|
Nope.
I am not personally condoning OR condemning either.
I am merely pointing out that:
A statue that is specifically built to commemorate someone FOR fighting to retain slavery or specifically because they supported slavery is not the same as a statue of someone for a non slavery related reason.
Specifically versus incidental.
The rights and wrongs of statues and memorials that are linked to racism and slavery directly, loosley or by proxy are open to debate, what is not is that one is specifically and fundamentally commemorating slavery and racism, the other is not, regardless of whether the person was a racist or not, because it is incidental to the reason for it existing.
It is that false equivalency that I am arguing against.
I do not have a stake in the history of the US nor it's contemporary social problems with regards to how it's citizens feel about the civil war and slavery.
Personally, I agree that if a statue, commemoration etc is or was specifically created to honor a person, organisation or event:
1) for their contribution to defending, enforcing or otherwise supporting what are universally considered to be abhorrent practices such as slavery.
2) that the abhorrent practice is still or closely related to a devisive issue for that society.
3) that there are people with direct family experience of that abhorrent practice (person, parent, grandparent).
4) that those people with direct family experience object to those commemorations.
Then it's perfectly reasonable to request they be removed and I would support that request were it in my society/country. |
|