The removal of statues

[DrZoidberg]

So this happened. In Virginia they're planning on removing a statue of a confederate general. There are protests.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40912509

I've a couple of problems with this.

1) It's history. It's good to be reminded that our history isn't all cuddly and nice. Symbols matter. Blackwashing the past is just showering after a rape to make the deed undone. It doesn't work. Swedish cities are full of statues of Swedish kings. Our kings have mostly been the utter scum of the Earth. Worse examples of human waste would be hard to find.

2) The confederates lost the war. I think it says a lot about a country that allows the losers of civil wars to keep statues of their leaders. Another example is Nelson Mandela's support for the Springbocks. An extremely strong symbol of white oppression in South Africa. But also a symbol of whites in general, and also South Africans in general. The confederates are part of black history to, for better or for worse.

3) Why not just put up a new statue next to it? A more contemporary one. Malcolm X or Martin Luther king jr, Obama or whoever symbol they prefer.

Historical revisionism has never sat well with me. The communists and the fascists did it. And that's what I think of when I see this.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Historical revisionism has never sat well with me.

I don't see this as historical revisionism.
They're not wiping his name from the history books or saying the South never rose, or that there was never a civil war.
They're saying that right now, they do not want to honor his efforts to preserve the south and slavery.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Historical revisionism has never sat well with me.

I don't see this as historical revisionism.
They're not wiping his name from the history books or saying the South never rose, or that there was never a civil war.
They're saying that right now, they do not want to honor his efforts to preserve the south and slavery.

Let's agree to disagree. I think you are wrong.

 

[LordKiran]

So this happened. In Virginia they're planning on removing a statue of a confederate general. There are protests.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40912509

I've a couple of problems with this.

1) It's history. It's good to be reminded that our history isn't all cuddly and nice. Symbols matter. Blackwashing the past is just showering after a rape to make the deed undone. It doesn't work. Swedish cities are full of statues of Swedish kings. Our kings have mostly been the utter scum of the Earth. Worse examples of human waste would be hard to find.

2) The confederates lost the war. I think it says a lot about a country that allows the losers of civil wars to keep statues of their leaders. Another example is Nelson Mandela's support for the Springbocks. An extremely strong symbol of white oppression in South Africa. But also a symbol of whites in general, and also South Africans in general. The confederates are part of black history to, for better or for worse.

3) Why not just put up a new statue next to it? A more contemporary one. Malcolm X or Martin Luther king jr, Obama or whoever symbol they prefer.

Historical revisionism has never sat well with me. The communists and the fascists did it. And that's what I think of when I see this.

So stick them in a museum. Why should we suffer the veneration of foreign leaders on domestic soil? We don't tolerate the flying of foreign battle standards over public/government property so why should this be any different?

Depending on one's point of view, there's an argument to be made that the confederates were traitors to the union. Should we allow for the veneration of traitors? Another problem is that most of these statues were erected AFTER the war, to serve as a symbol to the former slaves, a reminder of who's REALLY in charge. So the argument that they are a part of our history falls flat in that respect. They were erected as a statement of power and oppression over blacks, and should be treated as such.

 

[thebeave]

This kinda thing is starting to get out of hand:

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2017/07/lynch_elementary_schools_will.html

The national movement to change racially offensive names of buildings, sports teams and landmarks will soon touch a group of schools in southeast Portland. Lynch Meadows, Lynch Wood and Lynch View elementary schools will shed their "Lynch" before the upcoming school year in response to growing concern about the word's racial connotations.

The schools, part of the Centennial School District, were named for the Lynch family, which donated land over a century ago to build the first of the schools. But Centennial Superintendent Paul Coakley says many newer families coming into the district associate the name with America's violent racial history.

How long before we have to change the name of "black holes" before someone gets offended?

 

[TV and credit cards]

Perhaps some day, after time has healed the wound. But a symbol that Black Americans were not too long ago considered subhuman, and in many places probably still are? I don't think we need a reminder in our public parks. The history books will do just fine. Provider of course they don't refer to slaves as "workers".

 

[Keith&Co.]

How long before we have to change the name of "black holes" before someone gets offended?

Well, i've gotten into trouble for referring to one circuit as a 'slave' to a controlling circuit.
I was told i was being racist.

To be honest, when i hear 'slave,' the first thing that comes to mind are white people in togas. Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Forum. Up Pompeii! Asterix. Rome. It's been a fact of life for most of human history.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see this as historical revisionism.
They're not wiping his name from the history books or saying the South never rose, or that there was never a civil war.
They're saying that right now, they do not want to honor his efforts to preserve the south and slavery.

Let's agree to disagree. I think you are wrong.

I think you're misusing terms.
Historical revisionism takes a lot more work than just tearing down a statue. In Texas, they're rewriting textbooks, and that, to me, qualifies.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, a statue means that you're honouring the person because you're proud of his contribution to your society. If his contribution was actually negative, then you don't really want to honour him.

There's no plaque anywhere saying "Jeffrey Dahmer ate here". That doesn't mean people are practicing historical revisionism, it just means that there are certain aspects of the past which they don't think their community should be bragging about. That's what a statue is - it's a form of bragging. It's saying "Hey, look at the great person our community produced". If you don't think he's actually great, then you shouldn't be bragging about him.

There's a difference between hiding the past and saying that certain events in the past don't represent who you are today. Removing Confederate statues is an example of the latter, not the former.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There's a difference between hiding the past and saying that certain events in the past don't represent who you are today. Removing Confederate statues is an example of the latter, not the former.

^ That.
Or, like every single list of all the US Presidents includes Nixon. In the future, they will include Trump.

But in 1976, you were hard pressed to find anyone who admitted to having voted for the man, much less wanted to name an aircraft carrier after him.

 

[J842P]

I don't see this as historical revisionism.
They're not wiping his name from the history books or saying the South never rose, or that there was never a civil war.
They're saying that right now, they do not want to honor his efforts to preserve the south and slavery.

Let's agree to disagree. I think you are wrong.

How could this possibly be revisionism?

 

[SimpleDon]

Let's agree to disagree. I think you are wrong.

How could this possibly be revisionism?

I think that it is revisionism and that it is needed. The prevailing meme of the confederacy is that they were nobly fighting against modernity and specifically defending states rights against the ever increasing strength of the federal government.

This needs to be revised. The confederates were traitors to the grand experiment that is the United States and that they were turning their back on the US to preserve slavery and, not coincidentally, their own personal fortunes to preserve their investments made purchasing human beings stolen from their home countries. There is nothing noble about their actions.

 

[J842P]

How could this possibly be revisionism?

I think that it is revisionism and that it is needed. The prevailing meme of the confederacy is that they were nobly fighting against modernity and specifically defending states rights against the ever increasing strength of the federal government.

This needs to be revised. The confederates were traitors to the grand experiment that is the United States and that they were turning their back on the US to preserve slavery and, not coincidentally, their own personal fortunes to preserve their investments made purchasing human beings stolen from their home countries. There is nothing noble about their actions.

That is the revisionism. And it is only "prevailing", if that, in parts of the South.

But my point is, taking down a Statue isn't historical revisionism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

This isn't like a German museum dedicated to the holocaust. These statutes are honoring people that betrayed the Constitution. Fuck them, fuck their statues. These alt-right fucks should crawl back under their Nazi decorated rocks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derec]

How long before we have to change the name of "black holes" before someone gets offended?

Already happened.


Article on this idiocy. Texas County Official Sees Race in Term 'Black Hole'
That fool John Wiley Price is quite a racist btw.

Not to be outdone, NAACP got in on the (gravitational snowflakiness) action.
Political Correctness Run Amok: NAACP Plays the (Hallmark) Race Card

And speaking of NAACP and the plastic arts, they wanted to get rid of the Stone Mountain carving a couple of years ago.
NAACP: Banish Confederate symbols from Stone Mountain in Georgia

This is the carving in question, for people who might not be familiar with it.

 

[angelo]

So this happened. In Virginia they're planning on removing a statue of a confederate general. There are protests.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40912509

I've a couple of problems with this.

1) It's history. It's good to be reminded that our history isn't all cuddly and nice. Symbols matter. Blackwashing the past is just showering after a rape to make the deed undone. It doesn't work. Swedish cities are full of statues of Swedish kings. Our kings have mostly been the utter scum of the Earth. Worse examples of human waste would be hard to find.

2) The confederates lost the war. I think it says a lot about a country that allows the losers of civil wars to keep statues of their leaders. Another example is Nelson Mandela's support for the Springbocks. An extremely strong symbol of white oppression in South Africa. But also a symbol of whites in general, and also South Africans in general. The confederates are part of black history to, for better or for worse.

3) Why not just put up a new statue next to it? A more contemporary one. Malcolm X or Martin Luther king jr, Obama or whoever symbol they prefer.

Historical revisionism has never sat well with me. The communists and the fascists did it. And that's what I think of when I see this.

Totally agree with you!.

Main reasons were to preserve slavery and some state rights. Why not preserve the history for future generations of these facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

 

[DrZoidberg]

So this happened. In Virginia they're planning on removing a statue of a confederate general. There are protests.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40912509

I've a couple of problems with this.

1) It's history. It's good to be reminded that our history isn't all cuddly and nice. Symbols matter. Blackwashing the past is just showering after a rape to make the deed undone. It doesn't work. Swedish cities are full of statues of Swedish kings. Our kings have mostly been the utter scum of the Earth. Worse examples of human waste would be hard to find.

2) The confederates lost the war. I think it says a lot about a country that allows the losers of civil wars to keep statues of their leaders. Another example is Nelson Mandela's support for the Springbocks. An extremely strong symbol of white oppression in South Africa. But also a symbol of whites in general, and also South Africans in general. The confederates are part of black history to, for better or for worse.

3) Why not just put up a new statue next to it? A more contemporary one. Malcolm X or Martin Luther king jr, Obama or whoever symbol they prefer.

Historical revisionism has never sat well with me. The communists and the fascists did it. And that's what I think of when I see this.

So stick them in a museum. Why should we suffer the veneration of foreign leaders on domestic soil? We don't tolerate the flying of foreign battle standards over public/government property so why should this be any different?

Depending on one's point of view, there's an argument to be made that the confederates were traitors to the union. Should we allow for the veneration of traitors? Another problem is that most of these statues were erected AFTER the war, to serve as a symbol to the former slaves, a reminder of who's REALLY in charge. So the argument that they are a part of our history falls flat in that respect. They were erected as a statement of power and oppression over blacks, and should be treated as such.

I think you're wrong. It's chauvinism. The winners rubbing the losers nose in poop and laughing at them. There was a civil war. I hope you are aware of that a lot of the belligerents still supported secession even after they lost the war? The way to keep a nation together after a war, and even more so in a civil war, is to venerate the leaders of the losing side, afterwards. It's extremely important. Allowing the South to erect statues of confederate generals after the war was really smart, and a testament to what USA is supposed to be, a symbol of democracy and freedom.

The Union was also incredibly racist and treated blacks appallingly. With your logic the American flag today, as well as union generals, is an insult to blacks and a symbol to remind who's really in charge. Still somehow that is a symbol that has endured and been allowed to be updated. Why is that? Could it possibly be that winners write our history?

When I see statues of Swedish kings in our public squares it's a reminder of how importance democracy is and that we should never let autocrats ever rule Sweden again. Statues can serve many purposes. But mostly they're just pretty to look at.

And finally, to quote Annie Sprinkle "I look around our cities and I see statues of great generals. Men who have fought in wars. Where are the statues of people who have had great orgasms?"

There's something inherently absurd about statues to begin with. They're a big clue to wtf is wrong with the culture that put them up. This is important information. Cleaning away historical symbols is losing our history. It will turn us more stupid. Something Americans really don't need any more help with.

 

[LordKiran]

So stick them in a museum. Why should we suffer the veneration of foreign leaders on domestic soil? We don't tolerate the flying of foreign battle standards over public/government property so why should this be any different?

Depending on one's point of view, there's an argument to be made that the confederates were traitors to the union. Should we allow for the veneration of traitors? Another problem is that most of these statues were erected AFTER the war, to serve as a symbol to the former slaves, a reminder of who's REALLY in charge. So the argument that they are a part of our history falls flat in that respect. They were erected as a statement of power and oppression over blacks, and should be treated as such.

I think you're wrong. It's chauvinism. The winners rubbing the losers nose in poop and laughing at them. There was a civil war. I hope you are aware of that a lot of the belligerents still supported secession even after they lost the war? The way to keep a nation together after a war, and even more so in a civil war, is to venerate the leaders of the losing side, afterwards. It's extremely important. Allowing the South to erect statues of confederate generals after the war was really smart, and a testament to what USA is supposed to be, a symbol of democracy and freedom.

The Union was also incredibly racist and treated blacks appallingly. With your logic the American flag today, as well as union generals, is an insult to blacks and a symbol to remind who's really in charge. Still somehow that is a symbol that has endured and been allowed to be updated. Why is that? Could it possibly be that winners write our history?

When I see statues of Swedish kings in our public squares it's a reminder of how importance democracy is and that we should never let autocrats ever rule Sweden again. Statues can serve many purposes. But mostly they're just pretty to look at.

And finally, to quote Annie Sprinkle "I look around our cities and I see statues of great generals. Men who have fought in wars. Where are the statues of people who have had great orgasms?"

There's something inherently absurd about statues to begin with. They're a big clue to wtf is wrong with the culture that put them up. This is important information. Cleaning away historical symbols is losing our history. It will turn us more stupid. Something Americans really don't need any more help with.

The entire reason most of these statues were even put up to begin with was to make a statement of power and oppression to the newly freed blacks.

A statue is a symbol first and "a piece of culture" second. The fact that people are ready to start tearing them down is symbolic of their readiness to move on and we should let them. This isn't even to say we should destroy them, and your claim that it is revisionist rings hollow if the statue is merely moved from one location to another. I think you'd agree the context one gets if they saw this statue in a museum is far different than the context of keeping it out in the open air, as if to suggest "We stand by this monument and what it was built to represent."

But these protestors? Do they look ready to move on to you? Hrrrrm I dunno! Something about marching with nazi flags and confederate battle standards suggests that they aren't. Hell, most of them probably didn't even know it was there beforehand, it's nothing to them, but they see its removal as a symbol that "The niggers are replacing us!" even though the people who voted to remove it were all white to the best of my knowledge.

Tell me, are you against denazification in Germany on principle? Should Germany have kept its surviving nazi eagles on its public buildings because "Oh it's just part of our history." yeah probably not!

I stand by my point. If they're so important then put them in a museum. They do not belong on public ground. If you HAVE to replace it with something, how about a monument to its removal? A reminder that we once made a mistake and then rectified it. Makes for a much better story.

 

[Harry Bosch]

How could this possibly be revisionism?

I think that it is revisionism and that it is needed. The prevailing meme of the confederacy is that they were nobly fighting against modernity and specifically defending states rights against the ever increasing strength of the federal government.

This needs to be revised. The confederates were traitors to the grand experiment that is the United States and that they were turning their back on the US to preserve slavery and, not coincidentally, their own personal fortunes to preserve their investments made purchasing human beings stolen from their home countries. There is nothing noble about their actions.

Totally agree. The confederates offer nothing good to humanity.

 

[LordKiran]

So this happened. In Virginia they're planning on removing a statue of a confederate general. There are protests.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40912509

I've a couple of problems with this.

1) It's history. It's good to be reminded that our history isn't all cuddly and nice. Symbols matter. Blackwashing the past is just showering after a rape to make the deed undone. It doesn't work. Swedish cities are full of statues of Swedish kings. Our kings have mostly been the utter scum of the Earth. Worse examples of human waste would be hard to find.

2) The confederates lost the war. I think it says a lot about a country that allows the losers of civil wars to keep statues of their leaders. Another example is Nelson Mandela's support for the Springbocks. An extremely strong symbol of white oppression in South Africa. But also a symbol of whites in general, and also South Africans in general. The confederates are part of black history to, for better or for worse.

3) Why not just put up a new statue next to it? A more contemporary one. Malcolm X or Martin Luther king jr, Obama or whoever symbol they prefer.

Historical revisionism has never sat well with me. The communists and the fascists did it. And that's what I think of when I see this.

Totally agree with you!.

Main reasons were to preserve slavery and some state rights. Why not preserve the history for future generations of these facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War

You mean like in a museum? A building who's sole purpose is to preserve historical iconography?

 

[jonatha]

I think you're wrong. It's chauvinism. The winners rubbing the losers nose in poop and laughing at them. There was a civil war. I hope you are aware of that a lot of the belligerents still supported secession even after they lost the war? The way to keep a nation together after a war, and even more so in a civil war, is to venerate the leaders of the losing side, afterwards. It's extremely important.

Not sure to whom it's supposed to be important, but many if not most of these statues weren't erected until a couple of generations after the war (1910-1930). A bit late to influence the actions of any of the belligerents...