Statue Removal Megathread: Is History In Danger or What?

[Longweather]

only if you are fucking obsessed with race

thankfully in the UK the only obsessions with celebrating nobodies is for putting more useless women on money rather than any old harry from the street famous for one stupid action. nothing about suffragettes, abolition 1833, 1807 et cetera (except for centennials etc, which is fine)

You do understand what happened in the 50's and 60's right? Race has nothing to do with this. She was required to move to the back of the bus, she didn't have the right of free association no black person living in the south during that time did.

Not caring about her is an attempt at erasing your history because it contains some unpleasant memories

Technically, not caring about Rosa Parks can also be seen as actually noting her true place in history. She's only a symbol because the NAACP thought she made a good one since she was an adult and looked middle-class. Others, like Claudette Colvin nine months earlier and Bayard Rustin 14 years earlier, had committed similar acts before she did. In fact, it wasn't until Browder v. Gayle (the lawsuit involving Colvin) was won that her case actually began to properly proceed.


Anyways, whether it's a statue of Broward or any other individual, so long as they're replaced with something more useful like a fountain, bench, public trash bin, or public restroom I'm fine with statues being removed.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

My response is the same as always to this silliness:

Put. It. In. A. Museum.


Done. Both sides are happy.

No shouting, no angriness, just put the fucking thing where it belongs. A museum.

He is an historically relevant asshole racist. I don't like him one bit.

But, a museum is where assholes like him can go to preserve history.

[Sovaal]

I found this story a bit troubling.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/browa ... story.html
Napoleon Bonaparte Broward was governor of Florida from 1905 to 1908 and was a unapologetic racist and also pushed for the draining of the Everglades. Broward County in Florida is named for him and there is a statue of him in the county courthouse bearing his name.

I do not disagree that statues of Confederate generals should be removed and placed in museums. Many of them were put up during the era of Jim Crow as a form of intimidation. Some were even donated by KKK members. Furthermore Traitors should not be honored in public squares. This however is going to far in my view. The man was governor of the state not a Confederate general. I wonder if some will decide later the county should be renamed. I think some people are taking the statue controversy way to far and it almost seems like they are trying to act as if certain parts of history never happened.

What's your take on this NSG? Is the statue controversy going to far?

If the people want the statue taken down, why shouldn't they be taken down? Statues are but pieces of stone in the likeness of men, most long since dead. Why should some get special treatment over others?

Anyway, if a majority of the citizens there want it taken down, let them take it down.

[Saiwania]

I don't care if he was racist or not, what he should be removed for is draining the Everglades. It was thought that it was a useless swamp that could be tamed for better use, but its removal caused unforeseen negative consequences. But some of the Everglades was saved before it was too late.

[Escocaria]

Fucking Iconoclast scum. Historical figures, good or bad, should not be removed.

[Valgora]

Fucking Iconoclast scum. Historical figures, good or bad, should not be removed.

What if it is moved to a museum?
Then it's removed but it's also preserved.

[Des-Bal]

I doubt it.

Like I've mentioned before, the Confederate statue of the town I live in lists the names of the people from that town who died in the war. It's more of a memorial to the dead. Plus, the overwhelming majority of the town's makeup are Native American rather than white or black.

No doubt there were a few statues in predominantly white towns with large black minorities and a Klan presence where what you're saying was the case; however, I think it's impossible to prove that "90%" of all Confederate statues were erected for that purpose.

1.Unless your town accounts for 11% of all removed confederate statues then it couldn't be less relevant.
2. Speaking of which, check your terms. I said that the problem with 90% of the statues being removed was that they were created to intimidate black people or make them feel unwelcome not that 90% of all confederate statues had that purpose.
2(a). My 90% was derived from the fact that whenever one of these stories comes up I find that nine out of ten times after some light research it is apparent that the statue was made either during reconstruction or during the civil rights movement with the express and unambiguous purpose of frightening blacks or standing up for white supremacy.

It takes a dick to be a powerful leader, at least at times.

I'm not talking about hard nosed men making controversial decisions I'm talking about people who do historically significant things and just happen to be alarmingly racist.

[San Lumen]

Fucking Iconoclast scum. Historical figures, good or bad, should not be removed.

What if it is moved to a museum?
Then it's removed but it's also preserved.

Thats probably what will happen but i don't think it should be removed at all. A traitorous general is one thing a governor of state whom one of the most populous counties is named for is another thing entirely.

[Escocaria]

Fucking Iconoclast scum. Historical figures, good or bad, should not be removed.

What if it is moved to a museum?
Then it's removed but it's also preserved.

If it's moved to a museum then it is not removed, it is moved. I am perfectly fine with it being moved to a museum but the entire situation is just...well, I already stated my opinion on it.

[Eisen Wolf Reich]

I'd rather someone besides Tubman, but most people would be better than Jackson.

There was a vote on it and she won. I wanted Rosa Parks but at least Tubman beat out Margaret Sanger

Should of been the wright brothers, They invented the plane god dammit

[Des-Bal]

Fucking Iconoclast scum. Historical figures, good or bad, should not be removed.

That's a delightfully ill-reasoned position. This is a situation of one mayor accepting a statue created in 1998 as a gift and another deciding it's inappropriate. How much time has to go by before you're no longer allowed to decide you don't want the fucking thing?

[The Grim Reaper]

I doubt it.

Like I've mentioned before, the Confederate statue of the town I live in lists the names of the people from that town who died in the war. It's more of a memorial to the dead. Plus, the overwhelming majority of the town's makeup are Native American rather than white or black.

No doubt there were a few statues in predominantly white towns with large black minorities and a Klan presence where what you're saying was the case; however, I think it's impossible to prove that "90%" of all Confederate statues were erected for that purpose.

1.Unless your town accounts for 11% of all removed confederate statues then it couldn't be less relevant.
2. Speaking of which, check your terms. I said that the problem with 90% of the statues being removed was that they were created to intimidate black people or make them feel unwelcome not that 90% of all confederate statues had that purpose.
2(a). My 90% was derived from the fact that whenever one of these stories comes up I find that nine out of ten times after some light research it is apparent that the statue was made either during reconstruction or during the civil rights movement with the express and unambiguous purpose of frightening blacks or standing up for white supremacy.

The Southern Poverty Law Center did a study on the date of dedication of Confederate monuments last year - https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whos ... onfederacy

An image is linked following, showing the timeline they did of their findings. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default ... ritage.png

In their opinion, "two distinct periods saw a significant rise in the dedication of monuments and other symbols.

The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

The second spike began in the early 1950s and lasted through the 1960s, as the civil rights movement led to a backlash among segregationists. These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War."

A rebuttal by the Heritage Foundation-linked Daily Signal, here (http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/05/south ... e-statues/) argues that the first spike was associated with a new generation of Americans with reconstructionist aims, as the first generation able to memorialize Confederates as Americans rather than traitors. The rebuttal does not make any mention of the second spike, and does not to me adequately explain the SPLC's findings regarding geographic distribution (Virginia, for instance, had more than double the number of many other states - "Three states stand out for having far more monuments than others: Virginia (96), Georgia (90), and North Carolina (90). But the other eight states that seceded from the Union have their fair share: Alabama (48), Arkansas (36), Florida (25), Louisiana (37), Mississippi (48), South Carolina (50), Tennessee (43), and Texas (66)") Their rebuttal is also intensely cherrypicked, with their theory backed up through a hermeneutic analysis of specific statues rather than the quantitative work of the SPLC.

[San Lumen]

Fucking Iconoclast scum. Historical figures, good or bad, should not be removed.

That's a delightfully ill-reasoned position. This is a situation of one mayor accepting a statue created in 1998 as a gift and another deciding it's inappropriate. How much time has to go by before you're no longer allowed to decide you don't want the fucking thing?

Why have any statues at all? it seems someone is bound to offended by something. If we are going to start removing statues of Governors from another era why not go after the Founding Fathers too?

[Des-Bal]

Why have any statues at all? it seems someone is bound to offended by something. If we are going to start removing statues of Governors from another era why not go after the Founding Fathers too?

My position is that the statue doesn't need to be removed because it seems like the statue was made to honor a governor who incidentally happened to be racist. That said, I don't deify art. Everything is historic in some capacity and there just isn't good sense in decrying the removal of a statue made the year Mulan came out as iconoclasm.

The Southern Poverty Law Center did a study on the date of dedication of Confederate monuments last year - https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whos ... onfederacy

An image is linked following, showing the timeline they did of their findings. https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default ... ritage.png

In their opinion, "two distinct periods saw a significant rise in the dedication of monuments and other symbols.

The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.

The second spike began in the early 1950s and lasted through the 1960s, as the civil rights movement led to a backlash among segregationists. These two periods also coincided with the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War."

A rebuttal by the Heritage Foundation-linked Daily Signal, here (http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/05/south ... e-statues/) argues that the first spike was associated with a new generation of Americans with reconstructionist aims, as the first generation able to memorialize Confederates as Americans rather than traitors. The rebuttal does not make any mention of the far more substantial second spike, and does not to me adequately explain the SPLC's findings regarding geographic distribution (Virginia, for instance, had more than double the number of many other states - "Three states stand out for having far more monuments than others: Virginia (96), Georgia (90), and North Carolina (90). But the other eight states that seceded from the Union have their fair share: Alabama (48), Arkansas (36), Florida (25), Louisiana (37), Mississippi (48), South Carolina (50), Tennessee (43), and Texas (66)") Their rebuttal is also intensely cherrypicked, with their theory backed up through a hermeneutic analysis of specific statues rather than the quantitative work of the SPLC.

If you prefer Qualitative analysis try to find original placards and dedication speeches associated with those statues. They often just flat out say "man fuck black people."

[San Lumen]

Why have any statues at all? it seems someone is bound to offended by something. If we are going to start removing statues of Governors from another era why not go after the Founding Fathers too?

My position is that the statue doesn't need to be removed because it seems like the statue was made to honor a governor who incidentally happened to be racist. That said, I don't deify art. Everything is historic in some capacity and there just isn't good sense in decrying the removal of a statue made the year Mulan came out as iconoclasm.

What does Mulan have to do with the statue? I don't deify art either but there is no reason for this statute to be removed. The man is the namesake of the county. Should the county be renamed too and we pretend like he never existed? And Broward county isn't some small county either its one of the most populous in the state.

[Des-Bal]

What does Mulan have to do with the statue? I don't deify art either but there is no reason for this statute to be removed. The man is the namesake of the county? Should the county be renamed too and we pretend like the never existed. And Broward county isn't some small county either its one of the most populous in the state.

Mulan was also created in 1998, the juxtaposition highlights the absurdity of treating the statue as a historical artifact. I literally just said that the statue doesn't need to be removed. You quoted me.

[San Lumen]

What does Mulan have to do with the statue? I don't deify art either but there is no reason for this statute to be removed. The man is the namesake of the county? Should the county be renamed too and we pretend like the never existed. And Broward county isn't some small county either its one of the most populous in the state.

Mulan was also created in 1998, the juxtaposition highlights the absurdity of treating the statue as a historical artifact. I literally just said that the statue doesn't need to be removed. You quoted me.

I misread your post. My apologies.

[Proctopeo]

I personally thought it went too far when statues started getting vandalized, but yes, this is too far.
In protest, we need to construct a massive bronze statue of this governor, a la the Colossus of Rhodes, but resistant to natural disasters. Why? Why not?

[San Lumen]

I personally thought it went too far when statues started getting vandalized, but yes, this is too far.
In protest, we need to construct a massive bronze statue of this governor, a la the Colossus of Rhodes, but resistant to natural disasters. Why? Why not?

From what Ive heard and read there is a plan in the works to do that.

[Trumptonium]

Put. It. In. A. Museum.


Done. Both sides are happy.

At least you tried.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0mQUWO9_Q

[Thermodolia]

Put. It. In. A. Museum.


Done. Both sides are happy.

At least you tried.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0mQUWO9_Q

Maybe it's time for a nutjob reservation. Like on some island in the ocean

[San Lumen]

Put. It. In. A. Museum.


Done. Both sides are happy.

At least you tried.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY0mQUWO9_Q

well thats just freaking ridiculous and people wonder why democrats lose elections.

[Proctopeo]

I personally thought it went too far when statues started getting vandalized, but yes, this is too far.
In protest, we need to construct a massive bronze statue of this governor, a la the Colossus of Rhodes, but resistant to natural disasters. Why? Why not?

From what Ive heard and read there is a plan in the works to do that.

If so, that's rad. I wonder what his mustache would look like on a giant statue.

[Lalaki]

There's a difference between erasing bad history and not commemorating bad history. Confederate generals and folks like this Governor have a place in history textbooks, museums, and articles explaining our past. They don't deserve to have monuments dedicated to them, nor should we specifically respect their memories.

[San Lumen]

From what Ive heard and read there is a plan in the works to do that.

If so, that's rad. I wonder what his mustache would look like on a giant statue.

sorry i thought you were referring to the ancient Colossus of Rhodes. There is a plan in the works to rebuild that.