Getting into one of my usual online debates, this time the subject has to do with whether it's proper or not to build memorials to General Robert E. Lee despite his history of serving a slave-advocating system.
NOTE: "Mad Libs" is what I'm currently terming Progressives and ultraliberals.
________
Given that it is a fact that Robert E. Lee was idolized by later generations, what did his veneration mean to the venerators?
The standard Leftie response was that every time Southerners put up any sort of memorial to the Confderacy, it was either (a) an attempt to rewrite history to make the South look heroic, (b) an attempt to keep Black people in their place, particularly during Civil Rights battles, or (c) both.
There's no way to persuade Mad Libs not to favor these conspiracy theories. One can only state that the attribution of such invidious motives is tainted by the fact that it makes the Lib feel all warm and fuzzy about his superiority to such deplorables.
What other motives might there be? Well, the other motive stated here has been just as an admiration for raw military talent, much as some WWII experts admire Erwin Rommel. But that seems a pretty cold reason to put up a memorial.
It's possible Lee gets honored not for what he did but what he represents to Southerners, and even occasionally persons outside the geographic South. Not necessarily the championing of slavery in itself, but the willingness to stand up to a superior force that has dealt badly with you and yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment