About Removing Monuments

[Curious George]

Apparently 500:

From 1778 to 1871, the United States government entered into more than 500 treaties with the Native American tribes; all of these treaties have since been violated in some way or outright broken by the US government,[20][21][22][23] while at least one treaty was violated or broken by Native American tribes.[24]

List of United States treaties - Wikipedia

Well I certainly understand that violations have occurred. I guess I mean violations that amounted to dissolving the treaty. Further I only meant to discuss treaties that were ratified as I aware of a great many unratified treaties that were broken. My concern here is not to paint the U.S. as honest, they were not. My point was to flesh out the actual complaints and issues. Something the wiki article does not do. But thank you for the attempt.

 

[David1967]

I get what you're saying. It's just that the comparison falls flat. Even if I do accept that they represent mistreatment of the indigenous people, there's still reason to preserve them, same as we preserve Auschwitz or the slaves' quarters I mentioned before.

Very well said @Saint Frankenstein . Good or bad, history should be preserved so we (hopefully) learn not to repeat our past mistakes.

 

[David1967]

What's wrong with my approach: add a plaque that spells out exactly what the person did or said?

I have no problem with adding a plaque to the monument or mission that tells what the person or religion or whatever did. I think that would be quite useful. I remember when I was a kid in grade school, General Custer was still talked about as a good guy. It would have been nice to know at the time that he was a murderous D!#@.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Very well said @Saint Frankenstein . Good or bad, history should be preserved so we (hopefully) learn not to repeat our past mistakes.

Thanks. But just to be clear, I do support the removal of the Confederate monuments, as well as removing Confederate flags from government institutions such as state flags. I just don't see the mission issue as the same thing.

 

[David1967]

Thanks. But just to be clear, I do support the removal of the Confederate monuments, as well as removing Confederate flags from government institutions such as state flags. I just don't see the mission issue as the same thing.

Fair enough.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Very well said @Saint Frankenstein . Good or bad, history should be preserved so we (hopefully) learn not to repeat our past mistakes.

Some of our most evocative historical imagery comes from removing statues or walls or monuments dedicated to horrible events or people in defiance, in protest, or in victory. Heck a big part of the American revolution were revolutionaries tearing down British statues.
You can preserve history without preserving those specific articles.

 

[Father Heathen]

I get what you're saying. It's just that the comparison falls flat. Even if I do accept that they represent mistreatment of the indigenous people, there's still reason to preserve them, same as we preserve Auschwitz or the slaves' quarters I mentioned before.

Exactly, the preservation of slave quarters and concentration camps isn't to celebrate slavery or the holocaust, just as the preservation of missions isn't to celebrate the destruction of native american culture. Whereas confederate statues were made after the civil war to celebrate the confederacy, basically serving as tacky participation trophies/consolation prizes for the losing side.

 

[BSM1]

All this rhetoric is making want to go do a 'Ghost Dance' around my "Stars and Bars' sombrero...

 

[Father Heathen]

All this rhetoric is making want to go do a 'Ghost Dance' around my "Stars and Bars' sombrero...

"Git 'r dun"

 

[Revoltingest]

Especially since nobody's tearing down Confederate monuments on private property. Not without the permission of the owner, anyhow.

@Revoltingest

Different things matter to different people.
Appropriateness of monuments, & consistent treatment matter most to me.
Ownership matters most to others.
For me, owners can do as they please.

 

[Revoltingest]

I say leave them be. We are on a kick it seems, of removing historical monuments that some find offensive (in some cases perhaps justifiably so). But, if we continue on this path, will there be any left?

I find the bad side of history interesting & enlightening (even unlightening).
This applies even to engines & machine tools....technological dead ends,
heinous or bizarre behavior.

 

[Revoltingest]

Some of our most evocative historical imagery comes from removing statues or walls or monuments dedicated to horrible events or people in defiance, in protest, or in victory. Heck a big part of the American revolution were revolutionaries tearing down British statues.
You can preserve history without preserving those specific articles.

I also want those acts of destruction preserved.
Unlike bureaucratic decisions to remove & preserve
statues in some anonymous warehouse, these acts
themselves have historical significance, even more
than the toppled monuments.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I also want those acts of destruction preserved.
Unlike bureaucratic decisions to remove & preserve
statues in some anonymous warehouse, these acts
themselves have historical significance, even more
than the toppled monuments.

I mean there was beurocracy involved in at least two of those (in that they had to get approval first since they were removed by military.)
The one I posted in About Removing Monuments was pure civil defiance though.

 

[Estro Felino]

Fascist Architecture (1925-1943): should we Italians remove it?

 

[wellwisher]

Monuments are works of art. They are not living creatures who had anything to do with what they represent. It is an inanimate depicting things and is protected by the freedom of speech. The left needs to destroy art to appease a high level of unconsciousness where cause and affect have been distorted. They can;t distinguish the art from reality.

The Democrat party, on the other hand, was the party of slavery and segregation, with a direct connection to a very evil past. This party is like a living monument to hate and division. Why is this living monument not being dissolved and/or renamed? Knocking this living store down would go further that getting rid of an inanimate object to appease the past.

Picture if the Nazi party rose again to the level of power as the Democrats hold. Both have very shady pasts. Would you trust either not to use the same tactics, modified in meets the needs of the present? For example, both used a lot of fake news propaganda. Both tries to demonize an entire race. The Democrats used to demonize the blacks and Nazi demonized the Jews. Now the Democrats demonize whites, unless they are part of their party. Methods have not changed This living monument to evil and lawlessness needs to be knocked down.

The Democrat party is the last evil political organization, with a history of atrocity that is still around in a position of power. Why has this monument not been removed? It is not a work of art depicting the evil past, but a living thing that evolved from that evil past. If you consider how they gang up on Trump, one can see the old lynch mob training that has the same haters the past.

 

[Stevicus]

Different things matter to different people.
Appropriateness of monuments, & consistent treatment matter most to me.
Ownership matters most to others.
For me, owners can do as they please.

If it's a matter of consistency, then one might wonder about Andrew Jackson still being on the $20 bill. It does seem that the mere 4-year existence of the Confederacy is being made into the symbolic focal point for 400 years of American history. Some of the more famous Union generals during the Civil War (Sherman, Custer, Sheridan, etc.) were not exactly known as liberal humanitarians when it came to waging wars against the Natives in the West, yet their statues are still kept up. Even George Washington had blood on his hands in his campaigns against the Iroquois.

If the goal here is to sanitize U.S. history for our protection, then a lot of sacred cows and old monuments would have to come crashing down. The whole of U.S. history is not something that can be solely pinned on the few figures representing the short-lived Confederacy.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If it's a matter of consistency, then one might wonder about Andrew Jackson still being on the $20 bill. It does seem that the mere 4-year existence of the Confederacy is being made into the symbolic focal point for 400 years of American history. Some of the more famous Union generals during the Civil War (Sherman, Custer, Sheridan, etc.) were not exactly known as liberal humanitarians when it came to waging wars against the Natives in the West, yet their statues are still kept up. Even George Washington had blood on his hands in his campaigns against the Iroquois.

If the goal here is to sanitize U.S. history for our protection, then a lot of sacred cows and old monuments would have to come crashing down. The whole of U.S. history is not something that can be solely pinned on the few figures representing the short-lived Confederacy.

I think you're missing the point. Those Confederate monuments were erected in the first place to uphold the ideal of white supremacy. A study was done showing that the building of those monuments spiked when there were increased pushes for civil rights for African-Americans. Those other things you mentioned are not the same, as they weren't created to celebrate the less savory aspect of those people's histories, whereas the Confederate crap was created with a view to celebrate when black people were oppressed and to intimidate them.

No one is suggesting to "sanitize" history, but rather not to have emblems on public land representing and celebrating the oppression and enslavement of African-Americans.

I keep posting this: Confederate Statues Were Built To Further A 'White Supremacist Future'

 

[Stevicus]

I think you're missing the point. Those Confederate monuments were erected in the first place to uphold the ideal of white supremacy. A study was done showing that the building of those monuments spiked when there were increased pushes for civil rights for African-Americans. Those other things you mentioned are not the same, as they weren't created to celebrate the less savory aspect of those people's histories, whereas the Confederate crap was created with a view to celebrate when black people were oppressed and to intimidate them.

No one is suggesting to "sanitize" history, but rather not to have emblems on public land representing and celebrating the oppression and enslavement of African-Americans.

I keep posting this: Confederate Statues Were Built To Further A 'White Supremacist Future'

You make some good points, although one thing I would note is that, coinciding with the years these monuments were built was also the promotion of the Lost Cause version of Civil War history, in which pro-Confederate historians were trying to pass off the idea that the Civil War was about anything but slavery. The Northern states went along with this idea, too, for their own reasons. Grant was a big believer in reconciliation and patching up the nation's wounds. He and Longstreet became close friends after the war.

If generations were being born and raised to think that the Civil War was "not about slavery or white supremacy," then it seems odd or incongruous that there would be some kind of subtly cynical motive behind the construction of Confederate monuments. It seems more likely an attempt to confirm the overall Lost Cause version which maintained in telling the story of what the Civil War was not about.

That is, if the monuments were constructed as a form of post-war losers' propaganda, then the whole idea would have been to try to make the Confederacy look good in the eyes of the public.

What's happening in more recent times regarding the push for tearing down these monuments and flags is not so much a demonization of the old Confederacy - which only lasted four years. It also calls into question as to why America, as a whole, tolerated these statues, monuments, and flags for well over a century after the end of the Civil War. Why did America, as a whole, continue with white supremacist policies for the same length of time? I don't see it as a matter of statues or monuments, nor is it even about a skewed version of Civil War history (although I don't see that replacing one skewed version with another helps clarify matters).

The problem with the way a lot of people study U.S. history is that many try to compartmentalize it into neat little packages, when the reality was a lot more complicated and messy. The history of the Confederacy has been woven into the overall tapestry of U.S. history as a whole.

I'm not saying they shouldn't tear down the Confederate monuments. They probably should have torn them down decades ago (or never allowed them to go up in the first place), but regardless, if we're doing it now because it's politically expedient and makes people feel good about themselves and their history, then I would suggest it's being done for the wrong reasons. It's the same line of thinking that brought about the Lost Cause version in the first place.

 

[Woberts]

Monuments are works of art. They are not living creatures who had anything to do with what they represent. It is an inanimate depicting things and is protected by the freedom of speech. The left needs to destroy art to appease a high level of unconsciousness where cause and affect have been distorted. They can;t distinguish the art from reality.

The Democrat party, on the other hand, was the party of slavery and segregation, with a direct connection to a very evil past. This party is like a living monument to hate and division. Why is this living monument not being dissolved and/or renamed? Knocking this living store down would go further that getting rid of an inanimate object to appease the past.

Picture if the Nazi party rose again to the level of power as the Democrats hold. Both have very shady pasts. Would you trust either not to use the same tactics, modified in meets the needs of the present? For example, both used a lot of fake news propaganda. Both tries to demonize an entire race. The Democrats used to demonize the blacks and Nazi demonized the Jews. Now the Democrats demonize whites, unless they are part of their party. Methods have not changed This living monument to evil and lawlessness needs to be knocked down.

The Democrat party is the last evil political organization, with a history of atrocity that is still around in a position of power. Why has this monument not been removed? It is not a work of art depicting the evil past, but a living thing that evolved from that evil past. If you consider how they gang up on Trump, one can see the old lynch mob training that has the same haters the past.

Godwin's Law has been invoked!!