Tearing down statues

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, Emilie Jolie said:

This tearing statues down is just a symbol, yes. Of course it'll mean nothing if the history books or attitudes don't change. But sometimes (not always) a tiny act of symbol can help make better changes.

My point is that it's not so tiny. And there wouldn't be any boundaries for it. 

[schlumpy]

3 minutes ago, stillafool said:

I agree if your name is George, Thomas, William or Robert you're required to get your name changed.😂

It's only reasonable.

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, stillafool said:

I wonder if VA is going to do away with Thomas Jefferson's home Monticello because of his relationship with Sally and his slaves.

A friend who went there recently told me the past is fully acknowledged in the exhibits now.

 

[Ellener]

https://www.monticello.org/slavery/

[Emilie Jolie]

Just now, rjc149 said:

My point is that it's not so tiny. And there wouldn't be any boundaries for it. 

Ok. I'm still not sure whether you're being literal or sarcastic but that's fine. 

[stillafool]

11 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

This tearing statues down is just a symbol, yes. Of course it'll mean nothing if the history books or attitudes don't change. But sometimes (not always) a tiny symbolic act can help make better changes.

I don't know how tiny this act will be to take down all the statues, change all the names of buildings, streets, highways, etc.,.

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Ok. I'm still not sure whether you're being literal or sarcastic but that's fine. 

I think it's pretty obvious, even in text.

Tearing down statues and monuments is ideologically and practically nonsensical. Every single last statue or piece of history in this country has some sort of racist legacy if you want to focus on that history. Are you seriously going to tear them all down? Or pick and choose which ones are okay and which ones need to go? Who gets to decide which ones are worse? Aside from the obvious ones like Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK) statues, there are many hundreds of thousands of them of thousands of various figures in our nation's history. 99.99% of these guys were racists. Even the Native Americans. They were doing some wildly f'd up sh-t to each other. So, who stays and who goes? 

[Emilie Jolie]

Oh I see. I misunderstood. I was thinking of this one particular incident of the Bristol statue as posited in the OP (tiny) used as ripple effect for other things. 

4 minutes ago, stillafool said:

I don't know how tiny this act will be to take down all the statues, change all the names of buildings, streets, highways, etc.,.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[Emilie Jolie]

1 minute ago, rjc149 said:

I think it's pretty obvious, even in text.

Tearing down statues and monuments is ideologically and practically nonsensical. Every single last statue or piece of history in this country has some sort of racist legacy if you want to focus on that history. Are you seriously going to tear them all down? Or pick and choose which ones are okay and which ones need to go? Who gets to decide which ones are worse? Aside from the obvious ones like Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK) statues, there are many hundreds of thousands of them of thousands of various figures in our nation's history. 99.99% of these guys were racists. Even the Native Americans. They were doing some wildly f'd up sh-t to each other. So, who stays and who goes? 

Yes, I get that now thanks to @stillafool

[stillafool]

13 minutes ago, Ellener said:

A friend who went there recently told me the past is fully acknowledged in the exhibits now.

 

Why aren't they requiring that Monticello itself be removed?  After all it is a plantation.

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Yes, I get that now thanks to @stillafool

You just have to think of it this way -- you tear down a statue of Robert E. Lee from a town square in Richmond. Fine, okay. But, if that continues, how does it continue, and where does it end? 

 

[Emilie Jolie]

3 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

You just have to think of it this way -- you tear down a statue of Robert E. Lee from a town square in Richmond. Fine, okay. But, if that continues, how does it continue, and where does it end? 

 

I guess there will never be any unanimity on how change needs to come. If no statue was toppled in Bristol, no conversation on this would have been started and we'd still be on square one. Swings and roundabouts.

Seems like people are winging it mostly at the moment, it's all very spontaneous - when the dust settles is when, hopefully, proper organisation with a clear plan of action starts, ideally.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[Gr8fuln2020]

I dare not speak for statues in other countries. But, in the USA, the confederate statues were meant to intimidate and resume/promote the idea of white supremacy. They were not put up because Southern bigots wanted to promote historical literacy. They never should have been permitted in public locations. In this country, it would be akin to leaving statues of Hitler and his criminal co-conspirators up and argue it's for historical posterity. Actually, not quite the same...

Whereas in Germany, there has been wide-spread repudiation of Hitler and Nazism and thoroughly taught in the schools of the atrocities orchestrated by them, in the USA, the depiction of the Confederate South has been inconsistent at best and in some cases, glamorized. When you allow states to essentially determine their own history and what is taught, you can imagine what comes out, especially in the South. 

I read recently, a statue of Leopold II being torn down in Belgium. Knowing the history of his depravity, I wondered what the young Belgian children were being taught about him. It's seems inconceivable, that people would openly support such evil, historical figures, voluntarily, unless they knew very little or nothing of the truth of them. 

The confederacy represents, without ambiguity:

1. Injustice

2. Insurrection (traitors)

3. Slavery and the subjugation/dehumanization of human beings

4. ...antithetical to the IDEAS of the the Declaration of Independence/ Constitution (this is another debate all together)

5. An embodiment of intentional hate and depravity. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Gr8fuln2020

[Ollie180]

47 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

If you want to tear down every last statue of anyone who was ever a racist or said racist things, or signed oppressive legislation, you'd need to tear all of them down.

They’re talking of doing just that in my Local big city!

theyre reviewing everything Statue (I think there’s about 60) with the view that they might end up removing all of them, and everyone they remove they are going to replace with a piece of local ethnic art! ...Cool project!

[rjc149]

2 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

I guess there will never be any unanimity on how change needs to come. If no statue was toppled in Bristol, no conversation on this would have been started and we'd still be on square one. Swings and roundabouts. 

Education, I think. 

As a kid, there was a renaissance on how we viewed Columbus Day. We used to celebrate "in 14 hundred 92, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" and sing "the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria, over the ocean blue!" and how he "discovered" America. But, it was drawing more and more outrage from indigenous advocacy groups around that time (the 1990's) and our school curriculum began to educate us on what Columbus did, the crimes against humanity he perpetrated, and it was clear that he was no hero.

It's now fairly universally recognized the man was a brutal conquistador. Even Italian-Americans, who celebrate Columbus Day as a heritage day, recognize the truth to history. 

We didn't need to tear down statues of Christopher Columbus anywhere. They still stand. There's one in the park down the block from my apartment. But we know better. So, education. 

[Emilie Jolie]

3 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

Education, I think. 

As posted in my first post on this thread, the background to the tearing down of the statue in Bristol has been years of various groups asking an educational plaque be put on the statue, and other initiatives, but they were all denied. So education was the first port of call. What then? Do you wait peacefully until someone changes their mind? The Mayor of Bristol is mixed race and even he couldn't pass some of the initiatives suggested because he was outnumbered. 

There is no pleasing everyone all the time, I guess.

[rjc149]

12 minutes ago, Gr8fuln2020 said:

I dare not speak for statues in other countries. But, in the USA, the confederate statues were meant to intimidate and resume/promote the idea of white supremacy.

While many were put up to commemorate the Confederacy, many were also put up to commemorate the individual Confederate soldier who starved, went barefoot, and fought and died in battle. Don't forget that the Civil War placed some pretty rough hardships on southern society, especially its troops, most of which did not own slaves. One of the great evils of the Confederacy was sending poor young farmers to die to protect their slavery-based economies. 

You go to a Civil War battlefield, they are covered inch by inch with memorials, statues, plaques etc. to the soldiers who fought and died there. Confederate soldiers too. It's not an advertisement for white supremacy. 

[Gr8fuln2020]

12 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

Education, I think. 

As a kid, there was a renaissance on how we viewed Columbus Day. We used to celebrate "in 14 hundred 92, Columbus sailed the ocean blue" and sing "the Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria, over the ocean blue!" and how he "discovered" America. But, it was drawing more and more outrage from indigenous advocacy groups around that time (the 1990's) and our school curriculum began to educate us on what Columbus did, the crimes against humanity he perpetrated, and it was clear that he was no hero.

It's now fairly universally recognized the man was a brutal conquistador. Even Italian-Americans, who celebrate Columbus Day as a heritage day, recognize the truth to history. 

We didn't need to tear down statues of Christopher Columbus anywhere. They still stand. There's one in the park down the block from my apartment. But we know better. So, education. 

Yes. Education. The history books need to accurately reflect the events of our past. I cannot imagine how different our children, people of our country would view current events if they were taught history objectively. Phew. What a shock it would be for many. 

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, Gr8fuln2020 said:

Yes. Education. The history books need to accurately reflect the events of our past. I cannot imagine how different our children, people of our country would view current events if they were taught history objectively. Phew. What a shock it would be for many. 

Yes, part of that is that southern kids are still taught a "Lost Cause" narrative of the Civil War, which is why they're brainwashed into commemorating the Confederacy rather than accepting it for what it was. It's pretty scary to hear them say "blacks and whites fought alongside each other in the Confederate armies!" and "slavery had nothing to do with it! It was a state's rights issue!" and "the Union committed war crimes against southerners!" 

Tear down all the statues you want, you'll just piss them off. 

[Gr8fuln2020]

2 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

While many were put up to commemorate the Confederacy, many were also put up to commemorate the individual Confederate soldier who starved, went barefoot, and fought and died in battle. Don't forget that the Civil War placed some pretty rough hardships on southern society, especially its troops, most of which did not own slaves. One of the great evils of the Confederacy was sending poor young farmers to die to protect their slavery-based economies. 

You go to a Civil War battlefield, they are covered inch by inch with memorials, statues, plaques etc. to the soldiers who fought and died there. Confederate soldiers too. It's not an advertisement for white supremacy. 

Agreed. So, keep that to local history and speak to that to some measure, but the Confederate soldier knew what they fighting for. It is true that the slave owners manipulated the poorer white Southerner, but they knew what they were fighting for. 

[Gr8fuln2020]

Just now, rjc149 said:

Yes, part of that is that southern kids are still taught a "Lost Cause" narrative of the Civil War, which is why they're brainwashed into commemorating the Confederacy rather than accepting it for what it was. It's pretty scary to hear them say "blacks and whites fought alongside each other in the Confederate armies!" and "slavery had nothing to do with it! It was a state's rights issue!" and "the Union committed war crimes against southerners!" 

Tear down all the statues you want, you'll just piss them off. 

I am indifferent as to what happens with the statues, to be honest, but if they are to be sustained, put them in museums or private property. 

[Emilie Jolie]

During the last general election, the Opposition Leader made a pledge in his manifesto to start better educating school children on the UK's colonial past - he got laughed at for being an out of touch lefty for this very pledge. None of this 'education is the best way' is new, funnily enough. Now seems to be as good a time as any to start the conversation in earnest, and so what if it starts with topping a statue...

Edited June 11, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[Emilie Jolie]

21 minutes ago, Ollie180 said:

They’re talking of doing just that in my Local big city!

theyre reviewing everything Statue (I think there’s about 60) with the view that they might end up removing all of them, and everyone they remove they are going to replace with a piece of local ethnic art! ...Cool project!

That sounds pretty cool, I agree.

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Gr8fuln2020 said:

When you allow states to essentially determine their own history and what is taught, you can imagine what comes out, especially in the South. 

Texas history was taught so much here, I never really checked on the content to be honest...I probably should have. 

[rjc149]

14 minutes ago, Gr8fuln2020 said:

Agreed. So, keep that to local history and speak to that to some measure, but the Confederate soldier knew what they fighting for. It is true that the slave owners manipulated the poorer white Southerner, but they knew what they were fighting for. 

Most of them were fighting for some abstract concept of "defending the hearth against the Yankee invader" and "our rights" and "Virginia" or whatever state they were from. Many were conscripted or coerced into service. So I would disagree with you that rank and file Confederate soldiers were willing to march lock-step into rifle and artillery fire because they wanted rich plantation owners to keep their slaves. 

You're not going to recruit soldiers by telling them the truth, and you're not going to get them to march to their deaths by telling them the truth either. Once they got wise (ie. after the 20 Negro Law), desertions skyrocketed. 

Edited June 11, 2020 by rjc149