• Poggervania
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Hot take: I think they shouldn’t have melted the statue down in the first place and stuck it in a museum instead.

    It shouldn’t have been out in public in this day and age because you know what the fuck kinds of people would even commemorate Robert E. Lee, but it should have been put into a museum as part of the history of the US because… well, he’s a sort of important player in US history. What he fought for isn’t representative of what the majority of sane Americans believe in, but it’s also cool to see a statue from the 1920s and why they wanted to commemorate a piece-of-shit Confederate - and a shame it got melted down, because it is a part of history whether we like it or not.

    • @CmdrShepard@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      232 years ago

      It isn’t required that we save every depicti9m of the guy in existence for museums to reference the guy or his role in the civil war. These statues were built 50-100 years after the war had ended in order to harass those who were seeking equality and civil rights at the time. This would be akin to some rightwing fascists constructing a statue of Osama Bin Laden in NYC in 2051. Would you not argue that such a statue should be melted back down immediately?

    • @dj346@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      22 years ago

      i wrote a paper in college about this exact situation and had the same take lol, should’ve preserved it (in a museum) for history reasons.