Some call it vandalism. I call it gradual removal.
well, his new look does give new meaning to the term ’ the marble man’.
I would have drawn a twiddly moustache
“address the questions raised by the statues of Robert E. Lee and others, and confront the darker moments in our nation’s history”
Questions? this isn’t about the confronting the civil war, this was put up by racist in the 30’s for racist reasons. Not very hard to figure out, and if you don’t stand for racism anymore then take it down.
Racist put the statue there for racist reasons, the end. That’s the only reason why the statue is there in the first place, its time for it to go.
One might posit that memorializing a slave-owning Confederate general in a house of worship is the true vandalism.
He’s lost face.
Acid rain no doubt.
One might, and one should… but in legal ways. Devolving into criminality isn’t the way to win this fight.
Wouldn’t do it myself, because vandalism is wrong… but if I saw somebody else whacking at it with a hammer, I might be a little slow on the draw to pull out my cell and call the cops.
Vandalism is never the answer and never acceptable.
This reduces the perpetrator to the same level as the KKK and white supremacists.
NO. Vandalism against property is ABSOLUTELY NOT THE SAME AS VIOLENCE AGAINST PEOPLE. Sorry for the shouting, but vandalism is usually a misdemeanor and assault and murder are … I don’t need to go on here. I’m sure you didn’t really mean this, and might want to rethink your statement.
The offense is not as an egregious an offense, but criminal acts for political purposes are still criminal acts. If we want things to get better, we need to be better.
I meant exactly what I said.
I made no mention of assault or murder, nor of any legal charges. I did not make any comparisons between misdemeanors and felonies.
What puts the vandals on the same level as the KKK is the eagerness to destroy and the willingness to ignore societal norms and rules. Get off your high horse and think.
Vandalism is wrong.
Period.
Full stop.
I don’t think smashing the face of statues is productive either. That said, they should leave it as is now. The destruction is part of its history.
Take the statue down ASAP. It is racist, it was always racist. Lee does not deserve a monument. A traitor fighting for a vicious cause.
I’m perplexed, why is there a statue of Robert E. Lee outside of a church? Seems to me to be on the blasphemous, graven images side of things. And I’m at a disadvantage here. I think that’s Jefferson on the left, but who’s that on the right?
And if you’ve got Lee, where’s Gen. U.S. Grant? What is he, chopped liver?
Nothing wrong with doing this to a traitor’s statue.
It’s in the entranceway:
On the outer arch above the portal are carved three figures pivotal to the American Methodist movement: Bishop Francis Asbury stands in the center, while Bishop Thomas Coke and George Whitefield stand on the left and right, respectively. On the left wall within the entrance portal are carved (from left to right) Girolamo Savonarola, Martin Luther, and John Wycliffe. On the right wall (from left to right) are Thomas Jefferson, statesman of the South; Robert E. Lee, soldier of the South; and Sidney Lanier, poet of the South. John Wesley, founder of Methodism, stands atop the inner arch within the portal, directly above the Chapel doors.
On Lee’s carving, the Italian sculptors inscribed ‘US’ on the belt buckle; it was partially chiseled away (since Lee was a Confederate general) but is still visible.
So, to answer your question, from the perspective of the south in the 1920-1930s (the chapel was designed in 1925 and completed in 1932)… yes. Chopped liver about encompasses what President U.S. Grant was to the South.
Duke isn’t that where Richard Spencer and Stephen Miller fell in love? Better get that statue into a museum fast boys or you won’t have your Tribute to Treason or object of your fetish in one piece!