Confederate Statue pulled down by Protesters, Durham, North Carolina

[columbus]

Sure, although I think you do more harm than good by false equivalencies. That's just my opinion, obviously.

You don't even know what a false equivalency is you loser!
Oops.
Just channeling my inner Revoltingness.

Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

In North Carolina, the state government decides. And it has decided that all of the monuments stay.

Give it time. The SCOTUS will strike that law down.

 

[Nakosis]

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

And we're soon to have another white nationalist march here in Calif.

The march itself was a backlash against the removal of statues. Can't wait for the next backlash... not.

At what point does it become ok to condemn the violence and destruction of property?

 

[PureX]

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

I'm a sculptor, and I am not at all offended by people expressing themselves in this way. If I had created that statue I'd be honored that people felt it embodied the intended ideal strongly enough that they would attack that ideal by attacking the statue.

I am too interested in the right of human ideological expression in general to fuss over it destroying one specific (bad) artwork.

 

[Nakosis]

And use of any religion to justify oppression of anyone is always wrong.

Yes, I know but, I just assume these folks had no reason to distrust their pastor.

 

[PureX]

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

I think they should all be painted over with the gay pride flag's colors, and the U.S. flag's stars and stripes, maybe the image of the capital building from the dollar bill, and then surrounded by hundreds of photos of interracial married couples, and their beautiful by-racial children.

 

[DavidFirth]

Yes, I know but, I just assume these folks had no reason to distrust their pastor.

The Bereans distrusted Paul and he lauded them for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think they should all be painted over with the gay pride flag's colors, and the U.S. flag's stars and stripes, maybe the image of the capital building from the dollar bill, and then surrounded by hundreds of photos of interracial married couples, and their beautiful by-racial children.

Nah....add a message next to it rather than covering it over.

 

[David1967]

Yes, I know but, I just assume these folks had no reason to distrust their pastor.

Probably a sign of the times. Back before the era of the Jim Bakker types of recent history, many people tended to take the words of a minister as gospel truth without researching it themselves. Especially if said opinion kept them exalted.

 

[David1967]

The Bereans distrusted Paul and he lauded them for it.

Quote: They received his word readily, but searched the scripture to see if it was so. (paraphrased slightly.)

 

[DavidFirth]

I think they should all be painted over with the gay pride flag's colors, and the U.S. flag's stars and stripes, maybe the image of the capital building from the dollar bill, and then surrounded by hundreds of photos of interracial married couples, and their beautiful by-racial children.

No, you can't do that, you'll offend Colin Kaepernick fans.

 

[PureX]

No, you can't do that, you'll offend Colin Kaepernick fans.

I don't care who's offended. I think it would be an honest and appropriate "updating" of the theme those statues were commissioned to represent. It would be a representation of how time has swallowed up those old racist, misogynist, plantation culture ideals, and adding a very uplifting and positive creative revision to a bunch of statues the public paid a lot of money for, but don't want to look at anymore.

 

[columbus]

I'm a sculptor, and I am not at all offended by people expressing themselves in this way. If I had created that statue I'd be honored that people felt it embodied the intended ideal strongly enough that they would attack that ideal by attacking the statue.

I am too interested in the right of human ideological expression in general to fuss over it destroying one specific (bad) artwork.

It's fine with me if you give over your own stuff.
But irreplaceable old stuff that is not yours is not Ok for destruction by mob.
Tom

 

[columbus]

the public paid a lot of money for, but don't want to look at anymore.

If the public didn't want to look at them any more then they would elect officials who retire them to ignominy. The fact that they have not is proof that what you are proposing here is wrong.
Tom

 

[metis]

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

Dummy! It's better to plant hostas, various forms of sedum, and a variety of English and shrub roses!

 

[columbus]

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

I would rate this winner.
But I hate to have you spend your Golden Minutes telling me how much you appreciate a click on a button.
Tom

 

[Mindmaster]

Outside Durham County Courthouse, North Carolina, Protesters pulled down a statue of a Confederate Soldier dedicated to the Confederate States of America. Durham police later said they monitored the protests to make sure they were “safe,” but did not interfere with the statue toppling because it happened on county property.

Links here:

Protesters pull down Confederate statue at old Durham County courthouse

SEE IT: Crowd pulls down Confederate statue in North Carolina

Thoughts?

(Also @lewisnotmiller, and @Revoltingest)

The first misconception is that The Civil War was about slaves, actually it was about northern states (which were much more industrial, and profitable) having undue control over the south. Slavery was literally 10% of the reason why it started in the first place. In that context, to call it a monument to some darker times is completely idiotic. There were slaves in the north, in the south, and there were ex-slaves that owned slaves. You can't even make it a white-black racial issue without just being completely ignorant of the subject. The Confederates didn't represent all of these nasty things, but rather they were a revolution. It doesn't even make sense from a logical standpoint that most of the south would fight on that basis because other than a few (relatively) rich southern Democrats no one owned a single one.

 

[Curious George]

I'm very much not in favour of selective memory, or destroying history. Quite the contrary.
It's worth noting, though, that this particular part of history was erected 59 years after the end of the war, by a group more dedicated to a biased recollection of history than an accurate one.
Rather than in a contemplative garden or cemetery, it sat in front of a courthouse.

I guess it's possible to believe the statue was only in memory of the fallen, and nothing else, but it would require a more generous assessment of the people who erected it than I would be willing to give.

A wonderful argument that should be made during legal proceedings to take the statue down.

Tearing a statue is avoiding a forum not seeking one.

 

[Father Heathen]

While I understand and sympathize with the sentiment, the principled and ethical route would've been to pursue the statue's removal from public land (not destruction) via legal means.

 

[Mindmaster]

While I understand and sympathize with the sentiment, the principled and ethical route would've been to pursue the statue's removal from public land (not destruction) via legal means.

I hope they use state insurance money to rebuild the statue, lol.