Quote:
Originally Posted by cannonballsun
I have never got the idea of people saying - if we remove statues, we're erasing history. History stays the same, just a statue has been moved.
I have always loved to read about history. There are many great books that have been written about history.
If you're getting your history by looking at a statue, and that's it , I would say you don't know much about history.
|
I think "a statue has been moved" is quite a polite way to refer to the destruction of public (and private) property by a mob of people. Should they be moved or removed? Perhaps. But I'm hoping your not condoning that the ends justifies the means in how some of these have been 'moved'.
As to the original OT question. I'm not sure I buy the Braves name change. This gets back to the question of who takes offensive and how many need to be offended to be classified as 'offensive'. Sometime in the 1987-1994 time frame (as I remember where I was living at the time), this was brought up with regard to the Braves (among others). There were a number of Native Americans that were fine with the team name of the Braves as it was a symbol of strength, courage, and nobility. The Redskins and Indians would be a different matter.