CreateDebate


Debate Info

50
59
Yes No
Debate Score:109
Arguments:107
Total Votes:118
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (45)
 
 No (47)

Debate Creator

Grenache(6053) pic



Controversial monuments from history

Recent removals of Confederacy-related statues have fueled protests and counter protests.  Should they be left on display?

Yes

Side Score: 50
VS.

No

Side Score: 59
3 points

But there is now breaking news that crews are being sent to Mount Rushmore National Memorial to get to work with jackhammers to destroy the memorial. Capitalism is at work as we can see now.

Side: Yes
2 points

I'm adding this link just for context, not because I fully agree with the write-up...

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/arts/ design/trump-robert-e-lee-george-washington-thomas-jefferson.html

Let's break this topic down several ways.

First, what is or isn't controversial is subjective and changes over time if public opinion or historical understanding changes. Had the South won the Civil War and the North erected monuments to Grant or others then there could just as easily now be slave holders who find it utterly offensive the North would have statues to a man who wanted to take away the liberty to own slaves. Twisted, I know. But the point is controversy is subjective. The North (or advocates for freedom with no slavery) would be furious and protest if Grant was being taken down, just like some Southerners and historians and white supremacists are about Lee being taken down.

Second, consider the word "should". I didn't ask "can". Can they be taken down? Well, yes, of course. They can because whomever holds the reigns of government has the power to do what they want, presumably because people elected them to do just that. It's fully within the right of a city council or a State or of the US government to decide the fate of monuments under their jurisdiction. They can. Should they? Well I'll refer you back to my first paragraph. And I'll elaborate further below.

Also consider:

1) Removing a monument is a whitewashing of history. Hey, the event or the thing the monument was created for either DID happen, or enough people believed it did to be worth making a monument back then. We shouldn't be in the business of rewriting or hiding history.

2) Monuments which infuriate people create teachable moments. Hey, if you don't like what it stands for then teach the kids about why it is bad. But don't teach them to destroy or hide or ignore why it happened.

3) New generations with different opinions have their own rights to add. Add a plaque near it with the contemporary view. Or add another monument next to it which is bigger or better to reflect your modern beliefs.

4) You can legitimately move it to a different public location. You could put it in a museum. You could designate one particular park to where you banish the past monuments and you can even name that park "The Dustbin of History Park" if you want. But don't just destroy or take away forever. Hey, when the Taliban used cannons to destroy giant rock carvings from another ancient religion the world was aghast at the destruction of history. Well, this is essentially the same thing, just on a smaller scale.

5) It's a free country. If you don't like the history of where you live or its monuments you can move somewhere else. Or you can also run for office, get elected, and ralley support to do any of 2 through 4 I listed above.

Side: Yes

I agree, and I wish you could see your hypocrisy when people on the Left want to censor symbols of our Christian heritage.

The Left censors a community's freedom to choose to leave up nativity scenes on public land. The Left screams TAKE THEM DOWN, we don't want to see any religious expression of our nation's heritage on public land.

The Left does not like seeing those Plaques of the Ten Commandments on our court room walls. TAKE THEM DOWN!

The Left does not like the Pledge of Allegience because it mentions God. CENSOR IT!

The Left does not like "In God We Trust" on our money. TAKE IT OFF!

It's funny how the supposed tolerant Left is the most intolerant of any group of Americans. They censor Conservative speakers from Colleges.

It's funny how when it comes to hate art from Liberal Professors, the Left says leave up those paintings of President Trumps severed head on those walls of our public Colleges.

Free expression is always conditional when it comes to the Left.

Side: Yes
1 point

Point well taken. I will support treating pre-existing monuments to religion in the same way as the points in my post above. Keep in mind that could also mean moving them to another location or posting new monuments or views next to them. And that also means completely new religious monuments still have no support from me due to separate of church and state.

Yes, if a monument to the 10 commandments has been standing for a century I'm not going to ask to expunge it from local history.

The debate about the art in Alaska of Trump's severed head has already been discussed at great lengths and is not the same as a monument to the 10 commandments.

Side: Yes
FromWithin(8241) Clarified
1 point

You can't just white wash censorship by calling it "speration of church and state"..... nowhere in the Constitution. Just because a few justices decided it was ok to censor freedom of religious expression on public land does not make it ok.

Would you be ok if the activist Justices all of a sudden decided free speech on pubic land was no longer allowed, or would you fight it? You have excepted censorship of religious expression on public land under the lie of Separation. You did this because you as most people on the Left do not like Christian expression in this nation.

Side: Yes
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Recent removals of Confederacy-related statues have fueled protests and counter protests. Should they be left on display?

What are you talking about Boy ?????????

Is it Confederacy related monuments or Religious related monuments ?

You Leftist just cannot stay on topic !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Side: Yes
1 point

Hello G:

Yes.. IN a civil war museum - NOT in the public square.

excon

Side: Yes
marcusmoon(576) Clarified
1 point

When people go to a museum, it is a purposeful "educational" experience. It is a more contrived experience. People can easily avoid ideas/monuments/realities of history that they disagree with or find distasteful.

The advantage of having monuments in parks and public buildings, as well as naming streets, etc. is the likelihood of incidental exposure. It demonstrates in a metaphoric way how the particular history is part of the environment. It also forces exposure and consideration in the context of the normal life going on around it. It is harder to avoid.

One of our problems as a nation is that we rarely account for the changes of history, nor for the fact that our values are not, nor have ever been universal values and beliefs.

No historical figure was perfect in his or her own time, and they all appear much less so in ours, especially because our values have changed. It is instructive to come across that truth unlooked for in the course of life.

Side: Yes
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

Hello m:

Yes, they were historical in their TREACHERY.. Why do you wanna venerate TRAITORS???

Not only that, they're LOSERS.. Why venerate LOSERS???

excon

Side: No
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Hey STUPID so when are you wacko Leftist going to attack the Civil War Museums because they offend you ??????????

Side: Yes
1 point

If we tear down all the historical monuments of past figures that did deeply evil things we will have no historical monuments left.

Side: Yes
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

Hello W:

It's not about evil people or all historical monuments.. It's about monuments that celebrate TRAITORS. But, I don't think they should be torn down. I think they should be MOVED to a Civil War museum.

excon

Side: No
WinstonC(1225) Disputed
1 point

Traitors? Seceding, for whatever reason, wasn't treachery. There is no evil in the desire to self-govern. One may question their motives (I detest slavery) but one should also sympathize that the south's economy was heavily reliant on slaves. In addition, all Americans were traitors to the British crown under your definition. It appears then that it only matters if they are "traitors" to a particular empire or in a certain situation.

Side: Yes
1 point

It's not about evil people or all historical monuments.. It's about monuments that celebrate TRAITORS

Lee was a Democrat for starters.Secondly, the left has chosen to ignore his apologies and self reflection post war. They have also chosen to ignore that the statue also keeps people mindful of not repeating the mistakes of the past.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes ,leave them on display . The world seems to be breeding deeply sensitive individuals who look for and find offence everywhere ; I would leave them up just to annoy these deeply sensitive morons

Side: Yes
xljackson(260) Disputed
0 points

How's my little cripple going? Still plugging away? You're a drain on society...:)

Side: No
5 points

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't choice.

Leave them and those who are sufficiently opposed to their presence will be liable to disfigure them with obscene slogans along with ''protest demonstrations which could turn violent''.

Remove them and those who support them remaining will stage ''protest demonstrations which could turn violent''.

Such statues representing people or events of the past should remain firmly in the pages of dusty history books.

Henry Ford was correct when he said,'' THE ONLY HISTORY WORTH A TINKER'S DAMN IS THE HISTORY YOU'RE MAKING TODAY''.

The disruptive agitators who rake up the ashes of history should be recognised for the trouble making anarchists they are.

Side: No
4 points

Once all the Controversial Monuments are gone that the Left oppose is that going to make them happy ?

Side: No
Antrim(1287) Clarified
6 points

Well now, let's see.

If we tear down Robert E. Lee's statue you may as well start tearing down the rest of American history to fit in with the loony left's narrative.

George Washington was a slave owner.

Best to tear down everything to do with him and rename the Capital of the United States?

Abraham Lincoln was willing to let slave states keep their slaves provided they stayed within the Union.

So, the same treatment for Ab., as George Washington?

The main issue in the civil was was the preservation of the Union with the slave issue sidelined to number 2 on the priority list.

Are the looney left brigade going to seriously argue that the average confederate solider was any more or less racist that his northern counterparts?

Airbrushing, or erasing, history because it doesn't fit with looney left's narrative is starting down a very dangerous road on which only blind fools would not fear to tread.

Side: Yes

Andrew Jackson is on the $20 bill and has statues across the country. He also round up the Native Americans at gunpoint and forced them to march thousands of miles. Tens of thousands of Natives died, namely the elderly and children. I don't see the left rushing to scrub Jackson from the 20 or take down his monuments...

Side: No
1 point

There really is no winning on this. I can see both sides. Ultimately I fall on, we don't rely on the statues for history so getting rid of them isn't the same as getting rid of any controversial figure in history books. I know people are saying "well then we have to get rid of George Washington.....blah blah" but....and I'm not excusing it....Washington was a man and product of his time. He didn't fight to keep slavery like the men portrayed by the statues in question did. Men who fought against freedom for others shouldn't be immortalized in anything other than history books. BUT again....I see both sides and there is just no winning this.

Side: No