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

[Inkdaub]

Even if you accept all this 'in the context of another time period' trash and make the claim that people somehow didn't understand owning human beings and forcing them to work all day so they could make money was wrong...which I do not...then I would hope we've grown as people and know better today.

We don't need statues honoring these men.  Their great works will survive without the idolatry.  

Bring the statues down.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Not sure I'd lump Washington and Jefferson with Columbus. 

[Winterfell is Burning]

Regarding Columbus, while yeah, he's worse than Washington and Jefferson, I think he was for most of history overrated, but now I think the pendulum is going too far in the other direction, putting him like a Gengis Khan/Hitler mass murderer, which he was not (though him arriving in the Americas led to a genocide, it's not like he could have foreseen that, specially the widespread diseases). Plus, there's some problems with the sources regarding his actions (here's a good video on it)

 

[Conflicting Thought]

19 minutes ago, Winterfell is Burning said:

Regarding Columbus, while yeah, he's worse than Washington and Jefferson, I think he was for most of history overrated, but now I think the pendulum is going too far in the other direction, putting him like a Gengis Khan/Hitler mass murderer, which he was not (though him arriving in the Americas led to a genocide, it's not like he could have foreseen that, specially the widespread diseases). Plus, there's some problems with the sources regarding his actions (here's a good video on it)

 

That video is... Not good. Here's a good video on why it is not good. Knowing better lies. 

And colombus didnt just "happened" to start a genocide, he was an active part on it, an active part on raping and murdering.

[Winterfell is Burning]

2 hours ago, Conflicting Thought said:

That video is... Not good. Here's a good video on why it is not good. Knowing better lies. 

And colombus didnt just "happened" to start a genocide, he was an active part on it, an active part on raping and murdering.

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.

[Zorral]

This latest discussion began because a commentator declared figures such as Jefferson Davis, Barnwell Rhett (and Bros, in whose palatial Beaufort home -- I've been there, took photos -- now known as Secession House -- the declaration of Secession was penned and signed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Barnwell_Rhett_House)  and Robert E. Lee were not traitors.

Those who dare to call it treason are in are in the Pentagon:

"The military’s top officer on Thursday described Confederate leaders as traitors and said he is taking a “hard look” at renaming 10 Army installations that honor them, despite President Trump’s opposition to any changes."

Quote

 

“The Confederacy, the American Civil War was fought, and it was an act of rebellion,” the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley, told members of the House Armed Services Committee. “It was an act of treason at the time against the Union, against the Stars and Stripes, against the U.S. Constitution, and those officers turned their back on their oath.”

The Army is now about 20 percent black, he said.

“For those young soldiers that go onto a base — a Fort Hood, a Fort Bragg or a fort wherever named after a Confederate general — they can be reminded that that general fought for the institution of slavery that may have enslaved one of their ancestors,” he said. [....]

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/07/09/milley-confederate-bases-trump/

[Fury Resurrected]

15 minutes 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.

I don’t know how many indigenous people you know, but it must not be very many because we also really hate Jackson. Your defense of Columbus is pretty baffling so I won’t even go into that.

 

Also, why NOT replace statues- of anyone, for any reason? Why does a statue being put up at one point mean we can never ever change it or we need some extraordinary reason? It’s public art and public art should vary. And as far as the history goes- nobody even notices these things the longer they are there and the only time they teach the public is when they go up or come down. If we changed them once a decade people would be a lot more interested in the history. Art is one of the most wonderful things in life, but art isn’t sacred just because it’s old, it needs to speak in the present moment. Great art absolutely does that no matter how old it is.

[Heartofice]

36 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Also, why NOT replace statues- of anyone, for any reason? Why does a statue being put up at one point mean we can never ever change it or we need some extraordinary reason? It’s public art and public art should vary. And as far as the history goes- nobody even notices these things the longer they are there and the only time they teach the public is when they go up or come down. If we changed them once a decade people would be a lot more interested in the history. Art is one of the most wonderful things in life, but art isn’t sacred just because it’s old, it needs to speak in the present moment. Great art absolutely does that no matter how old it is.

Ok so while agree with you that some statues function as art, they also have other functions. For instance statues are often used as a way to identify a sense of collective identity, either locally or nationally, often to celebrate times where there was a sense of collective achievement. 

That is why they do mean something to people. A sense of national pride or basing ones sense of identity on their location means something to a lot of people. By attacking statues you indirectly attack peoples sense of who they are and their values. You might suggest that is a good thing, and when it comes to confederate statues put up to intimidate people, I might agree with you.

But this is also part of a wider landscape where there is a battle raging between anti nationalism and nationalism and the two sides are aggrievating the other continuously. A lot of these attacks on statues serve little function in the proclaimed goal of fighting racism, and are far more to do with attacking peoples sense of identity. 

If we wanted to pull down statues or rotate them or whatever it is, then that needs to be a collective decision. The statue that was pulled down in Bristol UK was one that most people barely noticed, and probably wouldn't have missed. But the act of ripping it down via a mob did nothing to foster support and most people disagreed with how it was done. 

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ok so while agree with you that some statues function as art, they also have other functions. For instance statues are often used as a way to identify a sense of collective identity, either locally or nationally, often to celebrate times where there was a sense of collective achievement. 

That is why they do mean something to people. A sense of national pride or basing ones sense of identity on their location means something to a lot of people. By attacking statues you indirectly attack peoples sense of who they are and their values. You might suggest that is a good thing, and when it comes to confederate statues put up to intimidate people, I might agree with you.

But this is also part of a wider landscape where there is a battle raging between anti nationalism and nationalism and the two sides are aggrievating the other continuously. A lot of these attacks on statues serve little function in the proclaimed goal of fighting racism, and are far more to do with attacking peoples sense of identity. 

If we wanted to pull down statues or rotate them or whatever it is, then that needs to be a collective decision. The statue that was pulled down in Bristol UK was one that most people barely noticed, and probably wouldn't have missed. But the act of ripping it down via a mob did nothing to foster support and most people disagreed with how it was done. 

Statues of slavers and colonizers are offensive to the identity of lots of people. Your argument defends the sense of identity of the majority over everyone else which is some intellectually lazy shit. Things have reached a boiling point with that kind of thinking and perpetuating the dominance of the shrinking white majority is what has led us to this juncture in history. It is time for the nationalists to give some ground. 

[Fury Resurrected]

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Ok so while agree with you that some statues function as art, they also have other functions. For instance statues are often used as a way to identify a sense of collective identity, either locally or nationally, often to celebrate times where there was a sense of collective achievement. 

That is why they do mean something to people. A sense of national pride or basing ones sense of identity on their location means something to a lot of people. By attacking statues you indirectly attack peoples sense of who they are and their values. You might suggest that is a good thing, and when it comes to confederate statues put up to intimidate people, I might agree with you.

But this is also part of a wider landscape where there is a battle raging between anti nationalism and nationalism and the two sides are aggrievating the other continuously. A lot of these attacks on statues serve little function in the proclaimed goal of fighting racism, and are far more to do with attacking peoples sense of identity. 

If we wanted to pull down statues or rotate them or whatever it is, then that needs to be a collective decision. The statue that was pulled down in Bristol UK was one that most people barely noticed, and probably wouldn't have missed. But the act of ripping it down via a mob did nothing to foster support and most people disagreed with how it was done. 

And also, “we just don’t like the way that it was done” is always the refrain of comfortable white people when other groups ask for change. They didn’t like the way MLK did things. They didn’t like Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the anthem. They didn’t like BLM protests in the roads. They use “I don’t like how they are doing it” to distract from the issues themselves and make it into a petty debate instead of something serious about people’s lives. Doing things the way they would like is not effective and that is exactly what they like about it.

[Heartofice]

Just now, Fury Resurrected said:

Statues of slavers and colonizers are offensive to the identity of lots of people. Your argument defends the sense of identity of the majority over everyone else which is some intellectually lazy shit. Things have reached a boiling point with that kind of thinking and perpetuating the dominance of the shrinking white majority is what has led us to this juncture in history. It is time for the nationalists to give some ground. 

Well it depends on what statues you are talking about.

I’m going to talk about the UK because that’s where I live but no statues had brought large sections of the population to boiling point.

[Fury Resurrected]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Well it depends on what statues you are talking about.

I’m going to talk about the UK because that’s where I live but no statues had brought large sections of the population to boiling point.

“Large sections”- why ignore the interests of small sections?

 

Most of this is happening here in the US, over race. The people railing against it are overwhelmingly white. So if your scenarios really are the outliers and it is not about race there, maybe don’t use that scenario to inform your entire commentary on the subject of removing statues. I agree you will know more about the UK cases than I do, but the UK cases are an outlier to most of what this thread is talking about other than being a response to a vast cultural uprising here 

[Winterfell is Burning]

Regarding the statues, I think probably the most important question is not which statues comes down and which stays, but who put those statues there in the first place and why. This is, ultimately, why all those statues about Confederate leaders should be removed, but others should really be decided in a case by case situation.

[Heartofice]

10 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

“Large sections”- why ignore the interests of small sections?

 

Most of this is happening here in the US, over race. The people railing against it are overwhelmingly white. So if your scenarios really are the outliers and it is not about race there, maybe don’t use that scenario to inform your entire commentary on the subject of removing statues. I agree you will know more about the UK cases than I do, but the UK cases are an outlier to most of what this thread is talking about other than being a response to a vast cultural uprising here 

Ok I’ll forgive your ignorance on the Uk, it’s understandable that you’d assume everything must be about what is happening in America.

There was a large debate on statues in the UK and i think it is actually quite relevant, if only because the urge to pull down statues grew out of events in the US .

My point about identity is still relevant in any country however.

[JoannaL]

Can it be that the problem with statues are that they are perceived as being in a place of honor to honor that individual? Would it then not be the simplest solution to change the way of looking at them (perhaps by changing the inscription or  adding to it). You could also look at them as art or just as history or as a useful history lesson or as a reason why some things were good or bad or need to change?  Statues and memorials are just reminders, it is in our perception that it is a place of honor. You can look at a statue of columbus and remember all the pain and suffering he brought onto the American continent. Also instead of destroying what was one could think of errecting new memorials which could address untold and underrepresented parts of history . That would be much more creative and also supportive of modern artists. Also it could lead to a healing discussion in the whole community what needs to be remembered? In our country there are a lot of memorials which address dark parts of our history and it is good that they are there because it is always good to remember history and learn from it.

[A wilding]

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If we wanted to pull down statues or rotate them or whatever it is, then that needs to be a collective decision. The statue that was pulled down in Bristol UK was one that most people barely noticed, and probably wouldn't have missed. But the act of ripping it down via a mob did nothing to foster support and most people disagreed with how it was done. 

I am guessing from that that you don't know anyone in Bristol.

As it happens, I do and, while they are not a representative sample, they all knew about that statue long before it was thrown in the river, and had also bent my ear about it. The one I have spoken to since is entirely happy that it has come down.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, A wilding said:

while they are not a representative sample

I think this is the only important part of what you wrote 

[Fury Resurrected]

3 minutes ago, JoannaL said:

Can it be that the problem with statues are that they are perceived as being in a place of honor to honor that individual? Would it then not be the simplest solution to change the way of looking at them (perhaps by changing the inscription or  adding to it). You could also look at them as art or just as history or as a useful history lesson or as a reason why some things were good or bad or need to change?  Statues and memorials are just reminders, it is in our perception that it is a place of honor. You can look at a statue of columbus and remember all the pain and suffering he brought onto the American continent. Also instead of destroying what was one could think of errecting new memorials which could address untold and underrepresented parts of history . That would be much more creative and also supportive of modern artists. Also it could lead to a healing discussion in the whole community what needs to be remembered? In our country there are a lot of memorials which address dark parts of our history and it is good that they are there because it is always good to remember history and learn from it.

A statue of Columbus looking authoritative and looking toward the horizon doesn’t communicate what you are talking about no matter what plaque you slap on it. It also still erases the indigenous people whose suffering he caused by focusing it on him. If it were a statue of Hitler nobody would need this explanation, but to indigenous people Columbus is not any better. Would you suggest leaving a statue of Hitler erected by the third reich up and just put a new plaque on it? I doubt that. Not one person has explained any concrete value to leaving these things up. But a lot of people benefit from taking them down. Nobody at all is enriched by a statue of Columbus. Nobody learns their history from a statue in a park. A statue *is* an honor and that is not merely perception.

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour 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.

You are right, the video i posted was a rsponse to his first video, but i think the  video by bad empanada is much better than both knowing better videos, i mens he did the second one becouse of the criticism that he got from many people and specially becouse of the bad empanada take down of his bs. 

I will say that colombus its a hatefull figure al over the Americas  not just the US. The consequences of colombus "discovery" affected millions of peoples across all of the american continent. Every one in south america knows that Colon was a PoS,  a rapist, racista and a slaver, who is andrew jackson outside of the US? 

[Conflicting Thought]

57 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

If we wanted to pull down statues or rotate them or whatever it is, then that needs to be a collective decision. The statue that was pulled down in Bristol UK was one that most people barely noticed, and probably wouldn't have missed. But the act of ripping it down via a mob did nothing to foster support and most people disagreed with how it was done. 

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.