DeeAnn, from a historical perspective, I have no problem with it. It is, she is, the scene is, a piece of history. Where exactly do we draw the line with destroying that are historical? If people never put them up n the first place, then there is nothing historical. But once they are up, that implies enough people believed in the historical significance of the person, place, or thing, to remember it for the future. Remember the words of George Santayana, “Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When change is absolute there remains no being to improve and no direction is set for possible improvement: and when experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The past, good or bad, reminds of of what we did. If we decide later it was good, then that is a reminder to continue. If we later decide later it was bad, then we have a reminder to never do it again.
The horrors of the death camps from WW2 were… Sorry, words escape me…. But we did not bulldoze what was left of the camps into the ground. They stand as a reminder that we must not forget, and never allow that to happen again.
The Library of Congress stands as a reminder of the wonderful knowledge humanity has been given by great men and women. That is a reminder of the good, and something we can be reminded of.
No, good or bad, history must not be covered up, or put under a cover in some dark abandoned warehouse to be forgotten. History is to be learned from, embraced, and experienced for both the good, and the bad it affords us. If the history is too real for some, then you have the freedom to not gaze upon it. No one has forced you to gaze upon it.
But how can you ever be a champion for good, if you do not also know and understand the bad from the past? Michelle