Advocates of removing statues of confederate generals force their point in
claiming that if some were put up to promote racism that the only explanation
white people gave for them was that confederate generals were good in promoting
racism. Assuming an agreement with the statue removers that racism is harmful
junk science it begs the question--what do they think we white non-racists
explained about those statues all these years--that the Civil War was fought
pointlessly against the south because the south was about racism which is good?
That Lincoln had a big war fought for no reason? Hitler was a racist foreign
leader we as Allies fought against but there's an historical USA point in having
statues of confederate generals since they were leaders in a war that took place
on American soil. The same reason they keep up both sides generals at Gettys-
burg and call on you to explain it applies to such statues and the Civil War
generally.
Lost Causers try to rationalize it otherwise but we don't bend the explana-
tions around them. The statue removers haven't invented some exclusive new ex-
planations about that. Why remove statues that create an historically important
reason to explain that racism is junk science? Confederate general statues
present an opportunity to explain that as an important part of explaining the
Civil War.
If it's debatable I would recommend consideration. If some people believe the
confederate generals statues represent approval of racism on the part of the
public I'd say take them down--I don't need to look at them. But if you ask me
I'd explain what I have in the other several paragraphs. You should know how to
explain why Lincoln's on Mt. Rushmore--not take statues down if you don't.