Chindie Posted August 17, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 17, 2017 4 minutes ago, LakotaDakota said: If you had read somewhere that one group of (armed, potentially violent) people were protesting against historical monuments being pulled down and another group of (armed, potentially violent) people were vandalising and ripping down historical monuments which ones would you think were the bad guys? You need more context than that. Said historical monuments are of infamous figures of the past that still have a resonance in the present, and many put up during a period of resurgence for the movement that idolises them. I imagine the residents of Germany wouldn't want a statue of some minor Nazis erected for similar reasons. Or the Irish Cromwell. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 16 minutes ago, Rodders said: I'd probably say I'd need full context of the situation before coming to any judgement on the situation. When I then learned the context for the monuments, many of which were only put up many years after the events in the 1920's during an era of vile lynching, I'd be minded to say it was a repugnant statue / monument to raise in the first place. Tear down or keep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 17, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 17, 2017 I think most of those men have achievements or standing widely acknowledged that somewhat overshadows their less respectable endeavours. Lee, meanwhile, is effectively a symbol of the fight for oppression. They aren't the same. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 1 minute ago, Chindie said: I think most of those men have achievements or standing widely acknowledged that somewhat overshadows their less respectable endeavours. Lee, meanwhile, is effectively a symbol of the fight for oppression. They aren't the same. And even General Lee himself thought it would be a bad idea to have statues of himself erected for exactly the reasons that have been demonstrated recently. I can't find the quotes on his twitter feed though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Chindie said: I think most of those men have achievements or standing widely acknowledged that somewhat overshadows their less respectable endeavours. Lee, meanwhile, is effectively a symbol of the fight for oppression. They aren't the same. If you think only that of Lee then you need to read up on him. Most confederate soldiers didn't fight to keep slaves, they fought because they were at war. To paint everyone confederate as racist is like painting everyone demonstrating against tearing down a 100 year old statue a fascist. We've got a statue of Boudica next to Westminster Bridge. She went into London when all the soldiers were out of the town and killed an estimated 70.000 kids, women and pensioners. Should we keep that statue? Edited August 17, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Rodders Posted August 17, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted August 17, 2017 9 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Tear down or keep? Monuments that were put up as a direct statement of black oppression ( in the 20's ) cannot be put in the same box as figures, who are predominantly known for their roles in the establishment of a country. People should know those facts about Washington etc, to allow understanding of the scale of the attitudes then. People living centuries ago having morally outdated views still having monuments to them is not new. Achievements sometimes outweigh the negatives. Churchill in many respects held some woeful views with respect to the Empire, but you know what his role in WW2 is one of those pretty rare symbols that allows elevation. But anyway, such discussions about appropriateness generally require nuance and that's rarely a trait that enjoys much traction on the internet so let's leave it there 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Rodders said: Monuments that were put up as a direct statement of black oppression ( in the 20's ) cannot be put in the same box as figures, who are predominantly known for their roles in the establishment of a country. People should know those facts about Washington etc, to allow understanding of the scale of the attitudes then. People living centuries ago having morally outdated views still having monuments to them is not new. Achievements sometimes outweigh the negatives. Churchill in many respects held some woeful views with respect to the Empire, but you know what his role in WW2 is one of those pretty rare symbols that allows elevation. But anyway, such discussions about appropriateness generally require nuance and that's rarely a trait that enjoys much traction on the internet so let's leave it there I fully agree. But we also have to respect that for some American Southerners Lee is more than someone who wanted to keep slaves. It's too easy to paint losers of a war with the same brush, and effectively the Confederacy has had a lot of really bad press because of losing. Churchill was one of the key decision makers when it came to bombing cities in Germany when the war was effectively over. 40.000 people burned to death in Hamburg alone. Do you think his statue would have been allowed to stand if the war came to a stalemate? Edited August 17, 2017 by magnkarl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, magnkarl said: Tear down or keep? Little known fact is that originally the faces on Mount Rushmore were going to be the explorers who opened up the American West named Lewis and Clark, alongside Chief Red Cloud and Buffalo Bill. It was only when the sculptor got involved that he insisted they change it to a bunch of presidents as they would be a bigger draw for tourists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Statues are political. It is a political act to put up a statue, and it is a political act to pull one down. People who think they are making a good point by saying, 'but what about Boudica / George Washington / whoever eh?' are in fact missing the point completely. The reason nobody is talking about pulling those statues down is because nobody wants to pull those statues down, and nobody wants to pull those statues down either because the figures they depict have reached a point of hegemonic acceptance (Washington, Churchill) or their politics are irrelevant to ours today (Boudica). Maybe in the future people will want to destroy statues of Washington. Maybe they'll think he was a word removed, the way I think Robert E Lee was a word removed. They can have their own arguments, in the future. We are arguing about statues of Confederate generals and politicians, right now. Let's have that argument. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 17, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, magnkarl said: If you think only that of Lee then you need to read up on him. Most confederate soldiers didn't fight to keep slaves, they fought because they were at war. To paint everyone confederate as racist is like painting everyone demonstrating against tearing down a 100 year old statue a fascist. We've got a statue of Boadicea next to Westminster Bridge. She went into London when all the soldiers were out of the town and killed an estimated 70.000 kids, women and pensioners. Should we keep that statue? I don't think only that of Lee. I know his biography isn't one note, he wasn't just 'slavery' and nobody is stupid enough to think the entire Confederate army marched to the beat of slavery. That's just daft. I try not to do daft things. But. Lee is a symbol of oppression. The US Civil War narrative includes a fair chunk of the issue of slavery. His image has become a rallying call to people wanting a little of that world. It shouldn't stand. Boadicea? What is she a symbol of? It isn't her slaughters. She's become a symbol of indomitability, of British will etc. Hence the statue. Many statues and monuments are not so much 'honours'. They often have meaning. The meaning of a statue of Lee does not belong in a modern world. It belongs, like Lee himself, to history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) Well absolutely they should discuss all elements of a nation's history good and bad ( here we don't have nearly / any history focusing on imperial consequences of colonial rule ). But again, it goes back to context about what monuments stand for, and their perceptions. Now perceptions can change, and in a fictional US that has got over it's racial issues - they may just be viewed as relics of a bygone era, but they are being used as totemic symbols that are rallying a divisive element in society. It's a bit like why the US soldiers who killed bin laden buried him at sea, they don't want to invite martydom hotspots. I think the place in Austria that was Hitler's birthplace has suffered the same consequences of attracting citizens who's attitudes quite explicitly harm the unity of community. The governing of the community has to surely put interests for peace first, and in those cases, making the decision to remove a statue can be considered the better option. Continue the education - replace the site with a neutral historical educational facility. Sometimes dodgy monuments survive controversy, sometimes they don't. These one's staying up are only mobilizing more violence. Edited August 17, 2017 by Rodders 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted August 17, 2017 Moderator Share Posted August 17, 2017 14 minutes ago, magnkarl said: We've got a statue of Boudica next to Westminster Bridge. She went into London when all the soldiers were out of the town and killed an estimated 70.000 kids, women and pensioners. Should we keep that statue? Ignoring the fact that she has been dead nearly as long as Jesus (if you believe that fairy tale), if her statue were seen as an icon for people in the modern era who hold abhorrent views directly related to something she stood and fought for then, yes, I would be an advocate for it being removed. PS - is she on the list of people you hate more than fascists? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 17, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 17, 2017 7 minutes ago, Straggler said: Little known fact is that originally the faces on Mount Rushmore were going to be the explorers who opened up the American West named Lewis and Clark, alongside Chief Red Cloud and Buffalo Bill. It was only when the sculptor got involved that he insisted they change it to a bunch of presidents as they would be a bigger draw for tourists. Buffalo Bill? He was a showbiz impresario (after helping wipe out the bison)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 (edited) It's an issue alright. I for one think that leaving statues up of people like Lee should serve as a reminder that slavery was horrible. Tearing them down only leads to idolism. If we're tearing down slave related statues in the US we also need to look at a lot of statues in London, Bristol, Manchester, Dublin and all the ports that shipped said slaves to America. Forgetting history by wiping all trace of even horrible events (like tearing down statues at Oxford), is the wrong way to go IMO. There should have been a placard or description below Lee's statue about his bad deeds. Some of the most thought invoking monuments around the world are negatively inspired. The burnt out cathedral spire that stands inside Hamburg to commemorate the 40.000 kids, elderly and women dying in allied bombing or Dachau concentration camps are good examples. Edited August 17, 2017 by magnkarl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paddywhack Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 I've tried to write out several times how my opinion of Trump has changed over the last week without it sounding like I somehow sympathised with him before. Feels like his big, old, orange, smug mask dropped for a second and we caught a glimpse of his Hitler 'tache. Or that horrible old woman in your street that you half believed was a witch; we've just caught casting a spell over a cauldron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted August 17, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 17, 2017 1 minute ago, magnkarl said: It's an issue alright. I for one think that leaving statues up of people like Lee should serve as a reminder that slavery was horrible. Tearing them down only leads to idolism. If we're tearing down slave related statues in the US we also need to look at a lot of statues in London, Bristol, Manchester, Dublin and all the ports that shipped said slaves to America. Forgetting history by wiping all trace of even horrible events (like tearing down statues at Oxford), is the wrong way to go IMO. There should have been a placard or description below Lee's statue about his bad deeds. I tend to agree. Although would that make it OK to have a statue of Hitler in Berlin? The Russians seemed to have no compunction about trashing their Lenin and Stalin statues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, magnkarl said: It's an issue alright. I for one think that leaving statues up of people like Lee should serve as a reminder that slavery was horrible. Tearing them down only leads to idolism. If we're tearing down slave related statues in the US we also need to look at a lot of statues in London, Bristol, Manchester, Dublin and all the ports that shipped said slaves to America. Forgetting history by wiping all trace of even horrible events (like tearing down statues at Oxford), is the wrong way to go IMO. There should have been a placard or description below Lee's statue about his bad deeds. You're sounding very much like Trump right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 17, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted August 17, 2017 Leaving them up leads to idolism and respect. It's basically the point. It isn't about forgetting history. A statue pulled down doesn't erase Lee from the conscious. What it does it removes any shred of tacit or implicit respect for what the statue represents. In Lee's case, that statue, for a great many people, is an honour to a time that belongs long dead but isn't. It shouldn't stand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 Just now, mjmooney said: I tend to agree. Although would that make it OK to have a statue of Hitler in Berlin? The Russians seemed to have no compunction about trashing their Lenin and Stalin statues. I would say that you could have a statue of Hitler in a negative light. The people who lived with him, and with Lenin/Stalin did what they felt was right, and I think that is the best way to solve these things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magnkarl Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: You're sounding very much like Trump right. Thanks, always a pleasure with someone getting personal Stefan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts