Statue Removal Megathread: Is History In Danger or What?

[Liriena]

People have been forcibly disappeared to appease black activists? Or are you just being melodramatic?

To answer your disingenuous question though... I don't know. Black activists are not a hivemind. These "they" you speak of probably won't collectively come to a unanimous consensus.

Also, it's just statues, and they aren't being desintegrated or put on a rocket to the Sun. Y'all seriously need thicker skins when it comes to statues.

People who have died are only present via their memory. By attacking their statues you attack that memory. In some cases the attacks go so far as to attempt to rewrite their character entirely. Suppose you did something amazing, worthy of recognition. And a statue was put up of you. Then someone decided you were actually a white supremacist. Told everyone you were a white supremacist, and then knocked your statue down.

Presuming you can somehow be aware of this fact despite your death, would you not be a tad bit miffed?

You are working under the presumption that the accusation of white supremacism would be unfounded. Is it unfounded in this particular case?

And is it really a disingenuous question. That's exactly the point that's trying to be made. Why should we comply with this set of demands with no guarantee of payoff?

"Payoff"? The only reason you'd be willing to part with monuments to overt racists would be the promise of a "payoff" from a vaguely defined "they"?

And? Your self described side gets upset over TV Shows not having the exact progressive percentage of minorities.

My "side"? My side of what? Are you holding the entire left side of the political spectrum responsible for the actions of those within it who criticize media's lack of proportional representation of minorities?

You are arguing against one specific person. Don't try to hold me personally responsible for stuff other people have said. I'm not going to answer for others, specially in response to a lazy whataboutism.

That's a bit less important than the deliberate and systematic disrespect of real, once living people, who contributed to the country in some way because their beliefs weren't in line with modern beliefs.

I love how hard you are working to sanitize, gloss over what those beliefs not "in line with modern beliefs" were.

Why should we, who don't hold this person's ideas valuable, maintain a monument to him? What obligation do we have to revere someone whose ideas ran counter to what many of us consider to be basic human decency?

Oh, he was governor of Florida, and had a good policy here and there? Welp, that entitles him to eternal glorification in the form of a statue, regardless of how history may judge him in the long run.

[Ifreann]

My favorite part of all this statue tearing down nonsense is the fact that no one even cared about the statues until now.

" I think it wiser [...] not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."
Robert E. Lee, 1869.

[Torrocca]

My favorite part of all this statue tearing down nonsense is the fact that no one even cared about the statues until now.

" I think it wiser [...] not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."
Robert E. Lee, 1869.

Man, what a wise, but still treacherous slave-owner. I wonder if anyone actually followed his example?

... Oh. Wait.

[The Emerald Legion]

1.) You are working under the presumption that the accusation of white supremacism would be unfounded. Is it unfounded in this particular case?

2.) "Payoff"? The only reason you'd be willing to part with monuments to overt racists would be the promise of a "payoff" from a vaguely defined "they"?

3.) My "side"? My side of what? Are you holding the entire left side of the political spectrum responsible for the actions of those within it who criticize media's lack of proportional representation of minorities?

4.) You are arguing against one specific person. Don't try to hold me personally responsible for stuff other people have said. I'm not going to answer for others, specially in response to a lazy whataboutism.

5.) I love how hard you are working to sanitize, gloss over what those beliefs not "in line with modern beliefs" were.

6.) Why should we, who don't hold this person's ideas valuable, maintain a monument to him? What obligation do we have to revere someone whose ideas ran counter to what many of us consider to be basic human decency? Oh, he was governor of Florida, and had a good policy here and there? Welp, that entitles him to eternal glorification in the form of a statue, regardless of how history may judge him in the long run.

1.) I'm working under the presumption that it's irrelevant to what got him the statue.

2.) Yes. Because the thing is, I don't personally believe it's going to end at 'statues of racists'. I personally don't believe the factions responsible for the statue hysteria will stop until all of our cultural history is eliminated as an obstacle to their agenda. Mind you, I don't believe you in particular are part of that. I do think you enable it due to having mutual enemies but I can hardly hold that against you.

3.) No, I'm holding the portion of the left who complains about representation in television. Of which I have personally observed you to do. Therefor, lumping you in with those who do like you do. So yes, arguing against a specific person who is part of the group who believes in representation in television.

4.) Am I? Then how about this one. Ramesses the Great There are still statues of him up. At least according to popular reckoning, he's also the BIBLICAL Pharoah. You know, the fellow that enslaved the Jews, fought god, Etc Etc. Surely quite the unpopular fellow from a Christian point of view. And yet, statues of him remain standing. Statues of him are in museums. He's spoken of in nothing but positive terms despite terrorizing and taking slaves from his neighbors for his entire lifetime... You don't see anyone freaking out about HIS statues. Except Arabs.

[San Lumen]

1.) You are working under the presumption that the accusation of white supremacism would be unfounded. Is it unfounded in this particular case?

2.) "Payoff"? The only reason you'd be willing to part with monuments to overt racists would be the promise of a "payoff" from a vaguely defined "they"?

3.) My "side"? My side of what? Are you holding the entire left side of the political spectrum responsible for the actions of those within it who criticize media's lack of proportional representation of minorities?

4.) You are arguing against one specific person. Don't try to hold me personally responsible for stuff other people have said. I'm not going to answer for others, specially in response to a lazy whataboutism.

5.) I love how hard you are working to sanitize, gloss over what those beliefs not "in line with modern beliefs" were.

6.) Why should we, who don't hold this person's ideas valuable, maintain a monument to him? What obligation do we have to revere someone whose ideas ran counter to what many of us consider to be basic human decency? Oh, he was governor of Florida, and had a good policy here and there? Welp, that entitles him to eternal glorification in the form of a statue, regardless of how history may judge him in the long run.

1.) I'm working under the presumption that it's irrelevant to what got him the statue.

2.) Yes. Because the thing is, I don't personally believe it's going to end at 'statues of racists'. I personally don't believe the factions responsible for the statue hysteria will stop until all of our cultural history is eliminated as an obstacle to their agenda. Mind you, I don't believe you in particular are part of that. I do think you enable it due to having mutual enemies but I can hardly hold that against you.

3.) No, I'm holding the portion of the left who complains about representation in television. Of which I have personally observed you to do. Therefor, lumping you in with those who do like you do. So yes, arguing against a specific person who is part of the group who believes in representation in television.

4.) Am I? Then how about this one. Ramesses the Great There are still statues of him up. At least according to popular reckoning, he's also the BIBLICAL Pharoah. You know, the fellow that enslaved the Jews, fought god, Etc Etc. Surely quite the unpopular fellow from a Christian point of view. And yet, statues of him remain standing. Statues of him are in museums. He's spoken of in nothing but positive terms despite terrorizing and taking slaves from his neighbors for his entire lifetime... You don't see anyone freaking out about HIS statues. Except Arabs.

At the rate things are going it seems I'm sure someone at sometime will want the statues removed and I;ll have it be known I am not a republican by any means. I'm about as liberal as you can get.

[The Lone Alliance]

Sometimes I think the vast majority of the people complaining and demanding statues to be removed are people who are constantly looking for something to be outraged about, and once the statues are removed they'll jump to the next 'big thing' to be outraged and feel oppressed over. Same with the people protesting in defense of the statues, it's really all about them and how they FEEL.

Really I think the best thing to do regarding people wanting to tear down statues is nothing at all, don't tear them down, don't do anything to maintain them, don't even mow the grass around them. Pretend the statues don't exist.

Implausible deniability would be the funniest way to deal with them.

[Napkiraly]

The Confederates were being removed because of their status as traitors. Not racists, not slave holders, etc. That's why the Founding Father's have statues and are still venerated. But it's good to see the left-wing ISIS in full swing.

[Herador]

" I think it wiser [...] not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."
Robert E. Lee, 1869.

Man, what a wise, but still treacherous slave-owner. I wonder if anyone actually followed his example?

... Oh. Wait.

He was a pretty on the ball dude. Worth keeping in mind that if he had actually remained in the US military he'd probably have gone down as a national hero.

Not that I support the traitors or anything, I don't, just a thought.

[Salus Maior]

It's still in the books and as far as I'm aware they're not destroying the statues, so no, they're not destroying history.

[Rusozak]

Taking down a statue isn't the same as tearing out pages of a history book. It's a statement of "we don't agree with what this person represents."

When the Lenin statues fell across the former Soviet Union, they didn't forget the Soviet times or pretend they didn't exist. They were just acknowledging that they no longer supported that regime and its ideals.

[Herador]

Taking down a statue isn't the same as tearing out pages of a history book. It's a statement of "we don't agree with what this person represents."

When the Lenin statues fell across the former Soviet Union, they didn't forget the Soviet times or pretend they didn't exist. They were just acknowledging that they no longer supported that regime and its ideals.

Statues are powerful things, all monuments are. Like you said, their rise and fall doesn't symbolize their addition to or erasure from history, just that the public no longer wants that monument to represent them.

[Forsher]

The problem with the statutes is that they serve to normalise the racism and other prejudices of bygone eras by celebrating, e.g., racists. In many cases these figures went beyond "mere" prejudice into territories where we might start thinking about, e.g., genocide.

The problem with that argument is that the figures of those kinds of statues were really part of history, and removing the statues doesn't change that. Indeed, it is really an attempt to rewrite the past that is ultimately far more analogous to burning books than giving a detention to that little prick who keep scratching swastikas on doors.

The problem with the "they're a part of history argument" is that many statues don't date from the period of the figures they depict and that all of them are erected with agendas... some of which are problematic.

The problem with that argument is that they are part of the history of a different era and they these statues represent authentic manifestations of the time that, ahem, manifested them. That those agendas could exist is an important lesson to learn, and that their mentalities led to a proliferation of statues ultimately says something really interesting. Indeed, we could even use these statues as teaching moments for society today about how the physical environment is a text that is craftable for particular purposes.

The problem with that argument is.... actually, I don't know the answer to that one. Maybe it's simply that it draws attention to how the first rebuttal argument really just offered a different reasoning scheme and that while we have two positions on the same issue what is going on is that we have two unconnected trains of thought which are both persuasive. Fortunately, there is a means of bringing the arguments on to the same plane of existence.

Anyone remember Fearless Girl? An act of self-serving corporate vandalism of an artist's person, yes, but the same logic applies... you can rewrite the text of the physical environment... perhaps with another statue, perhaps with a plaque.* Removal to a museum has a distinctly out of sight out of mind feel to it, but it may be appropriate on a case by case basis.

*Frankly most people need the plaques to know what is going on so this is a nice and cheap alternative to figuring out what the equivalent of Fearless Girl would be.

tl;dr -- yes "history" is in danger but this is actually a separate moral assessment to "the present is threatened" reasoning.

[Vassenor]

Pretty sure this sort of thing has happened before in history without history being erased. I'm pretty sure Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union didn't get Orwell'd out just because the statues and iconography came down.

[Liriena]

The Confederates were being removed because of their status as traitors. Not racists, not slave holders, etc. That's why the Founding Father's have statues and are still venerated. But it's good to see the left-wing ISIS in full swing.

Parroting white nationalist smears is bad, mkay?

[Liriena]

Sometimes I think the vast majority of the people complaining and demanding statues to be removed are people who are constantly looking for something to be outraged about, and once the statues are removed they'll jump to the next 'big thing' to be outraged and feel oppressed over. Same with the people protesting in defense of the statues, it's really all about them and how they FEEL.

Really I think the best thing to do regarding people wanting to tear down statues is nothing at all, don't tear them down, don't do anything to maintain them, don't even mow the grass around them. Pretend the statues don't exist.

Implausible deniability would be the funniest way to deal with them.

What is it with people snarling at the mere idea of feelings these days? Are y'all aspiring robots or something?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I see that this has turned into a mega thread.

So, let me give my thoughts on what should happen to statutes that celebrate confederacy members.

Put them in a museum if there is a major protest.
This is a compromise that only adds to society and culture while being very cheep.

If there is majority vote on to whether or not to remove a statute on public property, whatever the people voted for in a majority is what should happen.

[Ifreann]

Sometimes I think the vast majority of the people complaining and demanding statues to be removed are people who are constantly looking for something to be outraged about, and once the statues are removed they'll jump to the next 'big thing' to be outraged and feel oppressed over. Same with the people protesting in defense of the statues, it's really all about them and how they FEEL.

Really I think the best thing to do regarding people wanting to tear down statues is nothing at all, don't tear them down, don't do anything to maintain them, don't even mow the grass around them. Pretend the statues don't exist.

Implausible deniability would be the funniest way to deal with them.

What is it with people snarling at the mere idea of feelings these days? Are y'all aspiring robots or something?

Don't talk shit about robots, they're already taking over.

[Senkaku]

Presuming you can somehow be aware of this fact despite your death, would you not be a tad bit miffed?

This feels like way too big of an "if" for me to take this argument seriously.

They're dead, Jim. They don't care.

[The Lone Alliance]

Sometimes I think the vast majority of the people complaining and demanding statues to be removed are people who are constantly looking for something to be outraged about, and once the statues are removed they'll jump to the next 'big thing' to be outraged and feel oppressed over. Same with the people protesting in defense of the statues, it's really all about them and how they FEEL.

Really I think the best thing to do regarding people wanting to tear down statues is nothing at all, don't tear them down, don't do anything to maintain them, don't even mow the grass around them. Pretend the statues don't exist.

Implausible deniability would be the funniest way to deal with them.

What is it with people snarling at the mere idea of feelings these days? Are y'all aspiring robots or something?

Except it's only one emotion in particular that I'm pointing out, moral outrage and self righteous indignation.
Don't you think there's enough self righteous indignation in the world already?

[Albrenia]

To be fair, moral outrage can be a bloody good thing if it is well placed.

Also, I'm still confused as to why monuments celebrating people who betrayed their country and supported slavery are even still up. They should be taught about in schools, and have stuff in museums and the like, but they hardly sound like people who should be glorified with a statue.

[Ifreann]

To be fair, moral outrage can be a bloody good thing if it is well placed.

Also, I'm still confused as to why monuments celebrating people who betrayed their country and supported slavery are even still up. They should be taught about in schools, and have stuff in museums and the like, but they hardly sound like people who should be glorified with a statue.

It's simple really. Some people really fucking hate niggers.

[Salus Maior]

To be fair, moral outrage can be a bloody good thing if it is well placed.

Also, I'm still confused as to why monuments celebrating people who betrayed their country and supported slavery are even still up. They should be taught about in schools, and have stuff in museums and the like, but they hardly sound like people who should be glorified with a statue.

It's simple really. Some people really fucking hate niggers.

^ Basically.

[Aellex]

Parroting white nationalist smears is bad, mkay?

Smear? Seems like a quite accurate description, rather, at least when it comes to the mania of destroying monuments and the virulent hatred of the Occident. :^)

[Albrenia]

Accurate description? How is even the most bitchy and vandalising SJW anything close to ISIS?

[Herador]

Accurate description? How is even the most bitchy and vandalising SJW anything close to ISIS?

The Taliban blew up Buddah once so it's basically 1/1