Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[Meadmaker]

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.

Democracy is like that sometimes. Sometimes, the wrong team wins.

That's why it's the worst form of government, except for all the others.

 

[wareyin]

Democracy is like that sometimes. Sometimes, the wrong team wins.

That's why it's the worst form of government, except for all the others.

When the official answer is "tough luck, we get to keep rubbing our racism in your face" that really primes the pump for people tearing down statues without a permit. I thought you were against that.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Well at least you've had a stab at it. It's clearly not a serious question about whether or not I should have that picture on my wall. I don't celebrate the man for his attitude towards women, I celebrate him for his boxing ability.

I guess the problem regarding Colston is that not everyone seemed to agree with it being removed, so the everyone in your post above was limited to some of, if not most. So is it up to the people when it comes to who we celebrate and who we don't? I've never been given the vote on any statues being erected. Was there a petition for and against the Colston statue? Does everyone actually get a say in what statues stand in their cities?

The everyone was 'has to look at' not 'disagrees with' and as for the highlighted, well obviously, but the point is that if you'd been effected by the issue you might not want to see him celebrated in a public space. When a man presided over nearly 100,000 ruined lives and 20,000 deaths because he considered that skin colour made a person worth as much as cattle it's as distressing and as much an insult to people of that group as putting up a statue of Hitler would be to Jews, or of Jimmy Saville to child abuse victims. Sometimes it doesn't have to be about having a vote, sometimes it's about doing the right thing for a group of your constituents.

Incidentally the Colston statue has been controversial since the 90's and there have been previous, popular attempts to remove or contextualise the statue but from what I can see these we blocked by a small number of people in the council not by public support. A petition to remove started in response to the BLM protests had rapidly exceeded five figures before it was toppled.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

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]

Are you operating a court of law or other official government functions at your location?

Private funding is one aspect of the issue.

The symbolism of where they stand is another. Yeah, come get your fair trial at the courthouse where we celebrate the legacy of racist generals from the losing side. Come petition for redress of grievances, you just have to walk past the guy who human trafficked your ancestors, no big deal. It's ok because he gave generously to the arts and other disciplines (which a certain class of people could enjoy, of course).

That the government maintains them in places of prominence at all another still. Hey, good morning on your drive to work every day, the Daughters of Confederates Who Forgot They Are Losing Losers want to remind you that you belong in chains. Have a nice day!

 

[Meadmaker]

When the official answer is "tough luck, we get to keep rubbing our racism in your face" that really primes the pump for people tearing down statues without a permit. I thought you were against that.

So, what are the alternatives.

The city government wants to remove the statue.
The state government passes a law that says the statue has to stay.

I'm saying, "Tough luck, city" which might lead to tearing down the statue, so, what do you think I ought to be saying instead?

Is it, in a situation like this, you ought to tear down the statue, because otherwise someone might tear down the statue? I just don't understand where there's a workable suggestion anywhere else.

The state government ought to back off. The people of the city should protest and do everything they can within the law to change the law. However, sometimes, in a democracy, you don't get what you want, even if you ought to. Come to think of it, under any form of government, you don't get what you want, even if you ought to. Do I think it is inevitable that some statues will get torn down? Yes. Absolutely. I don't endorse it, but it doesn't exactly keep me up at night, either.

But I think I ought to be the one to decide which statues to tear down. That makes no sense to you? Why is it any better than letting whoever happens to have a rope and some friends?

You could always try to go to the national government. A law against Confederate statues might be unconstitutional, but maybe if you threaten to cut off funding for governments who do not (ask your lawyers what to insert here, but what it means is that if they don't repeal the law, letting the city government taking away the statues, then they don't get funding.)

Consumer boycotts have also been somewhat effective lately. Boycott states with confederate statue laws. Get the sports teams on board, that has been effective. Threatening to cancel big sporting events is a bit hollow right now, but they'll start up again eventually.

 

[Planigale]

The everyone was 'has to look at' not 'disagrees with' and as for the highlighted, well obviously, but the point is that if you'd been effected by the issue you might not want to see him celebrated in a public space. When a man presided over nearly 100,000 ruined lives and 20,000 deaths because he considered that skin colour made a person worth as much as cattle it's as distressing and as much an insult to people of that group as putting up a statue of Hitler would be to Jews, or of Jimmy Saville to child abuse victims. Sometimes it doesn't have to be about having a vote, sometimes it's about doing the right thing for a group of your constituents.

Incidentally the Colston statue has been controversial since the 90's and there have been previous, popular attempts to remove or contextualise the statue but from what I can see these we blocked by a small number of people in the council not by public support. A petition to remove started in response to the BLM protests had rapidly exceeded five figures before it was toppled.

I am not sure whether this statement refers to Colston, if so I am unsure where you got the figures from or know what he thought?

The important issue is that Colston was not a bad man. To label him an evil racist slaver means that there are no lessons to be learned, one just turns round and says I am not racist so this is irrelevant. Colston was a good man; law abiding, church going, a philanthropist. The question then is how could a good man become involved in slavery? Why did good people invest in the tobacco and arms industry? Once we ask how could a good person become involved in something evil then it raises issues about how can we as good people avoid involvement in evil?

As an example. Many people protesting in the Black Lives Matter demonstrations are likely to use cannabis. Much of the cannabis in the UK is grown by slaves, how much effort do the good people demonstrating against the statue of a slave trader make to ensure they are not putting money into the hands of modern day slavers? One could make the same argument about those attending nail salons. Colston would likely never have seen a slave. The good people demonstrating against the statue of a slave trader probably never see the slaves who grow their cannabis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ure-help-enslaved-vietnamese-cannabis-farmers

 

[Darat]

So, what are the alternatives.

The city government wants to remove the statue.
The state government passes a law that says the statue has to stay.

I'm saying, "Tough luck, city" which might lead to tearing down the statue, so, what do you think I ought to be saying instead?

Is it, in a situation like this, you ought to tear down the statue, because otherwise someone might tear down the statue? I just don't understand where there's a workable suggestion anywhere else.

The state government ought to back off. The people of the city should protest and do everything they can within the law to change the law. However, sometimes, in a democracy, you don't get what you want, even if you ought to. Come to think of it, under any form of government, you don't get what you want, even if you ought to. Do I think it is inevitable that some statues will get torn down? Yes. Absolutely. I don't endorse it, but it doesn't exactly keep me up at night, either.

But I think I ought to be the one to decide which statues to tear down. That makes no sense to you? Why is it any better than letting whoever happens to have a rope and some friends?

You could always try to go to the national government. A law against Confederate statues might be unconstitutional, but maybe if you threaten to cut off funding for governments who do not (ask your lawyers what to insert here, but what it means is that if they don't repeal the law, letting the city government taking away the statues, then they don't get funding.)

Consumer boycotts have also been somewhat effective lately. Boycott states with confederate statue laws. Get the sports teams on board, that has been effective. Threatening to cancel big sporting events is a bit hollow right now, but they'll start up again eventually.

Thankfully in most functioning democracies this type of stalemate can be overcome with civil disobedience. The “tyranny of the majority” is something most functional democracies have to deal with, I do understand that in the USA its original founders were aware of this problem. Unfortunately your founders did not recognise that the tyranny of the majority can exist at different levels in governance, Or rather they were happy with them being the tyranny of the majority of people with power. Human societies and cultures are immensely complicated and it is impossible for any system of government to be entirely fair, representative and protective. Therefore at times actions have to be taken to upset the applecart.

For me the line is more around harm to people than harm to objects, so people being attacked I hold to be wrong in nearly all circumstances, private property being damaged to be wrong most of the time, “public” statues fall very much into the “meh” category for me.

 

[Darat]

I am not sure whether this statement refers to Colston, if so I am unsure where you got the figures from or know what he thought?

The important issue is that Colston was not a bad man. To label him an evil racist slaver means that there are no lessons to be learned, one just turns round and says I am not racist so this is irrelevant. Colston was a good man; law abiding, church going, a philanthropist. The question then is how could a good man become involved in slavery? Why did good people invest in the tobacco and arms industry? Once we ask how could a good person become involved in something evil then it raises issues about how can we as good people avoid involvement in evil?

As an example. Many people protesting in the Black Lives Matter demonstrations are likely to use cannabis. Much of the cannabis in the UK is grown by slaves, how much effort do the good people demonstrating against the statue of a slave trader make to ensure they are not putting money into the hands of modern day slavers? One could make the same argument about those attending nail salons. Colston would likely never have seen a slave. The good people demonstrating against the statue of a slave trader probably never see the slaves who grow their cannabis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ure-help-enslaved-vietnamese-cannabis-farmers

Your whole argument fails because your starting premise is wrong. Colston was a bad person.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I am not sure whether this statement refers to Colston, if so I am unsure where you got the figures from or know what he thought?

The important issue is that Colston was not a bad man. To label him an evil racist slaver means that there are no lessons to be learned, one just turns round and says I am not racist so this is irrelevant. Colston was a good man; law abiding, church going, a philanthropist. The question then is how could a good man become involved in slavery? Why did good people invest in the tobacco and arms industry? Once we ask how could a good person become involved in something evil then it raises issues about how can we as good people avoid involvement in evil?

As an example. Many people protesting in the Black Lives Matter demonstrations are likely to use cannabis. Much of the cannabis in the UK is grown by slaves, how much effort do the good people demonstrating against the statue of a slave trader make to ensure they are not putting money into the hands of modern day slavers? One could make the same argument about those attending nail salons. Colston would likely never have seen a slave. The good people demonstrating against the statue of a slave trader probably never see the slaves who grow their cannabis.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ure-help-enslaved-vietnamese-cannabis-farmers

They are the widely reported numbers (slightly rounded from the exact figures hence the word 'nearly') for the number of people his company enslaved and transported and the number of those who died en route during the years he sat on the board of the Royal African Company which monopolised the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, a business that was literally based on the idea that people with black skin had no more rights than cattle and could be captured, broken, bred, branded worked to death or killed without consequence.


I really don't care if he went to church, that doesn't make someone good, and his charity is considered by many historians (as with much charity from business doners at the time) to have been ineffectual and self serving, a show of philanthropy was socially expected and such public shows of largess conferred social, political and business advantages, just as they do to this day.

Although the fiscal contribution of the Colston Societies was superficial this should not lead one to understate the importance of philanthropy as ritual in the maintenance of urban power structures - Jordan, The Developement and Implimentation of Authority in a Regional Capital

 

[The Don]

Your whole argument fails because your starting premise is wrong. Colston was a bad person.

Only if you consider being a slave-trader and/or restricting your charitable largesse to those who are willing to conform to your particular political and religious views to be the mark of a bad person

OTOH at least one prominent late Victorian thought that he was exactly the sort of person that Bristol should venerate.

So who are we going to listen to, the thousands of people who object to the veneration of Edward Colston (many of whom are young and/or brown), or one dead white man ?

 

[Darat]

Only if you consider being a slave-trader and/or restricting your charitable largesse to those who are willing to conform to your particular political and religious views to be the mark of a bad person

OTOH at least one prominent late Victorian thought that he was exactly the sort of person that Bristol should venerate.

So who are we going to listen to, the thousands of people who object to the veneration of Edward Colston (many of whom are young and/or brown), or one dead white man ?

Don’t forget the other objection of “well everyone back then was bad if we judge them by today’s standards”. That simply isn’t true, there were thousands and thousands of people who would still be considered good people today judged by today’s standards. That people didn’t erect monuments to them (on the whole) is simple illustrating who had the power back then.

 

[Andy_Ross]

“The patriotic brigade” in Nuneaton have decided to guard the statue of George Eliot. Presumably from attacks from people who prefer reading Jane Austen.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm beginning to fear for the statue of Grandma Giles in Ipswich town centre now.

Dave

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I think I'm out, when I find myself having to argue that a man who activity promoted slavery and branding human beings with his company name wasn't a 'good' person even if he was a 'church goer', I think I'll quit while I still have some faith left in humanity. Besides which, I have an unpleasant feeling that a couple of decades ago I might have had some sympathy for the "but it's our culture and history to celebrate these people" argument and it isn't a position I've been argued out of so much as a gradual increase in empathy that has made me realise just how horrible a statue in a public place venerating a man like Colston as 'virtuous and wise' is to people whose only difference to me is their skin colour but who because of that difference might have been treated like cattle. But every improvement in human rights and dignity has been fought by people who thought the status quo was fine, because it was for them.

I've been rereading a lot of Terry Pratchett recently and it's really struck me how many gems interspersed his work, and how applicable they are to so much that's going on globally now in several areas. This seems particularly apt.

"...And that's what your holy men discuss, is it?" [asked Granny Weatherwax.]
"Not usually. There is a very interesting debate raging at the moment on the nature of sin. for example." [answered Mightily Oats.]
"And what do they think? Against it, are they?"
"It's not as simple as that. It's not a black and white issue. There are so many shades of gray."
"Nope."
"Pardon?"
"There's no grays, only white that's got grubby. I'm surprised you don't know that. And sin, young man, is when you treat people like things. Including yourself. That's what sin is."
"It's a lot more complicated than that--"
"No. It ain't. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they're getting worried that they won't like the truth. People as things, that's where it starts."
"Oh, I'm sure there are worse crimes--"
"But they starts with thinking about people as things..."
--from Carpe Jugulum, by Terry Pratchett

.

 

[Meadmaker]

Hard to see this one coming:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...exico-statue-protest-armed-militia-group.html

That's the problem with mob action. There might be more than one mob, and then things get ugly.

ETA: Story is about one person shot when a mob wanting to tear down a statue met with armed men trying to protect the statue.

(I'm trying to make sure people don't have to click just to see what I'm talking about.)

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Hard to see this one coming:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...exico-statue-protest-armed-militia-group.html

That's the problem with mob action. There might be more than one mob, and then things get ugly.

ETA: Story is about one person shot when a mob wanting to tear down a statue met with armed men trying to protect the statue.

(I'm trying to make sure people don't have to click just to see what I'm talking about.)

Further videos showed that the gunman had assaulted a woman immediately prior to the shooting. He shot a man as he attempted to flee the crime scene. The gunman started a fight and pulled out his gun when he was rightfully getting his ass kicked.

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1272775001200971777

Is your point that armed, right-wing counterprotesters are proving themselves to be a danger to the public?

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

The everyone was 'has to look at' not 'disagrees with' and as for the highlighted, well obviously, but the point is that if you'd been effected by the issue you might not want to see him celebrated in a public space. When a man presided over nearly 100,000 ruined lives and 20,000 deaths because he considered that skin colour made a person worth as much as cattle it's as distressing and as much an insult to people of that group as putting up a statue of Hitler would be to Jews, or of Jimmy Saville to child abuse victims. Sometimes it doesn't have to be about having a vote, sometimes it's about doing the right thing for a group of your constituents.

I highly doubt many of Ali's former wives really cared to see him in all of his bronzed glory, but I doubt if them complaining about it would be met with much friction, because he's seen as a hero, and in his scenario, his wrongdoings are ignored.

I agree, but there's a big difference between people like Saville and Hitler who generally did nothing of value for anyone, and say, William Gladstone, who is the new target of angry Woke teenagers in this city. So it's not so black and white, really. Obviously nobody, save a small minority of weirdos, would want a statue of Jimmy or Adolf, but it's hard to say that William Gladstone, who has a few prominent places in this city named after him, didn't actually do any good for anyone.

As Richard Kemp, Lib Dem leader here, put it: “His government laid the basis of the welfare state, widened who could vote and did so many things we take for granted in this country. We should be incredibly proud of him. Gladstone was without doubt an abolitionist – precisely what he argued to get it through is not for me to doubt.”

Incidentally the Colston statue has been controversial since the 90's and there have been previous, popular attempts to remove or contextualise the statue but from what I can see these we blocked by a small number of people in the council not by public support. A petition to remove started in response to the BLM protests had rapidly exceeded five figures before it was toppled.

Well that's a different story, as people had previously made their feelings known about it, whereas I don't recall a single outcry against "Penny Lane" before last week when a few kids discovered that the street could be named after James Penny, although the truth of that matter isn't actually even clear.

As for Colston's statue, as I've said many times, good for Bristol. Put a small unremarkable plaque in its place providing information on who the man was and what he did and didn't do.

More education on these people and why they're being honoured is my best solution, rather than just burying them for what we don't like about them. After all, that's exactly what history is, it's what's happened, we don't have to agree or admire any of it, we just have to acknowledge it.

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Are you operating a court of law or other official government functions at your location?

Private funding is one aspect of the issue.

The symbolism of where they stand is another. Yeah, come get your fair trial at the courthouse where we celebrate the legacy of racist generals from the losing side. Come petition for redress of grievances, you just have to walk past the guy who human trafficked your ancestors, no big deal. It's ok because he gave generously to the arts and other disciplines (which a certain class of people could enjoy, of course).

That the government maintains them in places of prominence at all another still. Hey, good morning on your drive to work every day, the Daughters of Confederates Who Forgot They Are Losing Losers want to remind you that you belong in chains. Have a nice day!

You honestly don't have to explain to me why such statues are potentially emotionally problematic for people. I get it, and I'm not arguing against it, never have.

Again, though, you need not look far around you in most cities on earth to find some sort of grim reminder of the past, black suffering and white suffering, and everything in between. I don't expect anyone to want to have to put up with being surrounded by monuments to people we now look upon as wrongdoers, for one reason or another, but I also don't expect us to now completely alter our towns and cities in a quest to forget the past.

It's obvious lately that so many people are clueless about history, and they're now looking back to it merely to locate "witches" to burn, as opposed to educating themselves on what exactly was going on at the time. There was a comment from a student here recently about why the International Slavery Museum was allowed to operate, that's honestly how stupid some of these kids are.

We can't possibly change everything, but we should change some of it, and if we can't completely change it, we should provide better information on it and seek to actually educate people about it.

 

[Meadmaker]

Further videos showed that the gunman had assaulted a woman immediately prior to the shooting. He shot a man as he attempted to flee the crime scene. The gunman started a fight and pulled out his gun when he was rightfully getting his ass kicked.

https://twitter.com/chadloder/status/1272775001200971777

Is your point that armed, right-wing counterprotesters are proving themselves to be a danger to the public?

As is so often the case with mob actions in the days of cell phone cameras, people will analyze and pick apart the events. Two groups of people travel to a place to confront each other and, against all odds, fighting starts. Whodda thunk it? Now let's pick apart the camera footage to see who is at fault.

It has to be done, of course. Someone ended up shot. That's a pretty big deal. You can't just say, "Who cares? They were all part of the groups causing trouble."

In this video, we have a group of people showing up with tools (picks and such) specifically bent on destruction of public property. Another group has weapons, to threaten people who are destroying public property. Now we see a man trying to make his way through the crowd. A women deliberately obstructs his movement. The man uses force to end her obstruction. He roughly casts her aside, causing pain, but not obviously injury. A crowd threatens the man, causing fear. He pulls a gun, and shoots someone.

Trying to sort out in all that mess seems difficult to me, but prosecutors will do it, I suppose. I think the guy with the gun is probably going to be on the losing end when it's sorted out. He will certainly claim that the threatening mob justified self defense, but will the prosecutors and/or jurors buy it?

What I'm certain of is that the statue wasn't harming anyone. It wasn't even a symbol of oppression, unless perhaps oppression in the distant past. People hating on Confederate statues could make the case that those statues are symbols of modern subjugation, put in place specifically to intimidate black people. Can we say the same about conquistadors? Placing that statue was a means of making sure the Indians knew who was boss?

 

[Meadmaker]

I guess the "put them in a museum" solution isn't going to work in Albequerque. The statue was already in a museum. It was part of a set of sculptures at the Albequerque Museum of Art and History.