Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[JoeMorgue]

I don't know what you're talking about, because all you say is that other people shouldn't be talking about whatever it is that they're talking about.

Yes. Much in the same way I say people shouldn't go "All Lives Matter" when black people ask to, ya know, maybe not get murdered in the streets by cops.

I get "Oh so you're just trying to police the discussion" is somehow the go-to criticism everyone has decided to land on, but it's sort of the point.

The whole "Oh sure disenfranchised people we're listening, but we're going to talk over your message" is just another way to not listen to them.

As I've said all (g)you has done is shifted from not listening to racism to drowning it out by talking about other issues over it.

Let them get their message out. It's not hard and me saying so is not "policing the discussion" or any other such mealy mouthed nonsense.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes. Much in the same way I say people shouldn't go "All Lives Matter" when black people ask to, ya know, maybe not get murdered in the streets by cops.

I get "Oh so you're just trying to police the discussion" is somehow the go-to criticism everyone has decided to land on, but it's sort of the point.

The whole "Oh sure disenfranchised people we're listening, but we're going to talk over your message" is just another way to not listen to them.

As I've said all (g)you has done is shifted from not listening to racism to drowning it out by talking about other issues over it.

Let them get their message out. It's not hard and me saying so is not "policing the discussion" or any other such mealy mouthed nonsense.

That's more appropriate in some threads than in others. this thread is about tearing down statues. So, should statues be torn down? I gave the brief version of my answer a few posts ago. (Confederates go, Columbus stays, never by mob.)

It turns out not everyone agrees with that, so we talk about our various positions and try to justify them.

You seem to have the attitude that unless we are talking about things the way you think we ought to talk about them, then obviously we must be racist pigs who are trying to cover up the real issue.

No. That's not it. Really. I think Columbus is statue worthy because he successfully sailed across an ocean, and back, before anyone else did. I think that's significant.

ETA: And, oh yeah, he was racist, among other sins. What's your point? So was darned near everyone else in his time. You only get statues for the things that you did that were different from everyone else. Columbus was different in one way than everyone else before him. He was the same as those around him in lots of different ways.

In my opinion, he's in the same category as Werner Von Braun, in a couple of different ways. I'll keep Von Braun's statue as well.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

That's more appropriate in some threads than in others. this thread is about tearing down statues. So, should statues be torn down? I gave the brief version of my answer a few posts ago. (Confederates go, Columbus stays, never by mob.)

It turns out not everyone agrees with that, so we talk about our various positions and try to justify them.

You seem to have the attitude that unless we are talking about things the way you think we ought to talk about them, then obviously we must be racist pigs who are trying to cover up the real issue.

No. That's not it. Really. I think Columbus is statue worthy because he successfully sailed across an ocean, and back, before anyone else did. I think that's significant.

ETA: And, oh yeah, he was racist, among other sins. What's your point? So was darned near everyone else in his time. You only get statues for the things that you did that were different from everyone else. Columbus was different in one way than everyone else before him. He was the same as those around him in lots of different ways.

In my opinion, he's in the same category as Werner Von Braun, in a couple of different ways. I'll keep Von Braun's statue as well.

Norse expeditions reached the Americas.

There is evidence of African trade to the west. Columbus's third expedition was even targeted to find a suspected land mass in the direction that African canoes were seen going with cargo aboard.

Nor was the idea the world is spherical a novel one (among the educated).

I'm reminded of the Firefly episode Jaynetown. There's really no better metaphor.

 

[a_unique_person]

All of which is trumped by his greatness as a leader.



Neville Chamberlain (and many, many others) may have been none of those things (I don’t know or care) but he will always be judged by his incompetence as a leader.

My problem is that until recently I had no idea that he was so flawed and hypocritical. History should be about the truth.

 

[Meadmaker]

Norse expeditions reached the Americas.

There is evidence of African trade to the west. Columbus's third expedition was even targeted to find a suspected land mass in the direction that African canoes were seen going with cargo aboard.

Nor was the idea the world is spherical a novel one (among the educated).

I'm reminded of the Firefly episode Jaynetown. There's really no better metaphor.

Fine. Put up statues of Leif Eriksson, too. I'll bet he was a racist. I know he fought with the Indians Skraelings.

 

[William Parcher]

These torn down statues could be placed in museums of modern culture or museums of black history. They would be displayed in damaged form and flat on the ground as they ended up during the protesting. The exhibit would be about the protests and events leading to the destruction of the statue and not an exhibit about the person depicted. They are only mentioned in the exhibit to give some context as to why it was destroyed.

The museum exhibit would not be meant to celebrate or honor the historical person but instead to celebrate and honor the tearing down of the statue. The razing of the statue is now a piece of modern history and the destroyed statue itself is an artifact of modern culture or archaeology.

I'm saying that there are arguments for preserving and exhibiting at least some of the statues.

 

[Giz]

We don’t display statues of pharaohs to honor them. Nor do we typically place them in prominent outside public locations.
.

Previous generations did raise monuments to pharaohs to honor and exalt them and displayed them prominently.

#pyramidsmustfall

 

[bruto]

These torn down statues could be placed in museums of modern culture or museums of black history. They would be displayed in damaged form and flat on the ground as they ended up during the protesting. The exhibit would be about the protests and events leading to the destruction of the statue and not an exhibit about the person depicted. They are only mentioned in the exhibit to give some context as to why it was destroyed.

The museum exhibit would not be meant to celebrate or honor the historical person but instead to celebrate and honor the tearing down of the statue. The razing of the statue is now a piece of modern history and the destroyed statue itself is an artifact of modern culture or archaeology.

I'm saying that there are arguments for preserving and exhibiting at least some of the statues.

That's not a bad idea. I think in many instances the circumstances under which the statues were put up were historically more important than the statues themselves, and so, correspondingly, should their demolition be.

I think it might be a difficult job to do right, but done right, it seems an interesting possibility. I rather suspect, though, that the job could be done with a relatively small percentage of the statues demolished, and that in many cases good pictures and videos would do much of the job.

 

[Giordano]

Previous generations did raise monuments to pharaohs to honor and exalt them and displayed them prominently.

#pyramidsmustfall

Of course. Thousands of years ago. As I stated, this is not why we display them. We are not honoring the pharaoh.

 

[Giordano]

I’m not even sure that all statutes to racists need be moved to museums. Continue to display them in town centers but have the plaques prominently state, “Here is Colonel Blip, racist and traitor. Hard to believe but once people honored such slime but we’ve grown up as a society and as a people.”

 

[Meadmaker]

We could sell them to the highest bidder? Just a thought. And if that highest bidder happens to be a bronze foundry, that's fine.

 

[Meadmaker]

I’m not even sure that all statutes to racists need be moved to museums. Continue to display them in town centers but have the plaques prominently state, “Here is Colonel Blip, racist and traitor. Hard to believe but once people honored such slime but we’ve grown up as a society and as a people.”

I think in some cases that's the best solution. Don't give the statues to a museum, turn the statues into museums, but museums that reflect modern values.


(I think for most of them, though, sell to the highest bidder is still the best option.)

 

[Pixel42]

These torn down statues could be placed in museums of modern culture or museums of black history. They would be displayed in damaged form and flat on the ground as they ended up during the protesting. The exhibit would be about the protests and events leading to the destruction of the statue and not an exhibit about the person depicted. They are only mentioned in the exhibit to give some context as to why it was destroyed.

The museum exhibit would not be meant to celebrate or honor the historical person but instead to celebrate and honor the tearing down of the statue. The razing of the statue is now a piece of modern history and the destroyed statue itself is an artifact of modern culture or archaeology.

I'm saying that there are arguments for preserving and exhibiting at least some of the statues.

From what was said when Colston's statue was retrieved from the harbour, that's exactly the plan for that one at least. They said they'd hose it down to get the mud off it, but the graffiti and the ropes used to pull it down were still there and would be retained.

 

[Nessie]

On a related issue, a review of Blue Plaques on buildings where famous people have lived;

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8420539/Almost-1-000-blue-plaques-reviewed.html

Some have already been damaged and there is talk of removing others. I think that the review, as is suggested in the article, should be to provide more information. Instead of the plaque stating "soldier", "navigator", "statesman" etc, if applicable, the word "slaver" should be added. Or, if they did not have slaves, but they were part of the colonisation of other peoples, add the word "colonialist".

 

[zooterkin]

How dare these pisshead thick nazi scum wrap themselves in the Union Jack and pretend to be proud of our country. Literally pissing on the memorial to a police officer who died protecting parliament from a terrorist attack.
!

14 days in jail. He did at least have the decency to turn himself in. He claims he didn’t know the memorial was there, and that he’d drunk 16 pints. Those two details may be not unconnected.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...nce-for-urinating-near-pc-keith-palmer-plaque

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

The Fawltey Towers episode was removed because of the 'n-word', the BBC have a dubbed version that other outlets have used for several years so it will probably be back up pretty quickly.

To be honest theres a few aspects of Little Britain that strike me as 'hitting down' and endorsing pretty harmful stereotypes on top of any racism.

I can't say I'm a Little Britain fan, and the sketches in question aren't ones I've seen, though I've seen pictures, and for me, it's all about context.

White comedians pretending to be black isn't something I tend to see as an issue, unless it's done in poor taste and is intentionally ignorant. I feel the same about any person pretending to be another race or colour or sexual persuasion. It all depends on the context. People are far too easily offended by television in general. The 70's and even some of the 80's and 90's had some questionable content, but at this point, the only truly offensive things on TV are the endless reality programs and most of what ITV sticks on of a weekend.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

I thought you were suggesting that the statue was the property and responsibility of a private organization.

Shouldn’t they pay for its recovery? If my yard were vandalized I, not my city, would haveto pay to fix it.

The statue was erected using private funding from James Arrowsmith, by all accounts.

I'm not sure if James is still about, tbh. At this point, the monument is the responsibility of either English Heritage, or some other outfit that deals with such things, maybe it was locally maintained by the council, I dunno. I can't honestly tell you who now owns or pays for such statues. Seems that English Heritage is responsible for many monuments throughout the UK, certainly local councils are responsible for the upkeep of some, other than that I'm not clued up on it all, and neither is anyone who keeps asking me about it, either.

I don't even understand what the whole fuss about the funding of the statue is since nobody can tell me who was actually paying and how much was being paid. It's not like council tax payments include a subsection for local monuments and people are up in arms about having to fork out money for the bird droppings to be wiped away periodically.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Oh dear, it appears you got confused. Again. I didn't claim that Colston's statue was privately funded.

I never said you did think that, so I've genuinely no idea what you're talking about. You said that one was privately funded and one was apparently funded by "the people," at least that's how you appeared to insinuate it. I said that the Colston statue was erected using private funding, seeing as you seemed to insist otherwise. This isn't hard to follow.

I claimed that it was under government control and maintenance. Now, most people understand that when the government takes care of a statue, this is paid for by the taxes that the people being governed pay. In this case, that would be the "people of Bristol." And, as I'm sure you will be confused again, the mayor was involved in writing the new plaque, and the city council is involved in storing the statue right now. The monies required to do these things were not privately paid.

Care to show your research into this? Can you break down the cost? Seeing as you seem to think my use of Lovecrafts's dubious award has nothing in common with Colston's statue, despite the obviously bigger picture being about a dubious character's likeness being used in celebration of their accomplishments. You've basically claimed that one has nothing to do with the other because the people of Bristol pay an undetermined amount of money to have Colston's chin wiped every now and then.

Tell me, since you seem to know how much was paid and by whom, was the council tax in Bristol lowered when Colston's statue went into the water? Did the locals breathe a sigh of relief that they now no longer have to fork out money for its upkeep??

Such a strange argument.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I can't say I'm a Little Britain fan, and the sketches in question aren't ones I've seen, though I've seen pictures, and for me, it's all about context. I

White comedians pretending to be black isn't something I tend to see as an issue, unless it's done in poor taste and is intentionally ignorant. I feel the same about any person pretending to be another race or colour or sexual persuasion. It all depends on the context. People are far too easily offended by television in general. The 70's and even some of the 80's and 90's had some questionable content, but at this point, the only truly offensive things on TV are the endless reality programs and most of what ITV sticks on of a weekend.

Two posts further down I gave context on the 'Ting Tong' character (incidentally a caller to James O'Brien related how her friends had started calling her 'Ting Tong' at the time the show was popular, something she recognised wasn't intended to be hurtful to her, but none the less was). I also pointed out that there were elements of hitting down to some of their characters beyond, or just not associated with, racism (or blackface).

 

[wareyin]

I never said you did think that, so I've genuinely no idea what you're talking about. You said that one was privately funded and one was apparently funded by "the people," at least that's how you appeared to insinuate it. I said that the Colston statue was erected using private funding, seeing as you seemed to insist otherwise. This isn't hard to follow.



Care to show your research into this? Can you break down the cost? Seeing as you seem to think my use of Lovecrafts's dubious award has nothing in common with Colston's statue, despite the obviously bigger picture being about a dubious character's likeness being used in celebration of their accomplishments. You've basically claimed that one has nothing to do with the other because the people of Bristol pay an undetermined amount of money to have Colston's chin wiped every now and then.

Tell me, since you seem to know how much was paid and by whom, was the council tax in Bristol lowered when Colston's statue went into the water? Did the locals breathe a sigh of relief that they now no longer have to fork out money for its upkeep??

I'll just put you down as someone completely ignorant of how taxes and government work, then.

Such a strange argument.

Indeed. By your own admission you are completely ignorant of everything you are pontificating about, and are unable to grasp basic concepts being spoon fed to you. I see no benefit to continuing to engage with you.