Are you revising history by omission
How can a historical fact be painful and irrelevant? The relevancy of the fact is what makes the fact painful.
Even Rush Limbaugh’s history books for children provide enough minutia to understand history.
I guess I should have tagged my posts with /sarc
I was just trying to make your point in a different way. Your point, as I understand it, is that if you keep taking away parts of the story — and monuments are part of the story and the telling of it — what are you going to have left? My point was if you keep taking away parts of the story, you’ll be left with my “book” of a dozen sentences, bare of details and sketchy on facts.
I don’t expect this effort to end with the removal monuments. Some historical reenactments — a wonderful way to present history — have been affected because the Confederate reenactors are now reluctant to show up and participate. Who is to say that museums won’t be next? Or eventually books. And without these methods, both subject and objective, to tell the story, then the story and the history are lost.