The removal of statues

[Harry Bosch]

You never did explain why 'letting the racists keep their statue(s)' is a thing?
We're not supposed to be a racist country. There's little area for a compromise position between 'a big melting pot' and 'kill the Jews!'
So, on what basis do the racists get to keep 'their' statue on land that belongs to us?

They CAN put their memorials on private property. THey do. I can't say boo if a neighbor has a confederate flag on his truck, his belt buckle, or his lawn. Or a Nazi flag. Or a picture of Pepe.
I CAN make a fuss if he tries to fly it out of his window at his courthouse job...

Person A can have a statue that honours those dead for a lost cause. Person B can have a racist statue. Person C can have a statue commemorating men on horses. Person C can have a statue honouring bearded men. Person B can have a statue commemorating the end of slavery. It's the same statue!

Symbolism is something we project onto a statue. It's just a statue. A beautiful statue at that. The Lee statue is smashing. The same statue can mean different things to different people. And this one has been around for nearly a hundred years. That makes it historically significant. Even more reason to keep it

I think that the issue that you are missing is that people in the communities with these statutes don't want them anymore. Surely you aren't saying that a community should be forced to keep monuments in their area that they don't want?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Tell, what about when groups of violent races from other parts of the country come into their community to tell them to keep the statues up and then commit murder when people protest them? Isn't that a good reason to keep the statues up?

 

[RavenSky]

All this way through the thread and nobody yet has shat on those asshole Iraqis who pulled down Saddam's statues after he was thrown out?

Revisionist dickheads.

Yeah, but you could barely turn your head in Baghdad without bumping into a Saddam statue. It's one thing being reminded of history. It's another when history is constantly shouting in your ear and poking you in the face. Also, Saddam didn't represent any kind of significant movement. He was just himself and his cronies. His statues now mostly just represent that dictatorships is bad. Yeah... not profound.

Are you seriously making this argument after your pages and pages of defending the frelling Confederate statues? Or is this supposed to be sarcasm?

 

[fromderinside]

Just realized The Donald, when campaigning, appropriated his daddy's chant "String 'em up" and applied it to Hillary. Not a single original thought in that orange blob.

Do you think The Donald would go so far as to actually say "White lives matter"?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let them keep their statues--in a Jim Crow museum.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Person A can have a statue that honours those dead for a lost cause. Person B can have a racist statue. Person C can have a statue commemorating men on horses. Person C can have a statue honouring bearded men. Person B can have a statue commemorating the end of slavery. It's the same statue!

Symbolism is something we project onto a statue. It's just a statue. A beautiful statue at that. The Lee statue is smashing. The same statue can mean different things to different people. And this one has been around for nearly a hundred years. That makes it historically significant. Even more reason to keep it

I think that the issue that you are missing is that people in the communities with these statutes don't want them anymore. Surely you aren't saying that a community should be forced to keep monuments in their area that they don't want?

Then they should remove them. I'm not advocating forcing anybody to do anything. I'm simply arguing for them to want to keep them.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yeah, but you could barely turn your head in Baghdad without bumping into a Saddam statue. It's one thing being reminded of history. It's another when history is constantly shouting in your ear and poking you in the face. Also, Saddam didn't represent any kind of significant movement. He was just himself and his cronies. His statues now mostly just represent that dictatorships is bad. Yeah... not profound.

Are you seriously making this argument after your pages and pages of defending the frelling Confederate statues? Or is this supposed to be sarcasm?

Yes. Confederate commemorate a bloody and terrible war. Which is something worth commemorating. That would be true no matter who raised the statue or for what reason. A lot of people died in that war. So not worthy of a statue?

Saddam statues don't commemorate shit worth remembering

 

[whichphilosophy]

Let them keep their statues--in a Jim Crow museum.

Could be a good point.

 

[Elixir]

I thought you didn't like LOSERS, Donald.

 

[RavenSky]

Are you seriously making this argument after your pages and pages of defending the frelling Confederate statues? Or is this supposed to be sarcasm?

Yes. Confederate commemorate a bloody and terrible war. Which is something worth commemorating. That would be true no matter who raised the statue or for what reason. A lot of people died in that war. So not worthy of a statue?

Saddam statues don't commemorate shit worth remembering

Neither do mass-produced cheaply made "confederate" statues - particularly as they do NOT "commemorate a bloody and terrible war." They commemorate white supremacists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-soldier-statue-toppled-north-carolina-video

White supremacists who were traitors, no less. And the losers. The people these statues represent are no less vile than Saddam Hussein, and even less deserving of statues commemorating them.

 

[Harry Bosch]

I think that the issue that you are missing is that people in the communities with these statutes don't want them anymore. Surely you aren't saying that a community should be forced to keep monuments in their area that they don't want?

Then they should remove them. I'm not advocating forcing anybody to do anything. I'm simply arguing for them to want to keep them.

But they are all mostly outsiders. It's a minority in most of these communities who want to keep them up.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Yes. Confederate commemorate a bloody and terrible war. Which is something worth commemorating. That would be true no matter who raised the statue or for what reason. A lot of people died in that war. So not worthy of a statue?

Saddam statues don't commemorate shit worth remembering

Neither do mass-produced cheaply made "confederate" statues - particularly as they do NOT "commemorate a bloody and terrible war." They commemorate white supremacists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-soldier-statue-toppled-north-carolina-video

White supremacists who were traitors, no less. And the losers. The people these statues represent are no less vile than Saddam Hussein, and even less deserving of statues commemorating them.

The Confederates built their campaign on a lie that African Americans were simply property of lighter skinned people.

Actually for all his faults Saddam was less vile than what replaced him in a war built on a lie.

 

[angelo]

Was Saddam left alone, Iraq would be a stable dictatorship today, much better than what it is today.
But is the General who commanded the "Coalition Of The Willing's forces criminal?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Was Saddam left alone, Iraq would be a stable dictatorship today, much better than what it is today.

Well, yeah. A little bit more time left alone and there wouldn't be ANY Kurds whining about genocide and stuff like that.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yes. Confederate commemorate a bloody and terrible war. Which is something worth commemorating. That would be true no matter who raised the statue or for what reason. A lot of people died in that war. So not worthy of a statue?

Saddam statues don't commemorate shit worth remembering

Neither do mass-produced cheaply made "confederate" statues - particularly as they do NOT "commemorate a bloody and terrible war." They commemorate white supremacists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-soldier-statue-toppled-north-carolina-video

White supremacists who were traitors, no less. And the losers. The people these statues represent are no less vile than Saddam Hussein, and even less deserving of statues commemorating them.

They can commemorate whatever you chose to project on to them. It's art. The beholder decides what it all means.

 

[laughing dog]

Neither do mass-produced cheaply made "confederate" statues - particularly as they do NOT "commemorate a bloody and terrible war." They commemorate white supremacists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-soldier-statue-toppled-north-carolina-video

White supremacists who were traitors, no less. And the losers. The people these statues represent are no less vile than Saddam Hussein, and even less deserving of statues commemorating them.

They can commemorate whatever you chose to project on to them. It's art. The beholder decides what it all means.

That is irrelevant to the issue since the concern is not whether anyone can erect a statue to commemorate some event or purpose, but whether a clearly offensive memorial should be permitted in perpetuity to exist on public (not private) ground.

If those assholes want to erect and maintain memorial of the beloved heroes/causes in their homes or front yards or private museums, then they can go ahead. But if they expect the general public to erect or maintain offensive memorials, they are mistaken.

 

[RavenSky]

Neither do mass-produced cheaply made "confederate" statues - particularly as they do NOT "commemorate a bloody and terrible war." They commemorate white supremacists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-soldier-statue-toppled-north-carolina-video

White supremacists who were traitors, no less. And the losers. The people these statues represent are no less vile than Saddam Hussein, and even less deserving of statues commemorating them.

They can commemorate whatever you chose to project on to them. It's art. The beholder decides what it all means.

Then the same applies to the Saddam statues. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Bronzeage]

Neither do mass-produced cheaply made "confederate" statues - particularly as they do NOT "commemorate a bloody and terrible war." They commemorate white supremacists.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...e-soldier-statue-toppled-north-carolina-video

White supremacists who were traitors, no less. And the losers. The people these statues represent are no less vile than Saddam Hussein, and even less deserving of statues commemorating them.

The Confederates built their campaign on a lie that African Americans were simply property of lighter skinned people.

Actually for all his faults Saddam was less vile than what replaced him in a war built on a lie.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

 

[J842P]

They can commemorate whatever you chose to project on to them. It's art. The beholder decides what it all means.

I do not subscribe to this obviously wrong view of art. It is a testament to degeneration of continental philosophy that such statements can be uttered with a straight face.

Art is, like all human forms of expression, something which requires an interaction between people in their social context to create meaning. So yes, art can be created with the intention to be ambiguous, or with the intention to be interpreted solely by the beholder. But not all art works that way.

Symbols mean what the creators meant them to say, in the context of their society. What these statues were erected to say is quite clear. Your argument that people can just pretend they mean to honor bearded men (aside from being ridiculous) is just unconvincing.

 

[RavenSky]

In Nashville:



Unfortunately, it is on private property and so cannot be removed, but I do wonder if DrZoidberg wants to defend this "art" too