I'm half Jewish myself, and I wouldn't mind a statue of Rommel, but again, that is because he engaged a plot to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the Nazi regime. That in my view has to rehabilitate him somewhat, don't you think? Should we view Lee differently had he eventually realized the evils of the confederacy and tried to overthrow it from within?
For you? Okay. Sorry you feel this way.Not acceptable. Problems need to be addressed but there are ways of turning people against your cause. This is one.
That might have changed things but there's no evidence I am aware of that Rommel turned against Hitler because he came to view Nazism as evil, he thought that the war was unwinnable and wanted to replace Nazi leadership so that peace could be negotiated. It seems likely he would have happily continued supporting the Nazis so long as they had fared better militarily.
Different scholars have different assessments of his motives. On the one hand, he had been a good friend of Hitler, who had helped his career. On the other, he was never a party member and objected when identified as such, hated the other Nazi leaders, and was not thought to have ever been fully on board with the ideology. And his issue with the war being a losing cause was evidently not just about losing per se. It was that Hitler told him that he would never surrender and would allow Germany to be utterly destroyed in the process. Hitler proceeded to make good on this in 1945, even issuing an order - which was disobeyed - to destroy Germany's infrastructure so that the allies couldn't make use of it after the war. One view is that Rommel was loyal to Germany more than the regime itself, and he wanted the war ended peacefully to protect the German people. Which may be why he is viewed positively by many in Germany today. Or perhaps he just didn't want to end up in a war crimes tribunal for being on the losing side, and was just trying to protect himself. Motives of historical figures are often difficult to divine.
I hope there's no further argument in favor of keeping monuments to confederates though
You are simply wrong.As part of our Union, Americans decided to come together to honor ALL fellow Americans who served their country. What you call confederate is in fact American, lest you forget the South is still with us today. As are their descendants. To dishonor them is a serious provocation. They are supposed to be eased into assimilation and reconciliation, not treated with bigotry and hatred.
A nation that attacks itself is ill fit to be called a Union.
All very true. The statues don't bother me nor do I view them as racist, however, I can understand how some people might have developed that position. I see having certain holidays forced upon me as somewhat biased as is having to name certain streets after activists.As part of our Union, Americans decided to come together to honor ALL fellow Americans who served their country. What you call confederate is in fact American, lest you forget the South is still with us today. As are their descendants. To dishonor them is a serious provocation. They are supposed to be eased into assimilation and reconciliation, not treated with bigotry and hatred.
Have you heard of the Cornerstone Speech and who wrote it? Not trying to hate but here is an excerpt...As part of our Union, Americans decided to come together to honor ALL fellow Americans who served their country. What you call confederate is in fact American, lest you forget the South is still with us today. As are their descendants. To dishonor them is a serious provocation. They are supposed to be eased into assimilation and reconciliation, not treated with bigotry and hatred.
A nation that attacks itself is ill fit to be called a Union.
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.
As part of our Union, Americans decided to come together to honor ALL fellow Americans who served their country. What you call confederate is in fact American, lest you forget the South is still with us today. As are their descendants. To dishonor them is a serious provocation. They are supposed to be eased into assimilation and reconciliation, not treated with bigotry and hatred.
A nation that attacks itself is ill fit to be called a Union.
As part of our Union, Americans decided to come together to honor ALL fellow Americans who served their country. What you call confederate is in fact American, lest you forget the South is still with us today. As are their descendants. To dishonor them is a serious provocation. They are supposed to be eased into assimilation and reconciliation, not treated with bigotry and hatred.
A nation that attacks itself is ill fit to be called a Union.
I'm still conflicted on that frankly. Overt monuments to racism should be taken down I agree.
Go read Fahrenheit 451. Burying your history does NOT improve things. Bad monuments should be left on display exactly because it engenders discussion on the topic. It reminds us of the mistakes we've made. It helps new generations learn about the topics.
Don't gloss over our history. It took all the horrible stuff to get us to the point we're at now - where people can speak out against it.
Most people and countries celebrate their historical achievements by honoring those who fought for those achievements not by honoring those who stood in the way. Most people also get their history from a history book and not from a monument with a two paragraph inscription on it. We don't have monuments to the 9/11 attackers, we have a monument to their victims. We don't have monuments in the US to the Japanese zero pilots who gave their lives for their country by killing themselves and Americans, we have monuments to those that died because of them.
We certainly don't name highways after criminals killed the cops who were pursuing them, we name them after the officers who died trying to stop them. I've also never seen a monument to any mass shooter where children were killed to be a reminder to anyone about anything.
Losers get trophies? Interesting to see who is on that side of the argument.
Honestly, I think when you really dig down deep that's what this is all about; older white males simply want trophies. They need their egos stroked and tired of not being recognized for their greatness.
As part of our Union, Americans decided to come together to honor ALL fellow Americans who served their country. What you call confederate is in fact American, lest you forget the South is still with us today. As are their descendants. To dishonor them is a serious provocation. They are supposed to be eased into assimilation and reconciliation, not treated with bigotry and hatred.
A nation that attacks itself is ill fit to be called a Union.
Analogies are rarely accurate. Yours... well.... they're ridiculous and you know it. Let's start with the stupidest. No - strike that... let's just ignore the stupidest ones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_Cliff
https://www.mobridge.org/mobridge.php?subid=8
https://www.nps.gov/libi/index.htm
I'll say it again. Throwing away history - even BAD history, is just plain stupid. And if you think either side won in Little Bighorn, I suggest you learn more about history.
Well. I didn't realize you were racist. That puts your other posts in perspective.
Ignoring power dynamics when you talk about racism is lazy, at best.Well. I didn't realize you were racist. That puts your other posts in perspective.
Sounds counter-productive, definitely. The 3rd President of the United States is entitled to a statue, warts and all, to say nothing of the Declaration.
I'd say if Jewish Americans can take pride in the American space program despite von Brauns role, maybe these BLM folks should take a hint. Supposedly Pill Cosby paid for all the equipment used for MLKs famous speech. History can be ugly, but it's best not to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Pick your battles BLM.
Are you suggesting that Rommel is a better parallel with Lee than Himmler? Perhaps. But there are a couple of key differences. Lee both fought for a regime which supported slavery AND owned slaves himself.
Hell, anyone remember this?The Corps of Engineers in particular honor Lee as one of its own.