ImLawBoy wrote:You're coming at this from a place of good intentions, but be careful not to use this as a universal measuring stick.
I had a bit more clarification to my post originally that I cut for time.
But yeah, totally agree. I'm coming at it from the angle of -- people shouldn't be outraged over changes to something they never cared about in the first place. However, a lot of people have a knee-jerk reaction to change even though that change doesn't affect them at all.
As an example, my home theme park of Carowinds tore down their wooden roller coaster Thunder Road to make room for a water park expansion. There was much outrage from the coaster community. How dare they tear down this beloved wooden coaster?
But you know what? Every time I went to the park, even on the most packed of days, there was nobody in line for it. If everyone loved it so much, then why didn't they ride it? Meanwhile the water park was always slammed to the gills. What did you expect from a business standpoint? Keep a coaster that require constant costly maintenance and inspection that nobody rides, or expand your waterpark that everyone loves? It was a no-brainer from a business standpoint.
If I learn new information (as I did with the statues), of course I'm all for the change if it makes sense. I guess my point was to illustrate yet another indefensible aspect of the statue removals. Not only is it indefensible from a historic standpoint, it's indefensible from a logical standpoint.