National Review Calls For Removal Of Confederate Monuments

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo




By NICOLE LAFOND Published AUGUST 15, 2017 12:54 PM

The conservative National Review is calling for the removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces, saying they should be reserved for museums and other locations.

“The monuments should go. Some of them simply should be trashed; others transmitted to museums, battlefields and cemeteries. The heroism and losses of Confederate soldiers should be commemorated, but not in everyday public spaces where the monuments are flashpoints in poisonous racial contention, with white nationalists often mustering in their defense,” editor Rich Lowry wrote in a piece published Tuesday.

He argued the recent violence that broke out at a white supremacist rally that started as a protest of the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee from a Charlottesville, Virginia park, should be an “inflection point in the broader debate” over whether the monuments of Confederate soldiers serve a purpose in the public sphere.

“For supporters of the Confederate monuments, removing them from parks and avenues will be a blow against their heritage and historical memory. But the statues have often been part of an effort to whitewash the Confederacy,” Lowry said. “And it’s one thing for a statue to be merely a resting place for pigeons; it’s another for it to be a fighting cause for neo-Nazis.”

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/national-review-calls-removal-confederate-monuments

---

[BumRushDaShow]

1. ?

"National Review"?

We have gone so far to the right that the National Review finally blinked.

[Big Blue Marble]

2. Imagine

The National Review making sense.

[Doug the Dem]

3. Evolution on The Right?

[knightmaar]

4. "...part of an effort to whitewash the Confederacy"

Whitewash?

Are the multiple levels of irony intended?

[progressoid]

5. "The heroism and losses of Confederate soldiers should be commemorated"

Why? Do we commemorate the heroism and losses of other traitors and enemies?

[PunkinPi]

12. +1 nt

[Lucky Luciano]

15. I noticed that too. nt

[Lithos]

16. Because it is rather simple and naive to say they were driven to support Slavery

it is one thing for the politicians to create a war, it is another to motivate people to fight the war. Most fought for reasons which boiled down to home and country. Goering was right about what it takes to get a poor slob to fight when the very best that he could hope for is to return to his home in one piece.

L-

[lapfog_1]

6. Except for this

The rally had very little to do with the monument to Robert E. Lee.

I would bet all the money in my pocket that less than 10 percent of those attending from the Alt-right/KKK/Nazi groups could tell you even 10 facts about Rober E. Lee.

That his father was a great general in the American Revolution, "Lighthorse Harry" Lee.

That Lincoln offered him the command of the Army of the Potomac as the civil war began.

That his plantation was taken from him and turned into a cemetery for American war heroes (Arlington).

That he married the great granddaughter of one George Washington.

He was near the top of his class at West Point, Grant was near the bottom of his class.

He was a traitor to the United States of America.

[IronLionZion]

7. Monuments to people who fought against the United States

just blows my mind.

The same wingnuts who claim that losers shouldn't get trophies are the ones who support monuments to people who lost the war.

And these monuments only got put up in opposition to desegregation efforts during the civil rights movement.

[bucolic_frolic]

8. Yes

they would have a lot more of the historical value and argument if they were 1875 vintage.

History is unjust to many groups at many points. Don't us Democrats know that one!

The vanquished will never forget. From Hastings to the Plains of Abraham to Gettysburg, the scars
and maimings and deaths of battle echo across generations of the human collective psyche. They hurt individuals,
families, communities, groups. But all must move on, one cannot keep the friction of history alive every
moment for all time. Perhaps museums are a valid place offering perspective and calm reflection, and honor
to the lives, minds, beliefs of ancestors.

[Binkie The Clown]

9. They are symbols of treason, plain and simple. n/t

[Moostache]

10. A museum? Of what? Failed traitors?

These monuments were largely erected in the Jim Crow South by racists and sons-of-bitches still bitter about pappy and grand pappy losing the "war of northern aggression" - AKA the Civil War.

They carefully CHOSE locations that would inflict maximum emotional impact on African-Americans, especially the descendants of free-slaves. The bullshit about heritage and identity and history all came in distant second or third to intimidation and humiliation of blacks.

The Confederate Battle flag should be treated the same way the Swastika is in Germany. And those who fly it should rightfully be punished.

[Gothmog]

11. I was surprised but pleased to see this

[sandensea]

13. Bill Buckley must be turning in his grave.

I remember his once dissing the abolitionist movement as "the last people who wanted to see an end to slavery - for if there were no more slavery, there'd no more abolitionists."

[certainot]

14. maybe have a national dump day for them so there's 2 or 3 future prospective slave owners

protesting each one...

[camelfan]

17. Good!

Their "heritage" supported the ownership of people, and treated them like less than people. Screw their heritage. It needs to go away. I remember an Onion article, the gist of which was "for the 150th straight year, the south does not rise again." And it never will.