I am sorry to hear you are having such issues with reading comprehension. Let me help you address your ignorant, illogical and poorly worded misconceptions.
Oh good. You’ve decided to be an idiot. Let’’s throw down. :-)
First, Lee for historical purposes is the same as Benedict Arnold. Namely, a traitor who is of no historical value to anyone who truly supports the country.
Oh, look — the goalposts are moving as Junior tries to cover up his silly original post. Let’s recap the original statement:
Assigning Lee the status of historically important American is a key part of people looking to justify preserving Confederate monuments throughout the country.
NOTE: The term “historical value” is quite different to “historically important.” Words have meaning, after all. Lee is a major player in American history, and is thus IMPORTANT, as no survey of American history would be complete without him. You “support the country” by having accurate histories, not by hiding your dirty laundry.
Benedict Arnold, OTOH, is a rather minor player who is not IMPORTANT, as his major contribution is not to history, but to the lexicon, and can otherwise be easily omitted.
At any rate, Lee is indeed historically important, but what we should be debating is not that, but how he is commemorated. I agree that he has been commemorated for too long as a heroic figure, and that must end. I do not support the retention of the Confederate statuary in venues which confer honor upon them.
That said, at to Ms. Voreskova’s point, I do not support their destruction, as that amounts to censorship.
White supremacists and fake russian trolls such Svetlana are desperately attempting to support Donald Trump…
I did not comment on your statement regarding Mr. Trump, so I’d thank you to not deflect.
And, for your information, a “troll” is defined as:
a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll’s amusement.
Svetlana Voreskova simply pointed out that you were factually incorrect in your hypothetical regarding the British. Let’s repeat that: factually incorrect. She was responding to your hypothetical, and thus was neither “extraneous” nor “off-topic”.
Hence, Ms. Voreskova is not a troll. Again, words mean something. (Although the fact that she evoked such an emotional response from you is rather amusing.)
You’re a really big man, aren’t you? You don’t like it when us little girls run you through an intellectual wringer. :-)
And again if you had the reading comprehension skills to understand …
Oh, I understood perfectly. What you don’t seem to understand is that your core argument vis a vis the Confederate memorials was undercut. Nations do, in fact, post and retain memorials to traitors and scoundrels, for various reasons. Thus, you can’t claim, as you wanted to, that the US is doing something novel by retaining the Confederate statuary.
That all said, and as I said before, I support moving the memorials to individuals of the Confederacy away from their places of honor in various cities to one or more historical parks, so that their stories can be told IN CONTEXT, which is really the problem we see in some of the Southern cities; the memorials lack the necessary historical context.
Hope. That. Helps.