3 ms·
The comparison is not even remotely equivalent. The statue hasn't been destroyed, it was moved to a different location. Islamic destruction of cultural artifac
by beefok 5y ago
The comparison is not even remotely equivalent.
The statue hasn't been destroyed, it was moved to a different location. Islamic destruction of cultural artifacts for 'blasphemy' is a completely different reasoning because it disregards the value of cultural significance and instead creates an artificial 'metaphysical' reason to destroy something.
If for some reason you think we need a statue around that shows our 'mastery' over the natives and people we stole from their native lands to do work for free, then you are butt-hurt for the worst possible reason and only show your true color.
And if you think we need to teach children to be tolerant of slavery, then you are absolutely wrong for two reasons.
(PS: I think Teddy Roosevelt was a pretty cool guy and wasn't a racist beyond the norms of the time, so it's more a problem of what the statue represents at face value)
- pmdulaney 5y agoA more enlightened view, I think, would be to in essence say, "Americans of previous generations had views and attitudes that many of us disagree with today, and we would not care to replicate what we see as their mistakes, but out of respect for them and the different era in which they lived, we allow their monuments to stand."
- beefok 5y agoHey sorry, I'm late to the game -- I didn't realize you responded. I do understand your view completely, and maybe I came in reactionary. Honestly I'd have to continue thinking about it to provide any sort of meaningful answer -- but I will definitely continue to consider it in any thoughts or comments I make in the future, haha.
- pmdulaney 5y agoFor me it's a free speech issue in which one party happens to be deceased. Best wishes.