House Democrats, prompted by demonstrations against racism and police brutality across the country, are renewing a push to expel Confederate statues from the halls of Congress.

Local Richmond media have posted images showing the Christopher Columbus statue located in Byrd Park has been torn down from its pedestal and thrown into the lake.

London’s mayor announced Tuesday that more statues of imperialist figures could be removed from Britain’s streets after protesters knocked down the monument to a slave trader, as the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis continued to spark protests — and drive change — around the world.

On Tuesday, HBO Max removed the 1939 film from its library in the wake of protests over the death of George Floyd.

BOSTON — Protesters renewed calls Tuesday to rename Boston’s Faneuil Hall, a historic meeting house that is often called the Cradle of Liberty — but is named after a slave trader.

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

No, removing confederate statues won't solve the reality of racial inequality. Yes, it's just symbolic. But so are the statues themselves. Leaving them up sends a message, as does taking them down. The question is: which message is better?
- Tim Wise 6/10/20

Don't worry about those Confederate statues being torn down. They're getting what they always wanted: out of America.
- Stephen Colbert

Protestors are toppling statues as a reaction to racism and police brutality.

As Tim Wise said taking those statues down sends a message. It does not change or erase history. (We do not require sculptures of rat fleas to learn of the bubonic plague.) But taking them down (moving to a museum etc.) shows we no longer revere those figures.

Wise said leaving the statues up also sends a message. In part it shows America continues to revere those people. They represent a failed attack to defend slavery and, indirectly, the racism that continues.

Wise states "Yes, it's just symbolic," then asks which is the better message?

You do know there are ways to introduce stuff like this via a civilized forum, right?

BookTalk used to be one, or at least more of one. I'm outta here for a while.

Ant, you're too angry about all of this to engage constructively right now. You're becoming abusive.

As for tearing down--destroying--the statues, if we decry such vandalism, we might think of how we react to pictures of newly liberated people in the former Soviet Union toppling images of Stalin. How many of us point disapproving fingers at that?

Violence as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. I am not unmindful of the fact that violence often brings about momentary results. Nations have frequently won their independence in battle. But in spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends up defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

So an issue of police brutality is the time to air brush history?

Stop -- just stop, Geo.