All Statues and Monuments must come down

[pmv]

I thought art was supposed to make us uncomfortable, can be open to interpretation and provoke discussion? Are we not doing that anymore? Should we just let the mob irrationally and incorrectly censor history?

Who puts up statues in the first place? Is that not also the work of 'the mob'? Most of the statues under threat went up during an era when "democracy" was far more restrictive than today.

(When Colston's statue went up, for example, only about 1/6 of the population of England had the right to vote.)

Can't we move on from this fatuous type of argument that claims that changing anything in the public space, ever, in any way, is 'censoring history'? It's such a weak argument. It's self-evidently not 'censorship' for a later generation to disagree with an earlier one's view of who should be celebrated in public spaces in perpetuity. Those who claim it is have no supporting argument, they are just making meaningless noises to express emotion based on unrelated political partisanship.

Is it 'censorship' if a road-layout is altered or a building replaced with a new one?

There have to be better arguments that can be made about the topic, surely?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Who puts up statues in the first place? Is that not also the work of 'the mob'? Most of the statues under threat went up during an era when "democracy" was far more restrictive than today.

(When Colston's statue went up, for example, only about 1/6 of the population of England had the right to vote.)

Can't we move on from this fatuous type of argument that claims that changing anything in the public space, ever, in any way, is 'censoring history'? It's such a weak argument. It's self-evidently not 'censorship' for a later generation to disagree with an earlier one's view of who should be celebrated in public spaces in perpetuity. Those who claim it is have no supporting argument, they are just making meaningless noises to express emotion based on unrelated political partisanship.

Is it 'censorship' if a road-layout is altered or a building replaced with a new one?

There have to be better arguments that can be made about the topic, surely?

Are there not celebrated statues in just about every museum on the planet? Sculpture portraiture is an art form that requires a lifetime of training and refinement. There are architecturally and historically protected buildings, for good reason. Even basic pavement takes on meaning when dedicated in memory of someone.

 

[woolfe9998]

Are there not celebrated statues in just about every museum on the planet? Sculpture portraiture is an art form that requires a lifetime of training and refinement. There are architecturally and historically protected buildings, for good reason. Even basic pavement takes on meaning when dedicated in memory of someone.

Nobody is "censoring history" (your words) by taking down statues though. That's a bullshit argument. Censoring history would be like censoring history textbooks.

 

[UNCjigga]

Time to pull down the Andrew Jackson statue in Lafayette Park in DC.

Protesters, police clash in Lafayette Square after trying to tear down Andrew Jackson statue

Police responded and quickly started clearing the crowd away from the statue using a bicycle barricade and deploying pepper spray.

www.wusa9.com

Were they just tear gassed??

 

[pmv]

Are there not celebrated statues in just about every museum on the planet? Sculpture portraiture is an art form that requires a lifetime of training and refinement. There are architecturally and historically protected buildings, for good reason. Even basic pavement takes on meaning when dedicated in memory of someone.

Very few, if any, of these statues went up for their artistic merit. They were statements largely about politics and power.

If you want to make an informed aesthetic argument for them and try to convince others of their intrinsic artistic merits, you are free to do so, but you aren't getting away with just implying that any 'sculpture' by definition is of artistic significance. Most of them are mediocre artistically, if not mass-produced kitsch.

To be honest, I think it would be good if public sculpture took a more abstract and artistic turn, rather than the dull literalism of the figurative statues of famous figures. If it's commemorating history or collective experiences, making it about one individual is probably a bad idea - individuals are always flawed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Nobody is "censoring history" (your words) by taking down statues though. That's a bullshit argument. Censoring history would be like censoring history textbooks.

It is censoring when you dismiss arguments in defense of certain historical figures, or revise the sum of their character.

Take down a statue or rename buildings or places in honor of Robert E. Lee, no problem, but Ulysses S. Grant? Woodrow Wilson? Roosevelt? Seriously?

 

[woolfe9998]

It is censoring when you dismiss arguments in defense of certain historical figures, or revise the sum of their character.

Take down a statue or rename buildings or places in honor of Robert E. Lee, no problem, but Ulysses S. Grant? Woodrow Wilson? Roosevelt? Seriously?

"Dismissing arguments" isn't censorship. It's wrong for a different reason. It's that they're dismissing arguments which shouldn't be dismissed. That is part of a conversation.

But what does taking down a statue really mean in terms of history? Where do you think people are learning their history from? You think it's from statues and monuments?

 

[nickqt]

"Dismissing arguments" isn't censorship. It's wrong for a different reason. It's that they're dismissing arguments which shouldn't be dismissed. That is part of a conversation.

But what does taking down a statue really mean in terms of history? Where do you think people are learning their history from? You think it's from statues and monuments?

Much like people who only understand broad political topics in talking points, some people only understand history as statues. These are also the people who vote like clockwork.

 

[Muse]

Very few, if any, of these statues went up for their artistic merit. They were statements largely about politics and power.

If you want to make an informed aesthetic argument for them and try to convince others of their intrinsic artistic merits, you are free to do so, but you aren't getting away with just implying that any 'sculpture' by definition is of artistic significance. Most of them are mediocre artistically, if not mass-produced kitsch.

To be honest, I think it would be good if public sculpture took a more abstract and artistic turn, rather than the dull literalism of the figurative statues of famous figures. If it's commemorating history or collective experiences, making it about one individual is probably a bad idea - individuals are always flawed.

I agree. There's only one statue of a historical figure that I can think of that I do like and it's Honest Abe in front of his memorial in D.C. The rest, I'd just as soon never see again.

 

[woolfe9998]

Much like people who only understand broad political topics in talking points, some people only understand history as statues. These are also the people who vote like clockwork.

If people are getting their history that way, they're getting not just a grossly incomplete version, but a distorted version. Statues are a reflection of who a society, or subculture within a society, chooses to revere at whatever moment in time the statue is put up. That is all.

 

[Lanyap]

Were they just tear gassed??

Pepper spray according to the article.

 

[Svnla]

When you and the rest of the Trump world are done labeling peaceful protesters as terrorists, traitors, and anarchists because you disagree with their speech, and are done sending in the police to beat and tear gas them, or insisting that statues and monuments to their ancestors' oppression be kept over them under the false guise of 'preserving history,' I'm sure the unrest will be over too.

Peaceful you say?

Molotov firebomb -

Two Lawyers Arrested in Molotov Cocktail Attack on Police in Brooklyn (Published 2020)

A Princeton graduate and a human rights lawyer were both charged in an attack that left a police car dashboard charred. No one was injured.

www.nytimes.com

Must be white privilege for the business owners, especially the woman, eh?

Video: Horrific moment business owners and couple is attacked by looters | Daily Mail Online

The shocking moment a Rochester couple was attacked by looters while protecting their store was caught on surveillance and by a bystander. The looters savagely beat the couple with wooden sticks.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[Starbuck1975]

"Dismissing arguments" isn't censorship. It's wrong for a different reason. It's that they're dismissing arguments which shouldn't be dismissed. That is part of a conversation.

But what does taking down a statue really mean in terms of history? Where do you think people are learning their history from? You think it's from statues and monuments?

People erect statues and monuments to commemorate a person or moment in history. In allowing or tolerating a mob to irrationally destroy or remove such things, you are by default endorsing their interpretation of the history behind them.

Some monuments or statues deserve to go.

Others deserve more careful consideration.

 

[mikeymikec]

People erect statues and monuments to commemorate a person or moment in history. In allowing or tolerating a mob to irrationally destroy or remove such things, you are by default endorsing their interpretation of the history behind them.

Huh. If I see a mob destroying a statue, the only interpretation that would readily spring to my mind is that they don't like whatever that statue represents very much.

The act of destruction is inherently a very poor method of communicating anything. I think you seriously need to re-examine what opinion pieces you've been putting stock in if you think that an act of destruction can also inherently carry an "interpretation of history" with it.

If someone throws away a cup of coffee in disgust, or puts a brick through a coffee shop window, there's a whole list of ways to interpret their basis for doing so.

I also dispute your use of the word 'irrational'. If someone objected to Margaret Thatcher's influences in British history by destroying a statue of Winston Churchill, then I'd be inclined to question their rationality. However, someone destroying a Confederate statue because they don't like what the Confederacy represented is perfectly logical. You might not like their logic, and you're free to dispute their logic, but don't resort to ad hominems.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Huh. If I see a mob destroying a statue, the only interpretation that would readily spring to my mind is that they don't like whatever that statue represents very much.

The act of destruction is inherently a very poor method of communicating anything. I think you seriously need to re-examine what opinion pieces you've been putting stock in if you think that an act of destruction can also inherently carry an "interpretation of history" with it.

If someone throws away a cup of coffee in disgust, or puts a brick through a coffee shop window, there's a whole list of ways to interpret their basis for doing so.

I also dispute your use of the word 'irrational'. If someone objected to Margaret Thatcher's influences in British history by destroying a statue of Winston Churchill, then I'd be inclined to question their rationality. However, someone destroying a Confederate statue because they don't like what the Confederacy represented is perfectly logical. You might not like their logic, and you're free to dispute their logic, but don't resort to ad hominems.

I’ve stated several times that I support the removal of Confederate statues given their context within the civil rights movement. I specifically challenge the logic of tearing down a statue of someone like Ulysses S. Grant within the context of the BLM movement. That is the act of an irrational mob that is applying an absurd purity test to historical figures that does not take into account the totality of their character within the historical context of slavery.

 

[fskimospy]

I’ve stated several times that I support the removal of Confederate statues given their context within the civil rights movement. I specifically challenge the logic of tearing down a statue of someone like Ulysses S. Grant within the context of the BLM movement. That is the act of an irrational mob that is applying an absurd purity test to historical figures that does not take into account the totality of their character within the historical context of slavery.

Thanks for showing you're doing exactly what Vic said. He pegged you perfectly.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Thanks for showing you're doing exactly what Vic said. He pegged you perfectly.

Do you think it was appropriate to tear down a statue of Grant within the context of BLM? Yes or no will suffice.

Yes, @Vic is very concerned and often triggered by my opinion.

 

[fskimospy]

Do you think it was appropriate to tear down a statue of Grant within the context of BLM? Yes or no will suffice.

Yes, @Vic is very concerned and often triggered by my opinion.

I don't! It is perfectly telling how you have fixated on that though as an attempt to concern troll considering it is one event among so many. Like I said, Vic has you pegged perfectly.

Or wait, maybe I'm totally wrong - can you point me to the posts you made castigating conservatives for fighting to keep up monuments to racism and white supremacy?

 

[Starbuck1975]

I don't! It is perfectly telling how you have fixated on that though as an attempt to concern troll considering it is one event among so many. Like I said, Vic has you pegged perfectly.

Or wait, maybe I'm totally wrong - can you point me to the posts you made castigating conservatives for fighting to keep up monuments to racism and white supremacy?

The OP has been updating the thread to document other examples of mob absurdity. The Spanish government even felt compelled to tweet the history behind some of the statues torn down in California given our shared history with Spain in most of the Southwest and California.

You are totally wrong (seems to be a trend with you). I’ve been vocally supportive of taking down Confederate monuments down, to include Stone Mountain. Appreciate your concern as always.

 

[fskimospy]

The OP has been updating the thread to document other examples of mob absurdity. The Spanish government even felt compelled to tweet the history behind some of the statues torn down in California given our shared history with Spain in most of the Southwest and California.

You are totally wrong (seems to be a trend with you). I’ve been vocally supportive of taking down Confederate monuments down, to include Stone Mountain. Appreciate your concern as always.

Where have you condemned conservatives for fighting to keep them up?

 

[zinfamous]

I don’t care either way, I object to the sudden hyper sensitivity over statues, and the fact that people are now ripping down the same statues they probably passed repeatedly without ever paying them much thought. Local governments are allowing this to happen because it’s a useful distraction from their utter failure in addressing the underlying socio economic conditions driving the unrest.

To the bolded.

Ah, I think I see the issue--you see the white people now joining the cause, helping the black people pull down their long-seeded targets of ire. See, to you, it must be that these white people are suddenly interested in this--how could they be!? How utterly distasteful!

You probably wouldn't want to try to argue that black Americans have long lived with these statues, "without ever paying much thought"--you see, they were built specifically in their neighborhoods, specifically as a fuck you to their skin color, and they have lived with them for generations, and they fucking know it--you wouldn't dare suggest that, would you? Is that what you are saying? How utterly ignorant and vile if true.

But what is also quite vile, is that this means you see it as "the whitey should not pretend to help blacky in their cause, however just or unjust. It is just too gauche." To you it's about identity. "The people [meaning white people] don't even know what that statue is, it has never bothered them, so why should they care? Why should they empathize with people that absolutely know what it is and absolutely do care about it? The nerve!"

You don't have any kind of personal, generational history of enslaved ancestors, family lynched under Jim Crow, county redlining to legally ensure the poverty of generations of your family, so how could anyone else? What is it that this is part of actual American history that I am completely ignorant of, and how dare people suggest that their actual history and perspective is so vastly different from mine! How dare the people that look like me somehow empathize with the others that do not! How dare they!

It's weird to watch this poison seep out of you in real time.

 

[fskimospy]

To the bolded.

Ah, I think I see the issue--you see the white people now joining the cause, helping the black people pull down their long-seeded targets of ire. See, to you, it must be that these white people are suddenly interested in this--how could they be!? How utterly distasteful!

You probably wouldn't want to try to argue that black Americans have long lived with these statues, "without ever paying much thought"--you see, they were built specifically in their neighborhoods, specifically as a fuck you to their skin color, and they have lived with them for generations, and they fucking know it--you wouldn't dare suggest that, would you? Is that what you are saying? How utterly ignorant and vile if true.

But what is also quite vile, is that this means you see it as "the whitey should not pretend to help blacky in their cause, however just or unjust. It is just to gauche." To you it's about identity. "The people [meaning white people] don't even know what that statue is, it has never bothered them, so why should they care? Why should they empathize with people that absolutely know what it is and absolutely do care about it? The nerve!"

You don't have any kind of personal, generational history of enslaved ancestors, family lynched under Jim Crow, county redlining to legally ensure the poverty of generations of your family, so how could anyone else? What is it that this is part of actual American history that I am completely ignorant of, and how dare people suggest that their actual history and perspective is so vastly different from mine! How dare the people that look like me somehow empathize with the others that do not! How dare they!

It's weird to watch this poison seep out of you in real time.

Yeah it’s kind of funny how blind his viewpoint is as if the communities these statues were built in didn’t know exactly why they were built.

He might have walked by them without noticing, but that’s a statement to his own ignorance.

 

[Starbuck1975]

To the bolded.

Ah, I think I see the issue--you see the white people now joining the cause, helping the black people pull down their long-seeded targets of ire. See, to you, it must be that these white people are suddenly interested in this--how could they be!? How utterly distasteful!

You probably wouldn't want to try to argue that black Americans have long lived with these statues, "without ever paying much thought"--you see, they were built specifically in their neighborhoods, specifically as a fuck you to their skin color, and they have lived with them for generations, and they fucking know it--you wouldn't dare suggest that, would you? Is that what you are saying? How utterly ignorant and vile if true.

But what is also quite vile, is that this means you see it as "the whitey should not pretend to help blacky in their cause, however just or unjust. It is just too gauche." To you it's about identity. "The people [meaning white people] don't even know what that statue is, it has never bothered them, so why should they care? Why should they empathize with people that absolutely know what it is and absolutely do care about it? The nerve!"

You don't have any kind of personal, generational history of enslaved ancestors, family lynched under Jim Crow, county redlining to legally ensure the poverty of generations of your family, so how could anyone else? What is it that this is part of actual American history that I am completely ignorant of, and how dare people suggest that their actual history and perspective is so vastly different from mine! How dare the people that look like me somehow empathize with the others that do not! How dare they!

It's weird to watch this poison seep out of you in real time.

So basically white privilege. I am well aware of this history, my family came to this country with nothing and faced discrimination, and I choose to address societal inequities by volunteering my time to charities and mentoring programs.

The people tearing down the wrong statues are the problem, not me.

It’s been weird to me to watch previously rational people lose any sense of perspective.

 

[brycejones]

There is some humor in the "burn it all down" crowd that voted for Trump losing their shit over bronze statues. I guess statues weren't part of "all".

 

[hal2kilo]

If people are getting their history that way, they're getting not just a grossly incomplete version, but a distorted version. Statues are a reflection of who a society, or subculture within a society, chooses to revere at whatever moment in time the statue is put up. That is all.

Yea, no evidence that past civilizations at certain times seems to have made great efforts to erase the the existence of the person(s).