What the anti-monuments contingent members seem to be missing is that with the passage of time the notion of these monuments being essentially honors that we, as in our own current generation, are bestowing on individuals such as Lee and Beauregard (and by the way I trust that the poster did not really mean to suggest that Grant and Lee actually fought on the same side during the Civil War) because of how we, as in, again, our current generation, have very strong admiration for these individuals, has diminished while, on the other hand their significance and importance, as meaningful historic relics has grown. Do the people of, say, Paris keep the Arc de Triomphe preserved, rather tear it down, because they still, 200 years later, think the world of Empire of Napoleon? No, they keep it around as it's important because it's historic.
Agreed. Once something like these century-old authentic antique sculptures is tossed away, it's irreplaceable. If they do carry out this removal the contingent who support this will savor the moment as it happens no doubt but eventually with the passage most people will come to realize the foolishness of just tossing something authentic away on a whim. What's doubly saddening about this business is that this city in particular among all others is known for savoring its public art and attaching importance to preservation of historic structures though now is deciding that such values must be overridden by the need to serve the aims of trendy political correctness, which is all that this is, seeing as how there was no burning issue, prior to June 2015, with the presence of offensive monuments. Okay they were able to find a story, (from more than 40 years ago), about an incident in connection with the Lee monument. How about stories of incidents more recent than that one or about the incident from about 20 years ago involving the Liberty monument? How about any stories at all about incidents having to do with the Beauregard monument, which, it has to be pointed out, is quite striking as a work of art and has to do with an individual who was from the area and did much for the city both before and after his involvement in the American Civil War but is on the list of targeted structures nonetheless? Moreover, it seems clear from this story that no one has any idea about what to do with these sculptures post-monument demolition. If this is all purely about just moving the sculptures to a place where they can be displayed in the better context or whatever these anti-monument group members say then why not wait until we can figure that out before doing anything? I have to think that this business is really mainly about just making these pieces disappear from view and that's the beginning and the end of it.
Maybe the mayoral spokesperson was not just innocently misspeaking there. Maybe what really happened there was that they slipped up and revealed something. Whatever one believes about the city's authority to have the monuments relocated, there are still questions. For instance, is it really legal to have this monetary donation which has reportedly been made for the purpose of having the monuments removed be completely anonymous? Isn't a foundation that technically is making the donation still required to report who their supporters are? Moreover, has the city administration had a deal lined up all along to deliver the monuments to a certain supporter of theirs to be part of a privately-owned meseum/park venture and can that be legal, seeing as how the city is declaring the monuments as nuisances, which means that they are considered as scrap? Shouldn't the city be soliciting bids and doing so publicly?
If the monuments are just simply "no longer relevant" to people in New Orleans then no one would be upset about their presence and calling for the city to store (hide) them away.
To be people who seem to be saying that they cannot abide the monuments' existence and apparently find them to be some kind of intolerable abomination it would seem that the monuments have very great relevance.
Robberies of restaurants (with diners present) and in the area of the city where that's happened made news and is talked about because, well, it WAS shocking. How often has that happened? And then there have been more than one such incident? Finally, no one needs to say that if people can't feel safe and be safe when they do something as basic as go out to eat what that might mean in this city.
Of course it's a very serious accusation. On the other hand, since Vitter has already admitted to having committed a "serious sin" but has also refused to disclose any further details there's ample possibility that the story could be true.
I disagree with David Vitter on the policies that he espouses and I also do not care for his particular style of doing things and those are more significant issues in my mind than his personal business. Having said that, I suspect that he's in strong shape now that he can go into, say, Alexandria, and be able to beat up on the city of New Orleans and on the mayor, as he currently seems to be reveling in doing and, I suspect, has used to some effectiveness in working up the enthusiasm of voters for him. Beating up on the city and on a city political official who is widely perceived as being liberal is something that has always worked very effectively in areas of the state outside of greater New Orleans. If Vitter wins the governorship he should perhaps send a nice thank you card to the mayor.
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation