Confederate Statue pulled down by Protesters, Durham, North Carolina

[lewisnotmiller]

I'd prefer adding a display to the statue,
one which educates with context.

I would hope that happens in many cases.
Context is important.
However, I'm personally not a fan of courthouse lawns being used for such purposes.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Would you consider it violent if I blew up an empty abortion clinic?
Tom

Hyperbolize much?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Would you consider it violent if I blew up an empty abortion clinic?
Tom

Yep, I would.
I think it would lead to the workers of the clinic being in fear of their lives.
Are you saying you don't think blowing up abortion clinics is violent? Or are you suggesting that pulling down a statue is violent?

 

[Revoltingest]

I would hope that happens in many cases.
Context is important.
However, I'm personally not a fan of courthouse lawns being used for such purposes.

I'd prefer they plant hostas, blanket flowers or coneflowers.

 

[columbus]

Are you saying you don't think blowing up abortion clinics is violent? Or are you suggesting that pulling down a statue is violent?

I am saying that both are ideological violence, like Muslims blowing up Buddha statues and #BLM torching businesses.
That is not acceptable behavior no matter what the motivation.
Tom
Eta~ The perps need to be brought to justice and anybody who helps obstruct justice is an accessory.

 

[fantome profane]

I support the removal of these statues, through proper legal means.

Removing these statues is does not mean erasing history, it means putting history into proper perspective. It is importatant to remember that people once fought to maintain slavery. But we we should not be celebrating people who fought to maintain slavery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

History must be destroyed if it offends anyone.
After all, we don't want anyone triggered by being reminded of our past.
We should also remove the Washington Monuments (DC & Baltimore), the
Lincoln Memorial, the Jefferson Memorial, & the Viet Nam Veterans Memorial.
Those memorialized did terrible things which should be forgotten.

It should be remembered; not just honoured.

 

[Revoltingest]

It should be remembered; not just honoured.

Sounds good to me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Eta~ The perps need to be brought to justice and anybody who helps obstruct justice is an accessory.

If your argument is that they shouldn't have done it because it's illegal vandalism, then it should be prosecuted like vandalism: i.e. with all the vigour of a typical investigation into a petty crime, much lower on the police priority list than major theft or violent crime.

 

[Jeremiahcp]

I am saying that both are ideological violence, like Muslims blowing up Buddha statues and #BLM torching businesses.
That is not acceptable behavior no matter what the motivation.
Tom

You argument is a false equivalence. Pulling down the statue is not the same as blowing up a clinic. They pulled down the statue with the police motioning them. This is not the same as blowing up Buddha statues or torching private businesses. You are hyperbolizing it because you want the issue to be seen as more than it actually is.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Do y'all also support Muslims destroying cultural artifacts that they disapprove of?
I don't.
Tom

False equivalence - Muslims who engage in iconoclasm do so simply because the targets of their acts are un-Islamic i.e. it's xenophobia and there is no reason behind the destruction. These protesters, on the other hand, tore down a statue dedicated to honouring (arguably glorifying) the memory of men who fought a war to ensure people could own other people. A statue that resided on government property. What does that say about how the government views its citizens?

America seems unique in its desire to glorify the losers of a civil war.

The downside from all this is this statue being torn down will only give the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville more ammo to claim that 'violent communists are destroying our culture'.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am saying that both are ideological violence, like Muslims blowing up Buddha statues and #BLM torching businesses.
That is not acceptable behavior no matter what the motivation.
Tom

I disagree, with regards to the 'no matter the motivation' part.
Statues are symbols. That is their raison d'etre. Removal of them is equally symbolic.
Just as there are different reasons for erecting them, so to their removal (forced or otherwise) doesn't give the same message.
The rationale behind the destruction of Buddha statues is rooted in theological primacy, and the eradication of freedom of thought and speech. Whilst it might be possible to suggest that the removal of ANY statue therefore constitutes the eradication of freedom of thought and speech, I personally don't see it.

Eta~ The perps need to be brought to justice and anybody who helps obstruct justice is an accessory.

I understand your reasoning.

 

[Nakosis]

If Mein Kampf was stapled to the front of the court house door, I might think it a bad sign were I a Jewish defendant. And no, I'm not suggesting that is the same as this. I am merely suggesting that removing all context from any discussions is cheap and of no utility.

I'm merely suggesting that if everyone decided it was ok to destroy what they find offensive, there might not be much left. There was no discussion here, just folks destroying something they felt was offensive.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If your argument is that they shouldn't have done it because it's illegal vandalism, then it should be prosecuted like vandalism: i.e. with all the vigour of a typical investigation into a petty crime, much lower on the police priority list than major theft or violent crime.

In the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's, many of us who participated in such things as sit-ins pled nolo contendere, i.e., we acknowledged our actions as civil disobedience and accepted the consequences.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you consider it violent if I blew up an empty abortion clinic?
Tom

It would be terrorism. Pulling down a statue is not terrorism.

Ignoring the risk of collateral damage (which is significant), bombing an empty building makes an implicit threat: "we have the power to blow up a place where you routinely go, so unless you do what we want, we'll blow up a building with you in it."

OTOH, the message behind tearing down a statue is just "we can make this thing go away whether you try to stop us or not."

 

[Revoltingest]

You argument is a false equivalence. Pulling down the statue is not the same as blowing up a clinic. They pulled down the statue with the police motioning them. This is not the same as blowing up Buddha statues or torching private businesses. You are hyperbolizing it because you want the issue to be seen as more than it actually is.

False equivalence - Muslims who engage in iconoclasm do so simply because the targets of their acts are un-Islamic i.e. it's xenophobia and there is no reason behind the destruction. These protesters, on the other hand, tore down a statue dedicated to honouring (arguably glorifying) the memory of men who fought a war to ensure people could own other people. A statue that resided on government property. What does that say about how the government views its citizens?

America seems unique in its desire to glorify the losers of a civil war.

The downside from all this is this statue being torn down will only give the neo-Nazis who marched in Charlottesville more ammo to claim that 'violent communists are destroying our culture'.

You're both missing the similarity.
Things need not be equivalent in order to have something in common.
Whether toppling a statue of Jefferson Davis or blowing up one of Buddha,
the acts are sanitizing a very public record of people's thoughts of yore.
Now, if local gov had removed & preserved the statues, this would at least
be a reversible decision.

 

[columbus]

The rationale behind the destruction of Buddha statues is rooted in theological primacy, and the eradication of freedom of thought and speech. Whilst it might be possible to suggest that the removal of ANY statue therefore constitutes the eradication of freedom of thought and speech, I personally don't see it.

We're still talking about using violence to make an ideological statement.
I am no "Son of the Confederacy" and don't have a problem with it's removal to some garden of shame. It's the premise that such behaviour as destroying it is justified by someone's opinion that I can't get behind.
Tom

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm merely suggesting that if everyone decided it was ok to destroy what they find offensive, there might not be much left. There was no discussion here, just folks destroying something they felt was offensive.

It might be worth wondering who decided to put up the statues in the first place, and what level of discourse was entered into.

Regardless, there have been moments in history where people took steps to change things, despite the law. In the majority of cases, that is misguided and harmful to society. Occasionally, it proves to be a necessary fulcrum for change.

Both the American War of Independence and the Civil War were examples of this on a grand scale.

For me, personally, I favor discourse.

This article was written loosely regarding the statue (and others) when it was still standing...

Readers Defend Confederate Monuments

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

You're both missing the similarity.
Things need not be equivalent in order to have something in common.
Whether toppling a statue of Jefferson Davis or blowing up one of Buddha,
the acts are sanitizing a very public record of people's thoughts. Now,
if local gov had removed & preserved the statues, this would at least be
a reversible decision.

Actually I'm not. I realise there are similarities between the Taliban dynamiting a Buddha statue and these guys pulling down this statue but, frankly, the comparison's similarities end with the act. Understanding motive is just as, if not more, crucial to determining why something was done.

I suspect this was also partly a backlash against the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville.

If the government had removed & preserved the statues in a museum instead of leaving them on government property then this wouldn't have happened or been necessary at all. People are saying 'they should have taken the legal option of removing the statues' but how many times has that been tried before? How many times has it failed?

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually I'm not.

I was unclear.
I referred to your post, not to you personally.
Such a fine upstanding Scot would know it, even if it went unsaid.

I realise there are similarities between the Taliban dynamiting a Buddha statue and these guys pulling down this statue but, frankly, the comparison's similarities end with the act. Understanding motive is just as, if not more, crucial to determining why something was done.
I suspect this was also partly a backlash against the neo-Nazi march in Charlottesville.

Aye, beware backlashes.