Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[RedStapler]

enlightened guru of progression?
Where does that conversation go now?

Well, since you use "progression" in a derogative manner and we already descended down to the pathetic "What are you actually doing" level, I guess it goes farther down. (with awful lots of "BUTWHATABOUT"s from you.

 

[Giordano]

There was never a central, common set of criteria by which the statutes went up. Why does there need to be one now to take them down?

 

[Thermal]

Jesus Christ.

Can't a discussion be had about the broader interpretation of statue removals without it turning into this polarizing Us v Them bull ******

Monuments reflect what society reveres and values. If a significant portion finds them reprehensible, and for damned good reasons, why shouldn't a discussion thread explore the reach and limits? It's a natural progression of the topic. Its not like we are carving the results in stone, here and now. It is simply getting the thoughts out on the table to have a thorough perspective.

 

[Manger Douse]

I do however believe the statue Mumbles has as an avatar should be allowed to stay as it's hilarious. I don't think there would be any doubt as to my opinions on the Confederacy if I had one on my front lawn

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Well, since you use "progression" in a derogative manner and we already descended down to the pathetic "What are you actually doing" level, I guess it goes farther down. (with awful lots of "BUTWHATABOUT"s from you.

Did I use "progression" in a derogatory manner? lol. I don't believe I did, and you appear to be another person who doesn't actually bother to read anything before deciding to warp a person's comments into something other than what they meant. Welcome to the ISF, mate, you'll fit right in with that attitude.

My point was, since you, random bloke who apparently has a better understanding of the topic than I, seem to think that I'm displaying whataboutism, or whatever other catchy hashtag is popular right now, then could you care to tell me what we should be discussing in this thread if not the wider debate about cultural and historical figures we no longer deem worthy of celebration?

Where exactly does a "Colston's statue has been taken down" conversation go after we've established said statue has bitten the dust?

I'm just asking, since you seem to be clued up on it all.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

There was never a central, common set of criteria by which the statutes went up. Why does there need to be one now to take them down?

The real crux of the matter is who paid for them, apparently.

 

[Giordano]

The real crux of the matter is who paid for them, apparently.

Exactly. And there are people willing to remove some of them for free.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Second, the issue of public maintenance of a statue and its consequence on taxes. Of course there are many things done with tax money which are spread so thin that changing them has no effect on taxes. The fact that the maintenance of the Colson statue probably cost individual taxpayers nearly nothing does not somehow mean it was not done with tax money. Sure, if the statue added a tenth of a penny to your annual tax, the benefit of tossing it will not be seen in your tax bill, but there are other reasons for doing so, and even if keeping the bugger clean cost nearly nothing, nearly nothing is something.

This completely.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Ali, like many, was a complex man. He was a staunch advocate for civil rights, anti-war, and supporter of race-relations, yet he regarded women as lesser members of society, didn't see any issue with beating up any of his wives, hung around with some pretty dubious and controversial people and was by all accounts a shocking father to his children.

Do I take his picture down? (It's a privately funded purchase, if that helps the decision-making)

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1393&pictureid=12534[/qimg]

It appears to be in a private place so it's up to you. But I'd suggest that if someone in your family had suffered domestic violence themselves (or was particularly engaged with that particular social ill) and was aware of Ali's history in that regard they might feel differently and then I hope you'd consider their feelings if they felt uncomfortable living in a house where they had to look at it. That's the point, if some rich guy wants a statue of a slave trader in their back garden, whatever, when you put it in the middle of town everyone has to look at this celebration of a man who would have considered a subgroup of them as, at best, animals and treated them as such.

And seriously, in all my life in the UK I don't think I've ever met anyone who gives a flying **** about Morrissey.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'm sure he thinks he's a double hard bed ******** patriot but I'd have thought a real patriot would be aware of a monument to a copper who saved us from them Muslamics

After 16 pints I doubt he could have picked the Queen out of a line up.

He was there to 'protect statues' but didn't know which ones.. The BLM movement should put out a statement that they're going to vandalise a statue of Mandela and watch these guys drop to aneurysms.

 

[wareyin]

Second, the issue of public maintenance of a statue and its consequence on taxes. Of course there are many things done with tax money which are spread so thin that changing them has no effect on taxes. The fact that the maintenance of the Colson statue probably cost individual taxpayers nearly nothing does not somehow mean it was not done with tax money. Sure, if the statue added a tenth of a penny to your annual tax, the benefit of tossing it will not be seen in your tax bill, but there are other reasons for doing so, and even if keeping the bugger clean cost nearly nothing, nearly nothing is something.

IMO when the government is paying to install and/or upkeep these statues this is government endorsement of these statues and what they stand for. This is not something that we citizens can choose not to support, or in many cases even choose to avoid. When the State Governments installed statues honoring Confederate generals and politicians on city squares and in front of courthouses, they were very clearly sending a message.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ahh, my favorite forum pastime. Arguing about whether someone said something, and its cousin, arguing about whether someone ought to have said something.

In case anyone wants to talk about statues, here's my condensed version:

Confederate statues: Boo!
Columbus statues: Yay!
Tearing down any statue without a permit (i.e. mobs with ropes): Boo!
Tearing down any statue if the elected representatives want it torn down: Ok or Yay! depending on the statue.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

In case anyone wants to talk about statues, here's my condensed version:

Confederate statues: Boo!
Columbus statues: Yay!
Tearing down any statue without a permit (i.e. mobs with ropes): Boo!
Tearing down any statue if the elected representatives want it torn down: Ok or Yay! depending on the statue.

Personally, I'm all for people petitioning to state which statues stay and which ones go, let the people decide. But that wouldn't go anywhere, as people are often only interested in what they think is right.

The people spraying over the Penny Lane sign never knew who James Penny was before last week, yet they're now completely against him. In the case of Gladstone, he's being hunted down because of his father's ties to slavery, so we're now broadening the cull to include family members of slave owners/traders, apparently.

I think a revised acknowledgment of said person's deeds in the form of a plaque detailing why the statue was erected, would be the way forward.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

What did columbus do that was so noteworthy other than being the most lucky man in history after deciding the world was pear shaped and he could go around the small end much more easily? I get it that he revolutionized labor relations with his hands off policy for insufficient gold I guess.

But then why be so upset with a statue of Leopold? Seriously he was about the same as columbus though less effective at genocide and not as personally involved with prepubescent sex slavery.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Regarding Gladstone, pub-owners in the city have refused to change the name of a pub named in his honour because "The pub holds the name William Gladstone in recognition of his role as a successful Prime Minister, a position he held an unprecedented four times."

Also, the Blue Coat School in Wavertree announced that it would hold a consultation over removing the name of its founder Bryan Blundell, former Mayor of Liverpool and slave ship owner, as a house name.


https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/pub-named-after-william-gladstone-18400316

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ahh, my favorite forum pastime. Arguing about whether someone said something, and its cousin, arguing about whether someone ought to have said something.

In case anyone wants to talk about statues, here's my condensed version:

Confederate statues: Boo!
Columbus statues: Yay!

As long as it is of him raping and 8 year old on a pile of severed hands, got to have the historic context after all, these things are about history right?

 

[wareyin]

In case anyone wants to talk about statues, here's my condensed version:

Confederate statues: Boo!
Columbus statues: Yay!
Tearing down any statue without a permit (i.e. mobs with ropes): Boo!
Tearing down any statue if the elected representatives want it torn down: Ok or Yay! depending on the statue.

Ok, in the case of North Carolina and several other southern states making it illegal for Confederate statues to be torn down, now what?

 

[Meadmaker]

Ok, in the case of North Carolina and several other southern states making it illegal for Confederate statues to be torn down, now what?

Is the legislature elected?

 

[Meadmaker]

Lincoln statues: Yay!!!

But in Boston:

In Boston, the mayor is considering tearing down a statue of the 16th president of the United States after a petition from a legion of morons said it was offensive (via WCVB 5)

It won't surprise many to find out that the townhall.com piece is somewhat misleading.

The mainstream press article I read about it noted that it depicts Lincoln with a slave on his knees.

It shouldn't surprise many that the mainstream press articles I read about it were also misleading.

I went to images.google.com and looked up the statue. The statue has the word "Emancipation" on it, and it pictures a standing Lincoln, over a black man, obviously a slave, who is rising from his knees. One knee is still on the ground, but the sense of the statue is clear to me that he is lifting himself up.

 

[wareyin]

Is the legislature elected?

Yes. Does that somehow negate the laws they put into effect? When a city wishes to remove statues on city land, and has the support of the populace of that city to do so, the state law prohibits them from doing so. That city may even have the support of the State Senator or State Representative representing their district. This might shock you, but that's not enough.