Additionally, you can always make more!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
About Removing Monuments
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Like the daily dozen of anti-Trump threads?
Nah.
Maybe, although I think you can forget the Alamo.
Remember the Alamo....I've heard that somewhere before.
Trump is going to be Ok. I'm not worried about him. He's well taken care of, and for all we know may never even die.
Woberts
The Perfumed Seneschal
Well, I would assume that somebody lives in a good chunk of them, so destroying them isn't the best idea.
Oh, if only!
Apparently 500:
From 1778 to 1871, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the US government,[20][21][22][23] while at least one treaty was violated or broken by Native American tribes.[24]
List of United States treaties - Wikipedia
sealchan
Well-Known Member
I've always felt a little sad that historical monuments, even to pro-Slavery leaders, being removed and disposed of...well, I hope they are not disposed of.
My idea I had just now was that currently "offensive" statues and such could be preserved in a warehouse and the government or private groups could create a museum for such historical artifacts so that the public could access them.
Buildings are not so amenable to storage. In either case I would not want to dismiss history...we should not hide too much those images from the past even, and especially, if they remind us of what we might not want to remember. The truth is good and bad.
Thing is, those Confederate monuments have little or no historical value. The vast majority of them were erected during the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights era to reinforce ideals of white supremacy. It's like saying we should've preserved Nazi emblems instead of destroying them due to historical value. It's not like preserving a slave's quarters on a plantation or an auction block, which do have historical value.
Confederate Statues Were Built To Further A 'White Supremacist Future'
You have your reasons for valuing churches but not the statues.
Other people will differ.
I wonder how Indians (the ones not yet civilized
by Catholicism) feel about those missions?
Your comparison of the two makes little sense and I don't see the equivalency. @Father Heathen pointed out how it's not the same thing.
The lack of exact equivalency doesn't eliminate things in common.
The missions could easily be seen as the worst of takeovers...
First destroy their religion & culture, then kill, then take the land.
Woe unto those who cannot see this because Confederate
statues differ in some way.
I get what you're saying. It's just that the comparison falls flat. Even if I do accept that they represent mistreatment of the indigenous people, there's still reason to preserve them, same as we preserve Auschwitz or the slaves' quarters I mentioned before.
I favor preserving them too.
Still...it's a fascinating thing to consider.
Like I said on the abandoned churches thread, I'd rather the missions be repurposed for community services. Buildings at least have some utility. Cheap, mass produced, hollow statues created for the sole purpose of belittling a population, in recent history affecting living people with current events pointing toward continued racial tension, less so.
I have no problem with admitting and making more known the mistreatment of Native Americans by missionaries. They could have museums about it in the missions. Maybe they do. I don't know. I've never been to one.
Especially since nobody's tearing down Confederate monuments on private property. Not without the permission of the owner, anyhow.
@Revoltingest
I say leave them be. We are on a kick it seems, of removing historical monuments that some find offensive (in some cases perhaps justifiably so). But, if we continue on this path, will there be any left?
My thoughts exactly.
What's wrong with my approach: add a plaque that spells out exactly what the person did or said?