Statues Don't Teach Much History. They More Often Honor Jerks.

[Sunstone]

I'll be upfront about this: To me, the idea that statues have much to do with teaching history is ridiculous.

I cannot imagine anyone who knows much history harboring such a lame idea. As sources of factual information, they most often can be described as "very loosely based on a true story".

From what statue did you learn the effects the transcontinental railroad had on the Californian economy, and what that can teach us about globalization?

Which statue taught you why Kansas changed from a bastion of socialism to the one of the most conservative states in the Union?

Was it a statue that taught you the consequences of Lincoln's assassination on the South?

The primary purpose of statues is never to inform -- the primary purpose is to honor someone, often with the secondary aim of promoting one or another political ideal or ideology. When they teach anything, they usually teach a one-sided, heavily spun version of the truth.

This whole notion that tearing down statues is tantamount to trying to change history would not even make a believable 7th Grade essay. It's laughable. If someone is trying to alter the history books, etc. to make them conform to ideological gospels, then I'm all with those opposed to such shenanigans. But no one smarter than a moron is trying to change history by tearing down statues. Instead, the idea is to change who is being honored, who is being promoted, who is being held up as an example of someone to emulate.

That's quite a different thing than trying to change history. And it is a very legitimate thing to do.

Last, I am all for tearing down statues of jerks. They should not have been honored in the first place. Tear them down just like the Germans tore down Hitler's statues and the Russians tore down (many of) Stalin's.

Just my 2 cents. Your turn.




_______________________________

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I'll be upfront about this: To me, the idea that statues have much to do with teaching history is ridiculous.

I cannot imagine anyone who knows much history harboring such a lame idea. Statues have approximately the same relationship to history as a celebrity movie star has to the characters he or she plays. As sources of factual information, they most often can be described as "loosely based on a true story".

From what statue did you learn the effects the transcontinental railroad had on the Californian economy?

Which statue taught you why Kansas changed from a bastion of socialism to the one of the most conservative states in the Union?

Was it a statue that taught you the consequences of Lincoln's assassination on the South?

The primary purpose of statues is never to inform -- the primary purpose is to honor someone, often with the secondary aim of promoting one or another political ideal or ideology. When they teach anything, they usually teach a one-sided, heavily spun version of the truth.

This whole notion that tearing down statues is tantamount to trying to change history would not even make a believable 7th Grade essay. It's laughable. If someone is trying to alter the history books, etc. to make them conform to ideological gospels, then I'm all with those opposed to such shenanigans. But no one smarter than a moron is trying to change history by tearing down statues. Instead, the idea is to change who is being honored, who is being promoted, who is being held up as an example of someone to emulate.

That's quite a different thing than trying to change history. And it is a very legitimate thing to do.

Last, I am all for tearing down statues of jerks. They should not have been honored in the first place. Tear them down just like the Germans tore down Hitler's statues and the Russians tore down (many of) Stalin's.

Just my 2 cents. Your turn.




_______________________________

Clealry, we must errect statues of serial killers so we dont risk forgetting about the Geins and Bundies and Dahmers. Its too dangerous to forget they exist and are a part of history. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Charles Manson as well all must have statues.

 

[Sunstone]

Clealry, we must errect statues of serial killers so we dont risk forgetting about the Geins and Bundies and Dahmers. Its too dangerous to forget they exist and are a part of history. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Charles Manson as well all must have statues.

It is certainly a good thing that would not backfire by promoting copycat killers! At least we can be certain of that much!

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is certainly a good thing that would not backfire by promoting copycat killers! At least we can be certain of that much!

What do make Jack the Rippers statue look like?

 

[Harel13]

To me, the idea that statues have much to do with teaching history is ridiculous.

There was a thread here a couple of days ago about a suggestion from some Canadian professor, I believe, that statues should have explanatory plaques on them. This surprised me. I haven't been in the US for some years now, but it never occurred to me that there are statues that don't have explanatory plaques on them. In Israel, every monument, every one of the few statues we have, every historical building has a big sign next to it explaining what the thing is.

The primary purpose of statues is never to inform -- the primary purpose is to honor someone, often with the secondary aim of promoting one or another political ideal or ideology. When they teach anything, they usually teach a one-sided, heavily spun version of the truth.

True, I suppose, but wouldn't some monuments evoke some curiosity to later search for more information?

 

[Sunstone]

There was a thread here a couple of days ago about a suggestion from some Canadian professor, I believe, that statues should have explanatory plaques on them. This surprised me. I haven't been in the US for some years now, but it never occurred to me that there are statues that don't have explanatory plaques on them. In Israel, every monument, every one of the few statues we have, every historical building has a big sign next to it explaining what the thing is.

That's quite interesting about Israel. Thanks for sharing that.

True, I suppose, but wouldn't some monuments evoke some curiosity to later search for more information?

I think some people -- a certain kind of person -- would become interested in knowing more about someone because a statue had been erected of them. But don't most people of that bent already read books and articles, watch videos, etc. Far better sources of information than a few words on a plaque -- generally speaking.

If we're going to have statues honoring people, I would prefer them to honor folks like Jonas Salk, Norman Borlaug, Thomas Edison, and Benjamin Franklin than most Confederate traitors (with the possible exception of Robert E. Lee). Pretty much for the same reasons I prefer the Germans honor Goethe than honor Goering.

 

[sun rise]

I would not remove the statue in the Lincoln Memorial. His acts warrant that statue. I would not remove the Statue of Liberty.

There are also statues honoring those who gave their lives in war such as the WWII memorial.

But I would not shed a tear if 98% of current ones disappeared.

 

[Harel13]

I think some people -- a certain kind of person -- would become interested in knowing more about someone because a statue had been erected of them. But don't most people of that bent already read books and articles, watch videos, etc. Far better sources of information than a few words on a plaque -- generally speaking.

I figured you'd say that. To me, it sounds like the problem is lack of curiosity...

If we're going to have statues honoring people, I would prefer them to honor folks like Jonas Salk, Norman Borlaug, Thomas Edison, and Benjamin Franklin than most Confederate traitors (with the possible exception of Robert E. Lee). Pretty much for the same reasons I prefer the Germans honor Goethe than honor Goering.

Yes, true.

 

[Sunstone]

I figured you'd say that. To me, it sounds like the problem is lack of curiosity...

I don't know much about Israel, but the way history is typically taught here at the primary and secondary levels would kill the curiosity of a cat -- nine times over. They need to get away from chronologies and teach themes, in my opinion.

 

[Harel13]

I don't know much about Israel, but the way history is typically taught here at the primary and secondary levels would kill the curiosity of a cat -- nine times over.

Probably not that different from the US, but - we've got our plaques...

teach themes

What do you mean?

 

[oldbadger]

Statues Don't Teach Much History. They More Often Honor Jerks.
Just my 2 cents. Your turn.

Sob........... sniffle......

 

[Sunstone]

Probably not that different from the US, but - we've got our plaques...

What do you mean?

History presented in terms of themes, topics, issues, problems, etc. For example, a section on the history of slavery -- but not as merely the history of American slavery. Rather, slavery as it has existed in different places and different times worldwide. Slavery as a topic, not merely a period.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Thomas Edison

He was a credit thief (he invented very little of what bears his name), capitalist pig, and I will argue till my last breath a detriment to human progress the way he stifled and balked Tesla's ideas, ideas that were very far ahead of his time.

 

[Harel13]

History presented in terms of themes, topics, issues, problems, etc. For example, a section on the history of slavery -- but not as merely the history of American slavery. Rather, slavery as it has existed in different places and different times worldwide. Slavery as a topic, not merely a period.

"Go forth my son, and spread thy light unto the world" (Book of Americaiah, 6:25)

 

[PureX]

These monuments are not meant to teach, but to represent what we already think we know ... no matter how wrong it might be. If we aren't tearing them down, periodically, we aren't learning anything new.

 

[exchemist]

I'll be upfront about this: To me, the idea that statues have much to do with teaching history is ridiculous.

I cannot imagine anyone who knows much history harboring such a lame idea. As sources of factual information, they most often can be described as "very loosely based on a true story".

From what statue did you learn the effects the transcontinental railroad had on the Californian economy, and what that can teach us about globalization?

Which statue taught you why Kansas changed from a bastion of socialism to the one of the most conservative states in the Union?

Was it a statue that taught you the consequences of Lincoln's assassination on the South?

The primary purpose of statues is never to inform -- the primary purpose is to honor someone, often with the secondary aim of promoting one or another political ideal or ideology. When they teach anything, they usually teach a one-sided, heavily spun version of the truth.

This whole notion that tearing down statues is tantamount to trying to change history would not even make a believable 7th Grade essay. It's laughable. If someone is trying to alter the history books, etc. to make them conform to ideological gospels, then I'm all with those opposed to such shenanigans. But no one smarter than a moron is trying to change history by tearing down statues. Instead, the idea is to change who is being honored, who is being promoted, who is being held up as an example of someone to emulate.

That's quite a different thing than trying to change history. And it is a very legitimate thing to do.

Last, I am all for tearing down statues of jerks. They should not have been honored in the first place. Tear them down just like the Germans tore down Hitler's statues and the Russians tore down (many of) Stalin's.

Just my 2 cents. Your turn.




_______________________________

The trouble with that is who decides who is enough of a jerk to be torn down? History shows us that people can be honoured, then reviled and then rehabilitated. Only a moron thinks that his is the last word. And only a moron thinks that most historical figures were either uniquely "good" or "bad".

Also it is not "lame" to think that statues teach history. Many times I have visited a place, seen a statue, wondered who it was and then learnt history from the plaque of explanation. In fact, many of my European tours have consisted in large part in looking at statues, buildings and paintings and learning from them about the history of the area and the country. It's a far more interesting way to learn history than just reading books or going to lectures. It brings it to life.

Admittedly in the USA there is comparatively little history, so the opportunities for this kind of exploration are limited. But every year that history grows. If statues don't survive the first 200 years, they are lost to the people 500 years hence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'll be upfront about this: To me, the idea that statues have much to do with teaching history is ridiculous.

I cannot imagine anyone who knows much history harboring such a lame idea. As sources of factual information, they most often can be described as "very loosely based on a true story".

From what statue did you learn the effects the transcontinental railroad had on the Californian economy, and what that can teach us about globalization?

Which statue taught you why Kansas changed from a bastion of socialism to the one of the most conservative states in the Union?

Was it a statue that taught you the consequences of Lincoln's assassination on the South?

The primary purpose of statues is never to inform -- the primary purpose is to honor someone, often with the secondary aim of promoting one or another political ideal or ideology. When they teach anything, they usually teach a one-sided, heavily spun version of the truth.

This whole notion that tearing down statues is tantamount to trying to change history would not even make a believable 7th Grade essay. It's laughable. If someone is trying to alter the history books, etc. to make them conform to ideological gospels, then I'm all with those opposed to such shenanigans. But no one smarter than a moron is trying to change history by tearing down statues. Instead, the idea is to change who is being honored, who is being promoted, who is being held up as an example of someone to emulate.

That's quite a different thing than trying to change history. And it is a very legitimate thing to do.

Last, I am all for tearing down statues of jerks. They should not have been honored in the first place. Tear them down just like the Germans tore down Hitler's statues and the Russians tore down (many of) Stalin's.

Just my 2 cents. Your turn.




_______________________________

To whom do we give the authority to determine which statues are that of jerks?

We should probably tear down all statues and outlaw them altogether to eliminate any possibility of someone thinking the person depicted was a jerk.

 

[Father Heathen]

"Preserving history" is clearly just a flimsy pretext. We have schools, libraries, museums, etc. that preserve and teach our history. These statues were erected to celebrate and honor specific people, places, events, etc. No one would defend them unless they thought the monuments subject was worthy of honor and celebration. I'm not for outright destroying such statues, but they have no place on government/public ground, where their upkeep is funded by tax dollars. Move them to private land or to museums that will display them in the proper context.

 

[Stevicus]

I'll be upfront about this: To me, the idea that statues have much to do with teaching history is ridiculous.

I cannot imagine anyone who knows much history harboring such a lame idea. As sources of factual information, they most often can be described as "very loosely based on a true story".

From what statue did you learn the effects the transcontinental railroad had on the Californian economy, and what that can teach us about globalization?

Which statue taught you why Kansas changed from a bastion of socialism to the one of the most conservative states in the Union?

Was it a statue that taught you the consequences of Lincoln's assassination on the South?

The primary purpose of statues is never to inform -- the primary purpose is to honor someone, often with the secondary aim of promoting one or another political ideal or ideology. When they teach anything, they usually teach a one-sided, heavily spun version of the truth.

This whole notion that tearing down statues is tantamount to trying to change history would not even make a believable 7th Grade essay. It's laughable. If someone is trying to alter the history books, etc. to make them conform to ideological gospels, then I'm all with those opposed to such shenanigans. But no one smarter than a moron is trying to change history by tearing down statues. Instead, the idea is to change who is being honored, who is being promoted, who is being held up as an example of someone to emulate.

That's quite a different thing than trying to change history. And it is a very legitimate thing to do.

Last, I am all for tearing down statues of jerks. They should not have been honored in the first place. Tear them down just like the Germans tore down Hitler's statues and the Russians tore down (many of) Stalin's.

Just my 2 cents. Your turn.




_______________________________

I think statues might be appropriate in some areas, such as in museums and battlefield parks. Maybe they could prohibit statues anywhere else.

But it's not just statues. It's also names of cities, streets, parks, etc. Or maybe it's brand names or other companies.

How far should we go in order to exorcise the demons of our past? Is it enough to simply remove statues or change names?

What about all the wealth in this country that originated with expansionist policies, slavery, genocide? For example, Manhattan was originally purchased for $24, yet now it holds vast mountains of wealth. Shouldn't all the wealth existing on Manhattan today be seized and redistributed? If one looks at all the wealth and power in this country, it can all be traced back to tainted origins, so none of it is truly legitimate.

Destroying statues is cheaper and lets the wealthy keep their ill-gotten gains.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think all statues should be torn down everywhere, and have Peter Dinklage statues erected in their place.....