Ake, if the matter were just "hurt feelings," you might have a point. I suppose you think the main impact was just "hurt feelings" for the requirement for separate bathrooms and schools and lunch counters, huh?
If the statues had been erected simply to honor the Confederate dead, then that would be a different matter. But that's not the point, and here's where I need you to think deep instead of trivializing this important matter: The statues were part of a package, meant to impose the domination of whites over blacks, to reimpose slavery in ways that were sometimes worse that slavery was itself. The package included denial of voting rights and the right to hold political office, separate and inadequate bathroom and recreation facilities and schools, separate seating in the back of buses and churches (even Catholic churches, I admit), unequal employment and housing opportunities, and a lengthy list of other offenses - sealed by the universal presence of statues of white gentry on horseback that were meant to remind blacks of their subservient place on society. And on top of all that, were the lynchings.

"Free speech" is a right of citizens, not a right of government. U.S. citizens have the right to express their thoughts freely. Government entitites do not have that same right - they are bound to represent and serve ALL the people, and not to provide symbols that speak loudly of the right of one race to dominate another.

The statues are the visible face of Jim Crow, and that is why they must be removed from public property.

Ake, I have repeated this over and over that the statues are part of the imposition of Jim Crow in the early 20th century, and you have repeatedly chosen to ignore this fact. If you continue this tack, then you must be the bigot people say you are. Is that what you think of Jim Crow - "hurt feelings"? That's pure idiocy.

-Joe Offer-