- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/16/19 at 9:13 am to toosleaux
The only way to do it is on a case by case basis with compromise as a mandatory part for both sides. THEN once the decision is WRT to a monument or statue, the local government must enforce the decision with the force of law.
For example, in NOLA, the PGT Beauregard statue should have remained because of the nexus between this historical figure and the local area.
For example, in NOLA, the PGT Beauregard statue should have remained because of the nexus between this historical figure and the local area.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 9:55 am to Champagne
quote:
For example, in NOLA, the PGT Beauregard statue should have remained because of the nexus between this historical figure and the local area
I agree.
Liberty Place should have been in a museum where the whole story could have been explained and the monument contextualized so people could learn from it. It's a fascinating and dark chapter of our history, but an extremely important one that teaches the consequences of both marginalizing people, and why forgiving your oppressors to break the cycle of bigotry is so important. The tragic story is the textbook example of oppression sowing hatred causing revenge which creates more oppression (in the opposite direction), sowing more revenge and sparking yet another cycle of oppression back in the first direction and so on and so on.
Beauregard should have remained because of how important he was to New Orleans both before and after the war. He was a true native son who was instrumental in the construction of City Park (hence why his statue overlooked the entrance).
Lee? I would have liked to see that statue remain simply because it was a gorgeous piece of artwork and a historical landmark. Plus, Lee was NOT just some war hero. He became an advocate for peace and reconciliation after the war. He fought for equality, founded schools for freed slaves, and his plantation became Arlington National Cemetery. With all that said, his ties to NOLA are tenuous at best, so while I don't like this statue leaving, I could live with it so long as a suitable figure is erected in his stead AND the Lee statue finds an appropriate home as it is a real work of art.
Jeff Davis? That statue could go, and I'm happy it went to where it belongs, Jefferson Davis's historic home in Biloxi.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 10:16 am to fr33manator
quote:
The romans and Aztecs genocided peoples, had slaves, scarificed people, etc.
Should we destroy the coliseum and the Aztec pyramids?
I dont have an opinion either way b/c I really don't care, but are you saying that the statue in Lee Circle in New Orleans is the equivalent of the fricking Coliseum?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 11:11 am to Placebeaux
quote:
Banning slavery was the last straw. It was basically the north sanctioning the south and trying to collapse their economy. The war was about money and not trying to free slaves.
The south left because of slavery. That's a fact.
However, that doesn't mean the Union fought to free the slaves, because that's obviously false.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 11:25 am to slackster
quote:
The south left because of slavery. That's a fact.
Money was the reason.
Fast forward 150 years. Can you name me 1 war since that was fought to free people?
Posted on 1/16/19 at 11:35 am to Placebeaux
quote:
Fast forward 150 years. Can you name me 1 war since that was fought to free people?
Did you even read my post? I agree that the Union had no interest in fighting to free slaves.
The south left because slavery was pivotal for their economy
The north thought leaving was treasonous and the Confederacy wasn't recognized
The south thought war was imminent and attacked Fort Sumter.
None of that changes the fact that the entire ordeal started over the south's reaction to the future of slavery.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 12:15 pm to slackster
Cause and effect
Money was the cause of the war. Banning slavery was the effect of rich people fighting over money. It's always about money. The North did not fight the South because it was racist.
Money was the cause of the war. Banning slavery was the effect of rich people fighting over money. It's always about money. The North did not fight the South because it was racist.
Posted on 1/16/19 at 6:19 pm to kingbob
There is no nexus or connection between NOLA and Gen. Lee, kingbob.
Popular
Back to top

0




