Washington & Jefferson Statue Get Pulled Down

[Greater Miami Shores]

and Republican President Ronald Reagan, side by side with First Lady Nancy Reagan, for they loved each other very much. Overall I think President Trump's fourth of July 2020 speech at The White House and Mount Rushmore was awesome.

You quoted a post that says not to put Trump on that mountain.

The way he worded the post was strange. I read his sig and found it strange the way he worded it. Thank you for pointing this out to me.

[Ifreann]

You can't judge historical figures with modern standards.

Imma stop you there. This isn't about applying modern standards to historical figures. This is about applying modern standards to the communities we live in right now. Because that's what public statues and monuments are. Expressions of what that community values. If a community decides that their values today prevent them from celebrating a slave owner, that is not applying modern standards to that historical figure, that is applying modern standards to a statue.

[Greater Miami Shores]

You can't judge historical figures with modern standards.

Imma stop you there. This isn't about applying modern standards to historical figures. This is about applying modern standards to the communities we live in right now. Because that's what public statues and monuments are. Expressions of what that community values. If a community decides that their values today prevent them from celebrating a slave owner, that is not applying modern standards to that historical figure, that is applying modern standards to a statue.

We should not remove the statues of these American Presidents to be politically correct to a segment of society.

[The Alma Mater]

Imma stop you there. This isn't about applying modern standards to historical figures. This is about applying modern standards to the communities we live in right now. Because that's what public statues and monuments are. Expressions of what that community values. If a community decides that their values today prevent them from celebrating a slave owner, that is not applying modern standards to that historical figure, that is applying modern standards to a statue.

We should not remove the statues of these American Presidents to be politically correct to a segment of society.

True. But why should you let them remain ? Do they represent what current society is proud of ?

[Alien Overlord]

You can't judge historical figures with modern standards.

Imma stop you there. This isn't about applying modern standards to historical figures. This is about applying modern standards to the communities we live in right now. Because that's what public statues and monuments are. Expressions of what that community values. If a community decides that their values today prevent them from celebrating a slave owner, that is not applying modern standards to that historical figure, that is applying modern standards to a statue.

I disagree and my disagreement mainly stems from what a public statue and monument is. You believe they are expressions of what a community values, whereas i see them to be tributes to men, women or events that had a meaningful impact on your history. If we were to use your definition there wouldn't be much of a point to putting up statues or monuments at all because values are a lot like opinions-everyone has them and they are oftentimes different. Tributes are more longstanding and less emotional. In that same vein we should look at Washington as someone who freed our country from British rule, a Republican who refused the temptations of personal power to ensure that our Republic survived. His memory is something worth honoring with statues or monuments because he set our nation off to a good start.

We erect statues of people like Washington to honor them for their achievements. It has nothing to do with slavery, so tearing it down as a protest to slavery is foolish. It is applying modern standards to historical figures.

In a hundred years they may tear down statues and monuments of Martin Luther King Jr because he was a christian. However when people first erected those statues they weren't trying to make a political statement, they were honoring a man who did good, extraordinary things in his lifetime.

We should not remove the statues of these American Presidents to be politically correct to a segment of society.

True. But why should you let them remain ? Do they represent what current society is proud of ?

Tearing something down takes more effort than leaving it alone. No one builds monuments to those who destroy monuments.

[The Alma Mater]

However when people first erected those statues they weren't trying to make a political statement, they were honoring a man who did good, extraordinary things in his lifetime.

SO statues that were erected for a political purpose, be that "we must intimidate the negroes" or "a statue of baphomet will annoy christians" or whatever, are free game ?

[Alien Overlord]

However when people first erected those statues they weren't trying to make a political statement, they were honoring a man who did good, extraordinary things in his lifetime.

SO statues that were erected for a political purpose, be that "we must intimidate the negroes" or "a statue of baphomet will annoy christians" or whatever, are free game ?

Younger statues built for political purposes (Not statues of actual people) with a clear political message, yes. If there were a statue of a generic slave-owner whipping a generic slave then it would be fair game because it isn't a tribute, it's a political message.

[The Black Forrest]

SO statues that were erected for a political purpose, be that "we must intimidate the negroes" or "a statue of baphomet will annoy christians" or whatever, are free game ?

Younger statues built for political purposes (Not statues of actual people) with a clear political message, yes. If there were a statue of a generic slave-owner whipping a generic slave then it would be fair game because it isn't a tribute, it's a political message.

Indeed. Most of the confederate statues went up during the Jim Crow era with a spike between 1900 and the 1920s. It wasn't about history. Those can be removed.

There are a few that went up after the war.....

[The Reformed American Republic]

Younger statues built for political purposes (Not statues of actual people) with a clear political message, yes. If there were a statue of a generic slave-owner whipping a generic slave then it would be fair game because it isn't a tribute, it's a political message.

Indeed. Most of the confederate statues went up during the Jim Crow era with a spike between 1900 and the 1920s. It wasn't about history. Those can be removed.

There are a few that went up after the war.....

I support confederate monument removal, but draw the line at our founding fathers. They stay.

[Greed and Death]

Younger statues built for political purposes (Not statues of actual people) with a clear political message, yes. If there were a statue of a generic slave-owner whipping a generic slave then it would be fair game because it isn't a tribute, it's a political message.

Indeed. Most of the confederate statues went up during the Jim Crow era with a spike between 1900 and the 1920s. It wasn't about history. Those can be removed.

There are a few that went up after the war.....

Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... y_year.png

You see some placed during the war as well.

There is a peak in statue building during early 20th century that correlates to the rise of the 2nd Klan. You see a smaller wave in the 1960's though a lot of that is naming schools for confederates to piss off black people during integration.

[Alien Overlord]

Younger statues built for political purposes (Not statues of actual people) with a clear political message, yes. If there were a statue of a generic slave-owner whipping a generic slave then it would be fair game because it isn't a tribute, it's a political message.

Indeed. Most of the confederate statues went up during the Jim Crow era with a spike between 1900 and the 1920s. It wasn't about history. Those can be removed.

There are a few that went up after the war.....

If you mean statues of Confederate leaders then i disagree. It's been more than/about a hundred years since those statues were erected. They are no longer a political statement. I oppose tearing down the statues of individuals, of people, because people aren't political statements. I mentioned before that MLK Jr could have his statues torn down if held to the same standard as Confederate statues. When it was first erected it could have been a political symbol but more than that it is a symbol of a man, a tribute to a person. We shouldn't be applying modern sensibilities to statues unless their purpose currently and undeniably, is purely political.

I don't think the statue of George Washington fits that bill.

[Rojava Free State]

Let's not:

- Destroy Mount Rushmore's sculptures

- Put Trump on it

and Republican President Ronald Reagan, side by side with First Lady Nancy Reagan, for they loved each other very much. Overall I think President Trump's fourth of July 2020 speech at The White House and Mount Rushmore was awesome.

Of course you thought Trump's fear mongering, division of america into "Americans" and "people who hate me and as such are not american" and his black and white interpretation of the protests were awesome. This is why most people don't like Trump.

[Phoenicaea]

i believe you should tear the president and his monarch family down, let and clean the statues praised there. not the opposite, which happens.

also most prominent confederate statues, i suppose, i would say to let them praised from who wishes, after all it’s the defeated faction.

and it has been a tremendous, burn to ground way, civil war.

[Kragholm Free States]

I think they should all be replaced with statues of George III, in recognition of the clear failure of the independence experiment. Time for our wayward children to return to the fold.

[Ifreann]

Imma stop you there. This isn't about applying modern standards to historical figures. This is about applying modern standards to the communities we live in right now. Because that's what public statues and monuments are. Expressions of what that community values. If a community decides that their values today prevent them from celebrating a slave owner, that is not applying modern standards to that historical figure, that is applying modern standards to a statue.

I disagree and my disagreement mainly stems from what a public statue and monument is. You believe they are expressions of what a community values, whereas i see them to be tributes to men, women or events that had a meaningful impact on your history. If we were to use your definition there wouldn't be much of a point to putting up statues or monuments at all because values are a lot like opinions-everyone has them and they are oftentimes different. Tributes are more longstanding and less emotional.

These are not mutually exclusive positions. In fact, I think this is a distinction with very little difference. That statues do not reflect the values of all members of a community just goes to show that that community is not democratic. The statues and monuments in a town, village, neighbourhood, whatever, reflect on that community, regardless of whether support for those public edifices is unanimous.

In that same vein we should look at Washington as someone who freed our country from British rule, a Republican who refused the temptations of personal power to ensure that our Republic survived. His memory is something worth honoring with statues or monuments because he set our nation off to a good start.

We erect statues of people like Washington to honor them for their achievements. It has nothing to do with slavery, so tearing it down as a protest to slavery is foolish. It is applying modern standards to historical figures.

What you are advocating is a whitewashing of history. Of ignoring the real man George Washington in favour of honouring the mythical figure George Washington. Because the real man did own slaves. Every statue of him is a statue of a slave-owner. Is he still worthy of celebration? I don't know. I would say that that decision should be left to the people of each community that has a statue of him. Perhaps people feel that in this particular moment in history they cannot, in good conscience, celebrate a man who participated in the chattel slavery of Africans. Perhaps people feel that Washington's achievements and the principles he fought for, even if he personally failed to live by them, are worthy of celebration despite his flaws and crimes.

In a hundred years they may tear down statues and monuments of Martin Luther King Jr because he was a christian. However when people first erected those statues they weren't trying to make a political statement, they were honoring a man who did good, extraordinary things in his lifetime.

That is, unavoidably, a political statement. King was a political activist. You cannot apolitically honour him, not unless he also won a tennis trophy or something and you celebrate that.

I have no idea why tennis is the first thing that came out of my head here.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed. Most of the confederate statues went up during the Jim Crow era with a spike between 1900 and the 1920s. It wasn't about history. Those can be removed.

There are a few that went up after the war.....

If you mean statues of Confederate leaders then i disagree. It's been more than/about a hundred years since those statues were erected. They are no longer a political statement. I oppose tearing down the statues of individuals, of people, because people aren't political statements. I mentioned before that MLK Jr could have his statues torn down if held to the same standard as Confederate statues. When it was first erected it could have been a political symbol but more than that it is a symbol of a man, a tribute to a person. We shouldn't be applying modern sensibilities to statues unless their purpose currently and undeniably, is purely political.

I don't think the statue of George Washington fits that bill.

They were political and remain political. They were born from white supremacy and are a flash point for such. They really don't need to be arround. Maybe a couple around grave yards and a battle field. Public grounds? Not really.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I think they should all be replaced with statues of George III, in recognition of the clear failure of the independence experiment. Time for our wayward children to return to the fold.

No, as independence has had a good run at least.

[Greater Miami Shores]

and Republican President Ronald Reagan, side by side with First Lady Nancy Reagan, for they loved each other very much. Overall I think President Trump's fourth of July 2020 speech at The White House and Mount Rushmore was awesome.

Of course you thought Trump's fear mongering, division of america into "Americans" and "people who hate me and as such are not american" and his black and white interpretation of the protests were awesome. This is why most people don't like Trump.

This is your interpretation of President Trump based on your personal and political views and of those who agree with you. This is not our interpretation. Respect is about accepting other persons views agree with them or not. This what I mean by we can agree to disagree. Overall I think President Trump's fourth of July 2020 speech at The White House and Mount Rushmore was awesome.

[Aureumterra]

clear failure of the independence experiment.

No one sentence on this thread has been as historically inaccurate as this one

[The Reformed American Republic]

clear failure of the independence experiment.

No one sentence on this thread has been as historically inaccurate as this one

I think Britain has similar protests as well.

[Alien Overlord]

......That statues do not reflect the values of all members of a community just goes to show that that community is not democratic.

Reflection implies that a community should be concerned with the opinions of those outside the community. Fundamentally there will always be someone outside of the community who feels that a decision made inside the community is wrong. It is injudicious to consider the opinion of those outside of the community. If statues and memorials are erected purely for appearances and the latest political opinion then there would be no point to creating them in the first place, as opinions and even values are in constant flux nationwide. This is why it is so important to view memorials and statues as tributes rather than political statements where possible, as otherwise there would be no point in having statues at all. A statue's existence has no bearing on the democratic process of a community.

What you are advocating is a whitewashing of history. Of ignoring the real man George Washington in favour of honouring the mythical figure George Washington. Because the real man did own slaves. Every statue of him is a statue of a slave-owner. Is he still worthy of celebration? I don't know. I would say that that decision should be left to the people of each community that has a statue of him. Perhaps people feel that in this particular moment in history they cannot, in good conscience, celebrate a man who participated in the chattel slavery of Africans. Perhaps people feel that Washington's achievements and the principles he fought for, even if he personally failed to live by them, are worthy of celebration despite his flaws and crimes.

What you're advocating for is a politicization of a non-issue, as well as applying modern standards to a historical figure. George Washington owned slaves but he was not unusual in any respect for the time. Would you also advocate for the destruction of all surviving Roman and Greek statues? Both the Romans and Greeks were slave-owners as well. Most would find that destroying their statues because of that to be abhorrent. Primarily because it's wrong and ignorant to judge historical characters by modern day values.

Because George Washington is not unusual in that respect, you have to put aside that aspect of their life when examining the content of their character. George Washington is absolutely worthy of celebration and praise and the aspects of his personality that stand out compared to his peers are positive-good qualities that one should admire. George Washington committed no crimes in relation to slavery, since during his time it was relatively common, practiced and accepted throughout North America, South America, Africa, Oceania, the Middle East and Europe.

That is, unavoidably, a political statement. King was a political activist. You cannot apolitically honour him, not unless he also won a tennis trophy or something and you celebrate that.

I have no idea why tennis is the first thing that came out of my head here.

I would argue that for many MLK was apolitically honored. When i see a statue of MLK i see a tribute to a good human being, not a political cause that he fought for. I may think back to some of his work, but i don't consider other actors or events outside of his life. The statue immortalizes his achievements as a person, not as a political statement.

You and i would generally consider him to be a good person. But consider what i mentioned before. Imagine that in 100 or 200 years it it universally accepted that animals shouldn't be held as property. They look back on our time and see us as being just as amoral as we look back on the time of slavery as being amoral. Martin Luther King Jr had a dog. Would you agree they are doing the right thing in tearing down his statue because he had a pet, something almost universally accepted right now as normal? Imagine they tore down almost every statue that existed before 2050 or so because so many of us have owned a pet in our lifetime. Is that acceptable?

The reason i bring up a ridiculous scenario like that is because it's plausible that people in the future could look back on us owning living creatures in the same light as we see those in the past who owned slaves. Are you a horrible human being because you or your family owns a dog or a cat? Why is George Washington suddenly being condemned for an institution in place centuries before his birth, which he grew up understanding as being just as normal as you and i owning pet dogs or cats.

While that's no justification for slavery, it should demonstrate that it isn't fair to judge a historical figure by our modern standards. From birth we are raised to understand that slavery was abhorrent and wrong. George Washington probably grew up with exactly the opposite. Does that mean that everything good the man ever did is somehow washed away because of one aspect of his life, an aspect not even slightly unusual for the time. To degrade a man like that is ignorant and stupid. The things that Washington did that were unusual were good, they led us in a positive direction and created freedoms that we still enjoy today. We could have very easily ended up with an unstable democracy like those of South America. We didn't because George Washington set a standard for honesty and republicanism. That's not a myth, that's historical fact.

[Alien Overlord]

If you mean statues of Confederate leaders then i disagree. It's been more than/about a hundred years since those statues were erected. They are no longer a political statement. I oppose tearing down the statues of individuals, of people, because people aren't political statements. I mentioned before that MLK Jr could have his statues torn down if held to the same standard as Confederate statues. When it was first erected it could have been a political symbol but more than that it is a symbol of a man, a tribute to a person. We shouldn't be applying modern sensibilities to statues unless their purpose currently and undeniably, is purely political.

I don't think the statue of George Washington fits that bill.

They were political and remain political. They were born from white supremacy and are a flash point for such. They really don't need to be arround. Maybe a couple around grave yards and a battle field. Public grounds? Not really.

There is no reason they can't be sold to museums or private collectors then. That preserves them for future generations, allows for their potential return if the future political climate allows it, and generates a small profit for the community. Destroying them has no tangible benefit other than temporarily pleasing some supporters of a particular political viewpoint.

Going for all contentious statues, not just Confederate ones.

[Fahran]

Are they now? What's the agenda?

Arguably. Some of the rhetoric and ideological underpinnings associated with BLM are pretty radical. Patrisse Cullors, a notable organizer and activist for BLM, has described herself and fellow activists as "trained Marxists." She was herself mentored by a left-wing terrorist. Additionally, a lot of arguments from this direction have linked white supremacy and capitalism intrinsically, suggesting that some form of socialism is the anti-racist alternative. None of that's really new. The ideological currents have been present in black activist circles since the Black Panther Party was a thing.

[Fahran]

No one sentence on this thread has been as historically inaccurate as this one

I think Britain has similar protests as well.

Britain doesn't even have an issue with police killing black people in disproportionate numbers. It's just commies flipping out over there.

[Kowani]

I think Britain has similar protests as well.

Britain doesn't even have an issue with police killing black people in disproportionate numbers. It's just commies flipping out over there.

Cough.