I don't disagree that it should remain if the people had wanted it to. We should also remember though that this very statue initially appeared in 1924, at the height of the KKK, lynchings and mass monument building to similar figures. That is part of its history too, and its message. Were these monuments designed to be a benign presence or a message?

As I say though, ultimately these things should be down to the people or their elected representatives to decide. If there is enough agreement to build or remove then go for it. I dare say that people were much more in favour of this particular monument at the time than they are now though and the crowd protesting its removal or the terror attack on the day did little to win anyone over.

Edited by wordup (16 Aug 2017 1.26pm)

Many of these statues were erected with the intention of airbrushing history and rewrite why the American Civil War happened and the result of the war. They paint actions by those who supported perpetual slavery as having been engaged in a noble struggle. Many were erected by wealthy white landowners as part of a political project to keep black people marginalised in society and to stop populist movements of black and white working class people together. They were part of a strategy to divide the working classes along racial lines and as part of a story which helped "justify" Jim Crow laws and the treatment that went along with those laws. Plenty of these statues were also erected during the civil rights movement as symbols designed to evoke white resistance to this movement (a genuine noble struggle).

They should be in museums with explanations of who they people were, the reasons for the Civil War and the history behind why the statues were erected where they originally were. They have no place in the public realm.

Its not all about racism, but it does contain a fair amount of racism, and racist appropriation (like the flag) and of course its contentious due to its links with slavery, Jim Crow and racial segregation through later American history.

Its synonymous with racism. Kind of like the way that the far left is synonymous with Communism.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Except of course no one was pulling down the statues they democratically took a decision to move the statue.

Oddly you don't see many of those Neo-Nazis and White Supremacist voting on the issue, or running for council.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

No they seem to be equating General Robert E Lee with a neo-Nazi and far right possibly fascist agenda and driving cars into crowds of protesters.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

No, I don't agree with that last paragraph. Many people aren't happy with this statue being torn down. When that jerk spat at the statue of General Lee I wanted to punch him in the face. I don't support slavery or racism and it isn't a history I have an attachment to.

Many many many soldiers died fighting for the South, and most of them didn't own slaves or even have an investment in it.

The people who torn down that statue were jerks in my view and I hope the law has its say.....One thing is for certain, they haven't helped anything but probably worsened things.

Edited by Stirlingsays (16 Aug 2017 2.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)