Should we add plaques to statues of slave owners?

[lewisnotmiller]

In the case of Julius Caesar, he has statues today largely because of his campaign of genocide and enslavement on an industrial scale (which was no small thing in a pre-industrial era):

Gallic Wars - Wikipedia

I'm aware of the history (but thanks).

 

[Tambourine]

In the case of Julius Caesar, he has statues today largely because of his campaign of genocide and enslavement on an industrial scale (which was no small thing in a pre-industrial era):

Gallic Wars - Wikipedia

Ironically there aren't really that many monuments to Julius Caesar, compared to his successors.

 

[Mock Turtle]

and you think the statue is the source of problem?

even as a rally point
it's not the statue

and I think it more likely the rally will take place wherever they want to rally

Well even if it isn't such it is still a confirming factor for many probably - that such people should still be as honoured as they were when the statue was made - when times have changed and we should acknowledge this. I don't think it helps to have such anomalies hanging around, unless one wants a return to the past or a justification for certain views.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There are plenty of Russians who still venerate Stalin as a great leader, which is one major reason why I brought him up in comparison. The other is that in my experience, quite a few White Americans seem to regard these "heroes" of the Soviet Union with just as much revulsion as BLM regards monuments to slavery, but seem to be largely unable to see the parallels.

I have no idea what any of that has to do with me. As I mentioned in my last post, I have biographies of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky on my bookshelf, along with a lot of other figures many white Americans might view with revulsion. End of the day, I get to make up my own mind about them. I don't have a high opinion of Stalin. This has nothing to do with BLM.

And 'monuments to slavery' is a pretty loaded term, given the way you're pointing it about.

We judge people by modern moral standards all the time.

Of course 'we' do. But not consistently, and with a complete lack of nuance.

​

Franklin was mostly known as a philanderer and obnoxious political journalist in equal measure, the uncritical veneration he is receiving these days is a product of multiple generations of uncritical hero worship, and is largely detached from the opinions of contemporaries towards his deeds.

Meh, I'm not trying to die on Benjamin Franklin hill (so to say). He's not a figure I'm well enough read on to argue the toss, to be honest. I would still suggest any statues to him are for positive contributions to his country, and I suspect you're painting a fairly one-sided view of him here...which is somewhat ironic.

When you weigh people's positive contributions to your country, you are observing and judging these people from a modern point of view, not from the point of view of a contemporary. We can only judge them from the present.

That's not quite how I would see it. I think it's only natural to try and judge the long term impacts of their contributions. We see not just what was seen in the moment, but some level of long term impact. And we suffer from the channeling of information through ever narrowing channels, depending on how well documented a situation is.
But I do agree that we cannot help but judge historical figures using a perspective not available to contemporaries.

​

As I have mentioned above, the Romans, and in particularly the Roman Senate, did not regard Caesar's actions as praiseworthy. Quite the contrary, in fact. As warlike and brutal Romans acted towards their neighbours, Roman society was actually very conscious of legal procedures with regards to warfare. War could only be conducted with a just reason, and the Senate did not see Caesar's reasons for conquering Gaul to be just.

Which is why Caesar ensured he had at least a nominal casus belli for his initial actions. But you're not really claiming here that the Senate thought Caesar's war against the Gauls was injust, are you? Or that they were horrified by the slaughter?

They were concerned with the loyalties of their army, and with Caesar's political ambition. Nothing more.

I was not talking about you as an individual. Our values are informed by the society we live in.

Not only that, though.

​

I do believe that, too. But this feeds back into my earlier point that we always judge people from our modern perspective. It becomes easier to overlook past crimes when they are far away from us, either culturally, spatially or temporally.

How do you judge things a 'crime' though?

​

This is why I think eyewitness accounts and similar things are so important to understanding history on an emotional and human level. To paraphrase Stalin, if you read about his millions of victims, they're only a statistic.

That becomes more problematic when dealing with older histories. There simply isn't large sets of primary source accounts, and there wasn't the same level of accuracy or rigour to those that did exist.

My point was that slavery isn't just a personality flaw, like cheating on your wife (which really is only a problem for MLK and his wife, and perhaps the other women involved, in my opinion).

Again, the point I am suggesting is that a person can only EVER be a progressive in the time to which they are born. Washington was progressive for his times. He wasn't perfect by any means, but applying 2020 sensibilities becomes ridiculous. A person today holding another person in slavery would be amongst the very lowest of people to walk the earth. Applying that level of judgement to historical figures would have Washington 'less' than the vast majority of drug-addicts peddling their wares on street corners. I find that inaccurate at best.

Why do you think it doesn't matter to White Americans being brought up in the White American school system that George Washington killed native Americans?

Multiple reasons, I would imagine. In the main, I would suppose American history is taught in a very poor fashion, and there is very little focus on Native Americans in any meaningful way. I'm guessing, at that, but I'd be stunned if my guess was not accurate.
Alternatively, it's possible they supported his attacks on the Iroquois as a strategic move against a force allied with the British.
I would imagine the majority of people don't really understand much about what he was trying to achieve, or judge it accordingly.
I'm not sure why you'd single out 'White Americans' in this particular case, incidentally. Do you believe Black Americans have some particular common understanding of these incidents, or a view about Washington's interactions with Native Americans?

School systems are very poor at teaching history. That's not limited to America. And there are clear cultural bias' at play in terms of what is taught.
I daresay current events might mean that things like the Tulsa race riots are more commonly covered in American History, which is good. But I doubt it will generally be well taught, and I doubt it will have much impact on how Native American history is taught. Or not taught, as the case may be.

​

Why do you consider Washington worthy of praise? Is it because you were raised in the American school system, which is infamous for its uncritical hero worship of "The Founding Fathers"?

No. I'm not American. My interest in American history is more recent. Who the heck knows how I arrived at it, but I've always read a lot of history.
Best guess, it went something like Proudhon and Voltaire when I was young, then the French Revolution, particularly Gilbert du Motier as I grew a little older.
But spend enough time studying the French Revolution and it kinda leads to the American War of Independence.

Besides which I've always been interested in Native American history, so...meh...ultimately these things crossover.

I would suggest it's more than a touch uncharitable to assume anyone who sees Washington as worthy of praise does so because of the influence of uncritical indoctrination.

 

[Revoltingest]

We judge people by modern moral standards all the time. Franklin was mostly known as a philanderer and obnoxious political journalist in equal measure, the uncritical veneration he is receiving these days is a product of multiple generations of uncritical hero worship, and is largely detached from the opinions of contemporaries towards his deeds.

You're selling Franklin short.
Uncritical veneration is indeed bad, as you say....but so is uninformed
demonization. In his day, Franklin was also a celebrated scientist, which
is lost on most today. He also had a critical role in our winning the revolution.
His politicking got us the essential French support.
FYI....
Benjamin Franklin - Wikipedia

 

[Tambourine]

I have no idea what any of that has to do with me. As I mentioned in my last post, I have biographies of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky on my bookshelf, along with a lot of other figures many white Americans might view with revulsion.

I don't understand what you are trying to tell me here. I read parts of Mein Kampf, but that does not mean I ever had a shred of sympathy, or even empathy, for Adolf Hitler, or have ever not considered him a vile human being.

End of the day, I get to make up my own mind about them. I don't have a high opinion of Stalin. This has nothing to do with BLM.

But your low opinion of Stalin seems entirely informed by the atrocities he committed, am I right? So why is it easy for you to ignore slavery, but not the crimes of Stalin? Why are we measuring by two different scales, here?

And 'monuments to slavery' is a pretty loaded term, given the way you're pointing it about.

You are right, I should have called them 'monuments to slavers' instead.

Of course 'we' do. But not consistently, and with a complete lack of nuance.

I would say dismissing racist slavery as a simple personal character flaw, as you have done previously, betrays a rather glaring lack of nuance.

​

Meh, I'm not trying to die on Benjamin Franklin hill (so to say). He's not a figure I'm well enough read on to argue the toss, to be honest. I would still suggest any statues to him are for positive contributions to his country, and I suspect you're painting a fairly one-sided view of him here...which is somewhat ironic.

My point is that the veneration he receives these days in the US is not based on views that were prevalent while he was still alive, but is the result of our modern views of him, as the product of a modern culture of reverence that arose long after he was dead.

That's not quite how I would see it. I think it's only natural to try and judge the long term impacts of their contributions. We see not just what was seen in the moment, but some level of long term impact. And we suffer from the channeling of information through ever narrowing channels, depending on how well documented a situation is.
But I do agree that we cannot help but judge historical figures using a perspective not available to contemporaries.

And for this reason, I feel no compunction judging dead people by my modern standards. Note, that does not mean I am unable to suspend judgement where I feel it unnecessary to engage in it. But in such case, I find it important to suspend judgement for both "the good" and "the bad".

​

Which is why Caesar ensured he had at least a nominal casus belli for his initial actions. But you're not really claiming here that the Senate thought Caesar's war against the Gauls was injust, are you? Or that they were horrified by the slaughter?

They were concerned with the loyalties of their army, and with Caesar's political ambition. Nothing more.

The Roman Senate did indeed see his war as unjust - after all, only the Senate itself could determine whether a casus belli was in existence or not. Caesar was a provincial governor, and his opponents argued that he simply did not have the authority, legal or moral, to unilaterally declare a just war, and at the time, he did not seek permission from the Senate, he merely informed them of his decisions after the fact (a major snub to the political establishment).

More importantly, after Pompey had deserted Caesar, his political opponents controlled the Senate and most of the important offices in Rome. If he had relinquished control over his legions at the Rubicon, there was a very real chance that he would have been put on trial for his illegal war of conquest, and possibly a few charges of corruption (Roman provincial administrations were frequently corrupt to the bone, so corruption charges were a fairly widespread measure to target a political opponent who had just reaped the considerable rewards of a provincial office).

Not only that, though.

Not only that, but also inescapably so. I will never be able to judge the history of other countries and cultures as a native would, because I am fundamentally incapable of adopting such a point of view completely. In my opinion, this is not a bad thing, however. We can still learn from one another even if our points of view differ or even conflict.

​

How do you judge things a 'crime' though?

Call it "atrocity" then. Or "brutal oppression". I wasn't making a legal argument here.

​

That becomes more problematic when dealing with older histories. There simply isn't large sets of primary source accounts, and there wasn't the same level of accuracy or rigour to those that did exist.

And even when there are a lot of accounts, it's a non trivial exercise to get ahold of them, let alone be able to read or understand them. Not to mention that I think we should assume most of these accounts to be biased, often in ways that are not obvious to us.

Again, the point I am suggesting is that a person can only EVER be a progressive in the time to which they are born.

I agree with you that what is considered politically and culturally normal is dependent on historical and cultural context, but I do not hold the presumption of the Whig History dogma that history is a march of progress and enlightenment. I would consider it a problem if we viewed history only along an axis of presumed "progress", when the realities are always so much more complex and difficult to put into neat categories.

That said, given his known views on labor relations and political activism, I contend that even in this day and age, MLK would be seen as a political radical.

Washington was progressive for his times. He wasn't perfect by any means, but applying 2020 sensibilities becomes ridiculous. A person today holding another person in slavery would be amongst the very lowest of people to walk the earth. Applying that level of judgement to historical figures would have Washington 'less' than the vast majority of drug-addicts peddling their wares on street corners. I find that inaccurate at best.

He was still a slaveholder, an army officer and a murderer of native populations. And to be honest I find your characterization of "drug addicts" (assuming we are talking about real people instead of stereotypes with no connection to the lived reality for either of us) callous and unnecessarily moralizing.

These "addicts" did not force people to do menial work for them without pay, and they did not rape women who would have no way out of that situation, which are activities that were either known or at least highly plausible for Washington to have engaged in (as opposed to, say, Jefferson, who we know for a fact was a rapist).

Multiple reasons, I would imagine. In the main, I would suppose American history is taught in a very poor fashion, and there is very little focus on Native Americans in any meaningful way. I'm guessing, at that, but I'd be stunned if my guess was not accurate.
Alternatively, it's possible they supported his attacks on the Iroquois as a strategic move against a force allied with the British.
I would imagine the majority of people don't really understand much about what he was trying to achieve, or judge it accordingly.
I'm not sure why you'd single out 'White Americans' in this particular case, incidentally. Do you believe Black Americans have some particular common understanding of these incidents, or a view about Washington's interactions with Native Americans?

I singled out White Americans because I imagine that Native Americans, who are generally seen as nonwhite and thus liable to be the target of discrimination and oppression in the US, would tend to have a very different take than uncritical praise for a guy whose military career was founded on brutalizing the native population of the Ohio valley..

School systems are very poor at teaching history. That's not limited to America. And there are clear cultural bias' at play in terms of what is taught.
I daresay current events might mean that things like the Tulsa race riots are more commonly covered in American History, which is good. But I doubt it will generally be well taught, and I doubt it will have much impact on how Native American history is taught. Or not taught, as the case may be.

I have my own thoughts on the subject that I may expound on in the other thread. I'll put a pin on it.

​

No. I'm not American. My interest in American history is more recent. Who the heck knows how I arrived at it, but I've always read a lot of history.
Best guess, it went something like Proudhon and Voltaire when I was young, then the French Revolution, particularly Gilbert du Motier as I grew a little older.
But spend enough time studying the French Revolution and it kinda leads to the American War of Independence.

It is interesting that you mention Robespierre, whom Whig History has not at all been kindly to, despite heading one of the most democratic administration of his time.

Perhaps we are more willing to forgive historical figures for their massacres if the victims happen to not be European or White American?

Besides which I've always been interested in Native American history, so...meh...ultimately these things crossover.

Have you studied American history from a Native American perspective?

I would suggest it's more than a touch uncharitable to assume anyone who sees Washington as worthy of praise does so because of the influence of uncritical indoctrination.

It does not have to be a direct influence. The overwhelming majority of White Americans would have gone through that kind of indoctrination, and are therefore a product of an educational culture that prices the imparting of Americana and the uncritical worship of the "Founding Fathers". Once such notions have become part of the cultural fabric of an educational system, it can become an act of heresy to break from them.

A large part of my academic history education after school consisted of studying the Nazi regime, so I tend to be very unwilling to believe in history as a march of progress.

 

[idea]

I didn't know about the mausoleum, but I did know about Mao. Maybe not the best example.

It is the strangest thing - people line up every day, under high security, to see his dead body. He is worshiped. I asked several bystanders about it, and they were all adamant supporters of Mao - told me he was a great leader of China. The flags and banners waving around - those monuments are not preserving accurate history, they are propagating false propaganda.

The internet in China - that was an eye-opener too. No fb. No wikipedia (at least a different version). Completely different news stories - some story about how American beef had poisoned a bunch of people, and Americans were sending over chemically tainted products. Chatting with locals, "what do you think of America?' - reply was "too powerful, too controlling, dishonest". Haha - the same stuff you read about china here, they read about Americans there.

Long story - how information is presented, and preserved is important. I view toppling confederate statues in the same light as toppling the Berlin wall, or toppling Lenin. We will never know the full history of anything, but we can shape the present and future by what we decide to preserve.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is the strangest thing - people line up every day, under high security, to see his dead body. He is worshiped. I asked several bystanders about it, and they were all adamant supporters of Mao - told me he was a great leader of China. The flags and banners waving around - those monuments are not preserving accurate history, they are propagating false propaganda.

The internet in China - that was an eye-opener too. No fb. No wikipedia (at least a different version). Completely different news stories - some story about how American beef had poisoned a bunch of people, and Americans were sending over chemically tainted products. Chatting with locals, "what do you think of America?' - reply was "too powerful, too controlling, dishonest". Haha - the same stuff you read about china here, they read about Americans there.

Long story - how information is presented, and preserved is important. I view toppling confederate statues in the same light as toppling the Berlin wall, or toppling Lenin. We will never know the full history of anything, but we can shape the present and future by what we decide to preserve.

Double plus good duckspeakers those Zhongguo ren are.

 

[Thief]

Well even if it isn't such it is still a confirming factor for many probably - that such people should still be as honoured as they were when the statue was made - when times have changed and we should acknowledge this. I don't think it helps to have such anomalies hanging around, unless one wants a return to the past or a justification for certain views.

statues are a silent manner....remember me

discussion will follow

the lack of visual will cause us to forget

we should not forget

 

[Mock Turtle]

statues are a silent manner....remember me

discussion will follow

the lack of visual will cause us to forget

we should not forget

Lack of visual - like not being in a museum - or all the textual material suddenly vanishing too? I think there is more of a problem with such statues still apparently being honoured by being in public places than them not being so.