Gail Lambert argues that we should not remove the statues of war generals that we disagree with. Lambert see’s these statues as landmarks that show what was important to people in the past and why. He utilized the example of a statue of Sheridan. He disagrees with the war tactics of the general who lay waste to a valley. However, he states that these tactics have had lasting effects. Similarly, monuments dedicated to confederate leaders can also speak of the need to unite the north and the south.
Key Takeaways:
- Reevaluation of who we consider a hero throughout history and the roles that they’ve played; such as Philip Sheridan
- The author suggests that a pro active way to elimate racism and to take repsonsible for our history is to re evaluate the commemoration of certain historic figures that do not merit it as we have learned more about them.
- Who should decide who stays and goes? The author is not in accord to change memorials such as. Jefferson Davis Highway and the removal of a statue of a Confederate soldier in Alexandria or. The removal of the statues of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in Charlottesville.
“Finding reconciliation between the North and South is possible but not probable until the lust to destroy the memorials of the Confederacy is brought to an end.”
