FLUID INTELLIGENCE

“Although there is some controversy and debate on the best ways to improve fluid intelligence, studies are showing a strong link between non-academic pursuits and improved fluid intelligence. I have written a wide range of Psychology Today blog posts about improving cognitive function through: physical activity, playing a musical instrument, making art, improving motor skills, meditation, daydreaming, getting a good night’s sleep… The ultimate goal of The Athlete’s Way is to identify daily habits that optimize the function of the brain, body, and mind throughout a person’s lifespan.”

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-athletes-way/201312/too-much-crystallized-thinking-lowers-fluid-intelligence

Engagement in the arts offers a wonderful starting point for parents who want to develop and exercise their children’s creative problem-solving skills. It might seem counterintuitive to think of the arts as a place for critical thinking and problem solving, as we typically associate softer qualities such as appreciation of beauty, encouragement of personal expression, and nurturing talent with artistic pursuits. Elliot Eisner, a professor of education at Stanford University, offers a deeper understanding of the role of the arts in a child’s life: “The arts teach children that problems can have more than one solution and that questions can have more than one answer. The arts celebrate multiple perspectives. One of the large lessons kids can learn from practicing the arts is that there are many ways to see and interpret the world.” Dr. Eisner’s view that the arts can be about problem solving leads us away from the idea that children’s art is only about making aesthetically pleasing objects or providing entertainment, and gives a parents a way to help children be more innovative in very simple, yet powerful ways.

http://www.pbs.org/parents/education/music-arts/the-arts-and-creative-problem-solving/

For Norman:P

In trying to provide a foil for your ideas, I can only muster a scattered selection of thoughts. I hope it stimulates some discussion, just the same.

Part of how I'd like to challenge your thesis of some inevitable energy dynamic proceeding in such a way as to determine the ongoing sixth human extinction (pretty much the way it is happening) is to look at what global society values. I look through the lens of landscape, but also through consideration of Africa, a place that in human civilization is deemed next to the land at the bottom of the hierarchy of things valued and respected. The African megafauna didn't die off as they did in other continents. But even now, Africans might be castigated as being more like monkeys than people. That's supposed to be ab insult. Black Africa never invented the wheel. That is seen as a sign of "backwardness," but the wheel and other rotary motion lead us right up to the jaws of extinction. But maybe I should lump the feminine in there along with land and Africa as a consortium of the lowly among a global value system.

Africa: 

I single out Africa, for the west, critically the US, denigrates Africa, whereas Africa offers the US, as the hegemonic western power, a second chance. American Africans comprise 13% of the US population, while American African culture predominates throughout the nation. America has such a historical intermingling with African culture that it clearly would have the advantage over China in establishing a mutually beneficial relationship with Africa. But it would have to stop using black Americans for target practice and for other oppressive purposes. Meanwhile, all the energy in the room is taken up by people who want to do exactly the opposite of what I recommend, and do it in the name of "making America great again!" A few points about Africa and energy:

- The surplus energy derived from African slaves' production of sugar and cotton underpins the industrial revolution.

- Western civilization overlooks that, and overlooks the natural world that was the catapult draw for African peoples. Western civilization, by the nature of its thought structure, can't relate to the Africa/nature connection. No wonder the west treats nature as a dead thing and the African as cursed, and no wonder it would destroy its very self by so doing.

- Rhythm, a major asset of the African, greatly extended a given amount of material energy. The role of rhythm and fractals in producing energy needs to be studied. I suspect that it is the convergence of fractals with rhythm that has led to the predominance of the African in sports and music. Rhythmic work songs helped withstand brutal, killing forced labor.

http://www.ted.com/talks/ron_eglash_on_african_fractals?language=en

http://fraktalneenergije.com/en/energy.html

Women and Land:

I would also put women and land in the category of what the west, as with the African, considers worthy to be exploited but of no inherent value. But women don't excel at violent crime or old growth deforestation. Women, perhaps inevitably for a fledgling species coming to grips with vagaries of civilization and its extremely limited psychological resources, have been subordinated to the categories males dominated, categories like ethnicity, tribe or states. Women have been subordinated to support these male dominant divisions, taking their identities from them, while emerging feminism thought (only possible in a high-surplus-energy system) might support speculation about detaching women from male dominant structures, producing something like a separate feminine species. Land is inextricably intertwines with issues of the African and the feminine in western thinking. And women separated from male constructs, become, potentially, the first humans to identify as a global entity over any other grouping, putting land first.

----------------

https://medium.com/@End_of_More/legacy-oil-bcac8157070b

"What we see around us represents energy surplus. Every piece of glass, plastic, brick in every house represents surplus fossil fuel. As does every road, railway line and aircraft."

Most people don't understand what is meant by surplus energy. That includes artists. But you seem close to defining it even more understandably than we have seen thus far. I suppose that part of the explanation means we can achieve sufficiently abundant energy to create surplus things other than the basics like food and shelter. But I don't think that's an automatic stage of energy dynamics. There appears to be such a thing as infection via energy-related paradigms that are accidental and circumstantial. I believe that at each stage of "cultural evolution" a cluster of attitudes inevitably associate with an "energy state." The energy state, while essential, can't be separated from the cultural state. The two are mutually determinative of the other's achievements. What happens on a small and finite planet isn't what necessarily has to happen. It is instead happenstance, embodying an extremely fledgling species, a species that simply happened up on fire (as Gail repeats) and the subsequent effects of heat (as you discuss).

To begin to address our predicament, we must pay primary attention to the longest lasting tribal groups--the Australian aborigines of 50,000 years duration, the 20,000 year long San culture of South Africa and the 100,000 year pull on a catapult that produced the San. It is a distressing habit to shoehorn these ancient people (who still linger on) into a paradigm of western making. "They are simply an early version of us." But that is false and painfully presumptuous. These people were different from us, with a cluster of life ways and values unlike our own. The overpowering surplus energy that our line of people discovered and that crushed these early peoples changed our very essence in the process.

"The Apollo space programme was itself a legacy enterprise built at the top of a pyramid of energy/industrial/technological input started by the Wright brothers. (or the steam engine, depending on your perspective). That meant a buildup of almost 2 centuries of industrial strength to deliver a series of moonshots. The ultimate propulsion system was no different from that of Chinese fireworks 1000 years ago. (exploding chemical combustion/reaction)."

"Try to think of it as a 200 year pull on a catapult, rather than a Kennedy speech."

These quotes make it as clear as I've seen how what we do now is based on the past. Like the Apollo space program's association with China!

 This gets to the point, and is an excellent educational measure.

Thinking Inside/Outside the Box (samples):

- I see how desperately hard it is to get sensible ideas understood in my own community. The most elementary planning recommendations fall on deaf ears. The following examples are not at all untypical. People don't have the freedom of mind to routinely think outside the box. For some reason, I'm incapable of thinking inside the box. The possibilities that for most people seem unimaginable are for me simple and obvious. To say that the human species follows laws that determine their doing stupid things of the sort that I can see through makes no sense to me. (I have my own huge gaps of understanding, but there are many people who can fill in for me with those, while there seems to be fewer who can replicate the qualities I excel in. A system where people could fill in for my deficiencies but allows me to fill in for theirs might get a lot more accomplished). 

 

- Our village water coop has several large water tanks. Exposed to the blazing sun, they tend to get infected with listeria. I suggest that they install a shade structure to decrease sun exposure, as well as provide more rain catchment surface. Does this very simple suggestion sink in? No chance. They're thinking of all kinds of technical and chemical fixes instead.

So there are enormous human difference wrought by special circumstances or accidents which can relatively blunt those deterministic views of thermodynamics and energy dissipation as also oversimplification and one-size-fits-all analyses. (I read where genetic traits correlate to how land was used to apportion power centuries ago...something to that effect anyhow.)

 

Collective vs Individual

We may differ in how both are viewed:

- In some cases, the collective is given due when I think it's the individual that matters.--Descartes, Newton, Darwin, Luther, Columbus, by no means all a bunch of saints.

made the world enormously different from what it might have been (good or bad) without them. 

- In other cases, just the opposite--emphasis on individual prepping rather than how communities are organized. Taking the individualism which is merely a recent offshoot of capitalism--and probably serving isolation and inability to confront the power structure--as the inevitable condition of humans. 

- A great deal of how I see the present derive from what ancestors did centuries ago. 

- What it is to be human are behaviors, not our physical hardware. This means having little reverence for the genetically human. If they aren't deemed human, they might be treated as one would a fly, a pig, a rodent. So it might be that it's the program people follow, and nothing else, that determines their value. 

- It is mistakenly believed that Earth's predicament can be addresses through the lens of human affairs. It's the land that matters most.

 

 - I'm not interested in individual survival but rather in following what experience, will and other attributes lead me to do. I don't see us as automatons.

 

Art:

Art is free. An artist should imagine the world as they wish it to be. The artist cannot be a realist. 

The artist isn't realistic. To be realistic is to conform to someone else's idea of reality. The artist's reality might not seem realistic to anyone else at first. Too often, thermodynamic determinism flies in the face of individual proclivity. It is unwaveringly "realistic."

(At some further point, I will consider if art is one of those surplus things. The San of South Africa appear exceedingly simple and basic compared with Australian aborigines. The latter seem to have elaborate body and mural painting, together with elaborate rituals. Why the difference? Rhetorical question at this point.) 

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/15/16141456/renaud-camus-the-great-replacement-you-will-not-replace-us-charlottesville-white

https://www.planetizen.com/node/94378/archaeology-public-memory-and-civic-identity

The Archaeology of Public Memory and Civic Identity

The Confederate monuments debate invites a broader interdisciplinary conversation about the nature and planning of public commemorative landscapes and, by extension, the identity and soul of a community.

Dean Saitta | August 21, 2017, 2pm PDT

 Share  Tweet LINKEDIN EMAIL COMMENTS

The statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, lieutenant general in the Confederate Army and an early member of the Ku Klux Klan, located in Memphis, Tennessee.

Ron Cogswell

Flickr

Last week's widespread, vigorous, and continuing debate about Confederate monuments provides a useful entry point to a broader conversation about the nature, planning, and design of public commemorative landscapes. Scholars generally agree that monuments condense, simplify, and often distort complex histories. They are produced selectively, by those who have the power to choose how history is remembered in public places.  This makes monuments powerful instruments for shaping public memory and individual ideologies. At the same time, the social meaning of monuments is always in flux and even contradictory, because the world around monuments is never fixed. An evolving social context changes how they are seen and understood. This dynamic presents a challenge to planners, preservationists, developers, designers, artists, civic leaders, and other citizens concerned about the identity and collective soul of their communities.

The debate about what to do with Confederate monuments in the wake of Charlottesville identifies at least four distinct positions:

1. Retain them: Confederate monuments are artifacts of history; they are part of the historical record. Removing them would constitute an erasure of history and heritage akin to what happened under Stalin and is happening under ISIS. It would lead to a forgetting of important events and eras.  It would erode the "shadow curriculum" that supplements how we educate ourselves and our children. An American public history should be "warts and all"; it's what separates democratic government from totalitarian regimes.

2. Remove them: The vast majority of Confederate monuments were constructed as the Civil War was passing into the realm of "post-memory." In that realm, they were clearly intended to function as instruments of propaganda serving an oppressive, Jim Crow culture and the cause of white supremacy. They are needlessly provocative to those whose ancestors suffered from that oppression. It's best to destroy them, or lock them away. Such removal is not inherently problematic, nor revisionist. In some sense, all historical scholarship is revisionist given that scholars always interpret and write the past from particular points of view. In any event, the history of the Confederacy is pretty well-known. Removal of its monuments changes nothing. In fact, removal conceivably represents a more thorough coming to terms with the Confederacy's past and its legacy.

3. Relocate them: Put Confederate monuments in museums where they can be more fully and appropriately interpreted as artifacts of a by-gone era. This is an effective way of changing their post-memory context, and breaking its captivating spell. Or, put them in cemeteries. Or, follow the lead of post-Soviet Eastern Europeans and put them in a special context akin to Memento Park in Bucharest or Grūtas Park near Druskininkai in Lithuania. Here, Joseph Stalin is remembered as part of a larger collection of Soviet-era statues, sculptures, and artifacts.

Statue of Joseph Stalin in Grūtas Park. The statue originally stood in Vilnius, Lithuania (Wikimedia Commons)

4. Re-interpret them: Add plaques to existing Confederate monuments containing text that better describes their conditions of emplacement and their intended effects. Or, add new counter-monuments (e.g., statues of abolitionists, slave resistance leaders, or African-American dignitaries) that can create a "dialogue” with Confederate monuments. One model of dialogue discussed here in Denver last week is represented by the Civil War Monument that stands in front of our state capitol. Installed in 1909, it commemorates 18 battles between Colorado Volunteers and Confederates, but also four "battles" between Volunteers and Indians, one of which is the infamous Sand Creek Massacre of peacefully camped Cheyenne and Arapaho men, women, and children. A small plaque installed at the pedestal’s foot in 1999 corrects the monument’s interpretation of Sand Creek. However, the difference in scale and visibility between the two markers doesn’t exactly make this an equitable exchange of ideas.

The Civil War Monument and Sand Creek Plaque at the State Capitol in Denver, Colorado. (Image by D. Saitta)

A sample of observations that I collected last week from scholars, artists and preservationists, citizens, and pundits (e.g., here and here) suggest a nearly equal distribution of sentiment across these four categories. No one category dominates the others. Thus, the debate is a long way from settled. Some of the more intriguing suggestions about what to do with the statues don't fit into any of these categories. Megan Kate Nelson, an independent scholar who studies Civil War monuments, suggests intentionally Ruining them.  Blow them up and put a plaque next to the broken pieces that explains the monument’s life and death. This would convert a symbol of oppression into one of resistance. Kriston Capps suggests Re-purposing them.  The pedestals on which Confederate monuments stand would make lovely settings for quirky or socially-redeeming public art, akin to the Fourth Plinthprogram in London's Trafalgar Square.

"Nelson’s Ship in a Bottle," Fourth Plinth, Trafalgar Square, London. (Wikimedia Commons)

Commemorative landscapes are of great interest to anthropologists and archaeologists. For archaeologists, all the world’s an artifact. We have a healthy respect for the power of material objects, especially public monuments, to encode culture, reflect history, manipulate mass psychology, and shape individual consciousness and behavior--all at the same time. Writing about the Confederate statues debate, my colleague Rosemary Joyce at the University of California, Berkeley has described some of what archaeologists know about history and material things. These lessons might usefully inform the debate going forward. Paraphrasing and extending Dr. Joyce:

• Archaeology is dedicated to the production of historical knowledge, not the automatic preservation of things. We're probably the only historical science that, in the act of collecting data via excavation, simultaneously destroy it. One cannot excavate, collect, and preserve everything. Historical data gained is also historical data lost. The challenge is to be disciplined; to frame research questions and methodologies that maximize information recovery while minimizing damage to a non-renewable resource.
• Monuments are never solely about the past; they are always about the present. Sometimes they are more about the present than the past. Monuments were routinely used in past societies to revise and romanticize history in ways that suited the purposes of those in power. The greatest monuments were often constructed even when there was nothing and nobody to commemorate, implying that their main underlying purpose was simply to consume human labor. They were subject to vandalism and toppling by would-be rulers with competing claims to power. Monuments have served these, and other, political purposes throughout human history.
• Insisting on the preservation of things for our particular scientific purposes, or simply because "they are there," can ride roughshod over the legitimate interests of others. Professional archaeologists were forced into some very painful soul searching about the nature of material things when passage of a federal lawrequired them to repatriate to Native American tribes ancient artifacts that were procured during a time of colonial exploitation, or stolen from native lands and sold to cultural institutions on the black market. Compliance with the law necessitated some significant emptying of museums and research centers. However, it also taught us the virtues of a professional ethics rooted in collaboration, and in knowing when it's appropriate to yield control over material things to others.

This last lesson implies that the process that's used to make decisions about the planning or re-making of public commemorative landscapes is crucial. The toppling of controversial monuments by a mob, or their removal under cover of darkness by public officials, is not an ideal way to proceed.  Archaeologists have learned that collaboration with others, and the thoughtful, self-conscious balancing of competing interests, is key: balance between remembering and revering the past, between confronting the past and respecting the needs of the present (and future), between service to self and service to others, between commemorating particular histories and a common heritage, and between removing and preserving things. Plans for creating or re-making a civic monumental landscape that balance these and other interests is only befitting our status as citizens in a diverse, multi-ethnic society that aspires to be inclusive.  

The American pragmatist philosopher Richard Rorty is often quoted these days given that he accurately predicted, back in 1999, the extreme polarization of our contemporary politics and the emergence of our strongman president. In his book Achieving Our Country, Rorty formulates perhaps the best governing ethos for local communities grappling with complicated pasts and contested commemorative landscapes: “In democratic countries you get things done by compromising your principles in order to form alliances with groups about whom you have grave doubts.”

Dean Saitta

Dean Saitta is Professor of Anthropology and Director of the Urban Studies program at the University of Denver. He teaches courses in urban anthropology, archaeology, and evolutionary anthropology.

TOPICS

• History / Preservation
 

Michael Lewyn  Artleads • 7 hours ago

It seems to me that every new building changes "character" in some way. But my sense is that when you say "character" maybe you really mean "height." Assuming that to be the case, I agree that taller buildings tend to be more controversial. As to whether they are substantively necessary to achieve transit-supportive densities or to lower housing costs, I think the right answer is probably: "sometimes." (which of course could lead to a lot of commentary!)

 

•

Reply

•

Share ›

• 

  Artleads  Michael Lewyn • a few seconds ago

  Height is most important. But in addition to over all height of a building, there's height of stories, window heights, etc. The two large structures in the middle of your cover picture show the uniformity of heights from ground to crown. And despite difference in stylistic detail, the geometry of one building conforms with that of its neighbor.

  The density which I'd consider appropriate for keeping this above mentioned "character" would be much smaller and equally consistent (height, geometry, window size, etc.), far set back rows of structure on the roof. The issue with setting them back is that they aren't visible from street level, thus not impacting visual style. it's as thought they weren't even there. But if they are seen, they have been thoughtfully designed so as to bear a pleasing relationship with the original structures lining the street. New Urbanist like to see streets like this as roofless rooms, for which the buildings (or trees) are walls. But the roof structures are too set back to function like walls.

  My point is that each neighborhood, based on its current form, needs a sympathetic sort of densification. And the appropriate form of transportation might follow from that. I admit that mine is a gentle approach, but I think it signals an extremely large degree of densification when extrapolated throughout the built environment.

Editor's note: Wendy Townsend writes for children and young adults, and she and her family raise lizards as pets. Her third novel, "Blue Iguana," has just been released by namelos. The opinions in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- Kenroy Williams, also known as "Booms," is "Guardian of the Reptiles" in Hellshire, located near the Goat Islands in Jamaica. The region is centered in the Portland Bight Protected Area, an area of ocean and land set apart in 1999 to protect its rich biodiversity of birds, reptiles, plants, trees and marine life.

But now, the Jamaican government is preparing to sell the Goat Islands to the China Harbour Engineering Co. to build a megafreighter seaport and industrial park. China Harbour is part of a conglomerate blacklisted by the World Bank under its Fraud and Corruption Sanctioning Policy.

"They're destroying what should be preserved," says Booms, who has been working to protect exceedingly rare reptiles in the area for seven years, including the critically endangered Jamaican iguana.

Wendy Townsend and her rhinocerous iguana Sebastian.

The specifics of the development are being withheld, butJamaica Information Service reports it involves dredging and land reclamation, and a coal-fired power plant built to service the facilities. Environmentalists expect the mangrove forest on the two Goat Islands to be clear cut and the surrounding coral reef dredged.

With the threat to Goat Islands looming, Robin Moore, a fellow with the International League of Conservation Photographers, flew to Jamaica to record images of wildlife and people who may soon see the destruction of their beaches, mangrove forest ecosystems and their livelihoods.

In a short film by Moore, Booms talks about what's at stake: "Portland Bight Protected Area consists of a beautiful beach and things that are here in Jamaica and found nowhere else, like the iguanas ...

"When the mangroves are destroyed, the earth won't stay together and then the water will take over. And that's the problem. And we won't have any beaches, and we can't do without beaches. If we have no beaches, we have no turtles. We won't have any crocodiles ..."

Booms especially fears for the Jamaican iguanas, Cyclura collei, thought to be extinct until 1990, when Edwin Duffus found one while hunting pigs in the Hellshire Hills. The Goat Islands are right off the Hellshire coast. At the time, surveys of the area revealed fewer than 100 iguanas remaining.

Hope Zoo and Botanical Gardens in Kingston, teamed with the Fort Worth Zoo in Texas and others, set up a program to rear baby iguanas until they're big enough to be safe from predators. After release, the iguanas are tracked and observed to see how well they fare.

The number of nesting females has grown from just six in 1991 to more than 30 in 2013. About 255 head-started iguanas have been released into Hellshire, the only place on earth -- other than the Goat Islands -- that they can survive. The Jamaica Iguana Recovery Project believes the islands are the sanctuary necessary to save the animal.

During the past 24 years, millions of dollars, plus the sweat of countless biologists and research volunteers, have been invested in bringing Cyclura collei back from the brink. Although many released iguanas are breeding and nesting in the wild, the animal is still critically endangered.

Jamaican iguanas can live for 40 years or more. They distinguish between strangers and researchers who come to the forest regularly and may show themselves once they feel safe.

There is still time to help the Jamaican people save their national treasure.
Wendy Townsend

Imagine a 4-foot long, 15-pound dinosaur-like animal walking out of the bush, sitting down nearby, and making eye contact with you.

"There is indeed something special about making eye contact with a Cyclura," herpetologist Rick Hudson, of the Fort Worth Zoo, said. "Back in the 1990s, you rarely saw an iguana; you might hear one crashing through the bush but glimpses were a special sight. Now, you go out in Hellshire and see big healthy iguanas that are habituated and come and hang out with you. It's the most incredible story I have ever been a part of."

The Jamaican Constitution states that the nation's citizens have "the right to enjoy a healthy and productive environment free from the threat of injury or damage from environmental abuse and degradation of the ecological heritage."

Some argue the project will bring jobs, but as fisherwoman Paulette Coley told Moore: "The government claims it will bring jobs and opportunity to the area, but we are not qualified, and we are not being trained for the jobs that will need to be done. They tell us what they want us to hear, but the reality is that we will be worse off."

Diana McCaulay, CEO of the Jamaica Environment Trust, says that in past projects with Chinese contractors, most of the employees have been Chinese. "What is the benefit to Jamaica? That's not clear."

McCaulay says developing Goat Islands extends the global crisis of unsustainable exploitation of natural resources. "Jamaica is a small island," she says, "but this is happening all over the world, relentless pressure for high impact development that doesn't benefit local populations, particularly those who use the resources.

"Although global climate change is a clear danger to island nations, we are still building on the coast and taking out natural protections like mangroves. Our regulatory agencies simply cannot cope, especially with players like China who have huge financial resources and care little about the environment."

The rediscovery of the Jamaican iguana and the success of the recovery program has generated a huge conservation movement that draws international funding and ecotourism to the West Indies.

This ecotourism could be developed. In 2012, tourism contributed close to $4 billion to the economy of Jamaica and 25% of jobs in the country are tourism-based.

Tourists travel to see unspoiled beaches and native flora and fauna, and ideally, to see people living in a healthy relationship with their land. But if the Jamaican government sells out to Chinese developers, reversing its environmental protection laws and going against its own constitution, it will send the message that investing in tourism in Jamaica is unwise.

There is still time to help the Jamaican people save their national treasure. Both Jamaica and China care about international opinion. Letters expressing concern and signatures on a petition may persuade Prime Minister Portia Simpson-Miller to stop the proposed development.

Of his work as guardian of the reptiles ,Booms says, "My family and friends? Some of them think it's awesome. ... Some of them ask me if I really touch the lizards and some think I'm crazy when they hear about the crocodiles. But the truth of the matter is that they don't understand, and I know that. 'Cause if they were here like me, they would understand. We are at one with nature."

Read CNNOpinion's new Flipboard magazine.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/02/opinion/townsend-jamaica-iguana/index.html

Garvey Museum for St. Ann's Bay

http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/latestnews/Garvey_museum_to_be_established_in_St_Ann?profile=1228

José Kirchner The United Daughters of the Confederacy were particularly active in erecting monuments designed to glorify the antebellum South and the leaders of the failed secessionist states. Here's a listing of Confederate monuments and more information. (I'd recommend printing to a PDF before these pages are attacked by the neo-Nazis.)https://en.m.wikipedia.org/.../List_of_monuments_and...

List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia

This is a list of Confederate monuments and…

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

Like

Like

Love

Haha

Wow

Sad

Angry

 · Reply · 

1

 · Yesterday at 9:47am

Manage

Trevor Burrowes Thanks! This is a very helpful list. Has anyone thought how to attach art to these statues, thus changing their meaning, without harming (removing or defacing) them physically?