It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: SprocketUK
It's really not comparable, but I'll give it a shot here.
Perhaps instead of tearing it down and erasing all evidence of Saville, additional signs could be posted on or near the memorials to educate and illuminate what he really was.
I see a big problem when society in general chooses to erase information, hide information instead of educating and illuminating.
Knowledge is power. And all we're doing is disarming ourselves and denying ourselves a wealth of information all under the guise of offense.
and, I still think that that law is wrong....
my point is though, unless I live in that state, it doesn't matter what I think, am I right?
I've always thought that combatting what the statues represent would be best served by adding to the statues instead of removing them. Place signs, even other statues describing what they represent.
When all this started kicking off, there were lots of reports online that said the statues that were removed weren't actually memorials to the rebels but were in fact put up in the aftermath of the changes to the racial segregation laws in the '60s.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: turbonium1
The Confederate flag represented almost half of Americans, back then.
Attacking that flag as a symbol of neo-nazi white racism, and glorifying black slavery, or hatred of all non-whites, is nonsense.
So, we should ignore the fact that Neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups use the Confederate flag as an emblem?