Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[Meadmaker]

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.

There are interactions between city, state, and federal governments. and the mayor doesn't always win. You can either try to win the state legislature, or the governor's office, or you can get a rope and pull it down yourself.

But...what if someone else doesn't want you to pull it down and they try to stop you? What then? If it's ok for a mob to pull down a statue, it's ok for a mob to protect a statue, isn't it?

Well this could get ugly. I'd rather try to get it changed at the ballot box. It may take a while and, horror of horrors, you might lose. It's still a better way.

 

[Giordano]

If so, that's murder, in my opinion.

To clarify: as far as I can google the man injured by the statute in Virginia did not die but remains in serious condition.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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

Considering the general public never paid for the Colston statue, what's your point, and why do you keep completely avoiding my request for you to explain the difference between the two cases in detail?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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.

I keep seeing people post this, yet I've not actually seen any claim that we should wait and decide what stays and what goes before taking action... Truly remarkable.

Either way, as others have suggested, I do think it should be up to the people what we change and what we don't, not an angry mob of hipsters looking for Twitter followers.

The problem being, how do you get an already divided nation to decide upon such matters?

Answers on a postcard.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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.

Are buildings next, I wonder? Plenty of them around with more than a dose of dubious history residing between the walls.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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.

As I've said before, if the all of the masses of people protesting in the UK had actually bothered to vote, we might not currently be being led by a gang of halfwit toffs. Most of them don't care about voting, but still want to have a moan on Facebook when something occurs that they don't like. I saw one woman complaining about her payments being messed up and her government hand-out being late, and she was asked who she voted for... Oh, I always vote conservative.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Indeed why not? Shouldn’t people today make their own decisions?

Most people can't decide what colour socks to put on in the morning. Should I Stay Or Should I Go should be the adopted national anthem of the UK.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

There are interactions between city, state, and federal governments. and the mayor doesn't always win. You can either try to win the state legislature, or the governor's office, or you can get a rope and pull it down yourself.

But...what if someone else doesn't want you to pull it down and they try to stop you? What then? If it's ok for a mob to pull down a statue, it's ok for a mob to protect a statue, isn't it?

Well this could get ugly. I'd rather try to get it changed at the ballot box. It may take a while and, horror of horrors, you might lose. It's still a better way.

You're still ignoring institutional racism. And, in fact, that these events aren't about statues but instead about centuries of marginalisation and discrimination.

Your reaction to this is basically "oh, so you're institutionally discriminated against and have been for centuries? Sucks to be you, I guess!"

 

[Meadmaker]

It would appear that ST is wrong and on-one was seriously injured.

I see the Confederate apologists over there were upset.

He was wrong...but not completely wrong. He got the city wrong. It happened in Portsmouth, not Richmond. A statue in Richmond was also pulled down the same night, but without injuries.

As for the injured man, he is currently in a medically induced coma, after going into cardiac arrest in the ambulance.

Any bets on whether he ever regains consciousness? Well, it's just an expression. Actually betting would be too morbid.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

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.

I don't know that too many people take notice, they're usually just covered in bird crap.

I think if we stuck to cultural icons in statue-form, it'd be for the best, as long as you don't go sticking a Morrissey statue in Manchester! I'm hoping all of his fans are binning his records and t-shirts as we speak.

My favourite statue is probably the Billy Fury statue at the Albert Dock, Peter Pan in Sefton Park, or Elenor Rigby.

 

[Meadmaker]

You're still ignoring institutional racism. And, in fact, that these events aren't about statues but instead about centuries of marginalisation and discrimination.

Your reaction to this is basically "oh, so you're institutionally discriminated against and have been for centuries? Sucks to be you, I guess!"

I suppose for some definitions of "ignoring" you could be right.

I think destruction of property by mobs is wrong. I think democracy is good. Note that there are no references to racism in those sentences and there are no asterisks to carve out exceptions. So, in that sense, I am ignoring racism.

I'll go one better. I think Christopher Columbus is statue-worthy, and I am ignoring his racism in order to reach that conclusion. I think I should get a vote, that's an important word there, on whether or not there is a statue of Christopher Columbus in my local park.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I suppose for some definitions of "ignoring" you could be right.

I think destruction of property by mobs is wrong. I think democracy is good. Note that there are no references to racism in those sentences and there are no asterisks to carve out exceptions. So, in that sense, I am ignoring racism.

Indeed you are, because you're choosing to ignore the racial imbalance in the implementation of democracy in these particular instances.

I'll go one better. I think Christopher Columbus is statue-worthy, and I am ignoring his racism in order to reach that conclusion. I think I should get a vote, that's an important word there, on whether or not there is a statue of Christopher Columbus in my local park.

You do have a vote. That's not the issue. The issue is that that your vote carries more weight than other people's.

If anything, it should be the other way around. The tyranny of the majority is a recognised issue with the simplistic notion of a democracy simply being whatever the majority wants, and minority interests need to consciously be considered.

It's easy to sit and say "well, it doesn't affect me, and I'm in the majority, therefore my will should be implemented". But that's not how any democracy that actually cares about all of its people should function.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Something that was changed five years ago, with howls of protest from the Usual Suspects.

That was my point, it was argued back and forth and (rightly) removed, which leads me to ask whether in the light of this revision of who we honour, do we begin looking elsewhere at historical figures and cultural icons that we celebrate who were often guilty of some kind of misdeed that we no longer want to put up with?

As a huge Muhammed Ali fan, I can tell you that many concerns were raised about him beating his wives, as well as being a very questionable father figure as admitted to by his own daughter. He was known for his mistreatment of women, his statue is still standing...

In the book Ali: A Life, Jonathan Eig, it was made clear that while his mistreatment of women was despicable, he was very much a "man of his time", as though that gave him a pass to smack women around and treat them like second-class citizens. Is he up for revisionism, or does his other outspoken opinions about things like the Vietnam war and civil rights give him a pass?

 

[dann]

Are buildings next, I wonder? Plenty of them around with more than a dose of dubious history residing between the walls.

You are the only one who has considered anything like that. But a lot of them could do with new names. A lot of street names could do with a do-over, too.

 

[dann]

That was my point, it was argued back and forth and (rightly) removed, which leads me to ask whether in the light of this revision of who we honour, do we begin looking elsewhere at historical figures and cultural icons that we celebrate who were often guilty of some kind of misdeed that we no longer want to put up with?

As a huge Muhammed Ali fan, I can tell you that many concerns were raised about him beating his wives, as well as being a very questionable father figure as admitted to by his own daughter. He was known for his mistreatment of women, his statue is still standing...

In the book Ali: A Life, Jonathan Eig, it was made clear that while his mistreatment of women was despicable, he was very much a "man of his time", as though that gave him a pass to smack women around and treat them like second-class citizens. Is he up for revisionism, or does his other outspoken opinions about things like the Vietnam war and civil rights give him a pass?

What is the problem? Can't you distinguish between slaveowners and people who sometimes were ********? I don't think a women's shelter should be named after Ali.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

You are the only one who has considered anything like that. But a lot of them could do with new names. A lot of street names could do with a do-over, too.

It's a valid question, IMO. I don't see why, if we're genuinely seeking change, we cannot consider buildings that were founded on the money made from such things as slavery, not to mention buildings that are rooted in a history of abuse and death.

Street names, we could change them, but we'd probably be there all day, as there's far too many, so IMO, the idea to accompany many of them with plaques explaining their origin would be a good one.

I do think we can change some of them, though as I've mentioned before, don't expect street names with money floating around them to change any time soon, such as Penny Lane here in this city.

I don't see why the proposal to change a dubious street name in remembrance for Anthony Walker can't go ahead here, as was suggested many years ago. In this city, there are plenty of near-forgotten people to celebrate that are genuinely worthy of such celebration.

 

[dann]

If history is any guide then iconoclastic outbursts like this are only a symptom of even greater social unrest and conflict.

Let's hope that it doesn't remain a mere outburst! I covered the Rodney King and Freddie Gray riots. This moment feels different. That's why I'm afraid (CNN, June 12, 2020)

 

[Mumbles]

You're still ignoring institutional racism. And, in fact, that these events aren't about statues but instead about centuries of marginalisation and discrimination.

Your reaction to this is basically "oh, so you're institutionally discriminated against and have been for centuries? Sucks to be you, I guess!"

IOW, It's far too late to worry about things "getting ugly". When people start tearing down statues in countries in the US, it's almost invariably well into "state violence inflicted indiscriminately against civilians." And, actually, that's also true even in areas like Afghanistan, although the people doing the destruction are the oppressors in those cases.

(As I've said from the beginning, I still think it should be left to people who have some idea what they're doing - although I will note that some speculated that Baltimore moved rapidly because certain outside professional groups provided alternate plans for removing their Confederate statues.)

 

[Meadmaker]

You do have a vote. That's not the issue. The issue is that that your vote carries more weight than other people's.

If I lived in Saint Paul Minnesota I apparently would not get a vote on Chris Columbus' statue, because a mob with ropes pulled it down. No vote required.



Yes, I understand the concept of "tyranny of the majority", and I understand that in some cases, illegal actions and even revolutions are necessary.

And I don't like mobs with ropes circumventing the laws.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

What is the problem? Can't you distinguish between slaveowners and people who sometimes were ********? I don't think a women's shelter should be named after Ali.

It's an example. The question I am asking being: should we now begin to revise all of the other people that we celebrate?

People who were sometimes ****** is a funny way of discussing a person who routinely beat up his wives and didn't give a toss about his children, but okay...

It's just funny, because part of the question being asked here was regarding how we separate the good some people do from the bad they did. As far as people like Colston are concerned, his contributions were seen to pale in comparison to his wrongdoings.

I guess successfully navigating the rope-a-dope game plan and speaking out against Vietnam were enough to diminish Ali's complete disregard for females.

Morrissey makes crap music, and he's a racist, but I guess his contribution to whiney music and his outspoken veganism is enough to give him a pass as well, lol.