RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[Elixir]

that was the type of monument they were hired to make.

…and a god that looks like an old bearded man was what Michaelangelo was hired to depict. On behalf of an outfit that has spilled more blood than Robert E Lee could ever have dreamed of.
Art is art, politics is politics and religion is religion.

 

[stanley]

Yup. What's the old saying, "Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it". Er, something like that.

Those monuments were not built to and do not teach history, the mostly present a propagandized glorification of the Confederacy. The fact that most people, especially southern whites, remain so ignorant of the facts of that history and the reality of the murderous white supremacy behind those very monuments proves how useless they are. In fact, those monuments are designed to express the desire to repeat the history of slavery, which is also mostly what the MAGA slogan is all about.

History could be taught in a museum that had informative plaques and videos, like showing the pro KKK movie "Birth of a Nation" that came out the same time most these monuments were built. But then it isn't the monument showing history but being used as an example of the history of racism and pro slavery ideology that ruled the south long after the civil war ended.

Yes, this was all mentioned in Bullmoose Too's post earlier. The statues are essentially being repurposed from "honoring" to "educating". I think most people can understand the distinction.

Yup. What's the old saying, "Those who don't understand history are doomed to repeat it". Er, something like that.

Those monuments were not built to and do not teach history, the mostly present a propagandized glorification of the Confederacy. The fact that most people, especially southern whites, remain so ignorant of the facts of that history and the reality of the murderous white supremacy behind those very monuments proves how useless they are. In fact, those monuments are designed to express the desire to repeat the history of slavery, which is also mostly what the MAGA slogan is all about.

History could be taught in a museum that had informative plaques and videos, like showing the pro KKK movie "Birth of a Nation" that came out the same time most these monuments were built. But then it isn't the monument showing history but being used as an example of the history of racism and pro slavery ideology that ruled the south long after the civil war ended.

Yes, this was all mentioned in Bullmoose Too's post earlier. The statues are essentially being repurposed from "honoring" to "educating". I think most people can understand the distinction.

You clearly cannot understand it, given your completely invalid comparisons Michelangelo.

 

[stanley]

that was the type of monument they were hired to make.

…and a god that looks like an old bearded man was what Michaelangelo was hired to depict. On behalf of an outfit that has spilled more blood than Robert E Lee could ever have dreamed of.
Art is art, politics is politics and religion is religion.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery. The monuments were a political act. So, if politics cannot be art, then the monuments cannot be art.

 

[Elixir]

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery.

Yes, and if preserved in a museum, that fact can be illuminated along with the statue.
But you’ll never see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel presented as a promotional symbol of a genocidal organization reft with child abuse.
WHICH IT IS. Expressly designed and purpose-built to that end.
So fuck Michaelangelo?

 

[stanley]

that was the type of monument they were hired to make.

…and a god that looks like an old bearded man was what Michaelangelo was hired to depict. On behalf of an outfit that has spilled more blood than Robert E Lee could ever have dreamed of.
Art is art, politics is politics and religion is religion.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery. The monuments were a political act. So, if politics cannot be art, then the monuments cannot be art.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery.

Yes, and if preserved in a museum, that fact can be illuminated along with the statue.
But you’ll never see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel presented as a promotional symbol of a genocidal organization reft with child abuse.
WHICH IT IS.

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that. But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so. That is why attempts to glorify and praise it have no place except in a holocaust style museum about the white supremacy that continued to grip the south and terrorize black people well into the late 20th century (and still does) .

 

[stanley]

Confed monuments should be treated the same as statues glorifying the Nazis and the KKK. Whatever Germany should do with statues praising Hitler and posters advocating the holocaust is what the US should do with these monuments. They are equally political and equally "art" or not.

 

[thebeave]

that was the type of monument they were hired to make.

…and a god that looks like an old bearded man was what Michaelangelo was hired to depict. On behalf of an outfit that has spilled more blood than Robert E Lee could ever have dreamed of.
Art is art, politics is politics and religion is religion.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery. The monuments were a political act. So, if politics cannot be art, then the monuments cannot be art.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery.

Yes, and if preserved in a museum, that fact can be illuminated along with the statue.
But you’ll never see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel presented as a promotional symbol of a genocidal organization reft with child abuse.
WHICH IT IS.

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that. But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so. That is why attempts to glorify and praise it have no place except in a holocaust style museum about the white supremacy that continued to grip the south and terrorize black people well into the late 20th century (and still does) .

You seemed to have checked out of the actual conversation. Nobody here is saying the museum is to glorify the people behind the statues. I for one, don't know all THAT much about the civil war or the confederacy, but I would pay money to go to a museum and see who these people were, what they did, and what they believed. I'd certainly not go to praise them, though maybe a few knuckleheads a year would. And with a little luck, maybe some of them would walk out rethinking their bigotted positions.

 

[Elixir]

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that.

I disagree.
WHY do you think Michaelangelo was commissioned to do that painting?
WHY would the Christian powers of the day not promote the org that gave them power?
The religion IS inherently about the power it holds over its adherents. Like all religions.
That that particular ceiling doesn’t specifically commemorate a particular crusade or genocidal campaign, is not exculpatory.

Monuments are monuments, art is art. An object can be both. Even if what it is monumental of, is something despicable.
You can argue that one monument’s focus is more or less despicable than another’s, or that one artist is greater than another, but neither of those judgments effect the other.

 

[stanley]

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that.

I disagree.
WHY do you think Michaelangelo was commissioned to do that painting?
WHY would the Christian powers of the day not promote the org that gave them power?
The religion IS inherently about the power it holds over its adherents. Like all religions.
That that particular ceiling doesn’t specifically commemorate a particular crusade or genocidal campaign, is not exculpatory.

Monuments are monuments, art is art. An object can be both. Even if what it is monumental of, is something despicable.
You can argue that one monument’s focus is more or less despicable than another’s, or that one artist is greater than another, but neither of those judgments effect the other.

Again, these are "art" only in the same way that a Nazi poster to depict "evil greedy jews" were art. They were political propaganda than was their function. Whether they might also be "art" is only b/c every political act can be said to be art. They don't belong in a typical style art museum but a history museum focusing on the factual history of slavery and the violent Jim Crow and KKK movements of the 20th century that they were part of. Again, what do you think Germany should do with anti-Jew Nazi posters and statues of Hitler erected by the Nazis?

 

[Elixir]

Again, these are "art" only in the same way that a Nazi poster to depict "evil greedy jews" were art.

Let’s not forget about those.

every political act can be said to be art.

That’s a stretch. I have a hard time seeing the 1/6 sacking of our Capitol as “art”. But it shouldn’t be forgotten either.

They don't belong in a typical style art museum but a history museum

Yes, I believe I (and The Beave) said as much, though I allowed it could be the wing of an art museum dedicated to a specific history.

what do you think Germany should do with anti-Jew Nazi posters and statues of Hitler erected by the Nazis?

I think any WWII museum or exhibit should be thankful to have them.
Lest we forget.

 

[stanley]

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that.

I disagree.
WHY do you think Michaelangelo was commissioned to do that painting?
WHY would the Christian powers of the day not promote the org that gave them power?
The religion IS inherently about the power it holds over its adherents. Like all religions.
That that particular ceiling doesn’t specifically commemorate a particular crusade or genocidal campaign, is not exculpatory.

Monuments are monuments, art is art. An object can be both. Even if what it is monumental of, is something despicable.
You can argue that one monument’s focus is more or less despicable than another’s, or that one artist is greater than another, but neither of those judgments effect the other.

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that.

I disagree.
WHY do you think Michaelangelo was commissioned to do that painting?
WHY would the Christian powers of the day not promote the org that gave them power?
The religion IS inherently about the power it holds over its adherents. Like all religions.
That that particular ceiling doesn’t specifically commemorate a particular crusade or genocidal campaign, is not exculpatory.

Monuments are monuments, art is art. An object can be both. Even if what it is monumental of, is something despicable.
You can argue that one monument’s focus is more or less despicable than another’s, or that one artist is greater than another, but neither of those judgments effect the other.

that was the type of monument they were hired to make.

…and a god that looks like an old bearded man was what Michaelangelo was hired to depict. On behalf of an outfit that has spilled more blood than Robert E Lee could ever have dreamed of.
Art is art, politics is politics and religion is religion.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery. The monuments were a political act. So, if politics cannot be art, then the monuments cannot be art.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery.

Yes, and if preserved in a museum, that fact can be illuminated along with the statue.
But you’ll never see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel presented as a promotional symbol of a genocidal organization reft with child abuse.
WHICH IT IS.

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that. But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so. That is why attempts to glorify and praise it have no place except in a holocaust style museum about the white supremacy that continued to grip the south and terrorize black people well into the late 20th century (and still does) .

You seemed to have checked out of the actual conversation. Nobody here is saying the museum is to glorify the people behind the statues. I for one, don't know all THAT much about the civil war or the confederacy, but I would pay money to go to a museum and see who these people were, what they did, and what they believed. I'd certainly not go to praise them, though maybe a few knuckleheads a year would. And with a little luck, maybe some of them would walk out rethinking their bigotted positions.

that was the type of monument they were hired to make.

…and a god that looks like an old bearded man was what Michaelangelo was hired to depict. On behalf of an outfit that has spilled more blood than Robert E Lee could ever have dreamed of.
Art is art, politics is politics and religion is religion.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery. The monuments were a political act. So, if politics cannot be art, then the monuments cannot be art.

But the statue of Lee is design precisely to promote racism and the spilling of blood to preserve slavery.

Yes, and if preserved in a museum, that fact can be illuminated along with the statue.
But you’ll never see the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel presented as a promotional symbol of a genocidal organization reft with child abuse.
WHICH IT IS.

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that. But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so. That is why attempts to glorify and praise it have no place except in a holocaust style museum about the white supremacy that continued to grip the south and terrorize black people well into the late 20th century (and still does) .

You seemed to have checked out of the actual conversation. Nobody here is saying the museum is to glorify the people behind the statues. I for one, don't know all THAT much about the civil war or the confederacy, but I would pay money to go to a museum and see who these people were, what they did, and what they believed. I'd certainly not go to praise them, though maybe a few knuckleheads a year would. And with a little luck, maybe some of them would walk out rethinking their bigotted positions.

No it isn't. The ceiling was not painted to promote those things and the religion is not inherently about that.

I disagree.
WHY do you think Michaelangelo was commissioned to do that painting?
WHY would the Christian powers of the day not promote the org that gave them power?
The religion IS inherently about the power it holds over its adherents. Like all religions.
That that particular ceiling doesn’t specifically commemorate a particular crusade or genocidal campaign, is not exculpatory.

Monuments are monuments, art is art. An object can be both. Even if what it is monumental of, is something despicable.
You can argue that one monument’s focus is more or less despicable than another’s, or that one artist is greater than another, but neither of those judgments effect the other.

This post focuses only your your first paragraph. Michangelo was hired to promote Christian ideology. And while social control is part of that ideology and the religion has been used to justify atrocities, religion goes beyond that. In fact, Christianity was also used to argue for abolition. It is not at all not analogous to an organization created explicitly to preserve the enslavement of a race. A better analogy would be a a painting that directly honors individuals known to history only because they helped the church hide it's pedophilia crimes.

 

[stanley]

Again, these are "art" only in the same way that a Nazi poster to depict "evil greedy jews" were art.

Let’s not forget about those.

every political act can be said to be art.

That’s a stretch. I have a hard time seeing the 1/6 sacking of our Capitol as “art”. But it shouldn’t be forgotten either.

They don't belong in a typical style art museum but a history museum

Yes, I believe I (and The Beave) said as much, though I allowed it could be the wing of an art museum dedicated to a specific history.

what do you think Germany should do with anti-Jew Nazi posters and statues of Hitler erected by the Nazis?

I think any WWII museum or exhibit should be thankful to have them.
Lest we forget.

That's fine, but they are not in an art museum, b/c art museums are not about teaching the facts of history. They are in a holocaust style museums where there is no avoiding the facts that they are artifacts of a hateful murderous organization. I am just saying the same should be done with these monuments. And you are delusional if you think that most white people in the South would be at all fine with that. They want to preserve the monuments because they wish the Confeds would have won. They are passing laws to ensure kids are lied to about that part of history and that any teacher saying the truth is fired.

 

[Elixir]

Christianity was also used to argue for abolition.

And for slavery.
TBH, efforts to erase evidence of the Civil War or the Nazis of WWII, remind me of those insane violent middle eastern Talibanger extremists going around destroying evidence of ancient religions like the Buddha sculptures at Salsal and Shahmama, which they deemed "un-Islamic".
Maybe Buddhism DOES present an existential threat to those people. But I'd still prefer that they don't go around wrecking things like a bunch of superstitious idiots.

They want to preserve the monuments because they wish the Confeds would have won.

So what? If they are presented as expressions of approval of slavery, that makes them MORE valuable as lesson objects, not objects of fear that must be destroyed, such as ancient Buddhist monuments are to Islamic crazies.
I hate the idea of glorifying them with unqualified public presentation, but I hate the idea of sweeping them under the rug even more.

 

[Toni]

If you go back far enough, every one of us has slave-owning ancestors. I'm just not running around creating statues of my Viking ancestors with plaques under them stating they were perfect knights, without blemishes, chivalrous and using public funds partially from their pillaged, raped, conquered peoples to maintain those lies.

Exactly. We should not be guilty over who are ancestors are or what they did. We are only responsible for who we are.

But looking up to slave owners is something people are doing now, not an act of their ancestors. The statues are despicable.

You are correct.

My interpretation of the intent of Janis’s post ( apologies if I’m wrong) are that there are those in the US and that number includes a member or two on this forum, who only state that Harris’s great grandfather ( X ??) was a slave holder in Jamaica but himself was white and born in Scotland. If I understand such an argument, it is meant to ignore the fact that it is almost certain that Harris was descended from a white slave owner and almost certainly a woman he enslaved. It’s meant to insinuate that Harris is not really black. Obviously she is of African and S. Asian and European descent. Which should not matter at all. Unfortunately in this country, the color of your skin, the texture of your hair DOES factor into how you are treated in the US ( and much, if not all of the world.)

I would wager that almost every single black American whose grandparents were born here are descended from enslaved persons, with at least one ancestor whose ancestors were from Europe. Lots of enslaved people were raped and bore children by their enslavers. That slavery was ever practiced in the US ( and in fact firms are still practiced here) is a source of immense shame. That, along with the atrocities committed against indigenous peoples are America’s original sin. We are all still paying a price. White people are too often blind to the actual cost they bear and too often are furious at being told that white people bear the blame. After all, they did not enslave anyone. But we are too willing to blame people of color for whatever hardships they face. After all, a whole lot of white people live in or grew up in or their parents or grandparents did grow up in poverty and many ‘worked hard and pulled themselves up by the boot straps.’ Which is true enough but they were not targeted as inferior because of racism. They benefit from racism even now as for generations, the competition was limited to whites abd white makes for that matter.

 

[Gospel]

I hate the idea of glorifying them with unqualified public presentation, but I hate the idea of sweeping them under the rug even more.

Bruh, one group destroyed symbols because they contradicted their ideology, while the other seeks to remove public veneration of figures associated with racial oppression. Though the outcomes might seem similar, the intentions are vastly different. Public monuments should reflect values that are inclusive and promote unity between the whole, rather than commemorating a singular divisive group. Are you suggesting that the Buddha sculptures at Salsal served the same purpose as the Silent Sam statue at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill?

Snip of a speech said on reveal day of Silent Sam:

One hundred yards from where we stand, less than ninety days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady, and then rushed for protection to these University buildings where was stationed a garrison of 100 Federal soldiers. I performed the pleasing duty in the immediate presence of the entire garrison, and for thirty nights afterwards slept with a double-barrel shot gun under my head.

With that said. The Confederacy is thoroughly documented and ingrained in UNITED STATES HISTORY. We don't need their mutha fuckin statues.

 

[stanley]

Christianity was also used to argue for abolition.

And for slavery.

Right, b/c the Bible is extremely complex and often self-contradictory and thus without a clear political ideology other than that some notion of god is ultimately in charge. In direct contrast, the ideology of the Confederacy is clear cut and one sided. It has never and can never be used to argue against slavery b/c it is by definition pro-slavery and the documents that created it explicitly say so. That is why your analogy is invalid.

They want to preserve the monuments because they wish the Confeds would have won.

So what? If they are presented as expressions of approval of slavery, that makes them MORE valuable as lesson objects, not objects of fear that must be destroyed, such as ancient Buddhist monuments are to Islamic crazies.

Another completely invalid analogy. Was Buddhism created explicitly to enslave or do anything bad to Islamists? Nope, so there is zero comparison between those wanting to destroy Buddhist statues and those wanting to destroy confederate statues.
But that is moot, b/c I've never argued for destroying them, though it is perfectly understandable how black people in those communities would and should take joy in thought of destroying a symbols of the oppression not merely of their ancestors, but their own parents and even themselves. It would make them feel good and they deserve to, and would make the many millions of pro-confederates feel bad, and they deserve to. But I think use a historical lesson is a better use in the long term.

I hate the idea of glorifying them with unqualified public presentation, but I hate the idea of sweeping them under the rug even more.

I don't want to sweep the under the rug, I just want them under a banner that unequivocally says that these are artifacts designed to glorify the violent defense of slavery, built by white supremacists who dominated the south in the 20th century to oppose basic rights and equality of black people.
And you can bet that any factually accurate history museum would be opposed (likely violently) by the majority of white southerners today. For most of them, either they themselves or their parents and/or grandparents voted against basic civil rights for black people just 60 years ago. 21 of the 22 Senators from the former Confederate states voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And in case you want to throw up the "states rights" canard that it wasn't fueled by white supremacy, this was the argument by the leaders of the southern bloc coalition: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would tend to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races". And many of those people were the same people along with their parents who not only voted for Jim Crow laws to treat blacks in inherently inferior, but also at least knowingly enabled the KKK who violently attacked and killed black people in public in the early 20th century, while local police and politicians either participated or did nothing to stop it. It only ended b/c the north used Federal powers to stop it. And in turn, the parents and grandparents of those people actively voted to preserve slavery.

Do you really think that white southerners today (the vast majority of whom are far right MAGAs) would even allow let alone support a museum that uses Confederate monuments to teach the fact that most of their parents and grandparents and recent relatives either actively supported or knowingly enabled violent rights-denying white supremacy to rule their communities and local governments?

 

[Gospel]

Do you really think that white southerners today (the vast majority of whom are far right MAGAs) would even allow let alone support a museum that uses Confederate monuments to teach the fact that most of their parents and grandparents and recent relatives either actively supported or knowingly enabled violent rights-denying white supremacy to rule their communities and local governments?

They would if we called it the WOKE Museum. They'd even show up just to take selfies with the fascia sign.

 

[Elixir]

Do you really think that white southerners today (the vast majority of whom are far right MAGAs) would even allow let alone support a museum

I have no inclination to cater to far right magats' preferences.
Those same people are not about to "allow" the destruction of statues of their idols. Yet they are being destroyed.
They shouldn't be in any position to allow or disallow ANYTHING, IMHO.

I don't want to sweep the under the rug, I just want them under a banner that unequivocally says that these are artifacts designed to glorify the violent defense of slavery, built by white supremacists who dominated the south in the 20th century to oppose basic rights and equality of black people.

We agree, then. The only thing left to quibble over is exactly how to make it so.

 

[Elixir]

I hate the idea of glorifying them with unqualified public presentation, but I hate the idea of sweeping them under the rug even more.

Bruh, one group destroyed symbols because they contradicted their ideology, while the other seeks to remove public veneration of figures associated with racial oppression. Though the outcomes might seem similar, the intentions are vastly different.

Distinction without a difference. Elevation of white man on the basis of race is pretty much the same thing as elevation of Islam on the basis of heritage. And that's all it is. The similarity in outcomes should be your first clue.

The Confederacy is thoroughly documented and ingrained in UNITED STATES HISTORY. We don't need their mutha fuckin statues.

The confederacy IS history. Literally. The monuments post-date that history, and have a history of their own documenting the persistence of racism and the desire to suppress blacks in America long after The War of Northern Aggression forced them to do their own fucking laundry.

If you would find a well documented, accurately interpreted display of those artifacts offensive, I can only apologize; I am not a black person and have no standing to tell a black person how to feel about it.

 

[Gospel]

We agree, then. The only thing left to quibble over is exactly how to make it so.

We don't need a bunch of unsightly, purposeless statues that serve only to gratify white supremacists. These monuments do not contribute to our understanding of history. Instead, they perpetuate a glorified and distorted view of a painful past. Our history is preserved and accessible through institutions like the National Archives, the Library of Congress, and the Smithsonian Institution to name a few. These resources ensure that the events leading up to, during, and after the Civil War are well-documented and available for all to learn from.

Was the history of Africans brought over on boats preserved in their own words? These people deserve the same treatment. Let the U.S. tell their history from the perspective of the so-called victors, just as it has done with everyone else's history.

Welcome to the team snowflakes.