes down to the teacher in regards to how fairly it's taught.

Taking away Columbus Day and his monuments is not erasing from history at all. I'm not advocating that whatsoever.

[DJ MC]

His accomplishment was at least partially an accident and had already been done in a different way.

But sure, it's noteworthy to say the least. However, he's simply not one to celebrate imo. He's the type of historical figure that students should be deciding and debating over whether he's worthy of that after being presented with multiple facets of his life. He shouldn't be held up as exemplary example of our history, which is what monuments and national days suggest.

Btw, I don't think the man of his place and time argument works as well for him as it does others.

 

Monuments don't have to be "exemplary" examples of our history. They can be centers of education showing the complicated nature of humanity.

 

Just to give a local example: Baltimore has a monument dedicated to Roger Taney. He was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, most noted for the Dred Scott decision. Now, he had a long and varied career--Maryland legislature, Secretary of War and Attorney General under Jackson, and his eventual appointment as Chief Justice--and was involved with other notable court cases--the Amistad slaves, pushing back against Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus--but that one decision dominates his entire legacy (with good reason, of course). I've even seen some mention of his statue being among those under "review" by the city board currently looking at what to do with such places.

 

Should he have a monument?

[mweb08]

That's not what most monuments show. They don't show both sides and they suggest the person is someone to be celebrated, not questioned.

[DJ MC]

That's not what most monuments show. They don't show both sides and they suggest the person is someone to be celebrated, not questioned.

 

Most monuments show a name and some dates. That doesn't mean they can't be useful.

[mweb08]

That's not what most monuments show. They don't show both sides and they suggest the person is someone to be celebrated, not questioned.

 
Most monuments show a name and some dates. That doesn't mean they can't be useful.

They can be, but for the vast majority of people, they aren't going to be useful the way you're suggesting they can be.

[DJ MC]

They can be, but for the vast majority of people, they aren't going to be useful the way you're suggesting they can be.

 

The "vast majority" of people never even look at them. Most of the people who do see a name, shrug, and keep walking. And that goes for all monuments. So should we even have them?

[mweb08]

They can be, but for the vast majority of people, they aren't going to be useful the way you're suggesting they can be.

 
The "vast majority" of people never even look at them. Most of the people who do see a name, shrug, and keep walking. And that goes for all monuments. So should we even have them?

Some are not needed, you know like the ones featuring assholes.

The ones we do have should be of people or moments that are worthy of adulation.

[mweb08]

I hope there's some Hitler monuments to check out whenever I visit Germany. Otherwise, how would I ever have an opportunity to analyze his life?

[SportsGuy]

Whatever they change it too, I really hope it's something to satisfy the PC crowd because that is super important!

[mweb08]

Those damn Germans were so PC in trying to move on from Nazism!

[DJ MC]

Welp, I'm out. You two have fun.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Oh Christ Weber give it a rest.

[mweb08]

Welp, I'm out. You two have fun.

So I assume you wouldn't use your same logic to support Hitler monuments?

Before you go, am I wrong in thinking that you want the name of my favorite NFL team to change?

[mweb08]

Oh Christ Weber give it a rest.

No

[DJ MC]

So I assume you wouldn't use your same logic to support Hitler monuments?

Before you go, am I wrong in thinking that you want the name of my favorite NFL team to change?

 

No, you're not wrong. I just hope you can see how that is an incredibly different situation.

[mweb08]

So I assume you wouldn't use your same logic to support Hitler monuments?


Before you go, am I wrong in thinking that you want the name of my favorite NFL team to change?

 
No, you're not wrong. I just hope you can see how that is an incredibly different situation.

I think I'm going to need help on that one. Sorry man.

[BSLMikeLowe]

I hope there's some Hitler monuments to check out whenever I visit Germany. Otherwise, how would I ever have an opportunity to analyze his life?

 

I know at least several of the concentration camps he was responsible for remain standing and are open to visitors today. I went to one of them. There are also vestiges of the slavery era that remain in the US. Monuments aren't just for us to remember the good parts about our history. They can (hopefully) help ensure we never repeat the mistakes.

[mweb08]

I hope there's some Hitler monuments to check out whenever I visit Germany. Otherwise, how would I ever have an opportunity to analyze his life?

I know at least several of the concentration camps he was responsible for remain standing and are open to visitors today. I went to one of them. There are also vestiges of the slavery era that remain in the US. Monuments aren't just for us to remember the good parts about our history. They can (hopefully) help ensure we never repeat it.

That's totally different than having a monument for Hitler or for one of the people most responsible for slavery.

The message is drastically different. The message for what you're talking about is to remember the victims and ensure what happened doesn't occur again. Just having a monument for someone that was an asshole without anything to clarify that is a way to celebrate / honor that person.

[DJ MC]

That's totally different than having a monument for Hitler or for one of the people most responsible for slavery.

 

If you're really going to stick with this line...what did Hitler accomplish that was good? Since the examples being given that you are arguing against are of people who have complicated legacies, for you to bring Hitler into this as an opposing example you should have something to say in his favor.

[BSLMikeLowe]

That's totally different than having a monument for Hitler or for one of the people most responsible for slavery.

The message is drastically different. The message for what you're talking about is to remember the victims and ensure what happened doesn't occur again. Just having a monument for someone that was an asshole without anything to clarify that is a way to celebrate / honor that person.

 

Yes, it is different. It's a monument to someone who was purely evil. There are also monuments to people who whose lives were dedicated to doing good. However, there are those whose legacies are more complex. All I'm saying is rather than trying to remove the references to the good they did, let's make sure we focus on presenting both sides.