Washington & Jefferson Statue Get Pulled Down

[Galloism]

Hoo boy here come the edgy takes.

Did he seriously just compare raping a child to breaking a chair? Did he actually compare harming a living human being to breaking an inanimate object?

You may wish to fasten your seatbelt.

[Diarcesia]

People were products of their times. They did do good things during those times too.

The same can be said about the Nazis, that they were product of their time. This does not mean that they desirve a statue in Germany.

Should Ulysses S. Grant, a one-time slaveowner who later contributed much to ending the Confederacy's bid to keep slavery alive, have his statues taken down? Should he be forgotten in history? Why or why not?

[The Marlborough]

I thought statues were supposed to be okay if they were part of a museum and had explanations for them, which the Teddy statue does have? :thonk:

[The Reformed American Republic]

People were products of their times. They did do good things during those times too.

The same can be said about the Nazis, that they were product of their time. This does not mean that they desirve a statue in Germany.

No the Nazis were not. This is Reductio Ad Hitlerum. Also, Nazi atrocities were worse.

[The Marlborough]

Teddy Roosevelt's statue is being taken-down now...despite the fact that he fought against corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Reminder that these mobs don't care about Native Americans, despite their fight against racism, and Natives suffer from poverty, broken homes, and violence almost at the same rates as African Americans. He also fought for workers' rights, preserved our National Parks, and fought against corporate monopolies and the mass media. He was never a perfect man and had some questionable personal views, but he was one of our better presidents, all things considered. And fought against corruption against Native Americans. This is nuts.

He was also comically war-happy, which is cute and funny until he celebrates the massacre of a thousand Filipinos. He did a ton of good, he shouldn't be erased from history or anything, but it's an affront to the thousands of people he directly or indirectly hurt to build prominent statues of him.

The counterargument is that no one's perfect, of course, which doesn't really counter the argument at all. These guys are all messed up, even the "good" ones like Lincoln and Teddy. Frankly there should only be statues of abstract representations, like the Statue of Liberty or the Motherland Calls, or of Jesus Christ and the Buddha and other righteous figures, representing anyone else in such a prominent way implies that they're just as perfect and the people they hurt either are lying or deserved it

Or maybe we can still commemorate flawed heroes of a nation's past. *shrug*

[Luminesa]

I thought statues were supposed to be okay if they were part of a museum and had explanations for them, which the Teddy statue does have? :thonk:

I mean, I'm not sure what to personally make of it, I dunno what they plan to do with the statue. It doesn't look like they'll be destroying it. I would highly doubt they'd be doing that anyway. They might move it away from the front and put it elsewhere?

[Diarcesia]

To those who agree with the statues of Washington, Jefferson, and the like needing to be taken down, let's invert the question: whose or what statues should be brought up and constructed/maintained?

[Luminesa]

He was also comically war-happy, which is cute and funny until he celebrates the massacre of a thousand Filipinos. He did a ton of good, he shouldn't be erased from history or anything, but it's an affront to the thousands of people he directly or indirectly hurt to build prominent statues of him.

The counterargument is that no one's perfect, of course, which doesn't really counter the argument at all. These guys are all messed up, even the "good" ones like Lincoln and Teddy. Frankly there should only be statues of abstract representations, like the Statue of Liberty or the Motherland Calls, or of Jesus Christ and the Buddha and other righteous figures, representing anyone else in such a prominent way implies that they're just as perfect and the people they hurt either are lying or deserved it

Or maybe we can still commemorate flawed heroes of a nation's past. *shrug*

Pretty much. We can give more discussion on the good and the bad while still remembering the good.

[Xmara]

Did he seriously just compare raping a child to breaking a chair? Did he actually compare harming a living human being to breaking an inanimate object?

You may wish to fasten your seatbelt.

Trust me I am fully aware of Sai's posting history.

And for the record, I don't think the statues of Washington and Jefferson should be taken down. Yes, they've done horrible things, but they also helped create the country we live in today.

[The Reformed American Republic]

People who are offended at our founding fathers having statues should leave the country.

[New Kvenland]

To those who agree with the statues of Washington, Jefferson, and the like needing to be taken down, let's invert the question: whose or what statues should be brought up and constructed/maintained?

Again, the spirit of the people united or Jesus of Nazareth and no one else. A massive statue of someone is kind of on par to canonizing them, at least in the eyes of the national zeitgeist, and for that reason no person besides the Christ (and local religious figures) should be portrayed in such a way

[US-SSR]

Washington, Jefferson and the rest of them didn't care a damn about rights of the citizens, they coopted the language of John Locke, Rousseau and others to create a system to maximize the interests of the capitalistic exploiters and enslavers they saw as the natural leaders of society. The basis of the prosperity and power of the USA throughout its history is taking land from natives and setting enslaved Africans to work on it. The "freedom" it fights for in foreign nations large and small is the freedom of its bankers and industrialists to continue to exploit the labor and resources of the rest of the world to enrich themselves.

As I say, about time their statues get pulled down.

Do you hear the people sing?
Singing the songs of angry men?
It is the music of the people
Who will not be slaves again!
When the beating of your heart
Echoes the beating of the drums
There is a life about to start
When tomorrow comes!

Can you provide sources that claim Washington and Jefferson didn't care about the people please?

Here you go.

[Aureumterra]

Teddy Roosevelt's statue is being taken-down now...despite the fact that he fought against corruption in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Reminder that these mobs don't care about Native Americans, despite their fight against racism, and Natives suffer from poverty, broken homes, and violence almost at the same rates as African Americans. He also fought for workers' rights, preserved our National Parks, and fought against corporate monopolies and the mass media. He was never a perfect man and had some questionable personal views, but he was one of our better presidents, all things considered. And fought against corruption against Native Americans. This is nuts.

They tore down a statue of a union general who fought against slavery, then they tore down a statue of the most progressive president in US history

Are you sure you aren’t talking about a Neo-Nazi mob?

[US-SSR]

The same can be said about the Nazis, that they were product of their time. This does not mean that they desirve a statue in Germany.

Should Ulysses S. Grant, a one-time slaveowner who later contributed much to ending the Confederacy's bid to keep slavery alive, have his statues taken down? Should he be forgotten in history? Why or why not?

1. Taking down a statue = / = forgetting history or any historical figure. In the specific case of statues of Confederates erected decades after the Civil War as symbols of white supremacy, defending them is at best forgetting and at worst denying history.

2. The people are deciding which statues stay up and which come down. If the processes of government do not move fast enough the people are taking the task of removing offensive statues on themselves.

3. How nice it must be to make smug, pointless comparisons and analogies from positions of privilege rather than openly dealing with the oppression and dehumanization inflicted and felt by erecting statues to honor enslavers, colonizers, white supremacists, racists, etc., etc.

People who are offended at our founding fathers having statues should leave the country.

People who are offended at people tearing down statues of our founding fathers should leave the country.

[Saiwania]

Should Ulysses S. Grant, a one-time slaveowner who later contributed much to ending the Confederacy's bid to keep slavery alive, have his statues taken down? Should he be forgotten in history? Why or why not?

Asides from the connections to slavery, another point of contention that hasn't been covered that certain people might have with Grant, is that he did an illegal war against various Plains indian tribes over the Black Hills in South Dakota. The US was in a deep economic depression and needed an economic boost at the time. Gold was discovered there and the Whites wanted to seize it. As President, he was in a real bind where he could either honor the treaties made with the Lakota or side with the electorate that wanted to take the land from them.

$1 billion+ has been offered as compensation but the Lakota to this day, would prefer to get the land back.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180960787/

[Aeritai]

Can you provide sources that claim Washington and Jefferson didn't care about the people please?

Here you go.

Thank you for providing a source I'll give it a look tomorrow.

[Salus Maior]

Can you provide sources that claim Washington and Jefferson didn't care about the people please?

Here you go.

A very biased reading of the lives of the Founding Fathers.

[Diarcesia]

Should Ulysses S. Grant, a one-time slaveowner who later contributed much to ending the Confederacy's bid to keep slavery alive, have his statues taken down? Should he be forgotten in history? Why or why not?

1. Taking down a statue = / = forgetting history or any historical figure. In the specific case of statues of Confederates erected decades after the Civil War as symbols of white supremacy, defending them is at best forgetting and at worst denying history.

OK I get you. I just feel like they're doing blanket damnationes memoriae i.e. applying cancel culture to already dead people.

2. The people are deciding which statues stay up and which come down. If the processes of government do not move fast enough the people are taking the task of removing offensive statues on themselves.

Who, or what, specifically? Examples, please.

3. How nice it must be to make smug, pointless comparisons and analogies from positions of privilege rather than openly dealing with the oppression and dehumanization inflicted and felt by erecting statues to honor enslavers, colonizers, white supremacists, racists, etc., etc.

I'm genuinely curious what made you think that. To whom is this directed? Why? How can it be addressed?

[Salus Maior]

2. The people are deciding which statues stay up and which come down. If the processes of government do not move fast enough the people are taking the task of removing offensive statues on themselves.

"The people" being this particular angry mob, in this particular place. Hell, them doing this probably isn't really a reflection of what they actually know about the figures themselves, but rather their anger at the government for the issues with the police among other things.

[US-SSR]

Here you go.

A very biased reading of the lives of the Founding Fathers.

As opposed to every other reading that concludes their shit didn't stink? I'll take Professor Zinn's any day.

[The Marlborough]

Should Ulysses S. Grant, a one-time slaveowner who later contributed much to ending the Confederacy's bid to keep slavery alive, have his statues taken down? Should he be forgotten in history? Why or why not?

1. Taking down a statue = / = forgetting history or any historical figure. In the specific case of statues of Confederates erected decades after the Civil War as symbols of white supremacy, defending them is at best forgetting and at worst denying history.

2. The people are deciding which statues stay up and which come down. If the processes of government do not move fast enough the people are taking the task of removing offensive statues on themselves.

3. How nice it must be to make smug, pointless comparisons and analogies from positions of privilege rather than openly dealing with the oppression and dehumanization inflicted and felt by erecting statues to honor enslavers, colonizers, white supremacists, racists, etc., etc.

People who are offended at our founding fathers having statues should leave the country.

People who are offended at people tearing down statues of our founding fathers should leave the country.

The people aren't taking them down. At best bands of a few hundred anarchists and far-leftists are.

[The Marlborough]

Wasn't Zinn's book absolutely trashed by historians as being overly simplistic and rife with errors and cherry picking?

[US-SSR]

3. How nice it must be to make smug, pointless comparisons and analogies from positions of privilege rather than openly dealing with the oppression and dehumanization inflicted and felt by erecting statues to honor enslavers, colonizers, white supremacists, racists, etc., etc.

I'm genuinely curious what made you think that. To whom is this directed? Why? How can it be addressed?

To white people who are so fragile any suggestion that they or the system that privileges them might be based on the oppression of nonwhites triggers a visceral negative response, usually followed by tortured or inapt analogies designed to deny any personal or institutional racism. It can be addressed by white people honestly and openly owning their own privilege, listening to the stories of oppressed peoples and considering the solutions they propose to the oppression they face.

[Major-Tom]

Wasn't Zinn's book absolutely trashed by historians as being overly simplistic and rife with errors and cherry picking?

It was a respectable book in the sense that it did provide a lot of new information to readers who otherwise wouldn't have known anything more than what they were taught in 5th Grade History. Additionally, it serves a purpose in trying to remind people that America's foreign policy, our leaders, etc etc, have been flawed. So, yes, it was simplified, had some errors, but similarly, it doesn't invalidate the book and the content that is meaningful given how little we learn from our education system.

[Diarcesia]

I'm genuinely curious what made you think that. To whom is this directed? Why? How can it be addressed?

To white people who are so fragile any suggestion that they or the system that privileges them might be based on the oppression of nonwhites triggers a visceral negative response, usually followed by tortured or inapt analogies designed to deny any personal or institutional racism. It can be addressed by white people honestly and openly owning their own privilege, listening to the stories of oppressed peoples and considering the solutions they propose to the oppression they face.

Fair enough.