Statues, Monuments, and When to Take Down or Leave Up Ones Dedicated To Flawed Historical Figures

[Knight Of Winter]

11 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Well, much as it pains me to defend the US, apart from every western European country from the middle ages.

At that point in time, I consider them one and a same - same people, same culture, same ideas about slavery. At the time that Atlantic slave trade started, "Americans" were still groups of English, Dutch, French (and others) colonists.

Though, more interesting question would be was (Atlantic) slavery a product of racism or vice versa.

[Hereward]

2 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

At that point in time, I consider them one and a same - same people, same culture, same ideas about slavery. At the time that Atlantic slave trade started, "Americans" were still groups of English, Dutch, French (and others) colonists.

Though, more interesting question would be was (Atlantic) slavery a product of racism or vice versa.

I understand your point. However, from the late 18th century they were moving in opposite directions. The anti-slavery movement was on the increase in the late 18th century in the UK, even, actually mainly, amongst the evil Tories. Slavery was confirmed as illegal within England in the 1770s. Without the Napoleonic War , it would almost certainly have been ended earlier. In the 19th century, opposition to slavery was a widespread and influential cause, affecting the electoral calculus, even to the extent of over-riding the geopolitical imperative of supporting the Confederacy. The UK actually occupied parts of west Africa, not to support its commercial interests, which were already protected by the control of crucial ports and trading centres, however you feel about that, but explicitly to stamp out slavery in the interior. That's a matter of public record. Also, the West Africa Squadron was set up, which at times constituted a sixth of the world's biggest navy, to stamp out the slave trade. That's a clear difference with the policy of the US which was still OK with the idea into the 1860s.

[sologdin]

more interesting question would be was (Atlantic) slavery a product of racism or vice versa.

what would be the argument in favor of racism causing transatlantic human trafficking? it seems axiomatic that the causation flows in the other direction.

[Knight Of Winter]

20 minutes ago, sologdin said:

what would be the argument in favor of racism causing transatlantic human trafficking? it seems axiomatic that the causation flows in the other direction.

Personally, I agree with you (that slave trade caused racism, not the other way around), though I've seen opinions claiming the opposite - hence I thought it an interesting subject to think and debate about.

[BigFatCoward]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Clearly they were jokes that don't perfectly cross cultures.

Also,  you can be a bit of a wooden British stiff, just as I can be an overly loud and and playful U.S. citizen.

But at least I can laugh about it. Why not try for yourself?

Of all the things you could criticise him for, not being able to about himself is not one of them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

.........

Blame yourself for stereotypes I generate! 

[Rippounet]

1 hour ago, Knight Of Winter said:

I think @Rippounet is right on spot when he says that racism is a form of othering, although I think it has very little to do with power structures. Rather, I believe it stems from basic in-group vs out-group distinction ingrained in human nature - and probably arose way earlier than humans formed first civilizations with first power structures. It's a very much bottom-up process.

I would say it's both. It finds its roots in the in-group/out-group dynamic, but as human societies grew larger it could also be used to justify power structures both within a society (since many ancient civilizations practiced slavery) and between societies (early forms of diplomacy between peoples, especially with the development of vassal states).

I don't think anyone will claim that racism is new. Ironically what is new is how aware of its aspects and functions we are becoming, and how passionate many of us have become about universal values.

OTOH toppling statues does not require universal values. I'm afraid it tends to be more a rejection of a power structure, at least when it's done impulsively or violently. Which is why we have these conversations, because many people can get uncomfortable if the challenges to the power structures we know go too far. It's no doubt much easier to reject the "great" men of power structures that failed or disappeared (the Confederacy, ancient Rome... etc) than those of the power structures that are still with us (the UK, the US... ).

Ultimately I'm tempted to play smartass and point out that it's the very existence of statues that raises all these questions. Whatever the deeds of a person there will almost always be a darker side to their life. I'm pretty sure we've all heard about the dark sides of even people like Gandhi or Einstein... Heck, even the Dalai-Lama made a sexist joke at some point. I suppose we have to agree that it's the reason for the statue that matters rather than the individual himself. We raise statues to Einstein to celebrate the scientist, not the individual. We raise statues to T. Jefferson for being liberal in his time. And I guess we have statues of Churchill for his unyielding opposition to Nazi Germany more than anything else. It would be better if we could celebrate the achievements rather than the men imho, but well, apes gotta ape after all.

 

[Zorral]

2 hours ago, Hereward said:

Well, much as it pains me to defend the US, apart from every western European country from the middle ages.

You are wrong about the european middle ages -- it wasn't race based at all. This is not to say that rotten human beings despised slave and blamed them for their condition, as was the case in Genoa slave markets in the 14th century, when the Great Mortality had taken out so much labor -- slaves who were as white as you can get, the slavs and circassians that they bought from the Ottomans' conquests -- indeed, the word slave comes from "Slav".

What also distinguishes US slavery slave society legality from every other nation's is that it was embedded in law that the condition of the child was the condition of the MOTHER.  In every other culture, history the condition of the child comes from the father -- thus though a bastard and not able to inherit the throne, the child was still royal because the father was royal.  But Jefferson's children by Hemings were ALL LEGALLY SLAVES because their mother was a slave.

But if the mother was a slave her child was a slave.  No matter, as happened, as the children in so many cases, including Jefferson's, got ever whiter so that people couldn't tell the difference.  Which made the southerners totally insane on the subject -- the one drop law.

 

 

[OldGimletEye]

I typically don't agree with conservatives, the National Review, and Richard Lowry about much. But, maybe even conservatives can get on board with getting rid of confederate monuments.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/confederate-statues-debate-conservatives-shouldnt-defend-symbols-secession/

Quote

This impulse, though, is a mistake. Confederate statues and symbols deserve to be reevaluated, and often mothballed.

 

Quote

The statues are an unnecessary affront to black citizens, who shouldn’t have to see defenders of chattel slavery put on a pedestal, literally.

It is impossible to evaluate these monuments without considering the context of why they were created. Many of them were erected as part of the push to enshrine a dishonest, prettied-up version of the Confederacy.

Good, I can at least agree with Lowry on this. Maybe conservatives will listen to him about this.

Quote

The Confederate flag should be shunned, as a symbol of a viciously flawed cause.

 

[Fury Resurrected]

3 hours ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Personally, I agree with you (that slave trade caused racism, not the other way around), though I've seen opinions claiming the opposite - hence I thought it an interesting subject to think and debate about.

What?? Racism came to this continent with Columbus. The accounts of the natives here were nothing if not shockingly racist. Europeans of the time did shittons of showing up to someone else’s continent and claiming superiority over the residents. It happened in Africa, it happened in India, in Australia, in North America, and South America. The Atlantic slave trade didn’t cause it.

[TrueMetis]

47 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

What?? Racism came to this continent with Columbus. The accounts of the natives here were nothing if not shockingly racist. Europeans of the time did shittons of showing up to someone else’s continent and claiming superiority over the residents. It happened in Africa, it happened in India, in Australia, in North America, and South America. The Atlantic slave trade didn’t cause it.

Columbus also *started the slave trade* the first trans Atlantic slaves where people he took, thousands of them, from the Americas and brought back to Europe as slaves. He created a system of slavery in the area he governed that became the basis for the economic system Spain used in the Americas, and his writings made it very very clear how little he thought of the native people.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 hours ago, Hereward said:

I understand your point. However, from the late 18th century they were moving in opposite directions. The anti-slavery movement was on the increase in the late 18th century in the UK, even, actually mainly, amongst the evil Tories. Slavery was confirmed as illegal within England in the 1770s. Without the Napoleonic War , it would almost certainly have been ended earlier. In the 19th century, opposition to slavery was a widespread and influential cause, affecting the electoral calculus, even to the extent of over-riding the geopolitical imperative of supporting the Confederacy. The UK actually occupied parts of west Africa, not to support its commercial interests, which were already protected by the control of crucial ports and trading centres, however you feel about that, but explicitly to stamp out slavery in the interior. That's a matter of public record. Also, the West Africa Squadron was set up, which at times constituted a sixth of the world's biggest navy, to stamp out the slave trade. That's a clear difference with the policy of the US which was still OK with the idea into the 1860s.

In the mid-nineteenth century, the Royal Navy used to intercept Arabic slave ships in the Indian Ocean, and put the confiscated slaves off at the Seychelles, as technically free but de facto serfs of the plantations.

(The Seychelles has no native indigenous population, of course. Its current population are basically the descendants of French slaves and the labourers brought in by Britain). 

[Ran]

7 hours ago, Zorral said:

In every other culture

That's not quite right, at least when it comes to Rome. Vernae -- house-born slaves -- were not distinguished by those who had slave fathers and Roman fathers, because in the eyes of the law they basically had no fathers; the distinction about house-born was more out of a sense that they had particular loyalty to the household, having been raised in it, rather than because their father may have been the head of the household or some other blood relation.

And I think early Arabic custom was that the child of a slave had the mother's status, not the father's, but it changed over time, probably under the influence of Islam.

I can credit that the American position was unique among the Judeo-Christian-Islam cultures, though.

[SeanF]

On 6/17/2020 at 9:17 PM, Tywin et al. said:

It's the forum's means of shaming you for always having an avatar that is smoking a dirty cigarette. 

You know what you've done.

Packs bong. 

Idi Amin erected a statue to Hitler.  I'm not sure if it still stands in Uganda.

[SeanF]

On 6/17/2020 at 10:00 PM, Luzifer's right hand said:

The last time I looked WW2 was mainly won by the Soviet Union and the USA. 

Even if the UK had fallen the outcome would not have changed much.

If the UK had fallen, or more likely, made peace, in 1940-41, that would have been an end to the war.

I expect that at some point, there would have been war between Germany and the Soviet Union.  I don't know what the outcome of a standalone fight between the two would have been.  The UK would likely have had a pro-Nazi government, so Germany would not have had to fight on more than one front.

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

If the UK had fallen, or more likely, made peace, in 1940-41, that would have been an end to the war.

I expect that at some point, there would have been war between Germany and the Soviet Union.  I don't know what the outcome of a standalone fight between the two would have been.  The UK would likely have had a pro-Nazi government, so Germany would not have had to fight on more than one front.

A more likely scenario is that Britain agrees to a White Peace in 1940, spends a couple of years rebuilding its forces, and goes back in during 1942-1943, backstabbing Adolf while he's occupied with the Soviets. No way would you have, say, Prime Minister Oswald Mosley. 

[SeanF]

17 minutes ago, The Marquis de Leech said:

A more likely scenario is that Britain agrees to a White Peace in 1940, spends a couple of years rebuilding its forces, and goes back in during 1942-1943, backstabbing Adolf while he's occupied with the Soviets. No way would you have, say, Prime Minister Oswald Mosley. 

I think the likeliest leaders would have been people like Lord Halifax or Rab Butler.  "Pro-Nazi" would probably be an unfair way to describe them, but they would have been very keen to remain on good terms with Germany, and preoccupied with maintaining control of the Empire.

[The Marquis de Leech]

9 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think the likeliest leaders would have been people like Lord Halifax or Rab Butler.  "Pro-Nazi" would probably be an unfair way to describe them, but they would have been very keen to remain on good terms with Germany, and preoccupied with maintaining control of the Empire.

It'd be (1) Control of the Empire, and (2) Making sure that Adolf doesn't dominate the continent (the Napolean precedent). Building up for a backstab would be within bounds for the pair of them. This puts Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa in an awkward situation though. 

(I frequent a forum devoted to counter-factual history. The amount of times Lord Halifax gets written in timelines as the British Quisling is really unfair).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

What possible reason would protesters in San Francisco have for attacking a statue of Cervantes in Golden Gate Park?

https://mobile.twitter.com/jrivanob/status/1274185284406480896

[Fragile Bird]

1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

What possible reason would protesters in San Francisco have for attacking a statue of Cervantes in Golden Gate Park?

https://mobile.twitter.com/jrivanob/status/1274185284406480896

I bet it's the cross.