FEEDBACK: Leave ‘em up or take ‘em down

Reminders of past show us how far we’ve come

To the editor:

Please accept this note of compliment for the cogent point that you made in your May 2 editorial about Confederate statues.  As we know, some people argue for removing them, others for leaving them be.  Up until your editorial on the subject, I found myself rather conflicted on the issue.  I could see merit in both points of view.

Now, however, with the added insight which your editorial provided, I now am of the opinion “leave them be.”  It is in our collective interest to remind ourselves of portions of our troubled past as well as how far we have come from those times.

— Dave Brown, Charleston, S.C.

Put memorials in a museum

To the editor:

Town square in Tuskegee, Ala.

It’s ironic that you praise the residents of Tuskegee for not living in the past when that’s the sole reason for the placement of the Confederate memorial in 1906 by the Daughters of the Confederacy in the first place. Confederate monuments exist to celebrate the goals and intents of the Confederacy, which was to enslave and oppress black Americans into perpetuity. Confederate apologists cannot get over the fact they lost a war they started for a despicable cause. So they created these memorials to “honor” their ancestors in an attempt to alter the narrative and cast themselves as heroes of a lost cause.

If you want commemorate a famous Confederate event or battle (preferably their surrender), put up a plaque. These statues are not necessary. You honestly believe seeing a statue of Jefferson Davis aboard a steed is going to prompt a sincere discussion about the causes of the Civil War? More like a white child will see Davis as a hero. We make statues of people that are perceived to be heroes.

That monument belongs in a museum at best. There it can be framed in its proper context.

— Marshall Kornegay, Myrtle Beach, S.C.

Do the right thing for state’s first responders

To the editor:

These people [legislators] are supposed to be working for all of us, not for political parties or their donors or out-of-state, non-elected egomaniacs such as the Koch brothers or the anti-tax pledge blackmailer Grover Norquist.  Since when are our first responders, police and firefighters so robotic that they should be able to continue to do their jobs without seeking help in dealing with death, such as their partners being killed in front of them or having to kill the perpetrator of your partner or other murders?

Do we really want police or firefighters who aren’t deeply bothered by killing someone or by seeing their partners killed or just seeing the victims of too many horrendous murders?  Why shouldn’t these incidents be covered by workers’ compensation?  That our legislators, such as Sen. Chauncey Gregory, R-Lancaster, think they should have to incur the costs themselves on their own insurance policies is appalling.  Why does this disgust me?  When we have to fork over a ridiculous amount of money for their salaries — even when they haven’t earned anything but our disdain, along with their fat retirement fund and their health insurance policies — they have the nerve to deny help to those who protect them!

— Helen C. Foley, Columbia, S.C.

Rant.  Rave.  Tell us what you really think.  If you have an opinion on something we’ve offered or on a subject related to the Lowcountry, please send your letters of 150 words or less to: editor@charlestoncurrents.com. Our feedback policy.