Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[JoeMorgue]

Works for me.

Why would we have to celebrate individuals? What does it actually accomplish?

Not the topic.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The elected representatives of the people.

And if they don't, despite public pressure?

Or anyone in it? Ever?

I'm sure we can discuss their achievements, in appropriate contexts, and without ignoring the darker side of those achievements.

I see no particularly compelling reason to erect statues.

Not even close. No connection to a slippery slope at all.

Sure it is. You're going "if you tear down statues of literal slave traders, then you have to tear down statues of everybody who lived at the time of the slave trade".

The one that said that because the elected representatives weren't doing what she wanted, the mob had to do it.

The one that detailed the history of people speaking out against the statue and the ineffectiveness of even a black mayor to even change the wording on the plaque to acknowledge the fact that he enslaved tens of thousands of people, murdering a significant proportion of them as he did so.

To me, the fact that the council had not acted might suggest that the issue was more complex. I doubt that the Bristol town council, or whatever they are called in Bristol, consists of supporters of the slave trade.

It suggests to me that going through official channels was ineffective.

Your fallacy bingo card has some inaccurate entries.

Perhaps you don't see the connection, and perhaps I will elaborate later. The comment you are referring to was a general observation about the topic of this thread. Yes, I do think that opposition to statues of racists is often a form of virtue signaling, a "holier than thou" attitude. That may not apply to a particular person or a particular statue, but when it comes to general demands for public art removal, there's a lot of it.

I know you were speaking generally. It's still a straw man to suggest that anybody, other perhaps than a few people at the extremes, believe themselves to be extraordinarily virtuous because they are against slavery.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The elected representatives of the people

Yeah we tried that. The state of North Carolina literally made it illegal for counties and cities to hold votes on removing Confederate Statues.

Try another excuse.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Okay people.

If we have to have the "Well if we get rid of the statue of Tommy Slave Trader, don't we have to also get ride of the statue of Johnny Slave Owner as well?" discussion we have to have it AFTER we agree to get rid of the statue of Tommy Slave Trader.

Again this is what the Confederate Apologist in the states have been playing for years now. Every time we talk about taking down the statues of the Racist Traitors who fought a war against their own country to keep owning slaves, some dingus runs in wringing his hands to the heavens with some "Well oh Lordy me if we're going to do that shouldn't we get rid the statues of the people of people who just owned slaves? Guess we can't have statues of Washington or Jefferson anymore, such a shame" routine.

And my response is always the same. "That's just swell. We can have that discussion after we agreed to and get ride of the statues of the race war starting traitors."

And that should be the response here as well.

I keep having this problem more and more discussions. People... you all understand that when someone runs into a dicussion doing this: *makes some big dramatic wringing my hands gesture* that they aren't actually suffering from some moral "where do we draw the line" crisis right? They do it, almost always, for the sole purpose of shutting down the discussion we're currently having by pretending like we have to have the one after it now.

This is all very true, but I'm not totally opposed to it in this case, because my position is "yeah. Why not take down the statues of slave owners?" I have zero problem with the idea at all.

In fact, I can't think of a single negative thing about the idea, but I can think of positives.

But you are right that it is just a distraction from the actual discussion going on about the actual events that are currently occurring.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is all very true, but I'm not totally opposed to it in this case, because my position is "yeah. Why not take down the statues of slave owners?" I have zero problem with the idea at all.

And then just the racist, which is basically every white person before like.... 1980 or so. Lincoln would be cartoonishly racist even in the 1960s, he's gone. Hell MLK was a serial adulterer and notorious pool shark, out he goes.

I'm not taking a stance on those issues, but I gonna sit here and demand we talk about them before we talk about what you want to talk about because of *dramatically wrings my hands in front of you*

See what I mean? It's not about the discussion, it's about not having it now while we are still trying to have this one.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

And then just the racist, which is basically every white person before like.... 1980 or so. Lincoln would be cartoonishly racist even in the 1960s, he's gone. Hell MLK was a serial adulterer and notorious pool shark, out he goes.

Yes, this is the slippery slope fallacy I've already pointed out.

I'm not taking a stance on those issues, but I gonna sit here and demand we talk about them before we talk about what you want to talk about because of *dramatically wrings my hands in front of you*

See what I mean? It's not about the discussion, it's about not having it now while we are still trying to have this one.

Yes, I agreed with you.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I reckon there are a lot of Britons who have learned more about the British slave trade since the statue got chucked in the Avon than they did at school.

I actually managed to learn a lot about the slave trade in school as a kid, one of the few things I did learn in there of any value. Of course, it helped that we have a very good maritime museum here that gives you a very honest history of the times.

 

[Darat]

Okay people.

If we have to have the "Well if we get rid of the statue of Tommy Slave Trader, don't we have to also get ride of the statue of Johnny Slave Owner as well?" discussion we have to have it AFTER we agree to get rid of the statue of Tommy Slave Trader.

Again this is what the Confederate Apologist in the states have been playing for years now. Every time we talk about taking down the statues of the Racist Traitors who fought a war against their own country to keep owning slaves, some dingus runs in wringing his hands to the heavens with some "Well oh Lordy me if we're going to do that shouldn't we get rid the statues of the people of people who just owned slaves? Guess we can't have statues of Washington or Jefferson anymore, such a shame" routine.
And my response is always the same. "That's just swell. We can have that discussion after we agreed to and get ride of the statues of the race war starting traitors."

And that should be the response here as well.

I keep having this problem more and more discussions. People... you all understand that when someone runs into a dicussion doing this: *makes some big dramatic wringing my hands gesture* that they aren't actually suffering from some moral "where do we draw the line" crisis right? They do it, almost always, for the sole purpose of shutting down the discussion we're currently having by pretending like we have to have the one after it now.

My response to that would be "if you insist".

I really don’t understand the attachment people have to these statues. We don’t need to have any of them anywhere.

And to me it keeps coming back to the idea that we have to be beholden to something some small minority of people – usually distinctly not “the people” – decided to commemorate a 100 years ago, 200 years ago and so on. (Or in the case apparently of many of the USA “confederate” statues when “they” got all uppity 50 years ago!)

Why on earth do they have the authority to bind the future?

If “we” don’t want it around today then to the scrap yard with it or wherever people have now decided it belongs. You never know in another 100 years “we” may decide to put it on show again.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I really don’t understand the attachment people have to these statues. We don’t need to have any of them anywhere.

You don't have to. You just have to understand that other people do and by going "Well just get rid of all the statues" you are making getting rid of the "bad" ones harder, not easier.

 

[Meadmaker]

And if they don't, despite public pressure?

There is no doubt that a mob with ropes is sometimes more efficient than attempting to achieve the desired ends through conventional legal channels.

I still prefer the latter method.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

To relate this all to the today and more directly to this thread topic....

there are a lot of people out marching and tearing down statues who are patting themselves on the back for opposing slavery and tearing down statues of people associated with slavery. Well, lah-dee-dah. Congratulations, but that's a pretty low bar to set. By all means work to fight modern injustice, and I'll congratulate you for it, but don't get all holier than thou about having mainstream, middle of the road, very easy to hold, values.

I can see why people are behaving in such a way, so I can get their anger and their opposition to people who're associated with, let's say, a dubious past, but I also have reservations about the idea of simply rubbing out the parts of history that we don't appreciate.

It's hard to look into the past of any of our people, or our nations, and not find something we disagree with, so do we tear it all down? You can't walk a mile in most places in the UK without there being someplace, some statue, some building, or street name, or hill, or river, where something terrible didn't take place. People queue up in their droves to visit the Tower of London, a place where many people were gruesomely executed and often unfairly imprisoned, is that okay? I dunno, it is history, it happened.

Liverpool is full of links to the slave trade, but you won't have to look far for a sympathetic version of the events. As I mentioned earlier, the maritime museum here doesn't hold back on the truth, for better or worse, and the wrongs are not denied, they're just accepted as being a part of what took place in a different time we can seldom relate to now.

So for me, I get why people are pulling these statues down, to an extent, but where do you stop? Are we just pulling down statues or monuments related to racial injustice, or are we gonna start pulling down monuments to certain kings and queens, dubious saints and questionable cultural icons? It's a tough road to navigate without appearing somewhat contradictory or hypocritical, IMO.

It's like art, some people will have nothing to do with certain artists or actors who have some connection to something we strongly disagree with, for example, let's say Mel Gibson, or Roman Polansky, etc. Can we appreciate something for what it is, and not how it came to be, or who brought it into the world?

It's a very tough road to navigate.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Colston founded his charities with the money he got for selling men. Over 20,000 of them died on his ships and were thrown in to the sea.
hr got paid out on insurance for them.
How does spending some of his blood money on a few charities make him good in any way?

I get what you're saying, but for me personally, charity is charity.

Some people, celebrities especially, and often average Joes, do something charitable for the attention it brings, like all of those people on social media who film themselves doing a good deed and spend half a day posting about it, say, aren't I a cool guy? To me, it's still charity.

Many criminals have been praised for doing charitable work in their local communities, even as mentioned earlier, Jimmy Saville was a prominent figure when it came to charities in the UK. Now, the man was a stone cold nonce, but the charity was still charity.

So I don't know that I'd only see charity as being charitable in certain situations, it's either charity or it isn't.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Easing his conscience.

A lot of people give to charity for similar reasons, IMO. For me, it doesn't really matter why people do good things, as long as they do them.

Again, for me, with some of these statues, it's a case of why are we praising this person? Why're they being remembered?

I can see it from both sides of the argument, and I don't pretend to have a good solution to it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Okay people.

If we have to have the "Well if we get rid of the statue of Tommy Slave Trader, don't we have to also get ride of the statue of Johnny Slave Owner as well?" discussion we have to have it AFTER we agree to get rid of the statue of Tommy Slave Trader.

Again this is what the Confederate Apologist in the states have been playing for years now. Every time we talk about taking down the statues of the Racist Traitors who fought a war against their own country to keep owning slaves, some dingus runs in wringing his hands to the heavens with some "Well oh Lordy me if we're going to do that shouldn't we get rid the statues of the people of people who just owned slaves? Guess we can't have statues of Washington or Jefferson anymore, such a shame" routine.

And my response is always the same. "That's just swell. We can have that discussion after we agreed to and get ride of the statues of the race war starting traitors."

And that should be the response here as well.

I keep having this problem more and more discussions. People... you all understand that when someone runs into a dicussion doing this: *makes some big dramatic wringing my hands gesture* that they aren't actually suffering from some moral "where do we draw the line" crisis right? They do it, almost always, for the sole purpose of shutting down the discussion we're currently having by pretending like we have to have the one after it now.

Well all right, let's do that. Let's discuss statues of individuals.

Robert E. Lee - Hmmm. After reading an awful lot on these boards, with reference to material elsewhere, I have been persuaded that the statues should go. Lee had many positive traits, but I have been persuaded that those traits are not why he has so many statues. His statues exist only because he became a symbol for those who wanted to continue subjugation of black people. His positive virtues will be remembered in books on military history, on battlefields where he led men, and in other settings where it is clear that what is being celebrated is not his cause, but his ability and his talents as a soldier, which is something celebrated, for good or ill, throughout history, quite independent of the cause for which the soldiers were fighting.

Edward Colston - Got rich off the slave trade. That's not good. One vote against. On the other hand, there's a bunch of things named after him. People might be interested in who he was. Furthermore, he was doing what society rewarded him for doing. He was successful at being an agent of a racist society. Should we condemn the individual for his participation in the actions of a reprehensible society? Finally, his statue was not erected to honor his accomplishments as a slave trader, but rather his decision to create an enduring legacy of charitable work, even if that legacy was only made possible through his accomplishments as a slave trader.

I say, then, indifferent. I have no strong opinion on the subject.

Any other person who owned and/or traded slaves: Well, that's a rather broad topic. And if we include anyone who profited directly or indirectly from the slave trade that becomes......everyone. I guess I'll wait for more specifics.

ETA: And, I will hold out an exception on statuary removal. Sometimes, the setting of a statue is such that it dominates the area, or the statue is, in and of itself, some form of noteworthy artwork. In those cases, I don't condone removing it and leaving an eyesore of an empty plinth. (I learned that word this morning in one of the linked twitter threads.)

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Farage commenting on the toppling of the statue of a slave trader

"A new form of the Taliban was born in the UK today. Unless we get moral leadership quickly our cities won't be worth living in."

He might as well have barked at the camera and then dropped his pants and took a dump, he'd have come off looking no different in either scenario.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There is no doubt that a mob with ropes is sometimes more efficient than attempting to achieve the desired ends through conventional legal channels.

I still prefer the latter method.

The latter method is to be preferred, if workable. If, however, it is itself an example of how institutional racism actually manifests, then what is to be done?

Bear in mind as you're decrying this that the mayor of Bristol has come as close to endorsing this as his office will allow, and that the city council has collected the signs left around the base in order to preserve them in the local museum.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well all right, let's do that. Let's discuss statues of individuals.

*Headdesk*

And while we do that black people have to keep going to work, going to school, and going to government and legal buildings named after or displaying monuments to people who took up arms against their country specifically to defend the idea that they were property.

Black people sure do have to put up with a lot of crap while us white people take our sweet time drawing and redrawing lines in the sand until we're comfortable with where they are.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

A complete lie.

Blacks are not abused for their race by police. Every single thing you hear about traces back to their actual behavior. With a very, very few rare exceptions.

Plenty of people are treated in a certain way because of their behaviour, and plenty of people are treated in a certain way because of their skin colour.

Some police officers are simply just as racist as the day is long, it's hard to deny that. I've met plenty of racist police officers in the UK while working security.

 

[Darat]

...snip....

Edward Colston - ...snip.... Finally, his statue was not erected to honor his accomplishments as a slave trader, but rather his decision to create an enduring legacy of charitable work, even if that legacy was only made possible through his accomplishments as a slave trader. ...snip...

Who erected it and when and who agreed to it?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

The same is true on this side of the ocean. More people have learned more actual facts about those Confederate generals as a result of their statues having been pulled down than anyone learned from the statues themselves for as long as they stood.

Tbf, though, those people never bothered to become educated on those facts. It's not like they were being shielded from history, they just didn't bother to look.