• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Lee Statue goes down in Charolttesvile

"sO I gEuss wE hAFTa takE dowN da StatueS of WAShingtON and LincOLN n0w TOO!" - Every Troll
 
Melt them down for scrap metal. If needed, put a few in museums as educational pieces to remind people what not to do with their lives.
 
And Clarke's older brother, George Rogers Clarke.

(Not yet taken down, but they voted to remove it.)
 
Some strange statues. I think it was best to remove them. They are all by the same sculptor and were financed by the same philanthropist.

Robert E. Lee was from Virginia, but he had no connection to Charlottesville. In a contemporary context, it seems to be celebrating the Confederacy attempt to preserve slavery. I see no reason to have a Lee sculpture there.

Stonewall Jackson was born about 70 miles from Charlottesville. Not real close, but not too far. Jackson owned a few slaves. He wasn't for or against slavery and just accepted it as the way things are. He was a military man for the US an when the Civil War broke out he was from Virginia so he joined the Confederate military basically just because of where he lived. The major problem with Jackson was after his death people gave him a significant role in the Lost Cause myth and he became a symbol of the Jim Crow era and perpetuation of discrimination against Blacks. So it has to go.

George Rogers Clark was from the area of Charlottesville and was the father of Clark of Lewis and Clark. He was a military man for the colonies that became the United States. A Revolutionary War hero. At the time was was called the "Conqueror of the Northwest" because he defeated the British at several posts in the Northwest Territory that is now basically Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and a bit of Minnesota.

The Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea is the most strange. Lewis from around Charlottesville and as mentioned above so was Clark's father. They had an expedition to the West coast that is significant of the History of United States. A statue to them in Charlottesville is appropriate. It has a good theme of the first view of the Pacific ocean. They went from around Charlottesville all the way to the end of the land. The statue shows them staring out at the Pacific.

But what the heck is going on with Sacagawea? She was their guide and translator. But it looks like they are dragging her along like a dog. Or her child just died and she is clinging to them in despair. Or she is an alcoholic who just collapsed into a crumbled pile and is distracted by a grasshopper.

The sculptor is for the hometown heroes of Lewis and Clark. Sacagawea is a secondary figure, so it makes sense that she would be smaller or lower. The obvious solution would be to have her crouching behind them or knelling and pointing forward. That makes her secondary. Guides point to things. And that also symbolizes the direction west. That is exactly the type of simplistic trite symbolism that this sculptor uses.

Sacagawea in this position symbolizes...I don't know. It doesn't make sense. Unless it is a super woke post-modern representation of of the puffed-chest chiseled-chin confidence of Whites on the discovery of new land to conquer and the defeated collapse of Sacagawea with anticipatory knowledge of the resulting terror and attempted genocide of her people. Somehow I suspect that was not the intent.

I see no reason for the Lee or Jackson sculptures to be replaced. The George Rogers Clark sculpture should probably be replaced with something that actually depicts his significance in defeating the British.

There really should be a replacement for the Lewis and Clark statue. I think something similar with Lewis and Clark at the forefront and Sacagawea pointing out would be good. Or maybe Lewis and Clark as children with some symbolism of the interest in exploration.

I hope the sculptures find a new home rather than being destroyed. Many Civil War statues and memorials, especially from the 1920s and 1960s, were just to perpetuate the discriminations against and oppression of Blacks. Those can go in the junk pile, other than maybe a couple as representation of a terrible past like displaying a 1930s KKK robe in a museum.

I think these sculptures are different. I think they were simply to honor significant figures from Charlottesville and Virginia. I don't think there was any racist intent, unlike the many other Civil War monuments.

But the sculptures do have a wrongheadedness. Removing them from public spaces is appropriate. But unlike the other blatantly monuments, destruction is not. They have significant historical, artistic, and cultural value. Creations from our past that are not simply deplorable but that are insightful in the way we create public art works. I hope they find a good home in a museum that puts them into an appropriate and meaningful context.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Some strange statues. I think it was best to remove them. They are all by the same sculptor and were financed by the same philanthropist.

Robert E. Lee was from Virginia, but he had no connection to Charlottesville. In a contemporary context, it seems to be celebrating the Confederacy attempt to preserve slavery. I see no reason to have a Lee sculpture there.

Stonewall Jackson was born about 70 miles from Charlottesville. Not real close, but not too far. Jackson owned a few slaves. He wasn't for or against slavery and just accepted it as the way things are. He was a military man for the US an when the Civil War broke out he was from Virginia so he joined the Confederate military basically just because of where he lived. The major problem with Jackson was after his death people gave him a significant role in the Lost Cause myth and he became a symbol of the Jim Crow era and perpetuation of discrimination against Blacks. So it has to go.

George Rogers Clark was from the area of Charlottesville and was the father of Clark of Lewis and Clark. He was a military man for the colonies that became the United States. A Revolutionary War hero. At the time was was called the "Conqueror of the Northwest" because he defeated the British at several posts in the Northwest Territory that is now basically Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and a bit of Minnesota.

The Lewis and Clark and Sacagawea is the most strange. Lewis from around Charlottesville and as mentioned above so was Clark's father. They had an expedition to the West coast that is significant of the History of United States. A statue to them in Charlottesville is appropriate. It has a good theme of the first view of the Pacific ocean. They went from around Charlottesville all the way to the end of the land. The statue shows them staring out at the Pacific.

But what the heck is going on with Sacagawea? She was their guide and translator. But it looks like they are dragging her along like a dog. Or her child just died and she is clinging to them in despair. Or she is an alcoholic who just collapsed into a crumbled pile and is distracted by a grasshopper.

The sculptor is for the hometown heroes of Lewis and Clark. Sacagawea is a secondary figure, so it makes sense that she would be smaller or lower. The obvious solution would be to have her crouching behind them or knelling and pointing forward. That makes her secondary. Guides point to things. And that also symbolizes the direction west. That is exactly the type of simplistic trite symbolism that this sculptor uses.

Sacagawea in this position symbolizes...I don't know. It doesn't make sense. Unless it is a super woke post-modern representation of of the puffed-chest chiseled-chin confidence of Whites on the discovery of new land to conquer and the defeated collapse of Sacagawea with anticipatory knowledge of the resulting terror and attempted genocide of her people. Somehow I suspect that was not the intent.

I see no reason for the Lee or Jackson sculptures to be replaced. The George Rogers Clark sculpture should probably be replaced with something that actually depicts his significance in defeating the British.

There really should be a replacement for the Lewis and Clark statue. I think something similar with Lewis and Clark at the forefront and Sacagawea pointing out would be good. Or maybe Lewis and Clark as children with some symbolism of the interest in exploration.

I hope the sculptures find a new home rather than being destroyed. Many Civil War statues and memorials, especially from the 1920s and 1960s, were just to perpetuate the discriminations against and oppression of Blacks. Those can go in the junk pile, other than maybe a couple as representation of a terrible past like displaying a 1930s KKK robe in a museum.

I think these sculptures are different. I think they were simply to honor significant figures from Charlottesville and Virginia. I don't think there was any racist intent, unlike the many other Civil War monuments.

But the sculptures do have a wrongheadedness. Removing them from public spaces is appropriate. But unlike the other blatantly monuments, destruction is not. They have significant historical, artistic, and cultural value. Creations from our past that are not simply deplorable but that are insightful in the way we create public art works. I hope they find a good home in a museum that puts them into an appropriate and meaningful context.
Click to expand...

The problem is you have to factor in that at least part of the reason, or the reason for some peoples support for the revolutionary war was to perpetuate slavery. So the highlighted should include that freedom from slavery was something the British offered, and the colonists opposed. The colonies winning the revolutionary war may have been good for the white man in the colonies but it was not good for the black man nor the native Americans. (An interesting parallel with the recent controversy over the history of Texas gaining independence from Mexico resulting in the perpetuation of slavery.)

The expansion of the US west led to the genocide of the native peoples. Lewis and Clark expedition needs to be seen in the light that this was the first step in a genocidal policy.

Having said this I am in general not for tearing down or destroying statues, in some cases moving them may be appropriate. But they do provide an opportunity to provide an historical account. They are illustrations in the context as you have said above for Lee and Jackson of the continued oppression following the civil war leading to voter suppression discrimination etc. They can be turned from being memorials to the confederacy to being memorials to discrimination. (This may mean adding rather than removing statues.)
 
Good. Take them down, put a couple of the smaller ones in civil war museums along with the confederate flag and battle flag. Do not celebrate these people.

If you're going to celebrate a confederate officer, celebrate James Longstreet, who was a very good general, and after the war became an abolitionist who worked with his friend Grant and led the African-American militia against the White League at the battle of Liberty Place.

There's a man who realised what he was fighting for was wrong and changed his mind. Of course, because of this he is vilified in the South. But nope, the war wasn't about slavery. No siree.
 
Again we're hand wringing about whether or not the statues are racist or just "history" when the people who put them up (Generally, within a rounding error all of the statues being discussed were put waaaay after the Civil War, in the Civil Rights Era) fully admit they did it to intimidate black people.

We have about 3 or 4 discussions going on right now where we ask questions that the people who made the decisions have already answered.

"Is ID just a way to get good into the schools?"
ID Proponents: "Yes, absolutely. That's literally why we are doing it."
"The question continues..."

"Where do we draw the line on who's a fascist?"
Fascists: "Me. I'm totally a fascist. Fascist here! Boy, do I love being a Fascist!"
"The question continues..."

"Are Confederate statues racist?"
The People who Put up the Statues: "You bet! Gotta keep them darkies in their place! That's literally why we did it!"
"The question continues..."
 
Planigale said:
The problem is you have to factor in that at least part of the reason, or the reason for some peoples support for the revolutionary war was to perpetuate slavery.
Click to expand...

But not George Clark. As far as I am aware of. He didn't own slaves. He didn't benefit from slaves. He headed out to the wild west of Kentucky and Illinois. While the colonies were fighting for independence from Britain, he was fighting the British out west to secure independence in those further reaches.

Planigale said:
So the highlighted should include that freedom from slavery was something the British offered, and the colonists opposed. The colonies winning the revolutionary war may have been good for the white man in the colonies but it was not good for the black man nor the native Americans. (An interesting parallel with the recent controversy over the history of Texas gaining independence from Mexico resulting in the perpetuation of slavery.)
Click to expand...

I don't think it should include that because George Clark had nothing to do with that. Connecting George Clark's involvement in the Revolutionary War to slavery is Honolulu butterfly wings to an Atlantic hurricane.

Planigale said:
The expansion of the US west led to the genocide of the native peoples. Lewis and Clark expedition needs to be seen in the light that this was the first step in a genocidal policy.
Click to expand...

It does not have to be seen that way. That is one of many ways to see it. Not the only way.

Planigale said:
Having said this I am in general not for tearing down or destroying statues, in some cases moving them may be appropriate. But they do provide an opportunity to provide an historical account. They are illustrations in the context as you have said above for Lee and Jackson of the continued oppression following the civil war leading to voter suppression discrimination etc. They can be turned from being memorials to the confederacy to being memorials to discrimination. (This may mean adding rather than removing statues.)
Click to expand...

My point was that these should not be turned from being memorials to the confederacy to being memorials to discrimination. There are Civil War statues and memorials that were put up for the purpose of discrimination. Those are trash and should be tossed, except for a few that we might keep as examples of the terrible things we have done.

The statues in question are not in that category. It appears they are just from a guy who wanted some statues of local historical figures. The right wing has a good point that these are just historical statues. They are. But the left wing has a better point that they represent oppression and discrimination. They do.

I don't think either side actually knows about the history and understands the statues. They are arguing over socio-political symbols of the statues.

That isn't wrong. But the difference should be kept in mind. These particular Lee and Jackson statues are not problematic in and of themselves. Unlike other Civil War statues put up to perpetuated discrimination, these are just historical statues The statues only become problematic because people created myths and symbolism of Lee and Jackson to support a myth that the Civil War was not about slavery and was about state rights or northern aggression.

It's like a Hitler mustache. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Charlie Chapman had one. Other people at the time did as well. Not a lot, but some. But after WWII having that type of mustache isn't just having that type of mustache...it is a Hitler mustache and symbolizes sympathies with Hitler and his ideas. Sorry mustache. Sorry Jackson statues. You became objectionable.

These statues should not be displayed as memorial to discrimination, because that is not what they are. They are attempts to honor local significant figures. But the choices of Civil War figures took on non-historical symbolism and the Clark statues have weird inexplicable and objectionable depictions of Native Americans. The statues should be preserved and presented in that context.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
But not George Clark. As far as I am aware of. He didn't own slaves. He didn't benefit from slaves. He headed out to the wild west of Kentucky and Illinois. While the colonies were fighting for independence from Britain, he was fighting the British out west to secure independence in those further reaches.



I don't think it should include that because George Clark had nothing to do with that. Connecting George Clark's involvement in the Revolutionary War to slavery is Honolulu butterfly wings to an Atlantic hurricane.



It does not have to be seen that way. That is one of many ways to see it. Not the only way.



My point was that these should not be turned from being memorials to the confederacy to being memorials to discrimination. There are Civil War statues and memorials that were put up for the purpose of discrimination. Those are trash and should be tossed, except for a few that we might keep as examples of the terrible things we have done.

The statues in question are not in that category. It appears they are just from a guy who wanted some statues of local historical figures. The right wing has a good point that these are just historical statues. They are. But the left wing has a better point that they represent oppression and discrimination. They do.

I don't think either side actually knows about the history and understands the statues. They are arguing over socio-political symbols of the statues.

That isn't wrong. But the difference should be kept in mind. These particular Lee and Jackson statues are not problematic in and of themselves. Unlike other Civil War statues put up to perpetuated discrimination, these are just historical statues The statues only become problematic because people created myths and symbolism of Lee and Jackson to support a myth that the Civil War was not about slavery and was about state rights or northern aggression.

It's like a Hitler mustache. Nothing inherently wrong with it. Charlie Chapman had one. Other people at the time did as well. Not a lot, but some. But after WWII having that type of mustache isn't just having that type of mustache...it is a Hitler mustache and symbolizes sympathies with Hitler and his ideas. Sorry mustache. Sorry Jackson statues. You became objectionable.

These statues should not be displayed as memorial to discrimination, because that is not what they are. They are attempts to honor local significant figures. But the choices of Civil War figures took on non-historical symbolism and the Clark statues have weird inexplicable and objectionable depictions of Native Americans. The statues should be preserved and presented in that context.
Click to expand...

Apologies if I seemed to imply that the only aspect of Lewis and Clark was to promoted genocide, that is more a consequence that needs to be referenced. I am pretty certain their intentions were 'good'. I have no doubt 'good' people owned slaves, waged wars (e.g. Marcus Aurelius), within the context of their own society. I do not think that all public record of slave owners should be removed from polite society, e.g. statues, names of roads or buildings; when done contemporaneously. I do not think Trajan's column should be removed from Rome or Hadrian's wall renamed.

I accept that the sculptors and donators intent with these statues was merely to 'honour' local famous people. But at the time that the statues were commissioned the context of other statues raised to the same people was to celebrate racial segregation and the old south. It is impossible to know that some of those who supported the commissioning of these statues did not also have these views in mind. Certainly these would perhaps be best viewed as part of a broad movement of celebrating the confederacy and the racial discrimination / white superiority when many similar statues were commissioned in other places about that time. This is certainly the context in which I think the statues should be presented.

There is an issue of a somewhat similar nature with the Restaurant of the Tate gallery in London. It has the walls painted with a mural which is racially offensive. It is also a work of art in an art gallery. Arguably the whole gallery is of a dubious title given that it is named after a sugar magnate whose wealth would be consequential on the historic use of slaves in sugar industry. Should the offensive bit be covered up or the whole lot? Should it be used to illustrate how racism became institutionalised? I default to contextualising, but recognise that removing frankly insulting images is a legitimate view. In some cases converting hem into a new piece of art may be appropriate. I am sure there are many Lee and Jackson statues than are of little artistic merit and perhaps melting them down and converting them to statues of e.g. James McCune Smith or other notables of colour to balance out the ethnic imbalance in statuary may be appropriate.

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...ins-offensive-rex-whistler-mural-under-review
 
JoeMorgue said:
Again we're hand wringing about whether or not the statues are racist or just "history" when the people who put them up (Generally, within a rounding error all of the statues being discussed were put waaaay after the Civil War, in the Civil Rights Era) fully admit they did it to intimidate black people.
Click to expand...

This is what I am talking about. Many Civil War statues and and monuments were put up for purposes of intimidation and discrimination. Some were not.

It is a mistake put them all in a basket only to have everyone run to either the "historical" or "racist" far ends of the field. That just leads to division and endless arguments from both sides that they are right and the other side is wrong. It does nothing enlighten or inform anything about the statues.

The Lee and Jackson statues in question are historical. They just present the figures and don't have the imagery or words of political commentary of the other memorials that were put up for purposes of discrimination and intimidation.

That doesn't mean that they are wholly and solely historical. The meaning of art depends on associations and context. A statue of Lee in Charlottesville is historical. But when people put up statues of Lee in other places where he has little or no association for purposes of discrimination, then that statue becomes part of that and becomes racist.

A statues of Stonewall Jackson is perfectly historical. But when people mythologize Jackson to represent a false narrative that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and was a result of northern aggression and as a symbol of white supremacy, then that statue is transformed from historical to racist.

People can argue about whether a statue itself is historical or racist until they are blue in the face and never have a resolution. There is no right answer because the question depends on whether you mean what the artist intended or how it was perceived at the time or how it is perceived today or what the viewer knows about he artist or the figure or the history of the event or the consequences and subsequent history and affects of that event or who is viewing the sculpture or whether it is in a public space or museum or private home or endless other factors that can flip the meaning from anywhere from one end to the other.

When the Jackson sculpture was put up it was probably historical by both intent and perception at the time. When Jackson became a symbol of the alleged righteousness of the war and white supremacy, it became racist. Because it is in a public place it is objectionable. If it is moved to a museum with an explanatory plaque, it becomes historical again. That is exactly what should happen.
 
Spare the me 1,347th iteration of the "Yeah but the Swastika is also a Tibetian Good Luck Symbol" argument.

When the only thing you're known for is being a Confederate General, a statue to you is racist. Period. End of discussion.

Statues are never "history." They are always there to glorify someone. This whole stupid idea that we have some sort of statue-based historical archiving system is beyond inane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom