Analysis Of Why We Should Keep The Confederate Monuments Right Were They Are

John Daniel Davidson, the author of “Why We Should Keep The Confederate Monuments Right Were They Are”, provides several arguments against the removal of the statues. One of his reasons to preserve the monuments is in the interest of honoring those who fought for their statehood and passed away. Davidson’s argument revolves around the grieving process for descending family members, and the necessary remembrance for generations to come. Davidson writes that necessity for these statues arose decades later, once many of the remaining veterans died. In his writing, Davidson provided two quotes from a Union veteran to demonstrate the universality of this argument and cause. According to the author, Union veteran Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. stated …show more content…
Her descriptions of the opposition fall into tropes of violence and irrational behavior traditionally seen as critiques of white supremacists. She spends a lot of the time in the interview discussing the “alt-right” in this manner. “This was a very powerful and encouraging part of the day, as well as seeing the Nazis and the "alt-right" retreat from Emancipation Park after their event was declared an unlawful assembly. That was quite a parade of hate. As they were leaving the area, they threw flares, they spit on people. There were several altercations of shouting matches and shoving matches. But still, it was a very powerful display of how love conquers …show more content…
The Stewart chapter regarding the criteria for social movements provides many examples to draw from in evaluating contemporary social movements. One of the piece that stood out was the discussion of morality. Steart writes, “Each social movement organization believes that it alone constitutes an ethical, virtuous, principled, and righteous force with a moral obligation to act in the name of and for the good of, the people.” He continues to explain the foundation this provides for the claim of legitimacy. Stewart furthers his notions in his piece by stating, “The moral nature of social movement rhetoric is critical to the claim of legitimacy as a social force. The rhetoric offers ‘correct’ ‘morally toned’ interpretation of past, present, and future conditions and a cause that any good and righteous person should support.” By this, Stewart means that a requirement for social movements, is that they claim to have the moral higher ground in the situation to sway potential supporters. This applies to both of the sides of this movement due to he clear demonization of the opposition in both cases. The article in support of the monuments refers to the opposition as immature at times, and even sinister in their manipulation of pain, while the interview against the monuments describes the opposition as violent and harmful to the physical and mental being of the constituency. However, both sides of the movement have a self-aggrandizing tone in regards to their own methods of protest