lavender

I thought that was the math curriculum.

"Fruit from the poisoned tree" was a big dilemma with Nazi experiments at the end of WWII. I remember reading particularly that some of the experiments on hypothermia that were performed on humans could have been helpful to aimen downed at sea. I believe it was released to scientists for their evaluation and to be used at their discretion although many argued against that. They wanted it destroyed because of the way it was obtained. Considering the source is a valid premise but it is not the only consideration. Context is important as well. The first thing people seem to do when they lose a loved one is sue. It's blood money. How can you want to profit from someone's death but we all know people who would do just that. Money for cars and vacations. Get me my GOFUNDME page. Yet who would refuse to take that money if there were children who had to be fed, housed and educated involved? The point is context although I've gone a bit astray. While the source of something may be dubious the context in which it is used is important as well. You destroy or hide things or refuse to use them because you think from whence they came is not acceptable then that is your individual choice. No one should be making it for society in general. Don't desecrate what someone else holds sacred because you have moral qualms or a can of spray paint. The Civil War wasn't evil. It just was.

So when will we be removing the current history books from schools and libraries and replacing them with the fictionalized version?

Are history books that mention tyrants "honoring?" They are in public places such as libraries and schools. They are mandatory learning in our public schools. How about Charles Darwin and his Theory of Evolution?

I can think of several places I'd like to see that played. Football games. Governor Wolf's residence.

Killed you to say that didn't it? It's nice to know that you aren't so far gone as to actually agree with the rewriting of history. It is still wrong to try to suppress it or hide it. We learn from Robert E. Lee just as we learn from Martin Luther King. Both were flawed men who followed their consciences.

Are they really? You just haven't seen the streets of San Francisco lately. The streets in many cities are cesspits. You have to step over the homeless in New Orleans. There isn't anything honorable about being a urinal for those sleeping along the river. Yes, modern day issues must be judged by today's standards but that doesn't excuse applying those standards to the past. Honorable men lived in a way that would be considered politically incorrect today. They lived by the beliefs and standards of their time.

Hopefully, his lawyers are not sleeping too well at night.

History cannot be changed. It can be reinterpreted. It should, however, be interpreted within the beliefs and parameters of the era in which it took place. Condemning the past and insisting on punishing someone for is is counter productive. It is divisive. We should expect the current generation to learn from the sins of the past not try to forget their existence nor chance history. Nor should we expect the those who did not commit those actions to be held responsible for them. That too is divisive and "divide and conquer" is an excellent tactic for tyrants.

Apparently it depends on the teacher.

Define places of honor. Arlington Cemetery is a place of honor. A street corner or a park is not necessarily a "place of honor." A statue of a chained slave does not "honor" slavery. It is a "lest we forget." Aren't you the one who just said that someone or others (Wolf?) accomplishments are more in the good column than the bad? So why tear down a statue of George Washington because he owned slaves? I'm sure his service to the nation outweighs the fact that he did something that was acceptable at the time. We can't judge past actions by today's standards. If we did half of our parents would be in jail for child abuse or neglect. No seatbelts, walking to school when you turned 6, sleeping in the back window of the car, roaming the neighborhood until dinner time and last but not least those sessions with dad out behind the woodshed. Not to mention that destruction of public property is a crime.

I see him mentioned in these posts quite often so his name and actions have not been forgotten. And they shouldn't be. The Holocaust Museum is his memorial. Memorials do not necessarily glorify anything. Sometimes they are sad reminders like the Flight 93 memorial or the 9/11 memorial. What was said post 9/11? "We will never forget." But we will and that is what the statues and memorials are all about. Remove them at your peril.

No, we shouldn't but be should not remove the reminders of it. There is evil in life and pretending it doesn't exist or sweeping it under the rug allows it to flourish.

Reminders are important. They keep us from repeating our mistakes. It is how we train children and puppies and the older you get the more they are needed. Universal ones are he most important of all. You wouldn't want to see the world reverting to the behaviors that some of those statues and memorials represent do you?

It is removing the reminders of history. Someone accessing the old tomes that hide in the stacks at the library is a lot less likely to happen than someone visiting Gettysburg. There is a platitude about the victor writing history now it seems to be the constantly offended whiners get to remove the parts that they don't like.