Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay, to try to avoid this appearing like a waily, waily moment, I need to assure you all that this is a genuine question.

Given that, by modern moral standards, virtually everyone born prior to aroun 1900 is going to have been a bit of a git, and that of those that made enough noise to have statues put up in their honour, a very large portion are going to be found morally wanting by today's code, when do we stop?

I'm very happy to have the statues of slave traders ripped down, but are you going to close Disney world? Or, at least, re-name it?

There's no clear answer, but a good criteria for evaluation is "why is this person famous and/or what message is this statue conveying?"

Walt Disney is famous for being a cartoonist who happened to be about the normal amount of racist for his time. It's not been difficult for modern Disney to distance itself from these positions, and they make no apology for their founder's bigoted views.

Something like the Confederate flag has very little value outside of it's explicitly bigoted historical context. What's left when you strip out the racism? Not much.

I'm sure there would be plenty of examples in the grey zone. I see no easy way to resolve this.

 

[3point14]

There's no clear answer, but a good criteria for evaluation is "why is this person famous and/or what message is this statue conveying?"

Walt Disney is famous for being a cartoonist who happened to be about the normal amount of racist for his time. It's not been difficult for modern Disney to distance itself from these positions, and they make no apology for their founder's bigoted views.

Something like the Confederate flag has very little value outside of it's explicitly bigoted historical context. What's left when you strip out the racism? Not much.

I'm sure there would be plenty of examples in the grey zone. I see no easy way to resolve this.

Thank you for taking the question in the spirit in which it was intended.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I see no easy way to resolve this.

Therein lies the problem we're faced with.

Personally, I'm of the "educate the people on the matter/monument/street name" idea.

If people still choose to remove certain monuments, etc, then that's okay, but we should try to refrain from tearing down everything we no longer agree with and instead strive to show why such monuments, for example, were erected in the first place.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Okay, to try to avoid this appearing like a waily, waily moment, I need to assure you all that this is a genuine question.

Given that, by modern moral standards, virtually everyone born prior to aroun 1900 is going to have been a bit of a git, and that of those that made enough noise to have statues put up in their honour, a very large portion are going to be found morally wanting by today's code, when do we stop?

I'm very happy to have the statues of slave traders ripped down, but are you going to close Disney world? Or, at least, re-name it?

We are judging these men to the moral standards of the time. 1688 was the Quaker's letter against slavery. The holy Roman emperor came out against slavery in 1542.

Anti slavery was the knowingly correct moral position when they practiced slavery.

 

[Darat]

Okay, to try to avoid this appearing like a waily, waily moment, I need to assure you all that this is a genuine question.

Given that, by modern moral standards, virtually everyone born prior to aroun 1900 is going to have been a bit of a git, and that of those that made enough noise to have statues put up in their honour, a very large portion are going to be found morally wanting by today's code, when do we stop?
I'm very happy to have the statues of slave traders ripped down, but are you going to close Disney world? Or, at least, re-name it?

Whenever we want.

I've heard other people that seem to imply what you are implying - that we have to be bound for all time by what the "we" of a hundred or 200 years ago decided. "We" can make our own decisions. Especially when you look back and you find out that for many of these statues it was anything but "the we" that decided these people should be commemorated. It was a powerful, very restricted "elite" who made the decisions back then.

And this idea that if we go back everyone would be considered morally or ethically deficient by today's standards. It's simply not true. I can go back a 100 years in my family and my great-grandmother was by all accounts a very nice person, a positive saint, took in the daughter of her sister (my great-grandfather raped my great-grandmother's sister), raised her as her own and she did many other charitable things. If someone had put a statue up to her there wouldn't be any "modern" moral or ethical issue about it remaining up.

That people decided to commemorate these anything but saintly people is not a matter of them being simply a creature of their times, it was always possible for people to be nice people, these people were often anything but saintly even by their own standards.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Whenever we want.

I've heard other people that seem to imply what you are implying - that we have to be bound for all time by what the "we" of a hundred or 200 years ago decided. "We" can make our own decisions. Especially when you look back and you find out that for many of these statues it was anything but "the we" that decided these people should be commemorated. It was a powerful, very restricted "elite" who made the decisions back then.

And this idea that if we go back everyone would be considered morally or ethically deficient by today's standards. It's simply not true. I can go back a 100 years in my family and my great-grandmother was by all accounts a very nice person, a positive saint, took in the daughter of her sister (my great-grandfather raped my great-grandmother's sister), raised her as her own and she did many other charitable things. If someone had put a statue up to her there wouldn't be any "modern" moral or ethical issue about it remaining up.

That people decided to commemorate these anything but saintly people is not a matter of them being simple a creature of their times, it was always possible for people to be nice people!

The problem with humanity in a nutshell is that things are seldom black and white. People are complex creatures, capable of the very best and the very worst, often in the same breath.

All of us have family members or friends who often say things which causes us to take pause and wonder if they've been drinking red wine out of a Coke can.

Our very history is built on the best and the worst of humanity. I agree, we shouldn't be bound by the past, but we shouldn't seek to diminish it, either.

 

[3point14]

Whenever we want.

Well, that's easy then. 'We' famouly agree, all the time...

I've heard other people that seem to imply what you are implying

I'm not implying anything. You may be inferring, but I certainly am not implying anything.

- that we have to be bound for all time by what the "we" of a hundred or 200 years ago decided. "We" can make our own decisions. Especially when you look back and you find out that for many of these statues it was anything but "the we" that decided these people should be commemorated. It was a powerful, very restricted "elite" who made the decisions back then.

But the statues are still of those who shaped the world. They are noteworthy, historically, regardless of who decided to put them up. And people today are emotionally invested in them.

And this idea that if we go back everyone would be considered morally or ethically deficient by today's standards. It's simply not true. I can go back a 100 years in my family and my great-grandmother was by all accounts a very nice person, a positive saint, took in the daughter of her sister (my great-grandfather raped my great-grandmother's sister), raised her as her own and she did many other charitable things. If someone had put a statue up to her there wouldn't be any "modern" moral or ethical issue about it remaining up.

I didn't say 'everyone'. I'm also sure that antisocial gits exist in greater proportion in those that change the world than those that don't. I'm really nice, nobody's going to put up a statue of me, ever. I don't make enough noise.

That people decided to commemorate these anything but saintly people is not a matter of them being simply a creature of their times, it was always possible for people to be nice people, these people were often anything but saintly even by their own standards.

Possible, yes, but not a societal imperative, like it is now.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I would just like to remind people that "Let us stop until we can figure out precisely where to draw the line" is a fallacy so old that it has its roots in ancient mythology.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm completely against looting and destroying public property.... That said, destroying statues that stand for racist values seems fine to me. It reminds me of what V from V from Vendetta said after destroying a building: "The building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. Alone a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world.""

Of course, in the case of V, he did something much more dangerous that could lead to deaths of people. In the case of a statue, it's much more justified. Destroying a statue does not represent a risk to anyone, and it is not an essential thing that we need. So by all means, destroy all statues that stand for racism.

 

[trustbutverify]

I suppose we'll see if the victim is actually dead. To me, it doesn't look like it. I would expect a different reaction from the crowd and from the cops, but it's hard to say on the cell phone video.

There are several stories about it that I found on google news, but none of them mention death or injury. One of them did mention that police cleared the area after the statue was toppled, but no mention of the injury.

He was seriously injured. Witnesses reported part of his skull was exposed, and he was experiencing convulsions. No arrests were made. Obviously, murder charges would depend on if those injuries result in death, but I think the people pulling the statue down should have been arrested in this case.

 

[bruto]

I think the line will always be a little fuzzy, but it doesn't seem too difficult to identify things well to one side or the other of it.

Already said in various ways, I think, I would draw the line somewhere in the vicinity of the point at which a person is not just a person of his time, but a maker of it. The students who believe an error are not in quite the same category as the teachers who promote it. The person who did a big thing despite faults is not the same as the person whose big thing was to promote them.

Martin Luther King was a flawed character who is celebrated because he promoted a great virtue.

Robert E Lee was, by some accounts, a pretty decent character, but he is celebrated for his valiant advocacy of slavery and treason.

One of those things is not like the other.

 

[Giordano]

For how long do you seek atonement (through destroying things) for past misdeeds?

I certainly get pulling down statues of Saddam Hussain and Stalin as there were people still alive who directly suffered from their actions. But should statues of pharaohs be destroyed because they were notorious slave owners?

ETA ninja’d by William...

Sorry, it took me awhile to get back to this thread.

We don’t display statues of pharaohs to honor them. Nor do we typically place them in prominent outside public locations. We put them in museums as artifacts of an ancient culture, along with descriptions of the person depicted.

I have stated in other threads that I am fine with putting statues of slave holders in museums with descriptions of the evil culture they represented. Preserves the history and is an educational tool.

 

[Meadmaker]

I tend to agree that we should re-evaluate our decisions about what to put in parks and what sort of public artwork we should have. The values in effect today may not be what was around at the time the statue was put up, and we may no longer value what they did.

From my modern perspective, above all, I'm pro democracy. Mob rule is bad. Very, very, bad. If you want to get rid of a statue, use a petition, not a rope. I was appalled when people said, "But what if the government isn't doing what we want?" That's sad. Really. If you don't like it, run for office and then you can take down the statue yourself, as part of a democratically elected government.

Use protests to call attention to the statues if you wish. That's exercising freedom of speech. Pulling it down yourself is just mob rule. (Maybe a little spray paint here and there. It comes off, and sooner or later the city council will get tired of paying maintenance to clean the statue. If you absolutely feel compelled to pull down the statue, make sure someone isn't standing underneath it at the time. It makes everything awkward when the crowd has to scatter for ambulance access.)

That being said, I would vote to throw out Bobby Lee, but I would keep Chris Columbus. Apparently, a mob decided I shouldn't have any voice in that decision.

 

[Giordano]

I think the line will always be a little fuzzy, but it doesn't seem too difficult to identify things well to one side or the other of it.

Already said in various ways, I think, I would draw the line somewhere in the vicinity of the point at which a person is not just a person of his time, but a maker of it. The students who believe an error are not in quite the same category as the teachers who promote it. The person who did a big thing despite faults is not the same as the person whose big thing was to promote them.

Martin Luther King was a flawed character who is celebrated because he promoted a great virtue.

Robert E Lee was, by some accounts, a pretty decent character, but he is celebrated for his valiant advocacy of slavery and treason.

One of those things is not like the other.

I had intended to create a post along these lines but you stated it all much better than I could have.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Reminds me of the joke that a poor man is crazy, the rich man is merely eccentric.

Graffiti is terrible vandalism, unless it is worth tens of thousands of pounds.....

"If you steal a loaf of bread they call you a thief, if you steal a whole country they call you a King", we miss you Sir Pterry....

 

[Giordano]

I tend to agree that we should re-evaluate our decisions about what to put in parks and what sort of public artwork we should have. The values in effect today may not be what was around at the time the statue was put up, and we may no longer value what they did.

From my modern perspective, above all, I'm pro democracy. Mob rule is bad. Very, very, bad. If you want to get rid of a statue, use a petition, not a rope. I was appalled when people said, "But what if the government isn't doing what we want?" That's sad. Really. If you don't like it, run for office and then you can take down the statue yourself, as part of a democratically elected government.

Use protests to call attention to the statues if you wish. That's exercising freedom of speech. Pulling it down yourself is just mob rule. (Maybe a little spray paint here and there. It comes off, and sooner or later the city council will get tired of paying maintenance to clean the statue. If you absolutely feel compelled to pull down the statue, make sure someone isn't standing underneath it at the time. It makes everything awkward when the crowd has to scatter for ambulance access.)

That being said, I would vote to throw out Bobby Lee, but I would keep Chris Columbus. Apparently, a mob decided I shouldn't have any voice in that decision.

There are many examples of city councils voting to remove an offensive statue only to be over ridden by the hurried passage of a state law to negate the local vote. Alabama and Virginia for example.

The problem is that a minority population can have a morally justified objection to a statute that is drowned out by the prejudice of the majority culture and political system. I am not suggesting mob rule. But I wonder what I would do if there was a statue honoring a man who enslaved and killed thousands of my ancestors, yet my objections were met with indifference by a political majority belonging to the same culture as the slaver/murderer. In my own case, being Jewish, I imagine seeing a statue honoring Goebbels every time I went downtown.

 

[wareyin]

Explain in detail how the two situations do not apply.

As far as I can see, the Colston statue was put up to celebrate his supposedly good (and questionable) deeds. It was torn down by those who don't wish to see him celebrated further.

Lovecraft's award was designed based on the celebration of his contribution to literature and the arts, a contribution rooted literally in his hatred of other races, notably people of black descent.

In both cases people heatedly argued about whether these people should be celebrated, and whether their image should be used to inspire or educate others.

That you fail to grasp the relevance isn't my problem.

What government funds were used to maintain the Lovecraft award? Was there any way for citizens to avoid paying for the Lovecraft award?

 

[crescent]

There are many examples of city councils voting to remove an offensive statue only to be over ridden by the hurried passage of a state law to negate the local vote. Alabama and Virginia for example.

Quoted for emphasis. Democratic process, at the local level was used. Then over-ridden at the state level, by gerrymandered legislatures.

Compromises were offered and rejected. Local level political processes were followed but over-ridden by state governments. The residents of the cities made their opinions very, very clear, but state governments chose to ignore that.

So, this happens.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Locally our city decided to remove a CSA monument and that decision has been tied up in the courts. Now the City is asking the court for permission to remove it so that it is not destroyed, which could further damage the monument, the surrounding area, and citizens.

Odd times.

 

[Meadmaker]

Quoted for emphasis. Democratic process, at the local level was used. Then over-ridden at the state level, by gerrymandered legislatures.

Compromises were offered and rejected. Local level political processes were followed but over-ridden by state governments. The residents of the cities made their opinions very, very clear, but state governments chose to ignore that.

So, this happens.

Fair enough. I am in agreement that the state override was appalling. A state government stepping in and telling local governments how to decorate their parks seems pretty bad.

ETA: I will amend somewhat. I'm still opposed to toppling the statues by mob action. The proper way is to go after the state representatives, or legal wrangling to oppose the state mandate. However, what I agree with is that if such tactics are used, where the people of the state force their will onto the people of the city, the people of the city will inevitably, at some point, take matters into their own hands.