It’s time to bring down more statues

[Puffnstuff]

When are Trump statues going up so we can plan on bringing them down..

Prototypes are under consideration.

 

[richaron]

Yup, you. You just did it above!

Again in this thread I appear to have a follower who consistently misunderstands my posts.

I stated from the very beginning I don't subscribe to racist tripe and I've said numerous times I hope future generations can learn from them.

But you keep saying I think people should "defer" to some power. What power exactly are you talking about?

 

[justoh]

Why not just leave it up to the people who own them the statues? All the media attention these statues get, when there are living, breathing people to be focusing on, like Hillary, for example... incredible

If it's privately owned, well, then it's up to the people who own the controversial statue. If the statue is publicly owned, then have a vote. If some local municipality or a state does something that some SJW (often not even a resident) doesn't like, then maybe don't invite them onto CNN. Why all the commotion?

 

[theeedude]

No the mayor of NO takes it upon himself to decide that. It was a political stunt to get him into the national spotlight, really is as simple as that.

Who elected the mayor of NO?

 

[theeedude]

As a compromise, they should keep the horse and change the Jackson.

 

[richaron]

As a compromise, they should keep the horse and change the Jackson.

Needs more rocket launchers.

 

[pmv]

Again in this thread I appear to have a follower who consistently misunderstands my posts.

I stated from the very beginning I don't subscribe to racist tripe and I've said numerous times I hope future generations can learn from them.

But you keep saying I think people should "defer" to some power. What power exactly are you talking about?

The power to site a statue, that has a particular 'impact' as you put it, in a public space. Is that not obvious?

 

[yllus]

I'm good with the approach of evaluating statues on a case-by-case basis as we've proceeded so far. Let's get all of the explicitly white supremacist, pro-slavery ones down first (or put in a museum dedicated to an awful, shameful time in American history) and then talk next steps.

 

[richaron]

The power to site a statue, that has a particular 'impact' as you put it, in a public space. Is that not obvious?

Is that the "power" you keep accusing me about? Lol

That's exactly why I think they should be kept in situ. But not for the reason's you so blindly painted me with. Why bother walk into this thread and throw accusations when you have no idea what's going on?

 

[justoh]

Why bother walk into this thread and throw accusations when you have no idea what's going on?

Because of gravity?

 

[richaron]

Because of gravity?

I blame global warming..

 

[paperfist]

Justify George Washington. He commited an atrocity by owning human beings, why should he be celebrated? Honest question.

He did what was normal for the times...

What if history happened in reverse and in 2050 some gender neutral, pot smoking person creates a cure for cancer. Would people from the 1930s celebrate that statue?

I think this is all pretty hypocritical, statue enemy's preach for no intolerance yet they have no tolerance for people that are different in their beliefs than they are.

 

[Zorba]

they're not historical, a lot of these statues were put up during the civil rights struggles mid 20th century as well as Jim Crow era, it was specifically designed to intimidate and show black citizens where they stood in the societal hierarchy, per the people in charge (and those weren't black citizens, just in case you weren't aware of that)

I've seen this chart before, but I didn't remember how mush of this crap was done since 1990. At least pre-1980 you could claim the "different time" crap, but any thing after 1990 is just pure and obvious racism, no excuses. The really sick thing are the school names, a huge number of the schools named after confederates are historical black schools or in black areas.

I can see an argument for leaving up statues built in the 1800s, but anything built during or after the first big spike was obviously done for reasons other than "remembering our past."

 

[nickqt]

There's a huge difference between a historical site, and a concrete/bronze statue that represents an abstract idea/ideal/historical person.

A historical site is historical, meaning something important happened there and should be remembered, for better or for worse.

A statue is a celebration of some idea/ideal/historical person. Which is why, for example, you're not going to find too many statues of Hitler in Germany.

Wanting to remove a concrete/bronze statue that celebrates a civil war leader who fought to protect slavery, is not even remotely close to, say, toppling an Aztec or Incan pyramid because it was used for blood sacrifices.

I.E., the god damn concrete/bronze statue should never have been erected, because it's only god damn purpose is to celebrate something that shouldn't be celebrated.

It is not even remotely close to advocating for tearing down historical sites.

Because some concrete/bronze statue isn't a historical site. It's a representation of an idea/ideal/historical person. And it's also a celebration of that idea/ideal/historical person.

When modern society decides that maybe they should no longer celebrate some southern leader who fought for slavery, it isn't erasing the history of slavery. It's just erasing the celebration of the pro-slavery leader.

Full stop.

 

[pmv]

Is that the "power" you keep accusing me about? Lol

That's exactly why I think they should be kept in situ. But not for the reason's you so blindly painted me with. Why bother walk into this thread and throw accusations when you have no idea what's going on?

Lol? Doesn't surprise me you write at that sort of text-speak level. You consistently fail to defend your point.

I'll ask the question again - why do you think these statues should be kept in situ? And not meaningess blather about 'respecting history', give an actual _reason_.

 

[pmv]

I've seen this chart before, but I didn't remember how mush of this crap was done since 1990. At least pre-1980 you could claim the "different time" crap, but any thing after 1990 is just pure and obvious racism, no excuses. The really sick thing are the school names, a huge number of the schools named after confederates are historical black schools or in black areas.

I can see an argument for leaving up statues built in the 1800s, but anything built during or after the first big spike was obviously done for reasons other than "remembering our past."

Have to say I disagree that pre-1980 is a 'different time'. I find it a bit odd that things that happened in my own lifetime are now regarded as 'a different time'. I'd agree with the general principle, but I think you'd have to go way, way, back before then for it to constitute 'a different time'. at least back before one's great-grandparents, say.

Still, it would make these sorts of threads interesting if one could argue out that 'yes, I did post that, but that was at least an hour ago - standards were different then, it was a different time'

 

[Zorba]

Have to say I disagree that pre-1980 is a 'different time'. I find it a bit odd that things that happened in my own lifetime are now regarded as 'a different time'. I'd agree with the general principle, but I think you'd have to go way, way, back before then for it to constitute 'a different time'. at least back before one's great-grandparents, say.

Still, it would make these sorts of threads interesting if one could argue out that 'yes, I did post that, but that was at least an hour ago - standards were different then, it was a different time'

I don't agree with the different time argument for keeping the statues. But it was a different time in that a majority of white were openly racist, but it was also out of ignorance and status quo, it was also socially acceptable. But by 1980 at least, it wasn't really socially acceptable any more, and I'd hope it wasn't a majority of whites any more. Therefore any one naming a school after Jefferson Davis in 2004 is just racist asshole.

Any ways, I think the vast majority of statues and namings after ~1880 were probably for reasons other than historical or memorials to the dead, which is wrong and why I think most of them should come down. But anyone doing it in the last 30 years has nothing to hide behind except pure racism.

 

[bshole]

Symbolic actions such as this really don't improve the plight of inner city black folk much. When was the last time the Democrats passed meaningful legislation aimed in that direction? Is it even possible?

This is an eye-opening stat:

More generally, a 2015 report called “Political Powerlessness” by Nicholas Stephanopoulos at the University of Chicago Law School found that black support for Congressional legislation actually decreased its chances of passage. As he writes, “As white support increases from 0% to 100%, the likelihood of adoption increases from about 10% to about 60%. As black support rises from 0% to 100%, though, the odds of enactment fall
from roughly 40% to roughly 30%.”

They are literally better off lying about the legislation they want passed. Amazing.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/black-voters-are-so-loyal-that-their-issues-get-ignored/

 

[mindless1]

^ Seems like you're interpreting that backwards. It would be expected that things that benefit a minority at the expense of the majority, won't have majority favor.

 

[Sonikku]

So thus far we’ve established it’s ok to celebrate people who’ve owned slaves, it just depends on what side of the civil war they were on? Trying to understand the logic.

I guess there really is no consolation prize for second place.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I guess there really is no consolation prize for second place.

Losers still getting their trophies though.

 

[urvile]

I just watched ricky Gervais: humanity on Netflix. To be honest I wasn't expecting much but he has not lost any of the intellectual weight behind his comedy.

He spent a bit of time focusing on how he inadvertently offends people and then they have a go at him on Twitter. There was this one part where some guy Tweeted that Satan was going to rape him and after he made fun of the guy on TV.

Some lady asked him on Twitter if he thought rape was funny. So he starts explaining to her that it depends on the context and then he realised he was defending the creationists right to make jokes/threats about him being raped by Satan.

I was in tears. Anyway he told a few other funny stories about people getting really offended about some topics that he made fun of. Because as he put it. It really mattered to them but he didn't give a shit. And for some reason they thought he should.

 

[pmv]

^ Seems like you're interpreting that backwards. It would be expected that things that benefit a minority at the expense of the majority, won't have majority favor.

To decide which interpretation is correct would require reading that rather long linked paper. Have you actually done that? Because I know I haven't got sufficient motivation! But you are basically saying it's "correlation not causation" and that isn't necessarily the case, it could in theory be shown that it is in fact causation, that issues are actually treated differently by legistlators if they are seen to have the support of black people, quite independently of whether the proposals are on their own terms seen as bad for white people (I just haven't the energy to read the entire paper to see if they did show that!).

(If you did read it - give a lazy poster a precis, thanks!)

 

[Meghan54]

There's a huge difference between a historical site, and a concrete/bronze statue that represents an abstract idea/ideal/historical person.

A historical site is historical, meaning something important happened there and should be remembered, for better or for worse.

A statue is a celebration of some idea/ideal/historical person. Which is why, for example, you're not going to find too many statues of Hitler in Germany.

Wanting to remove a concrete/bronze statue that celebrates a civil war leader who fought to protect slavery, is not even remotely close to, say, toppling an Aztec or Incan pyramid because it was used for blood sacrifices.

I.E., the god damn concrete/bronze statue should never have been erected, because it's only god damn purpose is to celebrate something that shouldn't be celebrated.

It is not even remotely close to advocating for tearing down historical sites.

Because some concrete/bronze statue isn't a historical site. It's a representation of an idea/ideal/historical person. And it's also a celebration of that idea/ideal/historical person.

When modern society decides that maybe they should no longer celebrate some southern leader who fought for slavery, it isn't erasing the history of slavery. It's just erasing the celebration of the pro-slavery leader.

Full stop.

Your point, just like mine, will be ignored because there really isn't an argument against it. History is not preserved by monuments but by being written in books, etc. Monuments are what you stated.....celebration of individuals/events/etc. Taking down a monument does not erase the history associated with said monument. But some just refuse to see this fact.....sad, really.

 

[brycejones]

Op needs to go to Iraq and explain how wrong they were to tear down statues of Sadam.