• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The removal of statues

There is a pervasive argument that is falsely equating removal of these Confederate statues to "whitewashing history".

That's bullshit. The statues were not created nor do they in any way accurately clarify and show any important historical information.
They were created to and only continue to honor, glorify, and thus promote the actions of the people they are modeled after.
There was and is nothing honorable about their actions. The Confederate soldiers were at the very best ignorant dupes of their state governments controlled by slave owners who conned them into fighting against their nation so the slave owners could defend slavery against the tide of moral progress. The Confederate leaders were worse than this.

These statues were created as propaganda to promote these men and mostly their cause as heroic and just. Most of the created a half century after the Civil War as part of the anti-equality culture in which the KKK arose and thrived. While it is important to understand that attitude and to recognize that many in the US (most of those fighting to keep these statues and the Confed flag) still hold these "good old days" attitude, the government should not be helping them do so.

Note this applies to Confederate statues, not to statues of founding fathers. The huge difference is that their statues were not created to glorify a war to protect slavery, which is the sole thing the Confederate statues represent.
Despite the US Revolution and the resulting Constitution, failing at the time to enhance liberty for slaves or women, the ideas that were central to the war and to the Constitution were laudable and moral rather than immoral. And those ideas and the successful fight for them were a foundation that helped pave the way to their progress and application in ways that have improved the lives and liberty of all US residents. As creators of the US, they still represent what the US was and still should be aspiring to relative to undemocratic dictatorships from which it sought to separate. Whereas Confederate statues represent the opposite, a desire to fight against the US and those very principles whose innate appeal began spread to all aspects of society to which they were relevant.

In sum, one must oversimplify and ignore much of reality to view a Jefferson statue as a shrine to a culture of slavery and values we no long should hold, whereas one must ignore most of reality not to recognize that is inherently what the Confederate statues are and originally were designed to be.
 
What I find interesting about all of the people whining about the statues being moved... almost every article I have read about any of these sites say that the statues have already been moved at least once in their history.

Examples:

The "United Daughters of the Confederacy" statue honors the women who stayed home while their husbands went off to war. It was originally erected in 1934. It originally was at the entrance to the Plaza, but was moved to the location at 55th and Ward in 1958.
http://www.kctv5.com/story/36175334...-monument-to-be-relocated-following-vandalism

The United Daughters of the Confederacy raised $3,000 to erect the monument in 1911.

At the dedication of the statue, then-State Attorney Herbert Phillips called African-Americans an "ignorant and inferior race."

The monument was moved to outside the old county courthouse in 1952. The building is now an office that houses traffic court and conducts weddings.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/localg...eep-confederate-monument-at-old-tampa/2334438
 
Racists have a long history of apropriating barely related symbols and using them for their cause. The fact remains that an American civil war statue is fundamentally a statue about the tragic loss of life and the failure to get along, and national healing. After the war it's also a gracious gesture by the winners. The rest is extraneous symbolism laid on top.

When I was young we had Nazi skinheads running around. The symbolism was extremely strong. Just a couple of problems.

1) Skinhead culture and skinhead attire was originally a celebration of West Indian/African culture. As well as just a celebration of being working class in general.
2) Last time I checked swastikas are still used in India as much as ever, and the entire far east. It's primarily the symbol for luck.
3) Norse/Pagan symbols sure are pretty. By Vikings were famously not racist. Paganism is an extremely open and welcoming religion not suited for racist/nationalist appropriation.

Why do we keep doing this? We let racists and other idiots pick up symbols and then the rest of us drop them like hot coals. Fuck racists and fuck letting them appropriate symbols. Just my opinion.
 
Racists have a long history of apropriating barely related symbols and using them for their cause. The fact remains that an American civil war statue is fundamentally a statue about the tragic loss of life and the failure to get along, and national healing. After the war it's also a gracious gesture by the winners. The rest is extraneous symbolism laid on top.

When I was young we had Nazi skinheads running around. The symbolism was extremely strong. Just a couple of problems.

1) Skinhead culture and skinhead attire was originally a celebration of West Indian/African culture. As well as just a celebration of being working class in general.
2) Last time I checked swastikas are still used in India as much as ever, and the entire far east. It's primarily the symbol for luck.
3) Norse/Pagan symbols sure are pretty. By Vikings were famously not racist. Paganism is an extremely open and welcoming religion not suited for racist/nationalist appropriation.

Why do we keep doing this? We let racists and other idiots pick up symbols and then the rest of us drop them like hot coals. Fuck racists and fuck letting them appropriate symbols. Just my opinion.

There's a statue in London of Bomber Harris who bombed many German cities to smithereens with perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilian victims.
Perhaps that should be pulled down as well?
 
Well, yeah. A little bit more time left alone and there wouldn't be ANY Kurds whining about genocide and stuff like that.

Are the Kurds any better off at the present time?

Actually, I think they are. There's a Kurdish revival or sorts going on. They're allowed to be proud of and express their heritage in a way they haven't been for hundreds of years. Not all of Kurdistan is affected by the war. The parts that isn't is doing better than ever. Which isn't so hard to understand since it was artificially retarded by the Saddam regime.

So even while being at war sucks, it's still better than not being allowed to be yourself.

I think the situation of the Kurds in Kurdistan today is analogous to the situation of the Jews in Israel in the 50'ies and 60'ies.

They have hope now. It wasn't that long ago that they had no reason to have hope. Hope is powerful.

One note though. Syrian Kurdish rebels (Rojava) is mostly led by old communist PKK leaders. While they on paper aren't communists... I have a feeling old habits will keep going for a while. So I think Iraqi Kurds are reluctant to merge with Syrian Rojava Kurds. Which is a shame. Unity would be nice for them.
 
Why do we keep doing this? We let racists and other idiots pick up symbols and then the rest of us drop them like hot coals. Fuck racists and fuck letting them appropriate symbols.
But in this case, they didn't appropriate someone else's symbols. They raised these statues for their purpose.

We're not tearing down all memorials of American history that include the Civil War. No one's turning Gettysburg into a golf course. We just don't want this political statement on public property, where it implies endorsement.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Are the Kurds any better off at the present time?
Would leaving him as a 'stable dictator' prosecuting genocide be better? I mean, would you still describe that bloody handed dictatorship as a good thing?
 
So there was a protest to remove a Sam Houston statue. The statue seems to have been put up to remember the confederacy fondly, but houston was not a rabid supporter of it.

This is a rarity and not an example to draw a rule from.

But these protests lose all ability to make distinctions.
 
But in this case, they didn't appropriate someone else's symbols. They raised these statues for their purpose.

We're not tearing down all memorials of American history that include the Civil War. No one's turning Gettysburg into a golf course. We just don't want this political statement on public property, where it implies endorsement.

- - - Updated - - -

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

Are the Kurds any better off at the present time?
Would leaving him as a 'stable dictator' prosecuting genocide be better? I mean, would you still describe that bloody handed dictatorship as a good thing?

As brutal as he was, the country wasn't the shambles that is today.
 
Besides, those people require a strong dictatorship to keep them under control. They love dictators. Witness the support Erdogan has among muslims.
 
As brutal as he was, the country wasn't the shambles that is today.
So.... Genocide's okay as long as the infrastructure is solid? 'Trains run on time' and all that?

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, those people require a strong dictatorship to keep them under control. They love dictators. Witness the support Erdogan has among muslims.
So, STILL asking the question, would YOU describe his dictatorship as a good thing, genocide and all?
 
First, I think that the main solid argument for removing most statues has to do with WHY they were put up in the first place - a reminder that the south won the battle against reconstruction. This probably applies to a solid majority of the statues in question, but there may be some that were put up for other reasons and this should be examined very carefully under calm conditions.

I think that condemning these long dead people is kind of dumb, we are in a car that is spinning out control as is.

I want make a brief aside about point systems in moral judgments and giving or not giving passes to people

I think that the point system that people use for judging how good or bad a person is for a current action should be reflected on here. I just read a link posted on talkrational about a druggy, tranny stripper who is 24 years old and brutally killed "her" lover (more like chump) who was 67 years old.

Because, this person is a brutal killer why should I respect the preferred gender pronouns? That is point system in action, many others agree and refuse to do the same preferred gendering. This is half the comment on the article.

But why apply our current point system to long dead people?

Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson are some of the most interesting people to do a (either current values or past) plus and minus point tally for. But we weren't around then and for us to think we would be much different is narcissistic.
 
First, I think that the main solid argument for removing most statues has to do with WHY they were put up in the first place - a reminder that the south won the battle against reconstruction. This probably applies to a solid majority of the statues in question, but there may be some that were put up for other reasons and this should be examined very carefully under calm conditions.

I think that condemning these long dead people is kind of dumb, we are in a car that is spinning out control as is.

I want make a brief aside about point systems in moral judgments and giving or not giving passes to people

I think that the point system that people use for judging how good or bad a person is for a current action should be reflected on here. I just read a link posted on talkrational about a druggy, tranny stripper who is 24 years old and brutally killed "her" lover (more like chump) who was 67 years old.

Because, this person is a brutal killer why should I respect the preferred gender pronouns? That is point system in action, many others agree and refuse to do the same preferred gendering. This is half the comment on the article.

But why apply our current point system to long dead people?

Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson are some of the most interesting people to do a (either current values or past) plus and minus point tally for. But we weren't around then and for us to think we would be much different is narcissistic.
#notalltreasonists
 
Because, this person is a brutal killer why should I respect the preferred gender pronouns?
If this person is a brutal killer, but wants Kosher meals in his prison cell, why should I respect their right to freedom of religion?

Mostly because I don't get to choose who does and does not deserve equal treatment. If I'm going to respect the idea that Kasruth means something to some people, I should respect that it applies to all people.

If you don't want to respect gender pronouns, that's your issue. But don't pretend that gender pronouns are connected to their legal status as a felon. Either you respect everyone's gender pronoun preference or you don't. Otherwise it's just a rationalization randomizer.
I don't respect X's desire for ____ because he's a brutal killer.
I don't respect Y's desire for ____ because she's Lithuanian.
I don't respect Z's desire for ____ because it's a Tuesday. And there are only TWO genders on TWOsday.


Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson are some of the most interesting people to do a (either current values or past) plus and minus point tally for. But we weren't around then and for us to think we would be much different is narcissistic.
We weren't around then, and we are NOT around then. We're around now. The question is whether or not we, NOW, want to honor these people, for their achievements, in spite of their crimes.

Owning a slave in 1780 may or may not be a deal breaker.
Treason to protect slavery in 1865, that's a completely different assessment.
Marching in 1955 to bring slavery back, that's another assessment yet.
 
DrZoidberg said:
Racists have a long history of apropriating barely related symbols and using them for their cause. The fact remains that an American civil war statue is fundamentally a statue about the tragic loss of life and the failure to get along, and national healing. After the war it's also a gracious gesture by the winners. The rest is extraneous symbolism laid on top

We aren't talking symbols or misused runes. These are people who fought for slavery, who's statues were erected by white supremacists, and that are supported by white supremacists.
 
So.... Genocide's okay as long as the infrastructure is solid? 'Trains run on time' and all that?

- - - Updated - - -

Besides, those people require a strong dictatorship to keep them under control. They love dictators. Witness the support Erdogan has among muslims.
So, STILL asking the question, would YOU describe his dictatorship as a good thing, genocide and all?

No person in his/hers right mind would support genocide. But the question remains. What's Iraq like today?
 
So.... Genocide's okay as long as the infrastructure is solid? 'Trains run on time' and all that?

- - - Updated - - -

So, STILL asking the question, would YOU describe his dictatorship as a good thing, genocide and all?

No person in his/hers right mind would support genocide. But the question remains. What's Iraq like today?
Still ducking the question...
 
So.... Genocide's okay as long as the infrastructure is solid? 'Trains run on time' and all that?

- - - Updated - - -

So, STILL asking the question, would YOU describe his dictatorship as a good thing, genocide and all?

No person in his/hers right mind would support genocide. But the question remains. What's Iraq like today?

France had about 150 years of total carnage following the French revolution. In the long run I think the French think it was worth it. There's not a lot of royalist Frenchmen today pining for the good old days of serfs and absolute monarchy

You have absurdly unrealistic expectations on revolutions.
 
No person in his/hers right mind would support genocide. But the question remains. What's Iraq like today?

France had about 150 years of total carnage following the French revolution. In the long run I think the French think it was worth it. There's not a lot of royalist Frenchmen today pining for the good old days of serfs and absolute monarchy

You have absurdly unrealistic expectations on revolutions.

No comparison! France went forward after the revolution. Iraq and much of Middle East is going backwards at a rate of knots! Back to a time when the founder of islam was committing terrorism, the suppression of women and rape.
 
Back
Top Bottom