Statues

[Left Coast]

Of course.
But you know he didn't do the heinous deeds that followed, right?

You don't think he did anything heinous? Nothing at all?

In many cases, it's not the will of the people (no plebiscite held).
It's often being done by mobs.

Who do you think "mobs" are? Extraterrestrials?

But neither do I always go along with the dubious "will of the people" either.
People....ugh....they've wanted some terrible things at times, eg, voting
down gay marriage.

It's no one's constitutional right to have a statue they like on public land.

"Absurd"....or uncomfortable?

Absurd. I didn't stutter.

In both cases, they seek to remove from view that which offends them.

Literally every society I've ever heard of has done that. So that's a ubiquitous descriptor of humans. How...human of us! Gasp! Hiss! The horror!

And to be specific, no one has said Confederate monuments can't be preserved in museums or on private land. The issue is statues that are on public, taxpayer funded land.

This is because no one brought those to my attention.
Are you presuming to know my views on them without asking?

Heavens no. Do share how disturbed you are by any and all defacing, destruction, or removal of any publically erected monument, ever in all human history.

If that's not your position, then I wait with baited breath for you to explain which are "talibanesque" and which aren't.

"Nonsense equivocation", eh.
I don't think you're using those words according to their definitions.
I've proffered multiple detailed proposals in such threads about
amending the statue displays to illuminate the full history. Clearly,
you disagree with my ideas. What are your objections to them?

Lol. It's neither my job, nor my intention, Rev, to mine your many posts to find your opinions on this or that. I replied to that which I intended to reply. You claimed you hadn't heard a "consistent standard" on statue removal (I presume you mean from someone who's sympathetic). It's now been explained to you, right here.

 

[Eyes to See]

And they can go overboard in the other direction into self-deprivation. Which itself, is a form of self-glorification, masked as a humility.


I think, coming from Jesus, it was not a statement about others as being not good people. It was about himself, whom others adored and tried to elevate him to the heavens. I would not then take that verse to mean we are all bad human beings, fallen, oh woe and misery and darkness and fear follow me all the days of my life. Life is not like that, for most humans. Not all are "bad" at the core. There is good in the world, and I fully believe Jesus intended to show us that.


Not allowing someone to celebrate you as a person, using your birthday as that excuse to show you you're loved and appreciated with a party in your name, is not about saying you're worthy of worship. You're not usurping God's throne by accepting others love and generosity with grace and humility.

Some people don't like all the fuss, and that's fine. But to make it a religious tenet of faith, seem a bit excessive to me. I don't think getting rid of one's birthday parties, will get rid of their egos for them. Nor do I believe celebrating "you" once a year, is going to lead to egomania, where you claim you're the Christ, or something.

I have a feeling Jesus might say, "Lighten up. Here's your balloon. Happy Birthday." I can totally see it.

There is nothing wrong with celebrating special occasions in ones life with people you love. I celebrated my wedding with friends and family. We celebrate our wedding anniversary with friends and family on occasion as well. Not always mind you.


I am not easily offended either. People with good intentions will give me gifts for my birthday or at Christmas and I will accept them and say thank you so as not to offend them. When the time is appropriate I will explain my beliefs to them and most people respect them, as I respect their views.

I don't see the point of making statues of anyone. No human is that special. You, me, or anyone else. I don't mind if they are there, I don't really pay attention. Sometimes I actually like to look at them and study their significance if I am in a foreign city or country and don't know the history behind it.

In any event no one should be boasting or bragging about who they are. I like this scripture:

"For who makes you different from another? Indeed, what do you have that you did not receive? If, in fact, you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not receive it?"-1 Corinthians 4:7.

We all have intelligence, and have talents, God-given talents. When someone gets puffed up with a talent of theirs, whatever it is, as if they were not given it, they not behaving correctly. It is always proper to give the praise where it is due. We all have our talents and what-not because they were given to us by God.

Prince had the proper attitude toward receiving praises and awards:

 

[Revoltingest]

Shirley, it depends which particular deeds one is talking about. Unless you think he did nothing 'bad'?
It's also amazing how many Americans still think 'he discovered America' which is wrong on a few levels, but I doubt either of us are about to defend how history is taught.

We all know he was far from the first.
Not even Erikson was.

And don't call me Surely.

Whoops. Sorry about that, Chief.

You are forgiven.

 

[Revoltingest]

You don't think he did anything heinous? Nothing at all?

Don't you think the major objections to him are the
ultimate conquest of the continent, & stealing nearly
all the native lands? That's what I hear.

Who do you think "mobs" are? Extraterrestrials?

They are not "the people".
A mob is a small fraction.

It's no one's constitutional right to have a statue they like on public land.

I agree.

Absurd. I didn't stutter.

I swear I heard a stutter.

Literally every society I've ever heard of has done that. So that's a ubiquitous descriptor of humans. How...human of us! Gasp! Hiss! The horror!

This doesn't mean that it must be done.
My proposals are better.

And to be specific, no one has said Confederate monuments can't be preserved in museums or on private land. The issue is statues that are on public, taxpayer funded land.

I agree.
But I've been advocating for adding to the statues,
making them more meaningful & honest.

Heavens no. Do share how disturbed you are by any and all defacing, destruction, or removal of any publically erected monument, ever in all human history.

It's not as simple as your query suggests, all depending upon which monument.
Some are more significant than others, eg, shedding light on a long dead
inadequately documented civilization. Destroying such artifacts could cause
the complete loss of info about them. Losing more modern statues is merely
to lose the opportunity to change the message to be more educational.
Removing the statues is to silence history in their location.

If that's not your position, then I wait with baited breath for you to explain which are "talibanesque" and which aren't.

Consider what the Taliban did, ie, destroying statues which offended them.
Those acts which destroy statues are talibanesque.
I thought that was clear.

Lol. It's neither my job, nor my intention, Rev, to mine your many posts to find your opinions on this or that. I replied to that which I intended to reply. You claimed you hadn't heard a "consistent standard" on statue removal (I presume you mean from someone who's sympathetic). It's now been explained to you, right here.

It sense presumption about my opinions without bothering to investigate.
Railing against a straw man that would be.

This proposal might inform....
Protesters attempt to tear down statue of Andrew Jackson in DC

 

[Koldo]

It seems impossible to explain. I've posted so many times in
so many threads, but it's almost never acknowledged.
See post #37.
And see....
Protesters attempt to tear down statue of Andrew Jackson in DC
If you see anything interesting in those posts, let me know.

I don't like or hate statues....any statues.
A stone likeness of some person in the past?
Meh.
I find them rather boring & meaningless.
But they exist.
I propose making them interesting.
Oh, well....what will happen will happen.
I won't miss them.

The problem is that you are wrong from the very start: destroying statues doesn't silence history. That's just an exaggeration on your part. I can't acknowledge a claim that is false.

 

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that you are wrong from the very start: destroying statues doesn't silence history. That's just an exaggeration on your part. I can't acknowledge a claim that is false.

You're wrong. Your side has claimed that history will be known thru books.
Some (the kind who read history books) will know. But ordinary folk won't
be exposed to the statues & criticism of the actions associated with them.
My approach would make the evils known....infamy for all to see.

Whether you destroy them or hide them in storage, you take a message
that was once public, & completely eliminate the opportunity to correct it.
And why? Because many people are offended by it.
Silence isn't the best solution.
Unsavory history shouldn't go to history books to die an obscure death.

 

[Left Coast]

Don't you think the major objections to him are the
ultimate conquest of the continent, & stealing nearly
all the native lands? That's what I hear.

Here's some basics on the delightful guy:

https://www.history.com/news/columbus-day-controversy

They are not "the people".
A mob is a small fraction.

A small fraction, expressing a will much larger than themselves.

This doesn't mean that it must be done.

No, it means your label that anyone who engages it (ie everyone) is "talibanesque" is...drumroll please...absurd! Like I said.

My proposals are better.

I hear you're quite humble, too.

But I've been advocating for adding to the statues,
making them more meaningful & honest.

Why? Why use taxpayer-funded land to keep up a statue commemorating a literally anti-American war criminal? Any education you're seeking to provide can be done in museums, where other relics of history are housed.

It's not as simple as your query suggests, all depending upon which monument.

Oh! So we're agreed, you were incorrect to say that the mere act of tearing down a statue is "Talibanesque." Thank you.

Some are more significant than others, eg, shedding light on a long dead
inadequately documented civilization. Destroying such artifacts could cause
the complete loss of info about them.

True, but not the case with any of the statues in question.

Losing more modern statues is merely
to lose the opportunity to change the message to be more educational.
Removing the statues is to silence history in their location.

Oh baloney. History doesn't have to be taught by maintaining some statue exactly as it now stands for all eternity. Most of the Confederate statues this all started with were 20th century installations anyway (to promote segregation), not from the Civil War era.

Sometimes, society is due for an upgrade. Again, this is a universal societal phenomenon.

Consider what the Taliban did, ie, destroying statues which offended them.
Those acts which destroy statues are talibanesque.
I thought that was clear.

Apparently not, since you literally just conceded above that's not the case and it's "not as simple" as that.

It sense presumption about my opinions without bothering to investigate.
Railing against a straw man that would be.

You may sense whatever you like. I have replied to what you said here. I have explained my own position, here. If I've engaged in a strawman, show me where.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's some basics on the delightful guy:

https://www.history.com/news/columbus-day-controversy



A small fraction, expressing a will much larger than themselves.

What fraction of the controlling populace sides with destruction/removal?
No one polled me on the matter.

No, it means your label that anyone who engages it (ie everyone) is "talibanesque" is...drumroll please...absurd! Like I said.

Absurdity is to believe that destroying offensive statues is nothing like what the Taliban did.

I hear you're quite humble, too.

I've graciously accepted numerous awards for outstanding achievements in humility.
And my accolades for modesty are legendary.

Why? Why use taxpayer-funded land to keep up a statue commemorating a literally anti-American war criminal? Any education you're seeking to provide can be done in museums, where other relics of history are housed.

You ask why.
I ask why not.
We prefer different approaches to making history known.

Oh! So we're agreed, you were incorrect to say that the mere act of tearing down a statue is "Talibanesque." Thank you.

Oh, dear.
Another failure to communicate.

True, but not the case with any of the statues in question.

Nonetheless, I prefer to use the statues to educate.
Not erase them.

Oh baloney. History doesn't have to be....

I never said it had to be.
I gave my preference.
Let's not make that into something more than I claim, eh.

....taught by maintaining some statue exactly as it now stands for all eternity. Most of the Confederate statues this all started with were 20th century installations anyway (to promote segregation), not from the Civil War era.

I prefer to use the statue for the purpose of correcting that former message.

Sometimes, society is due for an upgrade. Again, this is a universal societal phenomenon.

I see your approach as making offensive history less accessible.
I prefer to deal with the offense head on...make the evil known
in the very place where the wrong message had been given.

Apparently not, since you literally just conceded above that's not the case and it's "not as simple" as that.

I sense a failure to communicate again.

You may sense whatever you like. I have replied to what you said here. I have explained my own position, here. If I've engaged in a strawman, show me where.

I think we've beaten this horse enuf now.
Can you find it in you to agree that we have different
preferences in addressing offensive statues?

 

[Left Coast]

What fraction of the controlling populace sides with destruction/removal?
No one polled me on the matter.

Before I go looking up polls I'm sure you're savvy enough to find yourself, what number would you find acceptable? If a majority or plurality of voters approve of removal, will your mind change on protestors' actions?

If not, then what's the point of discussing it? My initial point remains: the government should have peacefully removed these monuments celebrating war criminals long ago. That they havent, has incited anger in a part of the population, and that anger has predictably manifested, as they represent the many ways in which systemic racism persists and is ignored by many.

Absurdity is to believe that destroying offensive statues is nothing like what the Taliban did.

You're committing an oldie but goodie today, Rev. Have you heard the old "Hitler was a vegetarian" trope?

That's what you're doing, with statue smashing and the Taliban.

Nonetheless, I prefer to use the statues to educate.
Not erase them.

They need not be erased. They can be put in a museum.

I never said it had to be.
I gave my preference.
Let's not make that into something more than I claim, eh.

You said, "Removing statues is to silence history." That's more than a preference.

I see your approach as making offensive history less accessible.

Unless you have child pornography adorning the walls of your home, I take it there are times and ways in which you make certain material "less accessible" as well, based on your values. Societies do the same thing.

I prefer to deal with the offense head on...make the evil known
in the very place where the wrong message had been given.

There's nothing magical about the place. The history can be, and is all the time, taught away from the exact physical location of some statue.

I think we've beaten this horse enuf now.
Can you find it in you to agree that we have different
preferences in addressing offensive statues?

I agree that we disagree, that seems pretty obvious.

 

[Windwalker]

Whether you destroy them or hide them in storage, you take a message
that was once public, & completely eliminate the opportunity to correct it.
And why? Because many people are offended by it.
Silence isn't the best solution.

Unsavory history shouldn't go to history books to die an obscure death.

As much as I appreciate the point of view, which I do, it's unfortunately more complex than this. I get what you're saying, that let this stand as a symbol in its own right of us growing up, rather than smashing them to bits and obliterate their meaning. Intellectually, I can agree with this. However.....

This is not a time of intellectual discourse. These things are visceral. They signify change. They require a sacrifice; a destruction of that which society wishes to purge itself of because of its vicious tendrils penetrating everywhere into the system. It's a violent expulsion of the symbols of injustice. Like vomiting. Or the breaking of glass.

It is smashing the idols of a failed system, signaling society ready to transcend them. It is born of the impetus of true, systemic change. It's the breaking off of the shackles of a broken, sick, degenerate system. And it symbolizes at its core, this act of freedom.

And this iconoclasm itself, is that act of writing our history, not the erasing of it. It will alway be set against, that history of injustice, which will be indelibly ours forever.

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree that we disagree, that seems pretty obvious.

There are times where it's best to recognize this, & move on.

 

[columbus]

Before I go looking up polls I'm sure you're savvy enough to find yourself, what number would you find acceptable? If a majority or plurality of voters approve of removal, will your mind change on protestors actions?

Where would one even look for a reliable referendum on any given statue?

Suppose 52% of a community poll against tearing down a particular statue, after its gone. Will BLM pay to fix the damage? Identify and help prosecute the criminals?

Or will you and they just shrug and walk away?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

As much as I appreciate the point of view, which I do, it's unfortunately more complex than this. I get what you're saying, that let this stand as a symbol in its own right of us growing up, rather than smashing them to bits and obliterate their meaning. Intellectually, I can agree with this. However.....

This is not a time of intellectual discourse. These things are visceral. They signify change. They require a sacrifice; a destruction of that which society wishes to purge itself of because of its vicious tendrils penetrating everywhere into the system. It's a violent expulsion of the symbols of injustice. Like vomiting. Or the breaking of glass.

It is smashing the idols of a failed system, signaling society ready to transcend them. It is born of the impetus of true, systemic change. It's the breaking off of the shackles of a broken, sick, degenerate system. And it symbolizes at its core, this act of freedom.

And this iconoclasm itself, is that act of writing our history, not the erasing of it. It will alway be set against, that history of injustice, which will be indelibly ours forever.

Did you think my proposal for Jackson's statue was intellectual ?
Uh oh.
Or perhaps you think I dishonor him too much?

I don't care for the visceral approach.
It's only fleeting satisfaction for the mob.
I prefer that statues & monuments become an improved message for all to see.
.

 

[Left Coast]

Where would one even look for a reliable referendum on any given statue?

Suppose 52% of a community poll against tearing down a particular statue, after its gone. Will BLM pay to fix the damage? Identify and help prosecute the criminals?

Or will you and they just shrug and walk away?
Tom

I haven't personally torn down any statues, Tom. Nor have I advocated that any protestor do so. What I have done is observe the fact that these statues should've been removed by the government long ago as they are literal celebrations of slavery and segregation. That they haven't been, has incited a predictable outcry given the many other things that have come to a head vis a vis systemic racism in this country.

If we never take down another Confederate statue, but we enact the changes to policy that BLM and its allies have been asking for, I'll be happy as a clam.

 

[Windwalker]

Did you think my proposal for Jackson's statue was intellectual ?
Uh oh.

No. I get it. It's like that statue of Lee, with all the graffiti all over it. That is symbolic too to on a visceral level. But that defacing of it is temporary. It's removal is permanent, and it needs to be just that. Permanent.

That's not erasing history. It's erasing revisionist, fake history, which glorifies injustice. The goal is to symbolically destroy the past, and write a new future against the backdrop of a failed, fictional history.

Or perhaps you think I dishonor him too much?

I think maybe it's more like why give those voices too much power anymore by drawing attention to them. What you are suggesting, which I get, is more like simply defacing it with graffiti. That is important too, but not as a permanent installation of art.

That is still married to it, like someone calling themselves "divorced" for the rest of their lives. They need to leave that behind at some point, after they've done their whole "wiping my hands of you" ritual cleansing. Make sense?

You can put a crucifix in a jar of urine as a symbol, but if that is a forever-monument, you miss the whole point. The iconoclasm is to symbolize the failure of the system, not to replace it with a permanent symbol of scorn.

 

[Revoltingest]

No. I get it. It's like that statue of Lee, with all the graffiti all over it. That is symbolic too to on a visceral level. But that defacing of it is temporary. It's removal is permanent, and it needs to be just that. Permanent.

It "needs to be", eh.
I don't think it has any needs.

That's not erasing history. It's erasing revisionist, fake history, which glorifies injustice. The goal is to symbolically destroy the past, and write a new future against the backdrop of a failed, fictional history.

You propose removing the historical backdrop though.
I propose making it meaningful.

I think maybe it's more like why give those voices too much power anymore by drawing attention to them.

I propose drawing attention to wrongs they did.
This gives them infamy, not power.

What you are suggesting, which I get, is more like simply defacing it with graffiti.

Wrongo pongo.
Don't deface the statue.
Add to the display, thereby changing the message..

That is important too, but not as a permanent installation of art.

I propose permanent additions.

That is still married to it, like someone calling themselves "divorced" for the rest of their lives. They need to leave that behind at some point, after they've don't their whole "wiping my hands of you" ritual cleansing. Make sense?

It still smacks of erasing history.
I prefer preservation & informational in-your-face warts-&-all history, not a sanitized version.

 

[Windwalker]

It "needs to be", eh.
I don't think it has any needs.

We do. And that was my point.

You propose removing the historical backdrop though.
I propose making it meaningful.

Why do you say that? I don't see what I am saying removes the historical backdrop. In fact, I'd say it needs to be added to the education system for all citizens to understand, for both good and for bad. Truth is not hiding history, but revealing it as it really is.

I propose drawing attention to wrongs they did.
This gives them infamy, not power.

I think I would rather say, it shows the flaws and the harm in the ways of thinking they embraced. That's the truth. It shows their humanity, but not as "villains" but as examples of what we all can be capable of if we don't listen to the good in our humanity. Shaming others, I personally feel, has very limited value. It actually harms ourselves, more than it does good.

Wrongo pongo.

I love it. It sounds like a game or something to sell to children. "Hasbro's, Wrongo Pongo! Your children will love it!". It's a rather aggressive board game, where they clonk each other with plastic mallets.

Don't deface the statue.
Add to the display, thereby changing the message..

Yes, but to make it permanent, is like calling yourself a divorcee for the rest of your life. You gotta leave that failed relationship behind at some point.

 

[Revoltingest]

We do. And that was my point.

Your "we" includes only those who agree with you.

Why do you say that?

Because you posted......
The goal is to symbolically destroy the past, and write a new future against the backdrop of a failed, fictional history.

I don't see what I am saying removes the historical backdrop.

If the statue is gone, that makes it difficult to use it to inform with a different message.

In fact, I'd say it needs to be added to the education system for all citizens to understand, for both good and for bad. Truth is not hiding history, but revealing it as it really is.

Tell you what.....when you get the education system improved to the
point that the statues no longer need my improvements, we'll talk.

I think I would rather say, it shows the flaws and the harm in the ways of thinking they embraced. That's the truth. It shows their humanity, but not as "villains" but as examples of what we all can be capable of if we don't listen to the good in our humanity. Shaming others, I personally feel, has very limited value. It actually harms ourselves, more than it does good.


I love it. It sounds like a game or something to sell to children. "Hasbro's, Wrongo Pongo! Your children will love it!". It's a rather aggressive board game, where they clonk each other with plastic mallets.


Yes, but to make it permanent, is like calling yourself a divorcee for the rest of your life. You gotta leave that failed relationship behind at some point.

This has become repetitive.
We'll agree to disagree, & leave it at that.

 

[columbus]

I haven't personally torn down any statues, Tom. Nor have I advocated that any protestor do so. What I have done is observe the fact that these statues should've been removed by the government long ago as they are literal celebrations of slavery and segregation. That they haven't been, has incited a predictable outcry given the many other things that have come to a head vis a vis systemic racism in this country.

If we never take down another Confederate statue, but we enact the changes to policy that BLM and its allies have been asking for, I'll be happy as a clam.

None of which has anything to do with what you posted, I quoted, and then I responded to.
I'm not sure that tearing down statues would win referendums as often as you might think that they would. But I'm even more sure that nobody has really held one.
Tom

 

[Koldo]

You're wrong. Your side has claimed that history will be known thru books.
Some (the kind who read history books) will know. But ordinary folk won't
be exposed to the statues & criticism of the actions associated with them.
My approach would make the evils known....infamy for all to see.

What side am I on exactly?
Ordinary folks, at best, learn fragments of history from statues. Most of their knowledge about history comes from school classes and TV.

Whether you destroy them or hide them in storage, you take a message
that was once public, & completely eliminate the opportunity to correct it.
And why? Because many people are offended by it.
Silence isn't the best solution.
Unsavory history shouldn't go to history books to die an obscure death.