Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[dann]

I think Ali is a good example. We admire him primarily for his athleticism. When we put up a statue of him, we aren't saying "this is a perfect person". We are saying, "That one thing you know about this guy makes him a very special person." We are ignoring that there may be other things about him that make him....not so special.

If we only celebrated perfect people, we could save a lot on bronze, because we wouldn't need any statues.

Would you describe slaveowners and slave traders as persons that aren't/weren't perfect?
You are watering down the hideousness of certain crimes against human beings if you describe the perpetrators as "not so special." You are watering down the hideousness of slaveowners when you compare them to Ali.

 

[Myriad]

So how long before Mount Rushmore is subjected to cannon fire?

A big grant to finish Crazy Horse might be a reasonable alternative.

 

[Craig4]

I really don't get it sorry.

Does knocking a statute down of some one suddenly wipe them from history books?

Do people want to then rewrite history books?

It is a bit silly

No, we'd prefer people get their history from books instead of the statues. Many history teachers don't really use statues to teach history.

 

[trustbutverify]

It sounds like you need to sit down, hug yourself, and listen to some Morrissey. Old Morrissey.

I've listened to plenty of old Morrissey. The Smiths were an interesting band but ridiculously overrated. Right place, right time.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah there's a reason there's no 40 foot tall bronze statue standing in the middle of Manhattan of Mohamad Atta wearing aviator googles, striking a dramatic pose with his foot on the rubble of the Twin Towers yet somehow New Yorkers haven't seemed to have forgotten 9/11.

 

[Darat]

I really don't get it sorry.

Does knocking a statute down of some one suddenly wipe them from history books?

Do people want to then rewrite history books?

It is a bit silly

1) No - No one claims that knocking a statue down of some one will suddenly wipe them from history books?

2) Yes - It is undoubtedly true that many history books need to be rewritten, history is an ongoing discipline so new facts will come to light. Plus we do know that many history books promote a very narrow and limited view of certain people and events. For instance none of the books we read as part of being taught history when I was at school mentioned Drake's slaver background.

3) Yes - your strawman of what has been said and argued is a bit silly.

 

[Darat]

Would you describe slaveowners and slave traders as persons that aren't/weren't perfect?
You are watering down the hideousness of certain crimes against human beings if you describe the perpetrators as "not so special." You are watering down the hideousness of slaveowners when you compare them to Ali.

Another one I didn't know much about apart from popular culture knowledge. Disappointed to hear he repeatedly assaulted people, I would now say he is another that should not be commemorated with a statue etc.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

So are they going to mandate that statues reflect the ethnic, religious, racial, linguistic and sex composition of London? What about "affirmative action" for statues and monuments?

Personally I think removing ones that a significant number of people find offensive might be a good first step.

 

[JoeMorgue]

1) No - No one claims that knocking a statue down of some one will suddenly wipe them from history books?

That's literally the entire argument from the pro-statue side.

"You're erasing history" is the single most common phrase that comes out of their mouths.

 

[Darat]

That's literally the entire argument from the pro-statue side.

"You're erasing history" is the single most common phrase that comes out of their mouths.

You are of course right - I may have misread cullenz's post - I thought he was saying "what's the point of knocking them down it won't remove them from the history books" and of course that is not an argument that those on the side of letting people decide what they want to commemorate with statues has made.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Then I would suggest rephrasing the question.

As the last was a bit pants

Dude, it was you who introduced all the guff about erasing people from history books. That wasn't even vaguely hinted at in my question.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

1. Mother Teresa was a monster.

2. That isn't the discussion.

It's a discussion that's highly relevant to a point that has been made many times by many people in this thread.

Here's a fun fact: did you know that you yourself can contribute to a discussion, rather than spending all your time backseat modding by telling everybody else what they should or shouldn't be discussing?

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Dude, it was you who introduced all the guff about erasing people from history books. That wasn't even vaguely hinted at in my question.

It's probably an easier point to answer than "Why should black people have to look at statues in public spaces that celebrate people who made their fortunes by treating people like them as less than human, often less than animals?"

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's a discussion that's highly relevant to a point that has been made many times by many people in this thread.

Here's a fun fact: did you know that you yourself can contribute to a discussion, rather than spending all your time backseat modding by telling everybody else what they should or shouldn't be discussing?

"Keeping the discussion going" is now one of the main ways society and culture keep things from getting better for disenfranchised groups. Every time they ask for something that will make things better for them, (g)we go "Okay but only after we talk about" and then we never stop talking about it.

So spare me the lecture about backseat modding.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's probably an easier point to answer than "Why should black people have to look at statues in public spaces that celebrate people who made their fortunes by treating people like them as less than human, often less than animals?"

Because they all have to look at them until we (never actually get around to) talking about ALL STATUES EVER OF ALL TIME.

 

[Giordano]

Statues aren’t an accurate accounting of history. They are designed to honor someone, not to provide an authentic account of their role in history. More often than not statues promulgate bad history. Knocking down a statue honoring a hideous person isn’t erasing history, it is correcting it. Plus think of all the people who played more important roles in history missing from the bronze and granite figures that dot our parks and downtowns.

The people pulling down statues aren’t seeking to erase the individuals depicted from history. The names, and their deeds, should be in the history books as lessons to us all.

 

[jimbob]

It's probably an easier point to answer than "Why should black people have to look at statues in public spaces that celebrate people who made their fortunes by treating people like them as less than human, often less than animals?"

Yup

Statues aren’t an accurate accounting of history. They are designed to honor someone, not to provide an authentic account of their role in history. More often than not statues promulgate bad history. Knocking down a statue honoring a hideous person isn’t erasing history, it is correcting it. Plus think of all the people who played more important roles in history missing from the bronze and granite figures that dot our parks and downtowns.

The people pulling down statues aren’t seeking to erase the individuals depicted from history. The names, and their deeds, should be in the history books as lessons to us all.

And a fine example of this is the bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest in the Tennessee state Capitol, and he was only considered important enough to warrant commemoration in the 1970s.

Can anyone tell me what his good points were? Apart from being a moderately competent general willingly fighting for an evil cause that happened to be literally treasonous against the country in which he is honoured?

It's not as if he recanted after losing.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Statues aren’t an accurate accounting of history. They are designed to honor someone, not to provide an authentic account of their role in history. More often than not statues promulgate bad history. Knocking down a statue honoring a hideous person isn’t erasing history, it is correcting it. Plus think of all the people who played more important roles in history missing from the bronze and granite figures that dot our parks and downtowns.

The people pulling down statues aren’t seeking to erase the individuals depicted from history. The names, and their deeds, should be in the history books as lessons to us all.

Well said.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

"Keeping the discussion going" is now one of the main ways society and culture keep things from getting better for disenfranchised groups. Every time they ask for something that will make things better for them, (g)we go "Okay but only after we talk about" and then we never stop talking about it.

I wasn't doing any of that.

But if you really do think that the discussion itself is a bad thing, then you shouldn't be participating in this thread at all.

 

[Meadmaker]

Question for anybody posting in this thread who believes that bad deeds don't outweigh a positive myth when it comes to historical figures - how do you feel about Christopher Hitchens' revelations about Mother Theresa, and of her continued existence as a symbol of all that is good and holy?

I assume I'm one of the people to whom the question is directed, and I'm afraid I will have to plead ignorance. I know that she is used as an exemplar of ultimate good in popular culture. I know that people have said she is anything but that, and is downright evil, and I don't know the truth. I haven't bothered to explore it.