Hmm. I don't know, Percy, let me think on this a second. A monument honoring those who fought and died for the cause of treason against the United States. What could possibly be wrong with that? Everything?
No hyperbole there whatsoever... Let's talk about "treason" in respects to America in general. America is ostensibly and principally built upon "treason," depending upon who you're asking. That was most certainly the British Empire's take on it.
The phrase: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," seems to apply nicely.
Southern soldiers deserve monuments every bit as much as Northern soldiers.
No. No, they don't.
If Union soldiers have monuments, why not Confederate soldiers? Or are you one of those people who looks at the issue in black and white -- Union good, Confederacy bad? The reality is that the Civil War was a complex issue and a tragedy of the highest order. Internal division that spills the blood of thousands is tragic.
The other issue is pretending that history has no significance here. The US spent a considerable fortune trying to stop the spread of communism. Even though I disagree with communism in principle, and disagree with the way the US handled it, I see no reason to start destroying Lenin's statues. There is a historical significance, right or wrong.
I hope they drop the damned thing and it shatters into dust. Its prominent new home could be the local landfill.
ISIS feels the same way about monuments they disagree with too.
Allahu Ahkbar! *raises glass to AZPaul3 in a toast*
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
™ Version 4.2
