Opinion: There’s a big difference between Confederate memorials and the preserved sites of Nazi atrocities

To the editor: A letter writer last week noted that whether visiting Auschwitz or a statue to a Confederate hero, each visitor “brings his or her own context to” a site. The letter suggested this supports the validity of multiple positions on the issue of statue removal.

While this view may be soothing, it is a fallacy. Auschwitz includes an extensive written, visual and even oral presentation providing historical context. A statue provides no such information.

An interview with a Southern activist suggested that Robert E. Lee is revered for his post-war conduct. Yet the statues all seem to present figures in military attire and without any significant historical information. A statue alone, without presentation of related historical context, cannot provide a societal memory nor serve an educational purpose like the sites of the former Nazi concentration camps.

Julie Peccorini, San Bernardino

..

To the editor: In his rambling defense of Confederate monuments commemorating “great people” like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson who fought to keep African Americans enslaved, Brag Bowling does get one important thing right. He says that if the monuments are taken down, it would be “like a whole new country.”

Yes, it would — and it could be, as some might say, very, very beautiful, the likes of which the world has never seen before.

Leigh Clark, Granada Hills

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook