Just w hat is WRONG with history? Why are we so UNABLE in the country to EXPLAIN the parts that are bad, wrong, not with us any longer and show that we have in fact, MOVED ON and we don’t want to repeat the same mistakes?
Thanks… should have been part of the story.
It should be depicted correctly - as a Confederate Soldier surrendering. Preferably Lee.
Excellent news!
About time too!
Isn’t that what they’re doIng?
The hate banner has no place of honor into our society and never should have. It’s a traitorous banner that should have been burned on the fires of history right after the south lost.
Nothing wrong with history.
A lot wrong with displaying symbols whose only purpose is to intimidate and terrify groups of people.
The confederate battle flag isn’t history. It’s a symbol.
It’s both, and pretending otherwise is silly.
How about–it’s a historic symbol whose only purpose is to intimidate and terrify groups of people.
Pretend it never happened, then?
How about–it’s a historic symbol whose only purpose is to intimidate and terrify groups of people.
Let’s try again. It’s a historic symbol whose only continued purpose is to intimidate and terrify groups of people.
Remove a part of a stained glass window from our national cathedral is not equal pretending it never happened.
Golly, good thing I didn’t say that.
The bigger question is, why would the national cathedral have stained glass depicting the traitor hate banner in the first place?
Not that my opinion means much in a church, but here goes: I have mixed feelings here. If the windows depict the flag in a glorious manner, then I would find that most definitely inappropriate due to just what the flag represents. If the display is incidental to the overall scene–such as each general carrying a flag that represents their side of the battle–in a manner that is more or less factual … like a scene where each side is meeting to discuss surrender, then I’d find that pretty significant to the story and think it would be better to keep it there, to announce to the viewer: “This side, the losing side, the immoral side is surrendering. They lost. The good and righteous has won.”
Does that make sense?
The article states that it placed there in 1953 to “foster reconciliation”. What did it replace? Were the confederate mutant throwbacks from the Civil War still a factor in 1953?
Golly, good thing I didn’t say the above either.
Saw that, and thought reconciliation my ass. More like capitulation if you ask me.
Ike was big on that crap. Added “under god” to the pledge of allegiance and put through the religious tax exemptions. That we all are still paying for. All to genuflect to the “religious right”. I guess he wanted the Traitorous hater vote too.
My theory is that even in 1953, this country was still bending over backwards to appease the Southern Nationalists who have always claimed that everybody else is insufficiently American, but themselves are loyal first to their region and Confederation. I was born on an Army base named after one Confederate General and lived on another during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If you ever read Tony Horwitz’s Confederates in the Attic, he has an entire chapter on how the Appeasement continues, and how the National Parks with Civil War commemoration exhibits are not allowed to accurately depict or characterize the mass atrocities that took place at Andersonville. In the spirit of reconciliation.
Brown vs. Board of Education was first filed in 1951. First argued before the Supremes in Dec., 1952, again in Dec. 1953 and decided in 1954. Coincidence? Capitulation, indeed.