General Robert E. Lee and others

Well said, NJ. This sort of thing reeks of book burning.

 

So yeah, supposedly at least, the original intent of the Lee, Davis, Johnston, and Wilson statues was about reconciliation, the North & South coming back together to unite and fight WW1 as a single nation. But even if so, they blew their own point in at least two ways. First is that there isn't anything to link those 4 statues together or show they are part of a single message. Second is that Woodrow Wilson was a virulent racist, as bad or worse than a lot of people on both sides back in the 1860s.

This isn't about censorship or erasing things from history. Statues are just passive descriptions of history, they are a statement of belief that an individual is worthy of renown in some way. And a statement of renown towards someone who fought against the USA in war might be justified - much like we could recognize Erwin Rommel for being a brave & bold leader and for his commitment to "war without hate", or Isoruku Yamamoto for his unsuccessful efforts to prevent the war and promote understanding between the USA & Japan - the standard should be a lot higher. After all, I don't think we'd have statues of Yamamoto or Rommel at UT. But unlike those two, Lee, Johnston, and Davis did fight on the same side as Texas, so that may change things. They did, to one degree or another, fight on the same side as slavery, but then the Civil War was fought between two slave-holding nations. So then the question really becomes, to me: is this individual worthy of renown for something other than "being a figure that way back when, somebody wanted to use as a symbol of reconciliation"?

Lee, definitely. Believed slavery to be a vile institution, was a voice of reconciliation after the war, recognized by his comrades AND his opponents during the war as a great leader and upright individual. It's too bad more men in power in both the North & the South didn't think more like Lee. Had Sherman been Lee, the nation may have recovered a lot faster from Reconstruction. But Davis? I don't see the point at all. Wilson, same thing, if we're putting presidents up there other than Washington, why is he choice #2? Johnston, I don't really see the point either, but he was actually from Texas. How much he had to do with reconciliation, I don't know. While we're on the subject, though, why is Sam Houston not honored with a statue? After all, he even actually opposed Texas seceding at all in the first place.

 

All the statues could be placed on the the state Capitol grounds, but I just don't see them as very relevant to the University of Texas. Put some academic heroes there, or some who had some connection to UT. Did Robert E. Lee ever set foot in Texas? I don't get it.

 

Wilson was a very prominent academic. Are you OK with him?

 

Lee served in the Second Cavalry in Texas from 1855 - 1860.

 

We should probably only have statues of football people; Earl, DKR, etc. Get rid of the ugly stampeding horses thing too.

 

Texans 100 years from now will view college football as barbaric, cripplingly inhumane, racially oppresive, and anti-intellectual.

 

I guess that is better than just being remembered for that period in the early part of the 21st century where Texas just put a mediocre, cringe-worthy product on the field, court or any other turf...

 

Just so there's no confusion, I love football. College football has A LOT of problems (most of them because IMHO it's too money driven today and not scholastically driven anymore), but it's still great.

My football comment was just a point that worrying about "being on the right side of history" is...what's the word...dumb.

What would a society learn about itself from its history if all the people in the past just did stuff so that they were on the right side history? Would there even be a point to study history? It's like an aggy joke.

 

Ah, a true liberal, everything is racially oppressive. Racially oppressive to whom, white people? There are fewer whites on most college and pro teams than blacks in an Alabama sorority.

Anyway, glad I'll be dead if your prediction comes true.

 

Clean, I was making a pessimistic prediction. See my post right above your last.

 

Thanks for the clarification ex2000.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Melville. Edgar Allan Poe, or Janis Joplin.

 

I'll support Janis Joplin.

 

One could argue that it is kind of crazy to acknowledge Lincoln or Grant in Texas since they fought against Texas in a war.

I've concluded there is a lot of general ignorance of history. I unfortunately overheard a recent UT graduate this past weekend actually say "John Paul Jones? He was that guy that wore red in game of thrones? Right?" History may be a lost cause at this point as it obviously is not being taught.

I know it's not at UT as I had a professor that actually dedicated a class to teaching us how Mexico won WW2 and without Mexico's contributions, America, Britain and Russia would be speaking German today.

 

Oh that's funny. I like JPJ, but after reading this biography, John Paul Jones: Sailor, Hero, Father of the American Navy by Evan Thomas, my respect for him diminished somewhat. He was an egomaniac and a little hypocritical in the "officer and a gentleman" stuff. Still a great combat commander and naval tactician. Maybe I should read another biography though, you can't just take one biographer's narrative as gospel. Stephen Decatur...now he's the guy people should study in American Naval History. "Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations, may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong."

I like the take on Lincoln and Grant, etc.

 

Is this a joke, exaggeration, or what? I cannot comprehend this as reality from even an elitist.

 

^ it is reality.

I assumed when the lecture began he would discuss the contributions of Mexican Americans in world war 2. There were various mexican american medal of honor winners, and it would have made sense with the class.

Instead, he actually talked about the country of mexico. Apparently they let the US have radar installations and kept a lookout for german u-boats in the gulf or something and that's what really turned around the war.

I stayed in the class and found the whole thing hilarious. However, it was the only class at UT where about half of my classmates (of all races and genders) got up and walked out. I think they found the whole thing ridiculous and did not wish to waste their time with it.

I had a range of professors discuss a range of things. I can say I disagreed with how some professors viewed their subjects. I can even say that some of my government professors had their economics wrong. However, at no point in my 7 years at UT undergrad and grad school did I have anything quite so ridiculous as the lecture on how Mexico won WW2. Well, one law prof did one time talk about how the prof thought cows were sad because they were fenced in.... but that was still not as ridiculous.

At the time I wondered if he was purposefully testing the waters to see how ridiculous he could get with history. However, upon reflection, I think he was serious.

 

I'm not sure which is more sad - that he serious believed it and tried to teach y'all that stuff as fact, or that I'm not even remotely surprised by any of that.

 

Did Johnston and Lee serve in the Mexican War? That would mean that they probably led Texans in battle for the defense of the newly annexed state of Texas. Not saying that is statue worthy, they also did led thousands of Texans in battles during the Civil War regardless of what side they were on, still not sure that is statue worthy but it does link them to Texas. I also think that Johnston did some work with the Texas Togographical department or something like that, again not statue worthy but it does link them to Texas.

Wilson and the City of Houston Port seem to come to mind for me, not sure if it is worth a statue.....

 

Lee was very effective as an engineer and battlefiled leader in the Mexican War and was stationed for a time in Texas just before the civil war. There wasn't much defensive about US conduct of the Mexican War, though certainly President James K. Polk's display of might proved to Mexico it could not reclaim Texas, California and a lot of other former Mexican territory that is now part of the United States.