Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

[trustbutverify]

All the ones that say "Mission Accomplished!" and "Look how well the elite establishment treats minorities now!" probably should be. Because they'd be lying propaganda and not monuments to any actual thing.

If you take over a workplace and lower the wages, eliminate job security, institute all-part-time staffing to reduce benefits, and outsource the best paying jobs, sooner or later someone's going to tear down the "We're All Doing Great Together!" sign. Get used to this.

The outrageous hypocrisy of US/state government sponsoring tributes to the civil rights movement, while patting themselves on the back for having become enlightened enough to do so, demand these monuments come down. But don't worry, you'll probably never have to get used to that.

 

[SpitfireIX]

This may not be a popular position, but I'd be perfectly willing to let the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy keep all the Confederate flags and monuments they want, even on public property, if all their leaders and ordinary members would sincerely admit that the war was fought first and foremost to defend slavery. To me that would be a much bigger victory than getting rid of all the statues and flags.

 

[trustbutverify]

This may not be a popular position, but I'd be perfectly willing to let the Sons of Confederate Veterans and the United Daughters of the Confederacy keep all the Confederate flags and monuments they want, even on public property, if all their leaders and ordinary members would sincerely admit that the war was fought first and foremost to defend slavery. To me that would be a much bigger victory than getting rid of all the statues and flags.

I'd rather have both. But if I could only have one, I'd take the destruction of confederate statues and other monuments.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

You may think so. Others may strongly disagree. Or, maybe they're just pissed off because the US has basically thrown in white kids with the nonwhite kids now, while giving the police less oversight and more toys to torment people with, an d they want to smash something. It'll vary from person to person.

Washington is rather obvious as far as anger goes. U.S. Grant? Hero of the Civil War, inherited a single slave and freed him as soon as he could, remarkable memoirs. Personally, I lean towards rather liking him.

Do you like him because he expelled the Jews or despite him expelling the Jews?

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Have you actually counted the Confederate versus the non-Confederate statues that have been pulled down? I think the non-Confederates have taken the lead at this point.

ETA: I am counting "unauthorized" pulldowns.

They've run out of Confederate statues so they have moved on to simply white guys.

 

[Meadmaker]

Do you like him because he expelled the Jews or despite him expelling the Jews?

Wow. I had never heard of that before. The things they leave out of history class.

Ok. Tear that dude's statue down.


But seriously....that's pretty bad. I wouldn't condone removing the statues illegally, and, if the truth be told I still wouldn't remove the statues of him, but I wouldn't put up new ones either. It will certainly make me look at Grant differently.

 

[Meadmaker]

Some might ask why I might be so offended at Grant's anti-Jewish behavior, but not at Washington's slavery, or Columbus' conquering and enslavement of Indians, or even Grant's own treatment of Indians.

It goes back to moral relativism. The actions of Columbus or Washington, as bad as we see them today, were within the law of the land and considered normal for their time. Good people in those times did bad things, because society said they weren't bad things. Similarly with Grant and the Indians. However, throwing Jews out of their homes was not the thing to do in Grant's time, as witnessed by the complaints in Congress and in Lincoln's overturning of the order. It was a case where Grant did a bad thing, and not a bad thing that was authorized by the law of the day. He wasn't just going with the flow. He had to stretch above and beyond to be a schmuck.

 

[metacristi]

as Pascal Bruckner able explain [referring to the strong advent of this brand of progressivism in the 1990s]:

The word ‘racism’ has acquired a galloping obesity, swallowing up in its definition all sorts of behaviours, attitudes, and rites that had up to this point not been connected with it. Anti-racism...is a rapidly expanding market in which each group, in order to exist, has to allege that it has suffered a wound that makes it special. These are no longer associations of citizens who have joined together to combat racism; they are religious or community lobbies that invent new forms of discrimination to justify their existence and receive the maximum of publicity and reparations...A consistent anti-racist is a sleuth who discovers a new form of segregation every morning, delighted to have added this new species to the great taxonomy of progressive thought.

Much of these excesses of postmodernist 'progressivism' unfortunately found their way deeply at the root of the society now, the quasi-victory in the culture wars gave progressives basically a free hand, of which they were not ashamed to abuse; from what I see even police in Britain is taught now that the perception of the victim has priority when defining hate / racial incidents. There is a reason that these activists never tire to remind us about the 'endemic racism' or 'institutionalized racism' in UK, the West more generally...only that almost completely political in nature (via diluting the definition of 'racism' and so on basically ad infinitum).

I do not deny that a moderate form of political correctness can be of help but when everything morphs largely in the exact opposite of Reason and free speech I think it is hard time to find an entirely another basis for progressivism. In reality even many of those vilified as 'haters' by the current propaganda can be much more progressive than many of so called 'progressives'. Finally, the incapacity of quite many progressives of today to 'see' beyond the 'system' (of values and accepted 'progressive' truths they were taught) cannot put them, I'm afraid, much ahead of the rich slave trader of the past incapable to see the society working without (black) slavery.

 

[Arcade22]

That's an odd way of putting it if you're serious, as what you seem to be saying is that the "senseless outburst of mob rule" is senseless because it doesn't go far enough. If you include yourself in the "we" who could try, you could, presumably, take it on yourself to recommend other statues to be demolished, rather than presuming that your standards should be everyone's.

Personally I don't really care that much about public statues. The point is that It's senseless because it's illegal and the last thing you want to do is allow people to take upon themselves the right decide what statues or monuments can be displayed in public by fiat acompli.

It gives people the impression that they can force changes through illegal and extra-parlimentary means which ought to be avoided.

 

[Darat]

Personally I don't really care that much about public statues. The point is that It's senseless because it's illegal and the last thing you want to do is allow people to take upon themselves the right decide what statues or monuments can be displayed in public by fiat acompli.

It gives people the impression that they can force changes through illegal and extra-parlimentary means which ought to be avoided.

I agree.

But then most of our rights came after campaigns that didn't avoid that. Sometimes it has been necessary to force changes through illegal and extra-parliamentary means.

The world is simply not black and white when it comes to these types of issues.

 

[bruto]

Personally I don't really care that much about public statues. The point is that It's senseless because it's illegal and the last thing you want to do is allow people to take upon themselves the right decide what statues or monuments can be displayed in public by fiat acompli.

It gives people the impression that they can force changes through illegal and extra-parlimentary means which ought to be avoided.

I would agree that such means ought to be avoided, but that presupposes that legal means ought to be fair and effective, which in the circumstances is at least quite debatable.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Wow. I had never heard of that before. The things they leave out of history class.

Ok. Tear that dude's statue down.


But seriously....that's pretty bad. I wouldn't condone removing the statues illegally, and, if the truth be told I still wouldn't remove the statues of him, but I wouldn't put up new ones either. It will certainly make me look at Grant differently.

I think new statues of Grant are fine. From Ron Chernow's biography, which I happen to be reading at the moment:

The publisher Joseph Medill . . . suggested to Elihu Wasburne that Grant submit an expiatory letter to "leading and influential " Jewish leaders as a way of "smoothing the matter over." Grant took personal responsibility, disavowing his wartime order as a thoughtless, misguided action that a moment's reflection might have blocked. To Isaac Morris, who was Jewish, he insisted in September [1868] "I have no prejudice against sect or race, but want each individual to be judged by his own merit." He admitted that General Orders No. 11 "does not sustain this statement . . . but then I do not sustain that order. It never would have been issued if it had not been telegraphed the moment penned, without one moment's reflection." This letter traveled widely in the Jewish community. Grant also sat down with David Eckstein, a Jewish leader from Cincinnati, and convinced him that he regretted his wartime action and was free of any anti-Semitic taint. He told the lawyer Simon Wolf that his wartime order was "directed simply against evil designing persons, whose religion was in no way material to the issue." In the end, Jewish voters across the country forgave and endorsed Grant, who began a systematic effort to atone for his atrocious decision. (p. 620; citations omitted; bolding mine)

Mortified at memories of General Orders No. 11, Grant compiled an outstanding record of incorporating Jews into his administration, one that far outstripped his predecessors'. The lawyer Simon Wolf estimated that Grant appointed more than fifty Jewish citizens at his request alone, including consuls, district attorneys, and deputy postmasters, with Wolf himself becoming recorder of deeds for the District of Columbia. When Grant made Edward S. Salomon governor of the Washington Territory, it was the first time an American Jew had occupied a gubernatorial post. (When Salomon proved corrupt, Grant handled his case leniently, letting him resign.) Elated at this appointment, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise said it showed "that President Grant has revoked General Grant's notorious order No. 11."(pp. 642-3; citation omitted; italics original; bolding mine)

Grant also introduced a crusading spirit in protecting Jewish rights abroad, even if it clashed with other foreign policy interests. In the past, such concerns had been criticized as interfering with the internal affairs of other nations. Now Grant set a new benchmark for fostering human rights abroad, growing out of his concern for persecuted Jews. In November 1869, reports surfaced that Russia had brutally relocated two thousand Jewish families to the interior on smuggling charges--an episode faintly reminiscent of Grant's own wartime order. After conferring with American Jewish leaders, Grant responded in exemplary fashion. "It is too late, in this age of enlightenment," he told them, "to persecute any one on account of race, color, or religion." He protested to the czar while the American ambassador in Russia formulated a state paper documenting coercion against Russian Jews. The New York World professed satisfaction at how superior this Grant was to "that General Grant who issued . . . an order suddenly exiling all the Jews from their homes within the territory occupied by his armies."(p. 643; citations omitted; bolding mine)​

 

[SpitfireIX]

Additionally, if statues of Grant have to go, then statues of FDR unquestionably have to go, due to his expulsion and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

 

[Meadmaker]

I think new statues of Grant are fine. From Ron Chernow's biography, which I happen to be reading at the moment:

The publisher Joseph Medill . . . suggested to Elihu Wasburne that Grant submit an expiatory letter to "leading and influential " Jewish leaders as a way of "smoothing the matter over." Grant took personal responsibility, disavowing his wartime order as a thoughtless, misguided action that a moment's reflection might have blocked. To Isaac Morris, who was Jewish, he insisted in September [1868] "I have no prejudice against sect or race, but want each individual to be judged by his own merit." He admitted that General Orders No. 11 "does not sustain this statement . . . but then I do not sustain that order. It never would have been issued if it had not been telegraphed the moment penned, without one moment's reflection." This letter traveled widely in the Jewish community. Grant also sat down with David Eckstein, a Jewish leader from Cincinnati, and convinced him that he regretted his wartime action and was free of any anti-Semitic taint. He told the lawyer Simon Wolf that his wartime order was "directed simply against evil designing persons, whose religion was in no way material to the issue." In the end, Jewish voters across the country forgave and endorsed Grant, who began a systematic effort to atone for his atrocious decision. (p. 620; citations omitted; bolding mine)

Mortified at memories of General Orders No. 11, Grant compiled an outstanding record of incorporating Jews into his administration, one that far outstripped his predecessors'. The lawyer Simon Wolf estimated that Grant appointed more than fifty Jewish citizens at his request alone, including consuls, district attorneys, and deputy postmasters, with Wolf himself becoming recorder of deeds for the District of Columbia. When Grant made Edward S. Salomon governor of the Washington Territory, it was the first time an American Jew had occupied a gubernatorial post. (When Salomon proved corrupt, Grant handled his case leniently, letting him resign.) Elated at this appointment, Rabbi Isaac Mayer Wise said it showed "that President Grant has revoked General Grant's notorious order No. 11."(pp. 642-3; citation omitted; italics original; bolding mine)

Grant also introduced a crusading spirit in protecting Jewish rights abroad, even if it clashed with other foreign policy interests. In the past, such concerns had been criticized as interfering with the internal affairs of other nations. Now Grant set a new benchmark for fostering human rights abroad, growing out of his concern for persecuted Jews. In November 1869, reports surfaced that Russia had brutally relocated two thousand Jewish families to the interior on smuggling charges--an episode faintly reminiscent of Grant's own wartime order. After conferring with American Jewish leaders, Grant resonded in exemlary fashion. "It is too late, in this age of enlightenment," he told them, "to persecute any one on account of race, color, or religion." He protested to the czar while the American ambassador in Russia formulated a state paper documenting coercion against Russian Jews. The New York World professed satisfaction at how superior the Grant was to "that General Grant who issued . . . an order suddenly exiling all the Jews from their homes within the territory occupied by his armies."(p. 643; citations omitted; bolding mine)​

Thanks for that info.

He's back in my statue-worthy list. On the one hand, the very fact that the thought would occur to him is bad, but the fact that he went out of his way to atone and correct says a lot about him. Raise more statues! (I hear there's an empty plinth in Richmond......)




On an extremely important note:

Is the word "plinth" a word that most people in the UK would recognize? I had never heard the word. I had to look it up after I read an article about Colston's statue and the now empty plinth. I've seen it a lot more, but mostly used in UK sources and by British people on these boards.

In American sources, I see "pedestal", but I think having a more specific word, i.e. "plinth", is more descriptive.

 

[SpitfireIX]

I also believe that any reasonable person should give Grant a pass on having owned a slave. This is from the last biography of Grant that I read, by Jean M. Smith:

The circumstances are not clear, but sometime during his last year at White Haven, [Grant] acquired possession of the young slave Colonel Dent [Grant's father-in-law] left behind, a thirty-five year old man named William Jones. Grant's views on slavery were ambivalent, and Jones was the only slave he ever owned. When he moved to St. Louis, Grant was initially tempted to rent the man out, but soon decided against it. On March 29, 1859, he went to circuit court and filed the manumission papers to emancipate Jones. Grant never discussed his motives, but the action speaks for itself. Able-bodied slaves sold for a thousand dollars or more, and Grant surely could have used the money. Instead, he set Jones free. (p. 94; citation omitted)​

Along those lines, I tend to give Washington a pass on slavery, as he supported anti-slavery legislation while President, repeatedly expressed his hope that the institution would someday end, and freed all of his slaves in his will. (Note that he was legally unable to free his wife's slaves, due to the terms of her first husband's will.)

Jefferson's case is more problematic, for well-known reasons, but I still don't feel that his statues ought to be removed.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Thanks for that info.

He's back in my statue-worthy list. On the one hand, the very fact that the thought would occur to him is bad, but the fact that he went out of his way to atone and correct says a lot about him. Raise more statues! (I hear there's an empty plinth in Richmond......)

The short version: Grant was upset about the amount of trading with the enemy that was going on, and he was convinced that the proceeds from contraband cotton, which was enormously valuable in the North, were aiding the rebellion. Rightly or wrongly, Grant believed that Jews were disproportionately involved in this illicit trade. The event that really seems to have set him off, though, was the arrival of his unscrupulous father, Jesse Grant, with three traders who happened to be Jews. The traders had offered to cut Jesse in for 25% if he could convince his son to give them a permit to buy cotton from the Confederates. When Grant learned the true purpose of the visit he was furious, and the incident was a major factor in his decision to issue General Orders No. 11.

 

[Matthew Best]

On an extremely important note:

Is the word "plinth" a word that most people in the UK would recognize?

Yes, it is.

There is an ongoing discussion about what to put on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square - there's been a revolving succession of different statues, most memorably for me, Marc Quinn's statute of Alison Lapper, but there have been quite a few - a list is available here:

https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-d...afalgar-square/fourth-plinth-past-commissions

 

[trustbutverify]

Additionally, if statues of Grant have to go, then statues of FDR unquestionably have to go, due to his expulsion and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.

No doubt. For me, Grant is one of the finest (famous) men this country's ever produced. His racism against Jews, culminating in his infamous expulsion order, is repulsive. But at least he was capable of the introspection required to examine his bigotry, and to be embarrassed by and regret it. And to make emends not just in word, but in deed.

Of course, political expediency played a role in all of this, but I think the historical record supports his sincerity. The protesters tore down the wrong statue.

 

[mumblethrax]

I tend to think of Grant's reputation as largely being the result of post-war triumphalism. I don't see him as an especially good man, and he was a terrible president. But he did help win the Civil War. Then again, so did Sherman. There's a gaudy statue of that guy in Manhattan, that I would not miss if it disappeared tomorrow.

But sure, get rid of the FDR statues, if you can find one near you. I'm kind of creeped out by how many god damn statues of dead soldiers and politicians we have in this country. We do not erect these statues for good men, but great men, which is not at all the same thing. Mount Rushmore is positively North Korean--the state glorifying itself through its dead leaders. I'd prefer something more useful, like a working public drinking fountain, or an unremarkable patch of dirt. None of these ******* inaction figures even has kung fu grip.

 

[William Parcher]

BET (Black Entertainment Television) founder Robert Johnson says black people 'laugh' at white people pulling down Confederate statues because it won't 'close the labor gap' - as Trump prepares to use US Marshals to defend monuments

BET founder Robert Johnson has called protesters pulling down Confederate and racist statues 'borderline anarchists' and said 'black people laugh at white people' doing it, as Donald Trump prepares to use US Marshals to defend monuments nationwide.

Johnson, who became the first black American billionaire in 2001 and has previously called on the US government to provide slavery reparations, blasted protesters for tearing down statues across America and calling for TV shows to be canceled, saying such steps achieve nothing in the fight for racial equality.

'What white people are doing with the idea that they're making us feel good is tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs on a racial Titanic,' he told Fox News Wednesday. 'It absolutely means nothing.' He said these actions are simply being done by white people to 'assuage their guilt' and urged them instead to 'ask us what we think first'...

Johnson, who says Black Lives Matter should form its own political party, said taking down statues misses the point about the inequality black people face every day in America and that it does nothing to close the wealth and opportunity gaps between white and black people.

'Look, the people who are basically tearing down statues, trying to make a statement are basically borderline anarchists, the way I look at it. They really have no agenda other than the idea we're going to topple a statue,' Johnson told Fox News. 'It's not going to close the wealth gap. It's not going to give a kid whose parents can't afford college money to go to college. 'It's not going to close the labor gap between what white workers are paid and what black workers are paid. And it's not going to take people off welfare or food stamps.'

Johnson said white protesters are misguided in thinking that black people support their efforts to remove statues, cancel TV shows and fire professors who say 'all lives matter', saying 'frankly, black people don't give a damn'.

'[They] have the mistaken assumption that black people are sitting around cheering for them saying "Oh, my God, look at these white people. They're doing something so important to us. They're taking down the statue of a Civil War general who fought for the South," Johnson said...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rs-pulling-statues-borderline-anarchists.html