It’s time to bring down more statues

[WelshBloke]

Was Pan a slave owner?

He was a bit rapey.

 

[Veliko]

I never claimed otherwise... In fact I agreed with you about this. So I guess you just wanted the last word?

You quite literally are saying that building statues is inherently noble:

Destruction of historical items is not the same as the creation of items for historical purposes.

I understand why you think their motives might be the same, and their motives might indeed be similar, but your conclusions are just wrong.

There must be three or four posts of you making the above point.

 

[feralkid]

He was a bit rapey.

Most were, but...
You don't think maybe the she-goat was asking for it?

 

[richaron]

You quite literally are saying that building statues is inherently noble:



There must be three or four posts of you making the above point.

I suggest you re-read what I said. You appear to have misunderstood because that's nowhere near what I stated.

I suspect your arguments against me are because of this inherent inability to understand my ideals of preserving historical items irrespective of the source. That is, I suspect you are unable to objectively think about this matter.

 

[Veliko]

I suggest you re-read what I said. You appear to have misunderstood because that's nowhere near what I stated.

I suspect your arguments against me are because of this inherent inability to understand my ideals of preserving historical items irrespective of the source. That is, I suspect you are unable to objectively think about this matter.

I'm sorry, but you are all over the place here.

That bolded part is quite literally you saying that erecting statues is inherently noble and/or better than taking them down.

 

[richaron]

I'm sorry, but you are all over the place here.

That bolded part is quite literally you saying that erecting statues is inherently noble and/or better than taking them down.

Lol you have no idea about what "noble" means if you believe what you're writing.

I never stated any of that nonsense you are pinning on me and it's obvious to anyone who bothers reading this.

 

[Veliko]

You're quibbling over semantics, so let's start again:

Do you think that every statue that has ever been built should be left standing?

On page two you said exactly that.

 

[richaron]

You're quibbling over semantics, so let's start again:

Do you think that every statue that has ever been built should be left standing?

On page two you said exactly that.

Well... Yeah that's pretty much it. Even if these dudes were the skid-marks in the toilet of history I think the statues have their place as something physical which future people can learn from.

I might be OK if the statues had to be relocated 10 feet to the left or something so another statue can take centre place, and/or if the plaques were changed to inform about the statue's skid-mark-ian propaganda origins.

Edit: I was planning to simply reply in quotes since we've covered everything you say. But I thought I'd make a point, considering this last quote of mine, to ask how exactly you think I implied erecting a statue in inherently noble?

 

[Starbuck1975]

10 dollars extra for every hundred lashes given to a runaway slave? Such a generous man should certainly have a statue in a 60% black city, amirite?

If there was a statue erected to Jackson in Nashville at the height of the Civil Rights movement, I would agree to tear it down.

The problem with Jackson is he kind of played a significant role in the defense of New Orleans, so contextually, the statue is appropriate even if he wasn’t a great guy when judged from a contemporary perspective.

 

[Veliko]

Edit: I was planning to simply reply in quotes since we've covered everything you say. But I thought I'd make a point, considering this last quote of mine, to ask how exactly you think I implied erecting a statue in inherently noble?

Because you don't want them taken down.

 

[richaron]

Because you don't want them taken down.

Then this is more a case of your not understanding what I write.

 

[pmv]

They chose what to display and it reflects the culture of the time. So it's historically significant.

Destroying a statue is not the same.

Who are the 'they' to which you refer? Those who had the most power at the time? Why is everyone else obliged to defer to that power for all eternity?

Hint - there is no such thing as 'the culture of the time'. Times don't have only one culture.

 

[richaron]

Who are the 'they' to which you refer? Those who had the most power at the time? Why is everyone else obliged to defer to that power for all eternity?

Hint - there is no such thing as 'the culture of the time'. Times don't have only one culture.

The people who made the stuff.
Yes.
wat?

It's simply a physical historical item. Why would you think we'd be "obliged to defer to that power for all eternity"?

 

[pmv]

The people who made the stuff.
Yes.
wat?

It's simply a physical historical item. Why would you think we'd be "obliged to defer to that power for all eternity"?

So you agree it's fine to take them down? What's your point then?

 

[richaron]

So you agree it's fine to take them down? What's your point then?

I think your reasoning is illogical. Honestly I don't get it, but your conclusion is way off base.

 

[mindless1]

I'm sorry, but you are all over the place here.

That bolded part is quite literally you saying that erecting statues is inherently noble and/or better than taking them down.

You lack reading comprehension skills.

I'm also in favor of not taking down any statues that have been in place long enough to have historical significance, or at most a slight relocation if it makes sense for a renovation purposes.

On the other hand, I understand there is a segment of society that is mentally weak and tries to find reasons to hate or even worse, stir that up in others, so if it preserves peace to take a statue and relocate it, to a museum at most, then that's what needs to happen.

You have to keep the minions happy because they're not peaceful and can easily be lead into a mob mentality with the right words.

 

[pmv]

I think your reasoning is illogical. Honestly I don't get it, but your conclusion is way off base.

So far I you don't appear to _have_ any reasoning, so not sure your judgment on the question is worth much. I'll try again - what is your point? Those in power put them up at the time when they had the power to do so, when power changes they may come down again. Are you saying that once a group has the power to do something, it can never be undone? If not, what _are_ you saying?

 

[richaron]

So far I you don't appear to _have_ any reasoning, so not sure your judgment on the question is worth much. I'll try again - what is your point? Those in power put them up at the time when they had the power to do so, when power changes they may come down again. Are you saying that once a group has the power to do something, it can never be undone? If not, what _are_ you saying?

I've reasoned plenty in this thread. Since you busted in with guns blazing I'll assume you haven't bothered to read any of it, so I can suffice with just quoting myself. This is my first post on the thread:

Firstly I don't condone any of the racist tripe these people may have believed in.

But history is sacred and historical sites should be preserved. Sure taking down the statues is not as bad as the Taliban blowing up ancient sites, but I do think it's in the same vein. People can't erase history, no matter how vile they view the history or the heros of that time. I don't think the statues should be kept to be idealized, but I do think they should be kept for for their historical significance.

So that the zeitgeist of the now won't stop people of tomorrow from having these monuments to contemplate.

You claim I haven't bothered to reason? This was my first post and you completely missed the point.

 

[pmv]

I've reasoned plenty in this thread. Since you busted in with guns blazing I'll assume you haven't bothered to read any of it, so I can suffice with just quoting myself. This is my first post on the thread:

Yup, your first post was exactly the nonsensical position I understood you were taking. If all you are arguing is the statues should be 'kept' in some regard, then, fine, move them into storage or a museum, depending on what storage space is available, and how it's decided they compare in terms of historical significance or artistic merit with all the other things that have to be stored/preserved. But no reason at all why they should remain where they are in public space.

I once met a conservative German who thought the Berlin wall should have been preserved as a historical monument. It's an argument, I suppose, but I'm not surprised his viewpoint lost that particular one.

Saying 'history is sacred' sounds good but has no functional meaning at all. The memory and facts of history might be 'sacred' but it's just absurd to extend that to 'nothing in the physical environment can ever change, ever'.

 

[richaron]

Yup, your first post was exactly the nonsensical position I understood you were taking. If all you are arguing is the statues should be 'kept' in some regard, then, fine, move them into storage or a museum, depending on what storage space is available, and how it's decided they compare in terms of historical significance or artistic merit with all the other things that have to be stored/preserved. But no reason at all why they should remain where they are in public space.

Thank you for proving my point?

People do need to question why they were built in the first place. And something like a statue can allow people in the future to have a physical and visceral connection to another time and another type of thinking.

Edit: The placing of a statue itself obviously isn't inherently good or noble, but it's no small undertaking and it does speak to the culture of the time and therefore it's inherent historical significance.

I would argue keeping a statue in it's original position (vs a museum or something similar) is extremely important with the visceral impact of the statue on viewers.

 

[pmv]

I would argue keeping a statue in it's original position (vs a museum or something similar) is extremely important with the visceral impact of the statue on viewers.

And what if 'its impact on viewers' is precisely the issue that people object to, and have always objected to? I ask again, just because one side has the power at one time to impose that impact on everyone, why are future generations obliged to continue deferring to that power?

Are you arguing that Saddam's statue in Baghdad should have remained for all time? Ditto all those Stalins and Lenins in the former Soviet bloc?

 

[richaron]

And what if 'its impact on views' is precisely the issue that people object to, and have always objected to? I ask again, just because one side has the power at one time to impose that impact on everyone, why are future generations obliged to continue deferring to that power?

In that case I suspect the viewers have already made up their mind about the subject.

As opposed to the many more who are unaware and can learn from it.

Why do you keep talking about "defering" to a power?

 

[pmv]

In that case I suspect the viewers have already made up their mind about the subject.

As opposed to the many more who are unaware and can learn from it.

Why do you keep talking about "defering" to a power?

Because that's what you keep insisting everyone should do.

 

[richaron]

Because that's what you keep insisting everyone should do.

Nope. Not me.

 

[pmv]

Nope. Not me.

Yup, you. You just did it above!