Do attacks on Liberal Icons Herald Doom of Democracy?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

William Wilberforce, the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833.

Hmmm? I am not sure you will have Americans calling for celebrating him putting up statues of him. Also, you mentioned great men of our times which is what I was curious about.

I'm generally meh on erecting golden calves of politicians. Much prefer statues of Neil Armstrong etc.

[-Ra-]

What do you mean what struggle? Jefferson led Virginia during the Revolutionary War.

Did his gubernatorial duties include charges against the British lines?

It didn’t. He wasn’t a field commander. But being on the front lines is not the only way of being in danger in a war zone. Of course, since you live a privileged, pampered life in the West, you likely would not know this.

I'm sure that was a very stressful horseback ride for him.

Probably so. He was fleeing for his life.

The struggle of being wealthy and powerful. My heart bleeds.

As it turns out, rich and powerful people can struggle and sacrifice greatly too. Empathetic human beings are supposed to be able to understand this.

He wrote a letter. Rather a lot of other people then fought a war to give effect to that letter. It seems to me that those people could have fought that same war to the same result if anyone else had written any other letter expressing the same intention.

Quite base to just say that he “wrote a letter.” Nobody is celebrating the fact that Jefferson took time out of his day to put ink on parchment. The implications of the words contained in that letter are what is celebrated. It turns out you are allowed to celebrate both the man who wrote the letter and the man who fought at the front lines.

Your last argument is facetious. Most all historical developments could be said to have been either inevitable or beyond the work or scope of just one man. That doesn’t stop up from recognising the men who put social change into effect. And writing that “letter” is hardly his only achievement.

[Galactic Transylvania]

Did his gubernatorial duties include charges against the British lines?

It didn’t. He wasn’t a field commander. But being on the front lines is not the only way of being in danger in a war zone. Of course, since you live a privileged, pampered life in the West, you likely would not know this.

I'm sure that was a very stressful horseback ride for him.

Probably so. He was fleeing for his life.

The struggle of being wealthy and powerful. My heart bleeds.

As it turns out, rich and powerful people can struggle and sacrifice greatly too. Empathetic human beings are supposed to be able to understand this.

He wrote a letter. Rather a lot of other people then fought a war to give effect to that letter. It seems to me that those people could have fought that same war to the same result if anyone else had written any other letter expressing the same intention.

Quite base to just say that he “wrote a letter.” Nobody is celebrating the fact that Jefferson took time out of his day to put ink on parchment. The implications of the words contained in that letter are what is celebrated. It turns out you are allowed to celebrate both the man who wrote the letter and the man who fought at the front lines.

Your last argument is facetious. Most all historical developments could be said to have been either inevitable or beyond the work or scope of just one man. That doesn’t stop up from recognising the men who put social change into effect. And writing that “letter” is hardly his only achievement.

And no matter how great Jefferson's achievements were as a political theorist and Revolutionary leader, all of his good achievements (of which I'd concede there are plenty) are tainted with the fact that he literally owned other human beings, and continued to do so even if he may have deployed rhetoric against it.

Beyond that even if he was a literal Saint, people deciding they don't want an icon of someone displayed in their vicinity is literally a democratic act. Not partaking in hero worship of past politicians because the People (read: electorate) decide they do not approve of parts or all of that person's history (read: vote against them) is democracy.

[Necroghastia]

"empathetic human beings" would also understand that rape and slavery are monstrous things, but here we are

[Hwiteard]

There's a statue of Lenin in Seattle which is, to sometimes very entertaining effect, routinely vandalised, so you're several years behind the times here.

I suspect the man himself would not be happy about his statue being dressed in drag or strung with Christmas lights.

I'm generally meh on erecting golden calves of politicians. Much prefer statues of Neil Armstrong etc.

Another dreaded dead white man, waiting his turn to be disgraced by radicals. Maybe more symbolic figures, like the crowned man in the frontispiece of Hobbes' Leviathan, or, I daresay, Venus Callipyge—tyranny, and feminine vanity, personified—would suffice? Or, if that's still not good enough for the radicals, people like Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, or Pol Pot?

[Existential Cats]

If your question was "Do attacks on liberal icons herald the doom of liberalism?" ... it would make for a more interesting discussion.

Especially since, as a lot of people here outline, the reason for wanting to take down Jefferson's statue is because he failed to live up to the fullest standards of what democracy and equality demand when he said "we the people" yet represented only the voices of property-owning whites.

It's silly of course to look at this as a mere removal of a statue... clearly it's an objection to the ideas behind the statue... but I don't think it's democracy. Liberalism, you could make a case for, but democracy, not so much. Heck, the image of a solid, old, unchanging, entrenched statue is very antithetical to the spirit of democracy.

[Galactic Transylvania]

If your question was "Do attacks on liberal icons herald the doom of liberalism?" ... it would make for a more interesting discussion.

Especially since, as a lot of people here outline, the reason for wanting to take down Jefferson's statue is because he failed to live up to the fullest standards of what democracy and equality demand when he said "we the people" yet represented only the voices of property-owning whites.

It's silly of course to look at this as a mere removal of a statue... clearly it's an objection to the ideas behind the statue... but I don't think it's democracy. Liberalism, you could make a case for, but democracy, not so much. Heck, the image of a solid, old, unchanging, entrenched statue is very antithetical to the spirit of democracy.

Slavery is illiberal. Even from the perspective of him being a representative of liberalism, he still is a flawed figure through that lens.

[The Kingdom of the Three Isles]

Nothing means the Doom of Democracy if the Majority Supports it. That's what Democracy is.

There’s a difference between people that actually fight for racial equality (MLKJ) Peacefully, and militant protesters that vandalise anything that offends them. I think the majority is peaceful

[Existential Cats]

If your question was "Do attacks on liberal icons herald the doom of liberalism?" ... it would make for a more interesting discussion.

Especially since, as a lot of people here outline, the reason for wanting to take down Jefferson's statue is because he failed to live up to the fullest standards of what democracy and equality demand when he said "we the people" yet represented only the voices of property-owning whites.

It's silly of course to look at this as a mere removal of a statue... clearly it's an objection to the ideas behind the statue... but I don't think it's democracy. Liberalism, you could make a case for, but democracy, not so much. Heck, the image of a solid, old, unchanging, entrenched statue is very antithetical to the spirit of democracy.

Slavery is illiberal. Even from the perspective of him being a representative of liberalism, he still is a flawed figure through that lens.

Truly, though in his defense, he was instrumental in getting the US out of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. From what I know about the man, he personally opposed slavery, though he favored a gradual abolition, and showed profound hypocrisy by owning slaves.

He indeed was a flawed representative of liberalism, as was/is most every liberal now and then, but his commitment to liberalism seems clear to me, especially that he was the architect of the Constitution of the liberal United States.

[MaxCorp]

Slavery is illiberal. Even from the perspective of him being a representative of liberalism, he still is a flawed figure through that lens.

Truly, though in his defense, he was instrumental in getting the US out of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. From what I know about the man, he personally opposed slavery, though he favored a gradual abolition, and showed profound hypocrisy by owning slaves.

He indeed was a flawed representative of liberalism, as was/is most every liberal now and then, but his commitment to liberalism seems clear to me, especially that he was the architect of the Constitution of the liberal United States.

Finally, a reasonable person and post.

[The V I C]

Truly, though in his defense, he was instrumental in getting the US out of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. From what I know about the man, he personally opposed slavery, though he favored a gradual abolition, and showed profound hypocrisy by owning slaves.

He indeed was a flawed representative of liberalism, as was/is most every liberal now and then, but his commitment to liberalism seems clear to me, especially that he was the architect of the Constitution of the liberal United States.

Finally, a reasonable person and post.

Unreasonableness is when you don't admire someone who owned other humans as property and raped a little girl.
Yeah sure.

[Existential Cats]

Finally, a reasonable person and post.

Unreasonableness is when you don't admire someone who owned other humans as property and raped a little girl.
Yeah sure.

Just to be clear, I'm no fan of Jefferson's. I just neither idolize nor despise the figure but see him as a product of his times with some good ideas, some bad ones, and a key figure in the mythology of the US.

I'm quite opposed to his politics in fact, but he spoke several languages, was an accomplished inventor, an avid farmer... He was an interesting fellow.

[MaxCorp]

Finally, a reasonable person and post.

Unreasonableness is when you don't admire someone who owned other humans as property and raped a little girl.
Yeah sure.

You're probably the most unreasonable person I've met, to the point where you don't even look at the post I quoted. Maybe shut up and read before you make an epic roast on nobody.

[The Black Forrest]

I'm gonna be honest, if destroying a statue was all it took to bring about the demise of the American Republic, then America was weak. Jefferson is the past. He did things that still affect the present but to deify a man this much isn't healthy. It's not natural. Stop looking for heroes in other times and be one in yours. That's my view on the whole subject.

Well?…..

People have the right to admire who they want.

Admiring people who you find unacceptable is not healthy.

[The Black Forrest]

never mind

[Kowani]

This entire premise is nonsensical.
Ra would have us believe that the people bringing down statues of ostensible liberal icons are a threat to democracy based on...some incoherent nonsense about "minority views of history."
But that same group of people is the only group in America currently trying to expand and protect the core of democracy-the idea of "Rule by the People". Respecting Jefferson or Churchill or whoever doesn't give you any claim to democracy when that principle is violated.
So we are either left with a 90 degree angle slope where the people currently expanding the key principle of democracy are going to flip around once they've solidified their position (which has nothing to do with statues) or a definition of "liberal democracy" that might more properly be called a cult.

[Senkaku]

Unreasonableness is when you don't admire someone who owned other humans as property and raped a little girl.
Yeah sure.

Raped a little girl? You know what the age of consent was in that time? 10. It was only raised to 12 by 1820. Even then her first child was about 16.

Anyway…..

Why in God’s name would you actually write this

[Kowani]

Unreasonableness is when you don't admire someone who owned other humans as property and raped a little girl.
Yeah sure.

Raped a little girl? You know what the age of consent was in that time? 10. It was only raised to 12 by 1820. Even then her first child was about 16.

Anyway…..

let's not defend this with legalism

[The Black Forrest]

Never mind.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

let's not defend this with legalism

It’s not a defense of his actions. Just an explanation of the views of the time. I don’t subscribe to cancel culture and I try not to apply modern “values” to the past when studying history. If you don’t have a neutral eye, you can miss things.

"***** **** is bad" is one of the least controversial universals you can possibly say and yet nsg has still found a way to act like it is missing nuance

[Big Bad Blue]

Take down the statues and rename the memorials for the ideals Jefferson et. al. never lived up to. Jefferson Memorial becomes Free Expression Memorial with additional inspirational quotes from people of color and women. Problem solved.

[The Black Forrest]

Take down the statues and rename the memorials for the ideals Jefferson et. al. never lived up to. Jefferson Memorial becomes Free Expression Memorial with additional inspirational quotes from people of color and women. Problem solved.

Inspirational quotes? You get those over social media daily. It’s probably why people hang out on NSG.

[Kowani]

let's not defend this with legalism

It’s not a defense of his actions. Just an explanation of the views of the time. I don’t subscribe to cancel culture and I try not to apply modern “values” to the past when studying history. If you don’t have a neutral eye, you can miss things.

no no no it is a defense

you're just trying to hide it behind the veil of "neutrality" (a bogus defense in and of itself, he was attacked for this during his life) because you can't really defend it from any other platform

[Ifreann]

Did his gubernatorial duties include charges against the British lines?

It didn’t. He wasn’t a field commander. But being on the front lines is not the only way of being in danger in a war zone. Of course, since you live a privileged, pampered life in the West, you likely would not know this.

As opposed to the wealthy lawyer and planter Thomas Jefferson, whose own account of his earliest memory is being carried on a pillow in the arms of a trusted slave.

I'm sure that was a very stressful horseback ride for him.

Probably so. He was fleeing for his life.

The struggle of being wealthy and powerful. My heart bleeds.

As it turns out, rich and powerful people can struggle and sacrifice greatly too. Empathetic human beings are supposed to be able to understand this.

There is no sacrifice in holding power over others. There is no struggle in being born to wealth and privilege and remaining there. I should know, living a privileged, pampered life in the West.

He wrote a letter. Rather a lot of other people then fought a war to give effect to that letter. It seems to me that those people could have fought that same war to the same result if anyone else had written any other letter expressing the same intention.

Quite base to just say that he “wrote a letter.” Nobody is celebrating the fact that Jefferson took time out of his day to put ink on parchment. The implications of the words contained in that letter are what is celebrated. It turns out you are allowed to celebrate both the man who wrote the letter and the man who fought at the front lines.

The ideas contained in the letter were not result of some unique genius of Jefferson.

Your last argument is facetious. Most all historical developments could be said to have been either inevitable or beyond the work or scope of just one man. That doesn’t stop up from recognising the men who put social change into effect.

What was the social change Jefferson put into effect? The United States set about a genocidal westward expansion over the Appalachians. White, land-owning men gained some measure of political power.

And writing that “letter” is hardly his only achievement.

There was also Notes on the State of Virginia, in which Jefferson argued for white supremacy and that white and Black Americans could not co-exist in a society in which Blacks were free. But never mind all that, he also argued for free speech and freedom of religion, so all future progress in those areas is surely because of him.

[The Black Forrest]

It’s not a defense of his actions. Just an explanation of the views of the time. I don’t subscribe to cancel culture and I try not to apply modern “values” to the past when studying history. If you don’t have a neutral eye, you can miss things.

no no no it is a defense

you're just trying to hide it behind the veil of "neutrality" (a bogus defense in and of itself, he was attacked for this during his life) because you can't really defend it from any other platform

I would be curious to your sources for this: “ he was attacked for this during his life”