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

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

Was it a collective decision to erect the statues in the first place? And if it was, who was a part of that collective, becouse, at least, in my country i dont think they asked the indigenous peoples if they wanted statues of Colón, or when they put up statues of generals that tortured, raped, and killed men, women and children during the 1973-90 dictatirship, i dont think the victims of these horros where included in that "collective" decision. 

So you agree that actions taken by small groups of people without popular consent is not a good thing then?

[Larry of the Lawn]

2 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

The video you posted is not a response to the one I did, in fact, it was made months before. 

And of course Columbus played a part in slaving and killing people, but he didn't know he would bring diseases that would lead to the deaths of perhaps as high as 90% of the population. Hell, he didn't even knew he had arrived in a new continent.

I feel that in recent decades, Columbus became a convenient scapegoat in the US particularly- dead 500 years, born in a country that played no part in the colonization period, etc. Did he played a role? Sure, but his conscious one in the genocide was much, much, smaller than, say, Andrew Jackson, and yet you don't see the same amount of hate for the latter.

There's a difference in how well know they are though: Colombus is the better known figure in the US, so of course he's going to get more flack.  I bet most Americans couldn't even tell you which bill Jackson is on.  Fuck, Colombus has his own holiday.  And people who are familiar with Jackson know he was awful and have petioned to get him removed from the $10 bill.  

[Ran]

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

 I bet most Americans couldn't even tell you which bill Jackson is on.  

Really?

1 minute ago, larrytheimp said:

And people who are familiar with Jackson know he was awful and have petioned to get him removed from the $10 bill.  

I guess you were right.

Yeah, they should keep working on that, they'll manage eventually...

(Sorry, sorry, but you know he's actually on the $20, right? It's Hamilton who is on the $10. Also, Harriet Tubman will eventually replace him on the $20.)

[Larry of the Lawn]

15 minutes ago, Ran said:

Really?

I guess you were right.

Yeah, they should keep working on that, they'll manage eventually...

(Sorry, sorry, but you know he's actually on the $20, right? It's Hamilton who is on the $10. Also, Harriet Tubman will eventually replace him on the $20.)

Exactly!

[Conflicting Thought]

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So you agree that actions taken by small groups of people without popular consent is not a good thing then?

if we agree, then i dont understand why are you against taking down statues that where put in place by a very small minority, whitout any consent from the people.

shouldn't you be in favor of taking down statues that where erected in an undemocratic way?

[john]

28 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

So you agree that actions taken by small groups of people without popular consent is not a good thing then?

Which came first the erecting or the tearing down of the statues? Wait, never mind I think I worked it out.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

25 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

There's a difference in how well know they are though: Colombus is the better known figure in the US, so of course he's going to get more flack.  I bet most Americans couldn't even tell you which bill Jackson is on.  Fuck, Colombus has his own holiday.  And people who are familiar with Jackson know he was awful and have petioned to get him removed from the $10 bill.  

 

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

if we agree, then i dont understand why are you against taking down statues that where put in place by a very small minority, whitout any consent from the people.

shouldn't you be in favor of taking down statues that where erected in an undemocratic way?

Then surely there should be no issue getting full public consent to getting them taken down if you asked for it.

[Clueless Northman]

Well, if it's about repurposing "controversial" historical monuments and going back over what's been done 80 years ago by previous authorities, all you really need is to hire Erdogan:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/10/europe/hagia-sophia-mosque-turkey-intl/index.html

[Conflicting Thought]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Then surely there should be no issue getting full public consent to getting them taken down if you asked for it.

the statues are there illegitimatelly, put there by undemocratic means. you dont need full public consent (what do you mean by "full").

Do you agree that the statues (the slavers and colonizers statues) are there by undemocratic means?

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Conflicting Thought said:

the statues are there illegitimatelly, put there by undemocratic means. you dont need full public consent (what do you mean by "full").

Do you agree that the statues (the slavers and colonizers statues) are there by undemocratic means?

Almost all historic public buildings are there by undemocratic means, is it therefore ok to just run around burning them down?

[TrueMetis]

3 hours ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

The video you posted is not a response to the one I did, in fact, it was made months before. 

And of course Columbus played a part in slaving and killing people, but he didn't know he would bring diseases that would lead to the deaths of perhaps as high as 90% of the population. Hell, he didn't even knew he had arrived in a new continent.

I feel that in recent decades, Columbus became a convenient scapegoat in the US particularly- dead 500 years, born in a country that played no part in the colonization period, etc. Did he played a role? Sure, but his conscious one in the genocide was much, much, smaller than, say, Andrew Jackson, and yet you don't see the same amount of hate for the latter.

The system of economic exploitation that Columbus set up was a system that enslaved the locals and treated them as machines to be replaced when they broke, it was genocidal. He's not a scapegoat, he's directly responsible for the death and enslavement of thousands of people, and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands.

Also if you don't think people hate Andrew Jackson, than you hang out with the wrong people.

[Fury Resurrected]

42 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Then surely there should be no issue getting full public consent to getting them taken down if you asked for it.

So unless everyone agrees you can’t do anything? Good luck ever doing anything at all

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

So unless everyone agrees you can’t do anything? Good luck ever doing anything at all

Well it’s called democracy isn’t it? That’s all I’m talking about. If a majority of people believe in taking down the statues then surely there wouldn’t be a problem in asking them.

 

[john]

30 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Almost all historic public buildings are there by undemocratic means, is it therefore ok to just run around burning them down?

We’ve (the UK) had a parliament since the 13th century. Do you think many public buildings were erected before then? Public buildings have a greater consensus for their existence than statues do.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, john said:

We’ve (the UK) had a parliament since the 13th century. Do you think many public buildings were erected before then? Public buildings have a greater consensus for their existence than statues do.

Well the argument is that statues have been put there by undemocratic means and must there fore be illegitimate. Therefore it is perfectly acceptable for anyone to tear them down. I’m trying to work out how far you take this train of ‘logic’

[Winterfell is Burning]

 

 

1 hour ago, Conflicting Thought said:

 

The consequences of colombus "discovery" affected millions of peoples across all of the american continent.

But here it comes again to what I said: Columbus couldn't have known about all the consequences of arriving in America (he died thinking it was Asia, after all) because, he, like even the best doctor in the world at the time, knew absolutely nothing about viruses and germs and whatnot and had no way of knowing what his arrival would entail.  He can be judged by his actions, which were bad in themselves, and for his enslaving of people, but blaming him for the dozens of millions that died mostly of diseases requires him having a wealth of knowledge he couldn't possibly have at the time. Which, was, incidentally, part of the point of the KB video I posted- his death count , is in the tens of thousands, which of course it's pretty bad, but hardly the Hitler of Americas some people made him out to be, and barely a blip on the radar compared to some people that are still celebrated today in places, like your Caesars, Khans and Napoleons of the world. 

And the other point I was making is that he's selected as an easy target and basically as a way that basically absolves anyone else of the problem, or at least makes their guilt lesser. The truth is that both his accomplishments and his misdeeds were less extraordinary than they were pointed out-  if he hadn't arrived in America in 1492, some other Portuguese or Spanish navigator would have by the end of that decade or at most the beginning of the other one, millions would have died by diseases because there's nothing the Europeans could have done about that at the time, and whatever crown arrived first would have installed a similar system, with similar results, because that's what humans did openly for most of their history, and still do, less openly, today-exploit other humans for profit or pleasure shamelessly and without caring for the consequences. And that's why I argue that he's been made as a boogeyman because the truth is more complex, and scary, than that- he was just typical of the majority of human beings in his position would have  been at the time, and many still today wouldn't have acted that differently.

 

 

[Denvek]

9 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well it’s called democracy isn’t it? That’s all I’m talking about. If a majority of people believe in taking down the statues then surely there wouldn’t be a problem in asking them.

 

In the case of Colston, they did ask - the campaign to remove it has been around for years. But the elected council ignored them/considered the matter not important enough. And so when a movement like BLM comes along in the way that it did, dovetailing with the historical reasons for considering Colston a person who should not be honoured, it shouldn't be too surprising that something like this happens.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Denvek said:

In the case of Colston, they did ask - the campaign to remove it has been around for years. But the elected council ignored them/considered the matter not important enough. And so when a movement like BLM comes along in the way that it did, dovetailing with the historical reasons for considering Colston a person who should not be honoured, it shouldn't be too surprising that something like this happens.

Yes there were many petitions in the past that didn’t really get much traction, suggesting it wasn’t really an issue that was at the forefront of most people’s minds.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Can we include naming shit after historical figures in the next thread?