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

[halbhh]

So many statues depict the subject as a hero that is saving the situation. A savior.

But *all* of these larger than life statues, the ones that try to elevate the heroic or such side of someone, even a good leader like Lincoln, they disassociate us from the subject's humanity, even if the statue is meant to be indirectly about their fortitude or determination even.

But what we need to see is the real humanity of the person.

A real human being, just like you or me -- full of character, flaws and strengths, fully as human as any of us -- and thus ultimately a far greater example and inspiration than the idealized thing we often see.

Show me a life-sized flawed person on our level (literally on the ground!) who still manages to do well -- now that would actually be a real inspiring statue.

Most statues in question are not even slightly like this. Tear them all down is my preference, for our sakes.

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.




_______________________________

 

[exchemist]

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



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



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

I don't think these statues are generally very good art. Their original object is to commemorate someone or something, rather than necessarily to produce great art. But once the emotional involvement with the history has dissipated, they are a way of keeping that history in the public consciousness, for centuries to come. My argument is not to keep them as works of art, but as a physical reminders of history. Awareness of history is an important thing, it seems to me.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

I don't think these statues are generally very good art. Their original object is to commemorate someone or something, rather than necessarily to produce great art. But once the emotional involvement with the history has dissipated, they are a way of keeping that history in the public consciousness, for centuries to come. My argument is not to keep them as works of art, but as a physical reminders of history. Awareness of history is an important thing, it seems to me.

Agreed, but perhaps where they become art, is where the emotional or political connection fades. But art still emanates history, though perhaps in a purer way

 

[exchemist]

Agreed, but perhaps where they become art, is where the emotional or political connection fades. But art still emanates history, though perhaps in a purer way

By coincidence, my 17 yr old son is making a presentation on that very point, as part of his International Baccalaureate, tomorrow!