• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

lionking said:
How about you explaining to me the “due process” involved when a group of people decide to pull down a statue?
Click to expand...

I would have thought they would vary tremendously depending on the public bodies involved in these matters. Over here you'd probably start with a local campaign, try to get your council on side. appeal to your MP and so, on.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I've found myself wondering in the last few days, why is a courthouse a place to have statues of people who furthered powerful interests?

So often this involves acts of injustice, tyranny, and oppression on innocent people.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the Loving v. Virgina decision. There should be a statue of the Lovings at the Richmond courthouse.

Petitioners who stood down the government (and assorted violent intimidation) and won rights for the masses against power with the pen and with words should be seen in places of honor. Not some general on a horse, not a profiteering merchant on some crown-backed exploitative enterprise, not some fat judge who rubbed shoulders with the local gentry.
Click to expand...

I found myself thinking about the fact that statues of revered figures are really a very 19th century phenomenon. I have a theory that as the industrial revolution started to take hold, it became easier to cast really large quantities of bronze, and rich people started commissioning statues. They might be of themselves, or of someone who represents a cause, like a civil war general. (I can find several of those in Michigan. I'm sure the white Georgians would be happy to come to Detroit and tear down General Sherman.)

In more recent times, statues are rarely of specific people. There are some, but there aren't all that many. Now, statues represent things. A war memorial probably doesn't have a human figure at all. If it does, it's a generic private soldier. There's no bronze model of Norman Schwartzkoff. (And certainly not of William Westmoreland, what with the fact that he lost.)
I don't even know if you could find McCarthur or Eisenhower. I'm sure there is a bust or two of Eisenhower somewhere.

There must be one of Churchill. We're talking about him, and wondering if a mob will take that one down for us.

Once the camera was invented, statues didn't seem quite as important as a way of preserving memories.
 
Giordano said:
It is not so simple. Liberal democracies recognize that minorities have rights too. The views and rules by the majority cannot, and morally should not, violate those rights. Beyond legal rights alone, the majority should seek as much as possible to respect minorities and their legitimate viewpoints and ideas.

The honoring of an individual responsible for the enslaving and murder of a people is abhorrent. Abhorrent not only to the people whose ancestors were subjected to these evils, but also to the majority whose ancestors inflicted them.

A statue to a slaver and murderer is a daily insult to those descended from his victims, being not only a constant reminder that they were one considered property rather than human beings, but also a constant reminder that even now the majority does not recognize this past as ugly and evil enough to question the morality of the person responsible.

A statue to a murderer and a slaver should be abhorrent to all, including those in the majority. If the majority fail to see this or just don’t care it is their moral failing. IMO they have lost the moral right to impose their will over the objections of the minority.
Click to expand...

If you include people who supported from murderers and slavers, you'll need to cut down a lot of statues. If you include people who benefited from murderers and slavers, that's pretty much all of them.

I still want statues of Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, Grant (briefly owned one slave). I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure that even among the ones who were not actually slave owners, there were plenty of racists, aristocrats, and all sorts of people who would be condemned today. I just got an email from William Clay Ford talking about the importance of equality and such, but I have also worked in buildings with a portrait of his great grandfather, Henry, who was not, by our standards, a very nice man. He was a staunch anti-Semite, as in Hitler admiring nearly Nazi levels of anti-Semite. In spite of that, he changed the world for the better, and I wouldn't take down his portrait. I don't know if he has a statue.
 
trustbutverify said:
If so, that's murder, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I looked up the Virginia statutes and it might technically be “felony” murder - a death, even accidental, that occurred during commission of a felony. Vandalism resulting in more than $1000 damage is a class 6 felony (the weakest category of felony) in Virginia.

But I think that charging anyone with murder would be hideously unfair. I doubt anyone intended to harm any one else. The death was clearly accidental. If vandalism is less than $1000 no felony applies, nor does felony murder. It feels very wrong to punish someone for murder if they would not be so charged if all the same events occurred but the statute had been cheaper. That a murder charge was based on revenge for the statue rather than the person so tragically killed.

One could argue that the injury and death were due to careless disregard, etc. But even here that usually would not be considered “murder.” Plus I don’t know the details. Did the people pulling over the statue warn others? Was it not obvious that the statue was going to tumble? Was the injured person part of the demonstration? Were they in fact among those seeking to topple the statue?
 
We're in a singular moment in history. Let's just decide that for now, public order and the people who want the statues preserved are sacrifices we're willing to make. When someone drags a statues and rolls it in the river, they're not burning anything. These seem like harmless outlets for protestors to vent on. It's expedient. We don't need long, drawn-out court battles or hang wringing over these statues. Let's just avail us to the opportunity the destruction of these statues create, feign disapproval and then do nothing. It's the sensible solution. Sometimes, the smart play is to cut your loses. The only people being hurt are people who aren't good enough for out attention anyway.
 
Meadmaker said:
If you include people who supported from murderers and slavers, you'll need to cut down a lot of statues. If you include people who benefited from murderers and slavers, that's pretty much all of them.

I still want statues of Columbus, Washington, Jefferson, Grant (briefly owned one slave). I'm sure there are others, and I'm sure that even among the ones who were not actually slave owners, there were plenty of racists, aristocrats, and all sorts of people who would be condemned today. I just got an email from William Clay Ford talking about the importance of equality and such, but I have also worked in buildings with a portrait of his great grandfather, Henry, who was not, by our standards, a very nice man. He was a staunch anti-Semite, as in Hitler admiring nearly Nazi levels of anti-Semite. In spite of that, he changed the world for the better, and I wouldn't take down his portrait. I don't know if he has a statue.
Click to expand...

We in the USA all benefited from murderers and slavers. The country was built in part on the backs of slaves. Where to draw the line when seeking to honor someone depends on the individual circumstances. But no longer honoring the murderers and slavers themselves seems a good start. Certainly they would need a very, very impressive positive side of the balance sheet to outweigh their evils.
 
Giordano said:
I looked up the Virginia statutes and it might technically be “felony” murder - a death, even accidental, that occurred during commission of a felony. Vandalism resulting in more than $1000 damage is a class 6 felony (the weakest category of felony) in Virginia.

But I think that charging anyone with murder would be hideously unfair. I doubt anyone intended to harm any one else. The death was clearly accidental. If vandalism is less than $1000 no felony applies, nor does felony murder. It feels very wrong to punish someone for murder if they would not be so charged if all the same events occurred but the statute had been cheaper. That a murder charge was based on revenge for the statue rather than the person so tragically killed.

One could argue that the injury and death were due to careless disregard, etc. But even here that usually would not be considered “murder.” Plus I don’t know the details. Did the people pulling over the statue warn others? Was it not obvious that the statue was going to tumble? Was the injured person part of the demonstration? Were they in fact among those seeking to topple the statue?
Click to expand...

Skeptic Tank posted a video. (I know some people have to go to extra effort to view things posted by Skeptic Tank.)

Basically, it was very chaotic, and there was no warning. They were using towing straps to pull it down. (i.e. those heavy duty flat nylon ropes. Tie-down straps.) It looked to me like there were a couple of guys on the statue. Someone in the crowd tossed them the line to the guys on the statue, and they put the rope on. Almost immediately, the people holding it in the crowd pulled, and it fell. There was a huge cheer, that went silent fairly quickly. The guy who got hit was between the rope holders and the statue.
 
Giordano said:
We in the USA all benefited from murderers and slavers. The country was built in part on the backs of slaves. Where to draw the line when seeking to honor someone depends on the individual circumstances. But no longer honoring the murderers and slavers themselves seems a good start. Certainly they would need a very, very impressive positive side of the balance sheet to outweigh their evils.
Click to expand...

I can agree with that. Colston wouldn't make the cut if I had the decision to make. Washington, Jefferson, Drake and Columbus would.

ETA: I can't think of anyone on the Confederate side that would make my cut, just because I don't know of any of them known for anything except the Civil War.
 
Last edited:
I would also add that for the most part these statutes were not raised based on a carefully prepared and vetted list of great people, beginning with the number one saint of a man (and yes, almost all of them were men). The statutes were typically raised by small groups of politically driven, narrow advocates with specific agendas. Often by the wealthy relatives and friends of the honored person, or by a institution swayed by the monetary generosity of the honoree himself. Much more worthy white men were ignored. Much, much more worthy women and minorities were never in the running.

I have no reason to respect many of these statutes in the first place and less still if the honoree turns out to have a deep, dark side. There are lots of better people to replace them on pedestals.
 
Last edited:
Here's the problem I have with statues. You put them on a pedestal. When you walk past one, you look up to them. There are certain people I don't want to put on a pedestal. Certain people I don't think should be looked up to. Yes, that's metaphorical but the fact that these phrases exist in our language shows how statues are viewed by society.

I don't think statues should be destroyed. They're works of art, after all, and someone worked very hard on them. I'm in favour of putting them in museums of history, where the complete cultural context can be provided. It would also emphasise that they are part of history.

I've been ambivalent on this issue until this morning, when I read what a certain Brussels Sprout said on radio, which pretty much instantly galvanised my opinion.
 
Giordano said:
I looked up the Virginia statutes and it might technically be “felony” murder - a death, even accidental, that occurred during commission of a felony.
But I think that charging anyone with murder would be hideously unfair. I doubt anyone intended to harm any one else. The death was clearly accidental.
Click to expand...

Intent has nothing to do with it. "Accident" has nothing to do with it. It's extreme indifference to life- murder in the second degree. However, the more likely charge would be involuntary manslaughter, which these idiots richly deserve.
 
trustbutverify said:
Intent has nothing to do with it. "Accident" has nothing to do with it. It's extreme indifference to life- murder in the second degree. However, the more likely charge would be involuntary manslaughter, which these idiots richly deserve.
Click to expand...

Extreme indifference? I view it more as stupidity, chaos, and excitement clouding judgement, leading to terrible tragedy. Stupidity is not indifference. Indifference requires that someone knows the risks but chooses to ignore them. But it’s not as if the crowd had a lot of training on how to properly topple a statue and chose to ignore the established safety rules. It was dark, the scene was chaotic, multiple people were pulling and shouting and moving around. I think everyone was surprised how easily and quickly the statute toppled. They probably expected no one would be in the way - it was clear they were trying to pull the statue down.

BTW in Virginia extreme indifference does not make a killing second degree murder or even first degree manslaughter I think it is likely a form of second degree manslaughter.
 
Meadmaker said:
I found myself thinking about the fact that statues of revered figures are really a very 19th century phenomenon. I have a theory that as the industrial revolution started to take hold, it became easier to cast really large quantities of bronze, and rich people started commissioning statues. They might be of themselves, or of someone who represents a cause, like a civil war general. (I can find several of those in Michigan. I'm sure the white Georgians would be happy to come to Detroit and tear down General Sherman.)

In more recent times, statues are rarely of specific people. There are some, but there aren't all that many. Now, statues represent things. A war memorial probably doesn't have a human figure at all. If it does, it's a generic private soldier. There's no bronze model of Norman Schwartzkoff. (And certainly not of William Westmoreland, what with the fact that he lost.)
I don't even know if you could find McCarthur or Eisenhower. I'm sure there is a bust or two of Eisenhower somewhere.

There must be one of Churchill. We're talking about him, and wondering if a mob will take that one down for us.

Once the camera was invented, statues didn't seem quite as important as a way of preserving memories.
Click to expand...
The series of works that have occupied the empty fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square is of interest in that respect. Of the 13 so far, only two were statues of a real person (only one, if you don't think Jesus was a real person).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_plinth,_Trafalgar_Square
 
While I certainly understand that there are a lot of cases where people have grievances against those in statues, I think that sometimes it just goes to far.

So today a statue of Captain John Fane Charles Hamilton​, for whom the city of Hamilton was named, was removed after threats of vandalism to it.

The person making the threats claimed that Hamilton was a "Muderous *******" and should not be honoured as a hero.

I decided to look him up and find out what it was that was so bad about him.

So Hamilton was the Captain of the HMS Esk which was sent to New Zealand during the land wars. It arrived from Australia Station in NSW, picked up the Commander of the British Forces in NZ, Lieutenant-General Duncan Cameron, in Auckland, and sailed down to Tauranga to where the British Forces were being attacked and incited to do battle with the local Maori after they landed and set up camp. The British forces had been told not to engage the locals whom they viewed as neutral, but the local Chief decided to strike first believing that the British would attack them eventually anyways.

As Part of this, the local Maori built a Pa (fortifications) above the British camps, called Gate Pa. After arriving at the site on the 21st of April, 1864 and studying the situation for several days, Cameron determined that they would have to assault the Pa, an action that lead to one of the biggest defeats in British Colonial history.

Hamilton's part in the battle was to lead his 43rd Light Infantry into the battle. However accounts of his part in the battle indicate that his sum total of action was to draw his sword, shout, "Follow me" and then on entering the battle he was immediately killed after being shot in the head. He had been in New Zealand for just eight days.

Now, there is certainly an argument that naming a city and having a statue of a guy that died almost instantly in what was consider to have been one of the worst defeats of British Forces is a bad idea. However is staggers me and baffles me how a guy that was in New Zealand for just eight days and then died on entering the one military operation he was involved in could possible be a "Murderous *******" worthy of such vitriol.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
Hamilton's part in the battle was to lead his 43rd Light Infantry into the battle. However accounts of his part in the battle indicate that his sum total of action was to draw his sword, shout, "Follow me" and then on entering the battle he was immediately killed after being shot in the head. He had been in New Zealand for just eight days.
Click to expand...
Daniel Fortescue!
 
arthwollipot said:
Here's the problem I have with statues. You put them on a pedestal. When you walk past one, you look up to them. There are certain people I don't want to put on a pedestal. Certain people I don't think should be looked up to. Yes, that's metaphorical but the fact that these phrases exist in our language shows how statues are viewed by society.

I don't think statues should be destroyed. They're works of art, after all, and someone worked very hard on them. I'm in favour of putting them in museums of history, where the complete cultural context can be provided. It would also emphasise that they are part of history.

I've been ambivalent on this issue until this morning, when I read what a certain Brussels Sprout said on radio, which pretty much instantly galvanised my opinion.
Click to expand...

But as someone said in different words earlier in the thread most of them are not the equivalent of MA's David, they are "workaday" pieces, I bet many of them we don't even know who was commissioned to do the work. The plinths are probably of equal quality in regards to art and took a long time to produce.

Yes there are some of artistic and/or historical interest but I bet they are the minority.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about your conversation with me then, no, that's not what I said. What I said was what if the petitions don't work because of the institutional racism inherent in the system? I explained the institutional racism a little while ago.

As far as "run for office" goes, you are again ignoring the fact that one of the biggest advocates for removing the statue was the mayor.
 
FWIW, Little Britain, Come Fly With Me, and Bo Selecta have been removed from many streaming platforms due to their use of blackface.* "The Germans" episode of Fawlty Towers has also been removed (presumably for its use of racial slurs pertaining to black people more than its lampooning of Germans and invocation of Hitler).

*Leigh Francis posted a sincere-seeming video apologising for his use of blackface, claiming not to have had any negative feedback at the time and not having fully understood the implications, and apparently also sent personal apologies to at least one person he was doing an impression of. It's also worth noting that according to Channel 4 Francis was involved with the decision to pull the shows, although what exactly that means is unclear.

OTOH, Harry Enfield went on Radio 4 to defend blackface and used a racial slur, as he did so. There was a backlash over that, over the fact that he and the white host kept talking over the black guest and mispronouncing her name, and over the fact that Radio 4 thought that the issue of blackface even deserved a "both sides" debate.
 
Darat said:
But as someone said in different words earlier in the thread most of them are not the equivalent of MA's David, they are "workaday" pieces, I bet many of them we don't even know who was commissioned to do the work. The plinths are probably of equal quality in regards to art and took a long time to produce.

Yes there are some of artistic and/or historical interest but I bet they are the minority.
Click to expand...

I don't care about 'art' but they're historical artifacts in their own right. Frankly, it doesn't matter how good they are.

And the same argument about "workaday" pieces and unknown producers can be made about most ancient statues as well. Most statues of kings, emperors and gods would have been made by unknowns as copies, or even copies of copies.

In my local history museum, where I used to volunteer, we had all kinds of historical objects. Like plaques with the names of the local firms that built a gasworks that was demolished. They weren't artistic but they did have a context in local history.

These statues will have even more historical context than most now, if they get pulled down in protest. They tell a story and should be preserved in museums.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom