President (To Win Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(D) Kamala Harris
(R) Donald Trump
80%↑
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) V. Archuleta
98%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Marshall Dawson
95%
5%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd
(D) Adam Frisch
50%
50%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert
(D) Trisha Calvarese
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank
(D) River Gassen
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) John Fabbricatore
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen
(R) Sergei Matveyuk
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(R) Gabe Evans
52%↑
48%↓
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
June 25, 2020 09:23 AM UTC
14 Comments
There are just idiots out there who like to tear things down.
This means nothing unless you think it is George Soros' first strike in the ANTIFA takeover.
Where was Confederate General Breckinridge during all this?
This is developing all the trappings of the Cultural Revolution in China in the late '60s.
Let me know when the first state-sponsored re-education camp is established, and I'll come a bit closer to understanding how it is developing all the trappings of the Cultural Revolution.
The revolution is being televised — my neighbor saw it on FOXnews . . .
You’ll never get closer to reeducation than Hannity and Carlson.
The re-education camps, the Down-to-the-Countryside Campaign, and all that came later. In the early phases of the Cultural Revolution, the Red Guards were more about iconoclasm and "struggle sessions" – something we haven't quite gotten to yet, though the Twitter Mob and Cancel Culture are a reasonable (if not as physically violent) facsimile.
Why not both? Ultimately, history is messy and doesn't fit into the kinds of textbook narratives peddled to maintain American exceptionalism, whether from the left or the right.
The Colorado Militia kept Colorado a free state when threatened by invasion from no less than Texas, and they committed genocide as the state has acknowledged. For the record, they went on to fight militarism in WWI and were a critical part of the Antifa effort in Italy during WWII, but also did some things most of their members will never be proud of.
Any memorial which doesn't remind us that our military is always a double edged sword is more a monument to fiction than history.
Well put, Meiner. However, Sand Creek, however savage, was not genocide, which is defined as a systemic effort to exterminate a whole people.
Sand creek, an evil thing, was closer to the my lai massacre than the Holocaust.
I do wonder if the vandals ever served a day in uniform themselves or fought for anything nobler than drugs and booze. I doubt it highly.
War memorials could serve as reminders of how thin the veneer of civilization can get. Anyone who's been in combat knows it can disappear entirely at the drop of a hat. However, glorification memorials are the norm since most folks seem to need the comfort afforded by belief in the irrational falsehood that all those people got killed and maimed for a greater good.
This is why, IMO, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial* is so important and moving — it doesn’t seek to honor any generals, or even the actions of the war itself, but the sacrifice and the price paid by those who fought there.
That memorial is so often mislabeled the “Vietnam War Memorial” — I hate that. It’s not a memorial to a war, and rightfully so; the leaders of this country lacked the honesty to declare their damn war, or even call their war a war. It’s a memorial honoring the veterans. It’s a memorial to the veterans’ lives lost, and the lives taken. Yes, Vietnam was a war; the memorial is to the veterans.
I wish we had far more memorials that reminded Americans of the price paid for our wars, and far fewer attempting to glorifying it.
Exactly so.
Well said, Dio.
To answer the question: it's a destruction of history, not setting it right (emphasis in the original, as no historian would ever frame such a question this way).
The unnecessary italics are indicative of an author who has already presumed the answer; that they have little respect for history can be seen in the way the article denigrates both the Battle of Glorieta Pass and Col. Chivington. Glorieta may not have seen Gettyburg's numbers, but in terms of strategic importance, both battles are in the same class. Just because one hasn't heard of a battle doesn't mean it wasn't critical to the long-term outcome of a war (of course, I'm making the assumption that the author doesn't know much about the Battle of Glorieta Pass – happy to recalibrate if they would like to engage in a discussion about why "rather exageratedly" is an appropriate descriptor).
Similarly, Chivington's later abhorrent behavior at Sand Creek does nothing to diminish his actions two years earlier, at Glorieta. There, the rebels had numbers and position on their side; had Chivington not cleverly sneaked over the mesa to descend on the Confederate rear and attack their baggage train, it's likely the South would have won – with major implications for transcontinental rail routes, foreign backing, and territorial expansion into northern Mexico. Like it or not, and irrespective of the person he later revealed himself to be, Chivington was a hero at Glorieta Pass – no scare quotes required.
Regarding the recent iconoclasm: what's being shat upon here is not a Union soldier of the Civil War, but the ideas and values of Coloradoans in 1909 – the people who designed, funded, and realized the work. The date isn't an accident. The statue was installed for the 50th anniversary memorials that were going to be taking place over the next 6 years, and the people of the time wanted to communicate their reverence to veterans then in their 70s and 80s. The Civil War was still a living memory for a number of people at the time, but now, a handful of members of this generation have decided that the signalling of their indignation trumps all other concerns, across all other eras.
Instead, we receive a suggestion that the statue of a man who died fighting for abolition be replaced by that of "an indigenous woman." Why bother? This gang of vandals has put the destruction of statuary on the table as a means of contending with the past. They best not complain when, 50 years from now, eugenics makes a resurgence and a new band of self-righteous cultural revolutionists knocks down the indigenous woman statue to replace it with one of Madison Grant.
The author is correct in asserting that we need to know the whole story behind the statue – ironic that the article provides so little of it.
Nicely done, Moonbat. Some accounts of Glorieta say the ultimate Confederate goal was California and the Gold fields. While similar to Gettysburg in marking a high-water mark for the slave power, it was vastly smaller in scale. Lee's ultimate goal was to capture Washington, which might have brought European recognition and an end to the blockade.
By comparison, Glorieta was minor, but the Confederate army was virtually destroyed after stupidly retreating through the desert. The victory at Glorieta ensured we would be free from Texas domination until the buggers learned to ski in the 60s and invaded Vail.