Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Exactly. minus the unnecessary quotes around "manufactured".
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pro-Tip: History can't be erased
- Thread starter tytlyf
- Start date
Exactly. minus the unnecessary quotes around "manufactured".
Yerda
Veteran Member
The argument that removing statues is somehow erasing history is thoroughly disingenuous. Nobody believes it. It's just a lot better to say something performatively stupid than to admit that you think the awful people represented deserve honouring.
tytlyf
Not Religious
I agree. History can't be erased.
Friend of Mara
Active Member
Statues and monuments aren't historical documents. They are forms of reverence. They are meant to invoke a respect for what they represent. If you have confederate statues you aren't attempting to preserve historical fact but rather the precedents and ideologies of which they represent. For many southern whites it was glorifying the pride of their history. But the decisions and institutions were atrocious and society means to move forward. We can do without such statues. We don't need to live in a fantasy history.
And that is all ignoring the fact that these statues were pledges of solidarity of white run governments against the civil rights activists.
And that is all ignoring the fact that these statues were pledges of solidarity of white run governments against the civil rights activists.
This is where my head is at.
Indeed. Which is part of why some of the statues were erected in the first place, right?
You might have to explain 'real history' to me.
What's your view on the importance of timing on these statues? What nature did the majority of statues or memorials have at the end of the war, and how did this develop over the next 80 years?
If we're talking about history, and are proclaiming ourselves keepers of 'real history', I don't think pointing to a hunk of rock is sufficient.
I don't think a statue of Nathan Bedford Forest galloping on a horse is there to promote in depth discussion of his political views and career. And if it is, I think it is failing.
Oh, well...that can happen.
I mean to say, it might not be COMPLETELY erased, else how would we even know what to put up?
But certain events are largely ignored in popular history. A LOT of events.
And even moreso than 'erased' they become remembered in different ways.
Who remembers now that German soldiers were tortured by Americans after the cessation of hostilities? Who remembers the limitations on Jewish immigration the UK put in place immediately preceding the Second World War?
Meh, I'm not potting the Allies here. All I'm doing is suggesting that ALL history is remembered with a certain flavour to it. And the victors commonly write it. In the case of Confederacy statues in the South, it's a little more unusual in that the losers got to write it in the interests of reconciliation at a point post-war.
Yerda
Veteran Member
Honestly the fact that conservatives have apparently been "learning history" by looking at statues and not...you know...reading books, explains a lot.
https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/1272939511735939082?s=20
That tweet made me giggle.
https://twitter.com/existentialcoms/status/1272939511735939082?s=20
That tweet made me giggle.
esmith
Veteran Member
You sure you read my post that you are referring to?
In no part of my post did I reference history to statues.
Just explain how your above remarks relates to what I said. Just to make it easy I will repeat it below:
'Unfortunately if you think history can't be erased you are sadly wrong.
History can be changed to the point that people believe the change is the history.
Now it may take time, but eventually those that knew what the real history was are gone or their accounts are not believed in either voice or print..
When that happens you have basically erased history'.
History is easy to change, all you need is historians who are willing to sell their soul to revisionist dictate and a gullible public
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
To be fair, if history could be erased, we wouldn't necessarily know.
To be fair, if history could be erased, we wouldn't necessarily know.
On some cases histories are different between countries.
Example The British View the War of 1812 Quite Differently Than Americans Do | History | Smithsonian Magazine
We can't change the facts, and we shouldn't try to sweep it under the rug. Immorality deserves to be condemned.
No, we should emphasize it, lest we repeat it.
The statues celebrate immoral acts. The acts -- and the statues celebrating them -- should be condemned.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
I was being typically flippant but that's actually a very valid point. It's really the issue with some of the statues, which only represent one aspect of the relevant history.
You, flippant??? Surely not ;-)
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
So it sounds like we should not have statues of George Washington because they celebrate someone who owned slaves.
I assumed your post was in relation to the OP, given that it didn't reference any other particular post. If I was mistaken, I apologise.
My more general thoughts about whether history can be erased are in my post 47
At least Washington's statues are not erected in celebration of his slave ownership.
lostwanderingsoul
Well-Known Member
So it sounds like the lines are fuzzy. Which means, who gets to make the final choice? You person owned slaves but his statue does not celebrate it so that statue stays whils another one is removed because it celebrates slavery. How does one decide what it is to "celebrate slavery"? I think there is no simple answer.