Nathaniel Bedford Forrest statue

[Daniel]

On 12/8/2021 at 6:31 PM, Grayfox54 said:

Yeah, that statue was terrible and a disgrace to Forrest. However, the man deserved statues. Forrest was considered by both sides to be the greatest cavalry commander of the Civil War. 

There used to be a very good statue of him in Memphis. But the history haters had it removed several years ago. 

I've said it many times. The worst mistake you can make in the study of history is to judge the past by the standards of today.

So it still happened.  Nothing has changed that.  Statues should be used to honor people.  

[Daniel]

21 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

No, but you can by changing textbooks, class instruction and basically never mentioning it to school kids. All part of the dumbing down of America. 

All this woke crap is getting out of hand. If history disturbs you, makes you mad or even frightens you, that's a good thing. Learn from it an don't make the same mistakes again.

This is exactly what is happening in TN school rooms with the removal of lessons on civil rights.

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, Grayfox54 said:

So many people want to make such a big deal out of the fact that Nathan Bedford Forrest was a founding member and Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.  He indeed was. The original purpose of the Klan was to preserve and honor the traditions and lifestyle of the Old South. What everybody seems to ignore is the fact that when Forrest saw what the Klan was turning into, he quit. His last order as Grand Wizard before leaving was for the Klan to be disbanded. Unfortunately, that order was ignored. 

He wasnt a founder of the KKK.  The Klan was founded in Pulaski TN not Memphis.  The order wasnt ignored.  There are three eras of the KKK.  After the disbanding it mostly died away.  Then a movie was made called Birth of a Nation that portrayed the klan in a different light and it was started again.  Then it died back again after the 60s and has reemerged once more.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Daniel

[Daniel]

double post.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Daniel

[monkeylizard]

22 hours ago, Links2k said:

I agree. Teach all of American history from EVERY perspective, not just the one that makes one group of people feel good. The statues need to remain so that dialogue will continue.

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't hold up to real scrutiny.

First, if we're going to say that statues and monuments are about education then for every Columbus Square and statue we'd need something to show the devastation to the locals that European colonization brought to the New World. For every Washington and Jefferson, we need a Crown Loyalist to show we were NOT a united country at the time. For every symbol of westward expansion we'll need to reconcile the near-genocide that came along with it. For every Lee, NBF, and Stonewall statue we need Lincoln, Grant, Harriett Tubman, MLK, and enslaved people monuments. Then we go to meddling . . . for every Vietnam War memorial, we need a peace and anti-war sign and statues of protestors. But let's keep on meddling . . . For every 9/11 memorial we need a plaque saying that America deserved it for our oil-grabbing Imperialism policies, or because we're infidels, or whatever reason anyone might think. Or let's get some feathers REALLY ruffled . . . For every fallen officer memorial we need a Defund The Police/BLM marker. That's what it would mean to teach EVERY perspective through our statues and monuments. Not only is it not practical, it's not good public policy.

Second, the statues aren't creating dialogue. All I hear is shouting and it's impossible to have dialogue when everyone's shouting. The folks who think the statues are about history and are filled with pride by the legacy they symbolize can't hear their neighbors who feel like second-class citizens every time they pass by those same statues. Likewise, the ones shouting that everyone who likes the statues are a bunch of white supremacists can't hear that many of the supporters see them as representative of less government not slavery.

If the statues of the Confederacy need to remain so that dialogue will continue, maybe we need to think hard about exactly where those statues should be so the shouting can become dialogue. By its nature, our public spaces, particularly government buildings and their environs reflect who we are and the ideals we seek as a people. But all humans are flawed. We seek to showcase the finest qualities of humanity like courage, loyalty, and the desire for freedom even when it's a misguided vision of freedom framed by the times. Or in some cases like NBF, the people memorialized in our public spaces can represent our ability to grow and change to such an extreme that we can be unrecognizable as who we were before. We need to ask ourselves - When we see that the men and women we've held up as examples of those ideals are flawed in such ways that they no longer inspire us as a community to achieve those ideals for ourselves, do they still deserve a place of prominence in our public spaces? Are we better served by studying them in a more reflective and contemplative location like a museum or a battlefield instead of idealizing them? Having a divisive monument without proper context (like the NBF on I-65) doesn't create dialogue, it only deepens divides.

Our unique-in-the-world 1st Amendment has allowed us to create a unique situation with these statues. Nowhere else in the world do they have a plethora of monuments to the losers of a war. Outside museums and memorials to the fallen soldiers (usually within cemeteries), you don't see Hirohito or Yamamoto statues in Japan or Mussolini statues in Italy or Batista in Cuba, especially not erected AFTER the war. That would be crazy, right?

Italy actually took an interesting approach. Much of the fascist propaganda and statues/carvings were destroyed, but what's left now remains as a reminder. Not to support a fascist past, but to avoid a fascist future. Maybe we could learn from that. How can we as all Americans use our Civil War monuments from both the blue and the gray to help us remember the terrible cost of letting our divisions grow so much that we start shooting each other?

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by monkeylizard

[Grayfox54]

Monkey lizard I give you credit for approaching the subject with logical thought and common sense. But sadly i must point out that logical thought and common sense don't fit in today's world. Now its all about emotion, feelings, not being offensive to just about anyone and building a fantasy perfect world. The average person fussing about all this is neither logical nor has common sense and simply won't listen to either.  Sad ain't it? 

Edited December 10, 2021 by Grayfox54

[Links2k]

8 hours ago, monkeylizard said:

That's a nice idea, but it doesn't hold up to real scrutiny.

First, if we're going to say that statues and monuments are about education then for every Columbus Square and statue we'd need something to show the devastation to the locals that European colonization brought to the New World. For every Washington and Jefferson, we need a Crown Loyalist to show we were NOT a united country at the time. For every symbol of westward expansion we'll need to reconcile the near-genocide that came along with it. For every Lee, NBF, and Stonewall statue we need Lincoln, Grant, Harriett Tubman, MLK, and enslaved people monuments. Then we go to meddling . . . for every Vietnam War memorial, we need a peace and anti-war sign and statues of protestors. But let's keep on meddling . . . For every 9/11 memorial we need a plaque saying that America deserved it for our oil-grabbing Imperialism policies, or because we're infidels, or whatever reason anyone might think. Or let's get some feathers REALLY ruffled . . . For every fallen officer memorial we need a Defund The Police/BLM marker. That's what it would mean to teach EVERY perspective through our statues and monuments. Not only is it not practical, it's not good public policy.

Second, the statues aren't creating dialogue. All I hear is shouting and it's impossible to have dialogue when everyone's shouting. The folks who think the statues are about history and are filled with pride by the legacy they symbolize can't hear their neighbors who feel like second-class citizens every time they pass by those same statues. Likewise, the ones shouting that everyone who likes the statues are a bunch of white supremacists can't hear that many of the supporters see them as representative of less government not slavery.

If the statues of the Confederacy need to remain so that dialogue will continue, maybe we need to think hard about exactly where those statues should be so the shouting can become dialogue. By its nature, our public spaces, particularly government buildings and their environs reflect who we are and the ideals we seek as a people. But all humans are flawed. We seek to showcase the finest qualities of humanity like courage, loyalty, and the desire for freedom even when it's a misguided vision of freedom framed by the times. Or in some cases like NBF, the people memorialized in our public spaces can represent our ability to grow and change to such an extreme that we can be unrecognizable as who we were before. We need to ask ourselves - When we see that the men and women we've held up as examples of those ideals are flawed in such ways that they no longer inspire us as a community to achieve those ideals for ourselves, do they still deserve a place of prominence in our public spaces? Are we better served by studying them in a more reflective and contemplative location like a museum or a battlefield instead of idealizing them? Having a divisive monument without proper context (like the NBF on I-65) doesn't create dialogue, it only deepens divides.

Our unique-in-the-world 1st Amendment has allowed us to create a unique situation with these statues. Nowhere else in the world do they have a plethora of monuments to the losers of a war. Outside museums and memorials to the fallen soldiers (usually within cemeteries), you don't see Hirohito or Yamamoto statues in Japan or Mussolini statues in Italy or Batista in Cuba, especially not erected AFTER the war. That would be crazy, right?

Italy actually took an interesting approach. Much of the fascist propaganda and statues/carvings were destroyed, but what's left now remains as a reminder. Not to support a fascist past, but to avoid a fascist future. Maybe we could learn from that. How can we as all Americans use our Civil War monuments from both the blue and the gray to help us remember the terrible cost of letting our divisions grow so much that we start shooting each other?

 

All very good and reasoned points, but it doesn’t diminish the fact that Americans are taught an extremely sanitized version of history. As long as this is allowed people will continue to scream instead of having productive dialogue, because their voices and existence  will consistently be minimized. 
 

I could support an interactive national museum for the statues and artifacts that tells the thorough history or our nation. It should also be free online.  Currently there is so much left out  of our narrative that when one looks at our nations history they may as well be reading a fictional novel. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Links2k

[Garufa]

58 minutes ago, Links2k said:

All very good and reasoned points, but it doesn’t diminish the fact that Americans are taught an extremely sanitized version of history. As long as this is allowed people will continue to scream instead of having productive dialogue, because their voices and existence  will consistently be minimized. 

What little history American children are now taught is so ridiculously biased and obfuscated there’s no need to worry about what could be.

Productive dialogue is done.

[Grayfox54]

32 minutes ago, Garufa said:

What little history American children are now taught is so ridiculously biased and obfuscated there’s no need to worry about what could be.

What's the current state of history classes in Tennessee? I've read where many states don't teach anything before the end of WW II anymore. The war isn't even included. Who here has kids in school now and can tell us? 

Way back when I was in High School ( late 60s-early 70s) there were 3 required history classes. Each class was the full school year long and went into quite a bit of detail. 

9th grade: Tennessee History

10th grade: American History

11th grade: World History. 

To be honest, I've forgotten most of it. But I was required to learn it back then. 

[Garufa]

11 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

What's the current state of history classes in Tennessee? I've read where many states don't teach anything before the end of WW II anymore. The war isn't even included. Who here has kids in school now and can tell us? 

Way back when I was in High School ( late 60s-early 70s) there were 3 required history classes. Each class was the full school year long and went into quite a bit of detail. 

9th grade: Tennessee History

10th grade: American History

11th grade: World History. 

To be honest, I've forgotten most of it. But I was required to learn it back then. 

I have no idea but when I was in school (Memphis) nothing after WWII was taught.  We barely made it there and it was only 30-40 years after the war.

Tennessee history used to be a state required course.  Had it in 7th grade. That would have been around 1980.

[No_0ne]

44 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

What's the current state of history classes in Tennessee?

High schools generally offer at least US history, World History, Geography, Econ/Government and personal finance to satisfy graduation requirements.  Many high schools, especially the larger ones, also offer a variety of AP/IBA/Honors classes which can also satisfy the requirements.  There's also a list of optional (elective) courses that can be offered, this varies by district.  In Tennessee, like most states, there's a list of standards that are to be taught, the actual curriculum and specific courses offered are left up to local Boards to determine.  As for Tennessee history, the state standards require that it be included in the curriculum, including at the 3rd, 5th and 8th grade levels, incorporated as part of the social studies classes during those grades.  Other courses may also include at least some aspects of Tennessee history, but as far as I can determine, the old "Tennessee History" course that I took in 7th grade circa 1973 isn't specifically required or offered anymore ...