Beautiful Statues

Donald Trump - and others - are worried about the loss of "beautiful" statues. "Beautiful" Confederate statues. In parks and courtyards around the United States.

What a strange view of history and life. This assumes that if we remove all the statues of those who fought and killed to establish a State's right to legalize slavery, that there will be no statues left.

No one to commemorate. No one to honor. No one to memorialize.

Who else could we possibly memorialize?  

No inventors in America to erect statues to. None of our own Generals to memorialize. None of our own heroes - the parks will be bare now, because we can't show statues of traitors and turncoats.

Golly, and what of the children? No longer will they get to see those who betrayed their own nation, but instead will have to get by with "only" statues of Presidents and Peacemakers, Heroes and Discoverers. What a twisted and incomplete view of history our children will get, when they don't get to see the enemies of our nation so honored.

Oh, but I hear some muttering about "slippery slopes". But it's not actually about removing statues of all who owned slaves or who were less than perfect, the way the slippery slope folks love to pretend.

It is about removing the statues of those who's ONLY claim to fame was fighting for slavery, though.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were known for other things, obviously. They were Presidents and Founders who were as an aside, slave owners. Presidents and Founders first. Slave owners secondly.

But General Lee was only known for fighting for the wrong side, the side that wanted the "freedom" to own others. General Lee was the man who betrayed his oath and allegiance, and turned traitor to the Constitution he had sworn to uphold and defend.

He was not an American hero, who just happened to have regrettably owned some slaves. No, he was a fighter for the right to own slaves, and any other good or bad qualities like loving puppies and living off of and spending down his infirm wife's money was secondary to that.

Dumb times over, folks. Those statues are predominantly public statues on public land - publicly supported. And the thin fiction of "history and heritage" doesn't cut it, when we have no statues of our British enemies laying about.

For an African American to have to in any way pay to memorialize with a statue a man who tried to keep his ancestors - and thus himself - in bondage is insane. We should as readily then force Jewish Americans to pay a tax to erect statues of Rommel and Himmler.

You know, so as to let the German Americans have their "heritage".

It's nonsense. Statues are only and ever for those we admire and honor. To advocate for such statues is to advocate for what those men stood for. But hey, by all means, let the President enlighten us on why he thinks Robert E. Lee needs to be honored, when Frederic Douglas is not. Or why we need to give homage to Jefferson Davis, but not to Booker T. Washington.

Those the President defends stood for slavery. A clean, short word that stood and stands for a showcase of horrors. Rape. Torture. Kidnapping. Murder. And all of that institutionalized. Legalized. And preached from southern pulpits as good and moral.

And all now defended by the man who's grandfather was arrested for marching with the Klan. And who condemns the "violence" of defending against racism as equivalent to the violence of racism, as if to raise your hand against those who would lynch you makes you as bad as they.

State's rights? Seriously? If any who go on about history and heritage ever cracked scholarly texts on those issues, they'd learn quickly enough that there was only one right those State's wanted.

Hint: It wasn't to set drinking ages.