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

[Revoltingest]

Dahmer was killer. He was also a healer.
Jackson was a killer. He was also strong-arm preserved the Union.
Or, rather, lets use Ted Bundy as an example. Bundy was a heinous killer. Bundy also willingly cooperated with the feds and advanced criminal profiling way far above and beyond what the best shrinks and investors ever wpuld have been able to do on their own without that serial killer insight, and Bundy's profiles did lead to arrests (and thus saved lives).

You young'ns....no sense of history, its preservation, or wanting it to live in our minds.
Dahmer, Bundy, Jackson....all are just peas in a pod.
We must agree to disagree about updating historic displays vs erasing them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You young'ns....no sense of history, its preservation, or wanting it to live in our minds.
Dahmer, Bundy, Jackson....all are just peas in a pod.
We must agree to disagree about updating historic displays vs erasing them.

Jackson is the closest thing America has had to Hitler, and with good fortune will remain the closest it gets. Why does he deserve a statue?

 

[Revoltingest]

Jackson is the closest thing America has had to Hitler, and with good fortune will remain the closest it gets. Why does he deserve a statue?

It is precisely because he did such awful things that he deserves
his statue....with my artistic & interpretive improvements.
Check post #24.

You want to avert your eyes to him & his deeds.
I want to make you look at them, & fume in anger.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You want to avert your eyes to him & his deeds.
I want to make you look at them, & fume in anger.

Id rather just leave the past in the past, remembered in its proper place. After all, the affairs of most Saxon kings are utterly without concern or regard to modern England, no matter how dire or devious the kings. And some we dont even really have a last name for, such as Alfred the Great and his children Edward the Elder and the Lady Aethylfled of Mercia. We barely even know the names of the Danish invaders throughout the Briton Isles. But we know Danelaw happened throughout.
Jackson will be remembered without a statue. Just as we remember the viking raiders throughout Europe without any statues commemorating it (and they weren't needed to discover the Vikings were here before Columbus)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Another take on it. I have long had a fascination with Vlad Dracul III. His story is so heavily intertwined with the Ottoman Empire that learning about Vlad had me also learning much about his bitter enemies. Like how Ottoman Turks wasnt exactly accurate, as asides from their empite encompassing many, even many Sultans may have had Greek mothers. Ive also leanred a deal about Mehmed the Conqueror, and his rivalry with Vlad. I often think of Mehmed wishing Vlad could see the Hagia Sophia as he claimed the church for Islam and comverted it into a mosque (Ive also learned some about the Ottoman empire expansion and the fall of Constantinople - its one of the events that may have ushered in the Renaissance as it caused a mass migration of information from present day Instanbul to Italy).
Ive seen one reproduction of a copy of a portrait of Vlad, there is very little over all that does bear his image, and yet his history is very alive.

 

[Revoltingest]

Id rather just leave the past in the past, remembered in its proper place. After all, the affairs of most Saxon kings are utterly without concern or regard to modern England, no matter how dire or devious the kings. And some we dont even really have a last name for, such as Alfred the Great and his children Edward the Elder and the Lady Aethylfled of Mercia. We barely even know the names of the Danish invaders throughout the Briton Isles. But we know Danelaw happened throughout.
Jackson will be remembered without a statue. Just as we remember the viking raiders throughout Europe without any statues commemorating it (and they weren't needed to discover the Vikings were here before Columbus)

The Vikings have a TV show.
Viewership is low.

 

[Tambourine]

It is precisely because he did such awful things that he deserves
his statue....with my artistic & interpretive improvements.
Check post #24.

You want to avert your eyes to him & his deeds.
I want to make you look at them, & fume in anger.

Would you be happy if Germany erected new monuments to Adolf Hitler?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Vikings have a TV show.
Viewership is low.

Yeah. Theres some problems with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Would you be happy if Germany erected new monuments to Adolf Hitler?

Ugh....more such questions....
Are you not aware that we're dealing with existing
statues with long histories, & not trying to find
malefactors to honor with new ones?
See post #24.
If my strategy of using the statues isn't yet clear,
then nothing I could say will clarify things further.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Just my 2 cents. Your turn.

Your 2 cents is worth more than anything I could add...

 

[Sunstone]

How do you decide who is a jerk and who is not a jerk, who should be honored and who should not be honored?

This is not rocket science, my friends. Put the issue on the ballot. Let the community decide who they want their kids looking up to. As I recall, something similar is already done in Denver. Five years after a statue is erected, it is put to public vote whether it should remain standing. Something along those lines could be done from time to time in any community with statues.

"Should the statue of Columbus in Squirrel's Crossing Square remain for another 20 years?"

"Should a statue to Clarence Darrow be erected at the corner of Spittle and Sniffles?"

What's wrong with leaving the decision of who to honor up to the people? Surely no one will argue that the decision is better made by a board of political appointees, hacks, and campaign donators?

 

[Mock Turtle]

There are no laws requiring that statues honor people.
Nor do any ban the teaching of history.

As I proposed in another thread....
Removing the statue doesn't fix anything. Nay, it silences
history. We are not the Taliban. This is a wonderful opportunity
to illuminate Jackson's fanatically brutal record.
I propose an artistic solution, one which contrasts the honor
with shame....

1) The statue remains.
2) Encircle it with other smaller statues in the same style.
Each subject looks up at the larger Jackson on his horse.
- Slaves grimace in agony with backs flayed open
as a Jackson applies lash after lash to each.
- Indians stagger & collapse on the Trail Of Tears, with
a Jackson threatening each by either gun or bludgeon.
3) Interpretive info about Jackson's life & record in
government....warts & all.

Imagine the unsuspecting tourist approaching the statue.
From a distance, they spy a valiant warrior astride his trusty
steed. Oh, the shining nobility, bravery, & honor!
But drawing closer, small figures come into view. The tourist
is confronted with horrors....maiming, cruelty, death, degradation.
And then there's a plaque to explain things.
How could anyone not read it, eh.

The problem with keeping controversial statues in situ is that one is often thereby refuelling the attitudes that might have been around when the statues were first erected (and why they were so honoured) - they are a focal point for certain attitudes perhaps, and one can't say they still don't exist since apparently they do. It's not about that they were good or bad but that they continue to influence in subtle ways - people seeing so-and-so as being honoured and perhaps reinforcing their own particular views, perhaps about racial superiority, for example.

 

[Yerda]

If I had one, I'd hang Mardi Gras beads around'm.
But "defense" is the wrong word. I see opportunity to
use them to enlighten & to express outrage at them.

History research & classes....that's it....make the knowledge
inaccessible to all but the few bookworms who seek it out.
Suck the life out of history that would.

Have you completely missed my proposals about how to
use the statues to illuminate the history behind them, &
the evils they hath wrought? See post #24.

We are not the Taliban!

I haven't seen your posts. I'll read them just now.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Just a pm away.

I have no idea what this means.

 

[Yerda]

There are no laws requiring that statues honor people.
Nor do any ban the teaching of history.

As I proposed in another thread....
Removing the statue doesn't fix anything. Nay, it silences
history. We are not the Taliban. This is a wonderful opportunity
to illuminate Jackson's fanatically brutal record.
I propose an artistic solution, one which contrasts the honor
with shame....

1) The statue remains.
2) Encircle it with other smaller statues in the same style.
Each subject looks up at the larger Jackson on his horse.
- Slaves grimace in agony with backs flayed open
as a Jackson applies lash after lash to each.
- Indians stagger & collapse on the Trail Of Tears, with
a Jackson threatening each by either gun or bludgeon.
3) Interpretive info about Jackson's life & record in
government....warts & all.

Imagine the unsuspecting tourist approaching the statue.
From a distance, they spy a valiant warrior astride his trusty
steed. Oh, the shining nobility, bravery, & honor!
But drawing closer, small figures come into view. The tourist
is confronted with horrors....maiming, cruelty, death, degradation.
And then there's a plaque to explain things.
How could anyone not read it, eh.

Where space allows this kind of thing could make a striking piece of public art. I'd be all for it.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem with keeping controversial statues in situ is that one is often thereby refuelling the attitudes that might have been around when the statues were first erected (and why they were so honoured) - they are a focal point for certain attitudes perhaps, and one can't say they still don't exist since apparently they do. It's not about that they were good or bad but that they continue to influence in subtle ways - people seeing so-and-so as being honoured and perhaps reinforcing their own particular views, perhaps about racial superiority, for example.

See post #24.
It'll be a focal point all right....for new attitudes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Where space allows this kind of thing could make a striking piece of public art. I'd be all for it.

Since it requires space & money, lesser statues would just get a plaque.

 

[Mock Turtle]

See post #24.
It'll be a focal point all right....for new attitudes.

Could work - as opposed to continuous protection from unwanted paint jobs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Could work - as opposed to continuous protection from unwanted paint jobs.

I don't get why there's so much resistance to converting
statues of honor into statues of shame &/or education.
People just seem bent on erasing that which offends.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

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.

I think I may have to disagree somewhat, I don't presently see how the cause and effect there are not directly related. Do I agree with removing the statues? I would hope that such actions would occur through the vote rather than force, through the will of the people in that form. And I don't like the jerks as much as anyone on the left who lauds social freedom. But to feed unrestrained anger, and to act on unchecked emotion, is to feed a backstabbing demon. And that entity is the one who gets the power, where power is not established in careful increments. And that is where I would find it distasteful, for example, to see the tearing down of statues on the union side (though I'm aware that you may not be indicating those statues, judging by your op), They may have been imperfect people, but they surely represent the increments required of a solid foundation

. 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.

A question: when do statues eventually transform into mere art? If they are allowed to become art, does that serve the richness of all human history - for then, the object is thus cleansed of all political tarnish but allowed to artistically remain? Or is that somehow impossible, for to some, art might always signal an homage to something. If subjectivity were to shed its idiosyncratic light on all things, offense could be taken at any erected human expression of any kind. I don't necessarily see a thick line between a statue and painting, or the former and a book or building. Nor is that line shown to be so sturdy, between the representation of an idea and an object of mere art

Many of the confederacy themed statues were put up decades after the civil war, mostly to symbolically thumb their noses at the "northern aggressors."

In that case they are indeed reprehensible, but then I suppose one wonders if the civil war was really won, or if it was more like a draw? Judging by events of the previous century, harmful ideology never was fully put down. However, I can't recommend war or separation. As I state here and in other threads, I think the left should continue it's journey in peaceful increments, only that path is politically stable. Technology and other general life enhancing progress has always been in the left's pocket, and these things will eventually mollify the possibility of conflict if they are allowed to