Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by KnightBrolaire, Aug 26, 2017.
woah when did the conspiracy theory page get combined with this one
Nitpicking, perhaps, but is it really "defacement" when the government that erected it takes it down, rather than when it's destroyed or vandalized by private citizens?
The irony of all of this, of course, is that the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" white nationalist rally ended up being a turning point where governments started deciding in droves that the time had come to take these down, based on the sorts of people who were supporting keeping them up.
no, if the government is taking it down it's not defacement. They're just removing the statues. I'm more bothered by how this shit has spread to relatively innocuous monuments like the christopher columbus one.
Defacing statues and monuments is older than the USA. In the old days, if a kid wanted to fit in with a new group, he might deface a statue with the group's name or logo or whatever in order to look "cool."
Regarding Confederate statues: come on, we all know what this is about. This is the hill that people are choosing to die on. It is pretty stupid. None of the out-of-towners give two shits about the statue of Colonel So-and-so in Deepdeepsouthsmalltown, Mississippi. But if Deepdeepsouthsmalltown's town council votes to remove the statue, we all know that a swatch of Neo-nazis and KKK might show up from everywhere that is NOT that town, and protest the removal. If any of the locals point call the police over the ensuing violence, these groups will cry that their First Amendment rights were violated since they were not allowed to be disorderly in public and have fistfights in the street.
If you want an example of an innocuous monument, maybe Columbus isn't the greatest example.
I too get sick of how this comic dominates my facebook feed on Columbus Day, but, well, it's not wrong.
yeah I've read about columbus. The problem with demonizing him is that most of human history is bathed in blood, and while some of the things he did are revolting, attacks on his monument and others could start reaching absurd levels very quickly imo. Like I said at the beginning of the thread, I can't wait til people start defacing Mt. vernon or other historical sites like the pyramids because they're vestiges of racism/slavery. I could care less about columbus day or the actual monument. I care more about how this could easily get out of hand and people should calm down, read up on the history of these characters, denounce them on the internet, and just quit defacing stuff. Defacing monuments is not conducive towards getting people to listen to their point of view, it's the equivalent of a kid throwing a tantrum imo.
How about no more statues of people period? Or no more statues period? I could live with either.
1) Again, there's a huge difference between defacing something, and taking it down.
2) A lot of pretty awful stuff has been done in the history of human civilization. Very little of that can be undone. I think what matters, then, is how we face up to that and how we grapple with that history. "What's done is done, leave the monuments up" is certainly ONE solution, but I think another totally valid one is deciding, collectively, what we choose to commemorate from our history, versus what we choose to acknowledge but not actually honor. Where that line should be drawn (no change at all, take down some monuments, take down everything that is even remotely offensive to today's standard of ethics) is the subject of some debate and likely will be for a long time to come. And, honestly, I think that's a healthy thing, and is part of the process of grappling with our past. I think the case with Confederate monuments is pretty clearcut - at the end of the day, they're monuments to generals and soldiers who fought against our country. Columbus seems reasonably clearcut, as well, in that if you weight the good he did (mostly take credit for the achievements of others) with the harm he did (essentially genocide) it's not a very balanced equation. Washington, to me, seems more defensible - he was a slave-owner, but also a leading general in the Revolutionary War, our first president, and one of the founding fathers of this country.
I mean, when push comes to shove, humans are remarkably good at making distinctions between things. Saying we need to honor traitors because Washington might one day be the next guy we want to take statues of down kind of flies in the face of that.
Sometimes. .... Sometimes humans are remarkably terrible at choosing the option that makes the least amount of "WTF"s:
For example, a large amount of people in 1930's Germany devoting their lives to Hitler because, well, he shouted angry things and had a cool Charlie-Chaplain Mustache. Thanks, Hitler-followers - now Charlie-Chaplain mustaches will forever be Hitler mustaches instead - nice going.
Ok fine I'll clarify what I mean by defacement. I mean the shitbags that take it upon themselves to go and break/spray paint statues/memorial because they feel that it's in any way conducive to making me listen to their argument of "HURR DURR DIS IS RACIST". I'm not from the south, I don't really care if the city wants to remove the statues themselves and if the citizens voted on it, but people destroying property isn't going to engender me to their cause against some inanimate objects/fighting racism when there's more pressing issues like the alarming number of homeless veterans/suicidal veterans/the failure of the american education system compared to the rest of the world/etc. I've dealt with racism plenty in my lifetime and it's just like bullying, it won't magically fucking disappear because some people say "let's fight racism/bullying". I think the statues should be left up like Auschwitz was after WWII, as a reminder of the painful horrible war and the horrible things that happened before and after the war. It should be a springboard for discussion and a way to teach kids about their ancestor's history that is somewhat free of family/personal biases. You keep bringing up Lee like he isn't someone to admire, when I've said multiple times, he was a war hero against Mexico, he freed his father in law's slaves in 1862, and he was a masterful tactician. I can overlook his duty to his state and its defense of slavery since he himself DID not support slavery, and actively fought for slaves to be freed upon serving with the CSA.
I'm merely going off of the logic that the people spray painting these monuments are going off and it's really only a matter of time before they start justifying their defacement of other monuments with "hur durr washington owned slaves, mt.vernon is a vestige of racism/slavery and needs to be torn down". It seems like an easy progression imo.
I reject that idea merely due to the fact that even if I don't agree with the symbolism of a statue, I can appreciate the artistry necessary. I wouldn't want stuff like Michaelangelo, Bernini or Rodin's work removed because there's religious symbolism, just like I don't want the CSA statues removed because they're a vestige of racism/the Lost Cause.
I'm not saying that applies to all the confederate statues, just that I don't think that removing statues is the best approach. Some of the statues deserve to stand merely on artistic merit imo like these:
Actually in the book After the Fall by Giles Macdonough he states that hitler never had higher than a 39-40% approval rating (and that was when he was initially elected). After he seized power his approval rating dropped quite a bit iirc. People tend to forget that charlie chaplin was en vogue then, anti-semitism was en vogue worldwide too. Hitler got to where he was by saying all the right things at the right time, while also manipulating a clause in the german constitution which allowed him to become a dictator by declaring a state of emergency/granting himself emergency powers.
The difference is that they didn't build Auschwitz as a reaction to Jews fighting for civil rights a century after WWII
true, but that doesn't mean the statues can't stand as a reminder of the civil war/what it really entailed. Perception/public opinion changes over time. It seems a lot more cost effective to just slap another plaque at the base of these statues describing exactly why they left it standing than paying for demolition/removal of all the statues. Plus as I said in one of my previous posts, some of them actually have artistic merit imo.
So then why did we need to remove the statues of Saddam after the Iraq invasion?!
Yeah, the point you're missing is that these statues and monuments are intended to glorify the people being commemorated with the statue. Comparing it to Auschwitz is a perfect way to draw that distinction, actually - it was left standing as a monument to the dead, and as a stark reminder of the horror of what Germany had done under the Nazi party. I don't think I've ever seen anyone advocating "We should fly the Confererate flag as a memorial to everyone who lost their lives under slavery, so we can never forget the horror that was done in this country." Rather, it's the "south will rise again" types and neo-Nazis who fly it.
You're coming at this question from the wrong angle, I think. "If we take down this statue, then why not Washington next?" And, broken record ehre, but the alt-right has been making a very conscious effort to paint this as a slippery slope question.
I think the better question is, "does it EVER make sense to take down a statue, or should statues that were raised as monuments always be left in place, regardless of the feelings of later generations?" And I think the pretty clear answer is, yes, some statues should come down. Germany has removed all of its Nazi-era statues because of what they stood for. Fascist-era statues in Italy were taken down after the war. Here, we lost no time in tearing down statues of George III after declaring independence, and I don't see anyone complaining about our "lost history" or how we've forgotten about ever being under British rule.
And, if you determine that it DOES make sense to take statues down in at least some cases, then while determining where exactly the line should be drawn may take some work, but I think it's not too hard to argue that it's appropriate to remove statues from public display that were raised to commemorate traitors to the Union. Which, whatever else Robert E. Lee may have been, he was a traitor fighting in open rebellion to the USA. I don't think it's appropriate for the government of this country to commemorate a man who tried to rip it apart to preserve the "peculiar institution" of slavery, and I understand where the descendents of former slaves would have a strong interest in seeing them come down.
That said, any private citizen spraypainting or destroying a statue that the state or local government hasn't approved for removal absolutely should be charged with vandalism - part of civil disobedience is not being afraid to stand and face the music for your actions, and it IS still against the law. No arguments there. I just think that the government needs to step up and take them down.
Following that statement, Rev. Robert Lee was pressured by his church to resign as pastor there.
What did he say that misrepresent's the teachings of Jesus? Was it his mention of BLM that caused his forced resignation, or is it just deep seated hatred within the church that conflicted doctrine with his statement?
Oh look at that, people are messing with Thomas Jefferson statues now.
Oh, for fucks sake.
I'm with you all the way. The fact that a person deeply respected like Thomas Jefferson is getting his statue covered in tarp because he's "a monument to slavery" is ridiculous. I said this before on this thread and I'll say it again. All that the radical lefties who want these statues removed are only mimicking ISIS by attempting to remove the "inferior past" from existence because it doesn't fit with their political agenda.
Careful, someone might come in and go on about LITERAL WHITE SUPREMACISTS on and on.