Removing statues isn’t rewriting history

Removing historical statues doesn't erase the history
Re May 18 letter, “Confederacy is part of American legacy”: Peter Henningson claims that “liberal apologists are removing statues of notable figures of the Confederacy to appease black activists.” He is referring to the recent removal of statues of Confederate generals from public squares in New Orleans, and says, “This is akin to Muslim jihadists denying the Holocaust happening because they don’t respect the Jews.” Huh?
He seems to think removing the statues is an attempt to rewrite history by denying that slavery existed when he asks, “What is next? Will they insist that we attack Egypt and destroy the Spinx and the Great Pyramids because they were built with slave labor? Apparently he believes statues honoring the defenders of slavery are merely historical reminders that slavery existed and the Civil War happened, but his thinking is topsy-turvy.
Suppose there were a statue of Adolph Hitler in a public square. (And, no, I’m not equating Robert E. Lee with Adolph Hitler, so don’t get sidetracked.)
Would Mr. Henningson defend the existence of such a statue as merely a historical reminder that the Holocaust and World War II happened? If not, what’s the difference?
And why is the removal of Confederate statues ascribed solely to “liberal apologists” when political conservatives oppose racism as well?
Jerry Jasinski

Categories: Letters to the Editor, Opinion

Leave a Reply