(06-09-2020, 03:57 PM)jagibelieve Wrote:

(06-09-2020, 02:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: I'm not saying the man never did anything nice.  
There are contexts where he's remembered positively.  I understand they study his battle plans at West Point alongside Rommel, Bonaparte, and even Hannibal, as they should.  And I understand he's a hero of the Mexican-American war as well.
But outside the context of military education, is there anything we remember Lee for that wasn't an effort to prolong or whitewash the enslavement of Americans?

Robert E. Lee was a hero in the Mexican/American war.  He was reluctant to join the confederacy and only did so because that was what his home state chose to do.  In fact, he was very much against secession.

(06-09-2020, 02:57 PM)TJBender Wrote: I kind of thought one gave up the right to be called "American" when they took up arms against their own country.

Did Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull give up their "right" to be called American when they took up arms against the U.S. military?  Was their fight honorable or treasonous?  Should we remove monuments to them since they took up arms against the U.S.?

(06-09-2020, 03:32 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Not sad at all. 

Our American history is rich with many things that will continue to be taught to the next generation. Including the Civil War.
We aren't going to stop teaching it. 

In fact, we should do a better job of teaching it more completely so that those next generations are better at making decisions about exactly who and/or what would make a proper monument in front of city hall. 
Maybe they won't be tempted to erect a statue that exists as a symbol of oppression to 30% of the community where it stands. 

My maternal family tree leads directly to men who died fighting for the confederacy.  I don't need that statue to honor them  - ESPECIALLY when it affects so many others so negatively.

I disagree.  It wasn't until perhaps 10 years or so ago that the monuments, school names, etc. were deemed "offensive" or "repressive".  We are told by those on the left that there should be an "open and honest" dialog about black history.  What better way to start a conversation than to have someone ask the question as to why a piece of art 100+ years old is displayed where it is?

Much like the definition of "hate speech" the definition of a "proper monument" is purely subjective.

Just because YOU learned that it was offensive 10 years ago doesn't mean it hasn't been that for MUCH longer.
You were just late to arrive there and you unfortunately had to be notified of your ignorance to the pain of others. 

That conversation you think "needs starting" has been being played out in the streets since 1954, man. 

The conversation has been had. It's over. 

I don't find it proper to erect monuments that serve to divide the populace where they stand. This one did  - as evidenced by the opinions being expressed by African American Jacksonvillians today. 

You should think past this "well it doesn't offend ME" stance.  Many people have lived a very different experience than you and see those monuments very differently than you do.

---