The removal of statues

[jab]

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.

Looking forward to unifying statues of Benedict Arnold popping up across America--long overdue.

 

[Derec]

Hard to imagine why the NAACP is upset about a "memorial" to the Confederacy built on the site of the 20th revival of the KKK.

20th revival? Are you sure they got disbanded that many times?

- - - Updated - - -

Plenty of staues in the south commemorating the oppressors. Where's the statues honoring the oppressed?

How do you define "the oppressed"? There are a lot of Civil Rights (and in particular MLK) themed memorials and statues in the South as well.

 

[ZiprHead]

Plenty of staues in the south commemorating the oppressors. Where's the statues honoring the oppressed?

How do you define "the oppressed"? There are a lot of Civil Rights (and in particular MLK) themed memorials and statues in the South as well.

That you have to ask is mind boggling.

 

[Derec]

Huh, I'd never actually seen a picture of that stone mountain carving in context. I'd only seen close ups before. Am I the only one who thinks it looks half assed and ugly?

Well there is no accounting for taste, but as far as "half-assed", on one hand the carving was originally meant to be bigger.

But even so, it is still the biggest bass relief sculpture, and that's definitely not half-assed. And I think the less busy three man carving looks better than the original concept.

Like they defaced a beautiful cliffside with cheap and childish graffitti?

I wonder what you would think of the laser show then. They even incorporate the carving in the Civil War segment.

 

[Derec]

That you have to ask is mind boggling.

Well what counts as "oppression" is not always straightforward. Some degenerates even think multimillionaire professional athletes are oppressed slaves - as long as they are black.

On a lighter note ...

Oppression is mentioned a few times in that <2min clip.

 

[Derec]

Looking forward to unifying statues of Benedict Arnold popping up across America--long overdue.

There is one - sort of.

 

[fromderinside]

20th revival? Are you sure they got disbanded that many times?

- - - Updated - - -

Plenty of staues in the south commemorating the oppressors. Where's the statues honoring the oppressed?

How do you define "the oppressed"? There are a lot of Civil Rights (and in particular MLK) themed memorials and statues in the South as well.

One person's view of the demise of repression: Slave, freedman with no voting rights, segregated, separate but equal, equal in name only, red lined, can't marry, threat, biased against, electable, remove progress after serving, hate groups revival, restricted emigration, majority in numbers only, ceilinged, ...... maybe

 

[fromderinside]

Waiting for time when treasure isn't spent on the dead. Rather remembering coming in words and thoughts of ancestors. If you need an icon, you actually need a life.

 

[ZiprHead]

That you have to ask is mind boggling.

Well what counts as "oppression" is not always straightforward. Some degenerates even think multimillionaire professional athletes are oppressed slaves - as long as they are black.

On a lighter note ...

Oppression is mentioned a few times in that <2min clip.

Weak, Derec. Simple-minded and weak.

 

[LordKiran]

ISIS kills heretics and sells their children into slavery. The tearing down of historical sites is the least of their damage. Even so? No, it doesn't bother me, because nothing lasts forever anyway, so no point in getting overly attached. It's just a piece of stone at the end of the day, far more important are what pieces of stone represent. Yes, it is unfortunate that works of historical significance are damaged and lost, even so my feelings are based on my partiality for works of historical significance rather than any inherent value of said pieces of stone.


Further, I looked it up, this particular statue was erected in 1924, around the same time the KKK was seeing its resurgence nationwide. You cannot possibly be naive enough to think these two things are unrelated. This isn't some Buddhist statue that was built 2000 years ago that lost its original symbolism to time. This thing was built less than a century ago, with very clearly recognizable symbolism glorifying the confederacy. Imagine being a black man living in charlottesville when this thing was put up. I wonder how that must have felt. Try putting yourself in those shoes.

Also something worth considering is that symbols never really die. Nothing to stop them from being rebuilt later if people want. The fact that the stones are different doesn't diminish what they represent. So settle down.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I definitely think that the statues erection and KKK popularity are linked. That's one reason why it should stay. That happened. The world we have today is a result of fighting that world. Sure, nothing lasts forever. But trying to stretch today's values into the past, is also a folly.

I disagree. The destruction of Palmyra and the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas is the worst things Al Qaeda and ISIS ever did. Every culture/nation/people have a golden age, a peak. This is all that remains from them. These cultures had the wealth and power to put up these magnificent buildings. Yet, they perished. Their existence is a reminder of the impermanence of everything. They are extremely valuable. It reminds us to keep fighting, to keep working for the world we want to have. If we destroy every trace of the past we'll only get a bland soup of boring. A brave new world.

Here's my favourite poem. It's shows what I mean better than I could explain it.

Ozymandias
BY PERCY BYSSHE SHELLEY

I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”

The statue exists. I travelled to Egypt and stood in front of the same statue and read the poem. Extremely powerful. I was grateful people had let it stay there. It made me feel humble. Which is good.

Here they are

View attachment 12167

Again, where is the crime in simply moving it from one location to another and how is this comparable to ISIL's destruction of monuments? How is this erasing the past? You still haven't acknowledged this. Facts are we are NOTHING like ISIL. And even if we were moving to have it crushed into a powder, there's a significant difference between symbols of the past that no longer hold their intended symbolic significance and symbols that still hold their significance TODAY. This isn't just some historical artifact, it's a point of significance to real ideologies we currently live with, its removal was the rallying cry for the people it was designed to glorify. So its not about stretching our values into the past, it's about making a stand, and proclaiming what we stand for today, here and now. A symbol that loses its symbolism is a work of art and historical artifact. It's the difference between Leonardo Divinci's Horse sculpture, and Charle's Dent's finished statue. The former was destroyed because it was a living representation of the former duke of Milan's power and that couldn't be allowed in a time where your perceived power, prestige, and legitimacy was everything as a ruler.

Your inclusion of Ozymandias is funny to me, because the poem is at least partially about the folly and arrogance of men attempting to immortalize themselves in stone.

Lastly I fundamentally disagree with you in regards to the destruction of old monuments. ISIL is spreading and propagating real human misery and suffering that impacts untold numbers of people all over the world. Next to that, some pretty yet petty little stones mean nothing. I am not trying to undercut the historical significance of these sites, or the misfortune of their desecration, but even if the worst happens, things can be replaced, rebuilt, and restored. People? Not so much.

 

[J842P]

Nonsense. These aren't comparable at all. The tearing down of ancient ruins is in no-way comparable. Many of these statues are *relatively modern* additions - not even historically Confederate - raised in a direct response to the 1960's wave of civil rights, in an effort to reaffirm white supremacy in the South. It would be as idiotic as saying that German town could raise statues and flags of Nazi's in the 1990's in response to the reunification of Germany. It is *not impotant* to respect the views of Nazis or the KKK, and certainly, a town is under no obligation to host statues to their heroes.

Isn't a better response to put up new statues? That way we get more statues = more prettiness. It's ok to be wrong. The racist statues are the wrong ones. Acknowledging their existence and letting them stay isn't to agree with the opinion.

East Berliners have been fighting tooth and nail to keep their communist monuments. The communist party didn't get any votes last election. It's not about opinions it's about keeping your history, for good or for bad.

No, it is not a better response. The best response is to remove these statues and the flags of an openly rebellious movement from state capitols.

Again: This. Isn't. History.

This is going on right now. These statues and confederate flags were raised in the modern era, explicitly as a response the expansion of civil rights to African Americans, and yes to proclaim that these towns and cities and states thought that the Confederate cause was just, and that black people are subordinate to Whites. Yes, having such monuments **is** saying you agree with that message - and Charlottesville is free to take down statues that give a message that they don't wish to make.

The analogy you are making would be like the Germans wanting to take down surviving concentration camps. I would agree there that they should be left to stand. But that isn't analogous to this situation. Instead, it is more like Berliners taking down statues of Hitler raised in the 1980s.

 

[Derec]

Weak, Derec. Simple-minded and weak.

Insulting people is what's simple-minded and weak.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I don't strongly disagree with you. However, these statues are seen as heroes by a minority of the people while they have plaques about being great people. They are revered by KKK and other groups.

If the public doesn't want them, they shouldn't have to pay to maintain them, clean them, and keep space for them. The statues belong in a museum of history. Such museum ought to have other non-white, non-pro-confederate statues as well...unless it's privately funded. The Sons of Confederate Veterans or some such group could fund them and make a museum.

 

[ZiprHead]

Weak, Derec. Simple-minded and weak.

Insulting people is what's simple-minded and weak.

Acting like you don't know whom the oppressed are is weak and simple-minded. And yes, it is an act on your part. You knew very well whom I meant and tried to derail with a load of horseshit. Insults are all you deserve.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Looking forward to unifying statues of Benedict Arnold popping up across America--long overdue.

There is one - sort of.

Oh, not even a 'sort of.' It commemorates his last battle as a soldier, his contribution to the cause of the revolution, his wound received in battle...

It just doesn't bear Benedict Arnold's name. They wanted to commemorate the battle and "winning for his countrymen the Decisive Battle of the American Revolution and for himself the rank of Major General." without endorsing his treason.

Look to the history books to remind people of his treason, not a statue raised in honor.

 

[Elixir]

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.

I guess Germany should have statues of Hitler all over the place then. It happened.

No, Dr. Z, it is not appropriate to "honor" every scumbag in history with a statue, just to appease those holdovers who still adore said scumbag. Now, General Lee wasn't (as I understand it) in the same league of scumbaggery as Hitler, but I don't think that invalidates the principle. Maybe they should have replaced the statue with an orange 1969 Dodge Charger, and left the plaque the same?

Oh forget it - those Ford liberalists would have a fit.

 

[J842P]

In a perfect world, I think statues of Lee could have been a reasonable compromise, in exchange for removing other symbols of the Confederacy. By most Southerners, Lee is remembered as a reluctant Confederate, never having supported succession, and in the post-war period, became a symbol of reconciliation. So, yes, in a perfect world, maybe. Unfortunately, too much of this has been co-opted by Neo-Nazi's and white-supremacists.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

What if for every Confederate statue, we put up a statue of General Sherman facing the Con. statue and shooting it?

Oh! Oh! Even better

Facing every confederate statue how about a statue of an auction block and the scene is a mother having her children sold away from her.

If you're gonna tell the story, tell the WHOLE story, show what the Glorious Cause was really about.

 

[hyzer]

Off topic - but the guy in this photo is my brother.

 

[Mumbles]

What if for every Confederate statue, we put up a statue of General Sherman facing the Con. statue and shooting it?

Oh! Oh! Even better

Facing every confederate statue how about a statue of an auction block and the scene is a mother having her children sold away from her.

If you're gonna tell the story, tell the WHOLE story, show what the Glorious Cause was really about.

Especially good for Lee, who was notorious for breaking up families, and allowed his soldiers to enslave free blacks in Pennsylvania.