Tearing down statues

[Libby1]

I see it as  a matter for either whoever owns the statue, or the people living in the town it's situated in.  Oxford University owns the building the statue of Cecil Rhodes is attached to, so it's up to them whether they remove it.  When it comes to removing a statue from a town centre, letting the local Council vote on it seems like the most straightforward and democratic solution.  When you've got groups of people just taking it upon themselves to pull a statue down and throw it into the water...well, that sets a precedent for anybody to take the law into their own hands when it comes to defacing, destroying or removing anything that they as a small group have decided has to go.

Sure, slavery is pretty much universally regarded as immoral (one hopes - though immoral or not it still goes on in many places, including the West) - but it doesn't automatically follow that keeping up an old statue of somebody who was a slave owner is immoral.  When people visit an area of interest, they're often interested enough to read plaques or look at statues that help tell the story of the area's development, but not necessarily interested enough to traipse along to a museum to see such things.  If the majority of locals who care enough either way vote for a statue to be taken down, then fine.  I think it's probably a good idea in those situations to put it in storage (if that's feasible). 

In 100 years time, people might actually want to have the old statue of an old slave owner or disgraced army general in a square if they're transforming that area into a historic site. Maybe they'll want to add other statues to add context or tell a story.  Who knows?  I don't think it's really for us to destroy statues and other art pieces that might be of interest to future generations for reasons that we haven't considered or can't predict.

 

Edited June 11, 2020 by Libby1

[schlumpy]

Thank you Libby. You are always so sensible.

There is due process to observe. 

[basil67]

Germany removed all statues and memorials related to Nazism.   Do those who are in favour of keeping statues of people who did really bad things, do you think that Germany was wrong to do this?  

I try to avoid going to Nazism, but as they did the thing many are arguing against as part of reconciliation, I think it's a relevant question.

[basil67]

2 hours ago, amaysngrace said:

In what ways does the past dictate the present?  Please enlighten me.

Oh and dwelling on the past is a form of mental weakness, at least according to psychologists.

The past dictates the present if we don't learn from it.   At an individual level, someone who keeps ending up abusive relationships will continue doing so unless they learn from mistakes.   At a larger level, human rights abuses and war continue if we don't learn from them.   I mean, they continue anyway because some humans are bad people, but the more the rest of us know, the more we can stand against it.  

Dwelling on the past to an *extreme* level where one cannot function in life is psychologically problematic.  But having an interest in history or a bit of a hankering for the old days is hardly a form of mental weakness.   On FB, I get tired of the Boomers and X'ers with their posts about how great it was in the old days and that nobody lost an eye in the playground etc.  Their posts have a rosy glow and are somewhat inaccurate, but the posters are hardly mentally ill.  

 

[basil67]

Should art (music, TV, movies) of paedophiles still be on public show like statues of bed people are?   I assume the Cosby show no longer has airtime in the US.  Just as Hey Dad and Rolf Harris have been shelved here.     

[rjc149]

That would compare Nazi Germany to the Confederate States of America. Both causes that sought to pursue an agenda of white supremacy, both causes that killed a lot of people and killed many more to destroy them. 

Key differences is that the Nazi regime was committed mass murder on a global scale. Raping, torturing and murdering women and children by the millions across the European continent. The CSA was not at that level. A better analogy in that regard would be Imperial Japan. 

Another key difference is time. Nazi Germany was only a generation ago. The memories of it are still fresh. There are people alive today who are Holocaust survivors. And not nearly as many memorials, etc. to the Nazi regime went up before it was stamped out. Much of the south, especially where battles took place, is a giant Confederate memorial. As I mentioned, removing every Confederate memorial is not really a feasible undertaking. Not just politically, but physically. There are a lot. 

Another key difference is that once the Civil War ended, Confederates became American countrymen once again. Their society re-integrated into American society, along with the commemoration and memorializing of their war heroes and war dead. That became American too. 

What about a memorial to a 19-year old German Wehrmacht soldier who was killed at Stalingrad, or any of the other eastern front battles where millions of German soldiers died -- would that be considered Nazi commemoration? 

[schlumpy]

Very good reply RJC. I posed the same question to my formerly German wife last night. She felt it was different because of how recent it was, as you remarked. People are still alive. Her father was a German soldier on the Western Front in Russia that was captured. It was interesting to see his service picture in uniform.

[Libby1]

6 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Germany removed all statues and memorials related to Nazism.   Do those who are in favour of keeping statues of people who did really bad things, do you think that Germany was wrong to do this?  

I try to avoid going to Nazism, but as they did the thing many are arguing against as part of reconciliation, I think it's a relevant question.

I don't think Germany had a choice, did it?  Denazification was ordered by the Allied Control Council.  Although the Germans did set about on a concerted campaign to remove all Nazi symbols, there are still Nazi relics in various public buildings and churches throughout Germany...and now, 70 years after the end of the war, there's more of a dilemma about what to do with these relics that periodically turn up - with historians tending to disagree about how much historical importance they have.

 

7 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Should art (music, TV, movies) of paedophiles still be on public show like statues of bed people are?   I assume the Cosby show no longer has airtime in the US.  Just as Hey Dad and Rolf Harris have been shelved here.     

I don't think it should be illegal to show or sell them, but I doubt broadcasters would want to be associated with them.  That said, Roman Polanski still makes films...and as far as I'm aware his old films still get shown on tv.  There's probably a strong element of "if they're good enough, then we don't care how bad the person who made them is". 

Out of curiosity I checked to see if the Cosby Show is available on DVD, and it is.  I would have thought his personal history would spoil that show completely for people, but maybe there are those who can suspend the memory of who he turned out to be for long enough to enjoy an episode here and there.

[basil67]

13 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

That would compare Nazi Germany to the Confederate States of America. Both causes that sought to pursue an agenda of white supremacy, both causes that killed a lot of people and killed many more to destroy them. 

<snip>

Another key difference is time. Nazi Germany was only a generation ago. The memories of it are still fresh.

The OP talked about statues coming down in the UK and has cited global incidents, so I'm not sure why you're connecting this particularly to the US.  

I think you'll find that Nazi Germany isn't the only atrocious thing which is still in living memory.    If I look at the human rights abuses committed by white men against indigenous people within both history and living memory, is it less bad because it was smaller scale?  

[basil67]

4 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

I don't think Germany had a choice, did it?  Denazification was ordered by the Allied Control Council.  Although the Germans did set about on a concerted campaign to remove all Nazi symbols, there are still Nazi relics in various public buildings and churches throughout Germany...and now, 70 years after the end of the war, there's more of a dilemma about what to do with these relics that periodically turn up - with historians tending to disagree about how much historical importance they have.

Both good points Libby.   I tend to be of the opinion that things which periodically turn up should be saved or even displayed within the context of the act.  So a statue of Hitler to be in a public square isn't OK, but a display of artifacts within framework of history is probably OK.

4 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

I don't think it should be illegal to show or sell them, but I doubt broadcasters would want to be associated with them.  That said, Roman Polanski still makes films...and as far as I'm aware his old films still get shown on tv.  There's probably a strong element of "if they're good enough, then we don't care how bad the person who made them is".  

Out of curiosity I checked to see if the Cosby Show is available on DVD, and it is.  I would have thought his personal history would spoil that show completely for people, but maybe there are those who can suspend the memory of who he turned out to be for long enough to enjoy an episode here and there.

Yep, good point about it being unpalatable rather than illegal.   Still though, there's enough public opinion to make the thing unpalatable.  If they were a statue, would they be removed?   

As it so happens, my special needs son loves the music of Michael Jackson.  He tells me that MJ is going to heaven.   Which is kind of weird given that we're athiest... but anyway, I get torn between telling him about what Michael is alleged to have done and leaving him to just enjoy the music.

[Libby1]

45 minutes ago, basil67 said:

Both good points Libby.   I tend to be of the opinion that things which periodically turn up should be saved or even displayed within the context of the act.  So a statue of Hitler to be in a public square isn't OK, but a display of artifacts within framework of history is probably OK.

 

I don't know if you've heard of this story, but in googling a bit more  I found a story about church bells in Herxheim, South West Germany, being found to have nazi insignia inscribed on them.

swastikas and pro-Hitler inscriptions were found on church bells in Herxheim in the south-west and Schweringen in northern Germany.  The Mayor wanted to keep it on the basis that it worked well "so why get rid of it?"  He felt that having the insignia scraped off would reduce its acoustic quality.  Some people subsequently took matters into their own hands and scraped the insignia off the bell.

Apparently there is enough of these relics in Germany to encourage "far right bell tourism"...which is exactly what it sounds like.  It seems extraordinary, and part of me thinks "is this just a case of tourists who showed a bit of morbid curiosity in nazi stuff being unjustly labelled as far right?" I'm not disputing the existence of neo-nazis, but it just seems so out there that they actually scour the countryside, in a state of excitement about seeing church bells with swastikas on them.  I like to try to analyse the psychology underlying odd behaviour, but that one stumps me.  What do they think is going to happen?  Rub the bell and Hitler drops out? 

Actually, come to think of it...that's probably a fairly accurate description of what does happen.  

Edited June 11, 2020 by Libby1

[jspice]

Removing statues is an exercise in futility. It’s an attempt to paper over the cracks. The cracks are still there, you just can’t see them. 
 

Removing statues doesn’t change people’s mindsets. 
They have done egregious things, which need to be remembered if we’re ever going to move behind those atrocities. Wiping out the crap parts of history just means more denial. 
 

When looking at art everyone attributes their own interpretation. Same with these relics. 
I’ll choose to see it as a time I never want to go back to, while Mr.  Or Mrs. Confederate will look at it and wistfully long for the good old days. 
 

its like the empty gesture by Lady Antebellum changing their name due to the connotation of “antebellum “.  It means nothing. It’s a PR stunt. 

Removing a statue doesn’t mean the whole world is now magically not prejudiced.  

[mark clemson]

1 hour ago, Libby1 said:

Sure, slavery is pretty much universally regarded as immoral (one hopes - though immoral or not it still goes on in many places, including the West) - but it doesn't automatically follow that keeping up an old statue of somebody who was a slave owner is immoral.  When people visit an area of interest, they're often interested enough to read plaques or look at statues that help tell the story of the area's development, but not necessarily interested enough to traipse along to a museum to see such things.  If the majority of locals who care enough either way vote for a statue to be taken down, then fine.  I think it's probably a good idea in those situations to put it in storage (if that's feasible).

That's the thing though. I think many of these things ARE accepted by the majority in the local community. That doesn't mean they're not offensive to at least some other folks, though. To wit -

 

4 hours ago, Gr8fuln2020 said:

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...

While I'm not versed in the history of this and I have little doubt that is sometimes true, I don't necessarily think it always is. For example, I have an ancestor who fought on the wrong side of WWI. I still think the old photos of him with his medals and so forth are pretty cool, and if there was a statue up of, e.g. a general he fought under or a plaque commemorating a battle he was in, I'd probably have some sentimental attachment to it. My liking these things wouldn't mean I'd want the return of the Austro-Hungarian empire and/or it's policies, such as rule by monarchy.

I suspect there's some fair number of southerners in a similar boat. Maybe it's just me, but I think we don't want to paint with too broad a brush here. Many southerners are happy to speak out against bigotry and find it just as offensive as most others do. And all the rest of us are happy to tolerate our Washington, Jefferson, monuments, etc, despite them being slave owners, even though we find slavery and the bigotry that underlies it unacceptable. A non-US person could point the finger at all of us (for the most part incorrectly) in much the same way I think.

[Gr8fuln2020]

2 hours ago, rjc149 said:

Another key difference is that once the Civil War ended, Confederates became American countrymen once again. Their society re-integrated into American society, along with the commemoration and memorializing of their war heroes and war dead. That became American too. 

Yep. And the ideas of the South was effectively integrated into much of American culture, politics, etc. that continues today. 

[Ellener]

6 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

we don't seem to be learning from history, so what's the point?

So what's the alternative?

'The meaning of life is to give life meaning' ~ Victor Frankl, who said

'Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.'
-Dr. Viktor E. Frankl (Mans Search for Meaning)

It's going to be erected in 2023, $170 million has already been raised for the project.

People are doing all kinds of interesting useful thoughtful things everywhere every day. 

One thing I do know about history- we can't preserve everything! To everything a season...

 

 

 

[Emilie Jolie]

Just now, Ellener said:

So what's the alternative?

'The meaning of life is to give life meaning' ~ Victor Frankl, who said

'Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast.'
-Dr. Viktor E. Frankl (Mans Search for Meaning)

It's going to be erected in 2023, $170 million has already been raised for the project.

People are doing all kinds of interesting useful thoughtful things everywhere every day. 

One thing I do know about history- we can't preserve everything! To everything a season...

 

 

 

I was trying to understand the underlying thought behind the post I quoted, not laying out my own thoughts. I think there is every point in learning from history, that it is the only way we have to move forward, but I also think it is just as urgent to try and shift our attitudes towards racism right now, in real time, so this new generation can model themselves on our behaviour, that is one that wants to address our past, acknowledge it, be humbled by it, own all of it and ultimately come out of it more united. We can't just turn everything into a battlefield or an argument or some sort of oneupmanship. 

Tearing down statues is a positive step for some. Putting them in museums is another, and so is turning them into art, or replacing them into something more relevant, or putting educational plaques, or changing all the street names, or discussing all of this on message boards - all of these things are a change from the status quo. That's what's important. 

 

[rjc149]

2 hours ago, Gr8fuln2020 said:

Yep. And the ideas of the South was effectively integrated into much of American culture, politics, etc. that continues today. 

Absolutely. Removing slavery crippled southern economies. The impact of that is felt to this very day in the rural south. And the resentment is still very much alive. 

[rjc149]

19 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Tearing down statues is a positive step for some. Putting them in museums is another, and so is turning them into art, or replacing them into something more relevant, or putting educational plaques, or changing all the street names, or discussing all of this on message boards - all of these things are a change from the status quo. That's what's important. 

 

Again, tearing down statues and renaming everything is not really feasible in the US. Educational plaques, I believe, are a good step forward. 

Interesting to note, in the Natural History Museum in NYC, many of the old exhibits circa 1920's are of Native Americans. Back then, Native Americans were viewed as natural history along with animals. They weren't civilized, and thus belonging to the Metropolitan Museum. They were natural history. Wild. They belonged with the dinosaur bones and stuffed tigers.

Recently, new informational plaques now accompany the original ones, informing the viewer that historiography has evolved since the exhibits were first displayed in the 20's and 30's. It adds another layer of depth to the exhibits, to show not only how their societies evolved, but how our society, and our perspectives, evolved. 

The more vogue course of action, of course, would be to remove all the old exhibits because they're racist. But I'm glad they didn't, and instead, now attempt to educate the public about historical perspective, and thus more effectively advocate a modern perspective.

The museum still needs a renovating and an overhaul of the exhibits. At least some new carpeting, sheesh. But as an adult, I enjoy reading the new plaques. 

[Emilie Jolie]

9 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

Again, tearing down statues and renaming everything is not really feasible in the US. Educational plaques, I believe, are a good step forward. 

 

You have to understand that not everything will be modelled along the lines of what the USA can or can't do, yet racism is a problem everywhere. We deal with it however we can in our respective parts of the globe. I don't want an argument, I'm just saying there are countries other than the USA who also have a dodgy history with slavery and colonisation, so the death of George Floyd impacted more than your country. If toppling the statue of Colston in Bristol, UK, is kicking a positive chain of events in Bristol, UK, then surely it is a good thing?

Edited June 12, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, Emilie Jolie said:

You have to understand that not everything will be modelled along the lines of what the USA can or can't do, yet racism is a problem everywhere. We deal with it however we can in our respective parts of the globe. I don't want an argument, I'm just saying there are countries other than the USA who also have a dodgy history with slavery and colonisation, so the death of George Floyd impacted more than your country. If toppling the statue of Colston in Bristol, UK, is kicking a positive chain of events in Bristol, UK, then surely it is a good thing?

Yes I have a very American-centric view of these things. I admit that. It's not arrogance or self-importance, it's just -- my world view. 

I am also, personally, a history buff. Not just American history, but European history also. In a place like the UK which is just chock-full of fascinating history, I find it problematic that statues are being toppled in the name of whatever vogue social justice trend that is currently on the headlines. And it goes back to my argument of boundaries -- where does it stop? 

For example, you've got a statue of King Richard I near Parliament -- a guy who mercilessly butchered innocent civilians on his crusades. So, are you going to take that down too? I can't even list all of the examples of despots, tyrants, and sadistic motherf--kers who have memorials and statues in their honor across the UK. Where does it start, how far does it go, and where does it stop?

[Emilie Jolie]

1 minute ago, rjc149 said:

Yes I have a very American-centric view of these things. I admit that. It's not arrogance or self-importance, it's just -- my world view. 

I am also, personally, a history buff. Not just American history, but European history also. In a place like the UK which is just chock-full of fascinating history, I find it problematic that statues are being toppled in the name of whatever vogue social justice trend that is currently on the headlines. And it goes back to my argument of boundaries -- where does it stop? 

For example, you've got a statue of King Richard I near Parliament -- a guy who mercilessly butchered innocent civilians on his crusades. So, are you going to take that down too? I can't even list all of the examples of despots, tyrants, and sadistic motherf--kers who have memorials and statues in their honor across the UK. Where does it start, how far does it go, and where does it stop?

Look, I understand that for you personally, toppling statues is not the right way to go. To be perfectly honest, I have no strong view on that other than I see it as a catalyst. As I said, other initiatives were suggested by locals before the toppling, that went unanswered - maybe these initiatives will be reviewed in other places and no other statue will be taken off.

I'm not a great historian myself - I know the basics though, and I'm trying to compensate my lack of knowledge by reading Edmund Morgan currently, so I'm not looking at it from that standpoint. The larger aim is to address the unsavoury parts of our respective histories in a way that would satisfy all parties and fairly represent past events. For this to happen, things need to change. Mistakes will probably be made along the way but the worst thing we can do is continuing doing nothing (in my opinion).

[rjc149]

11 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Look, I understand that for you personally, toppling statues is not the right way to go. To be perfectly honest, I have no strong view on that other than I see it as a catalyst.

But one could argue that looting Target and pooping on overturned cop cars is a catalyst for change in this country. Yes, it's drawing attention to the matter, but is that the way to do it? I don't think it is. 

I see erasing history as censorship and revisionism. I think that's a very dangerous road to travel. Maybe the town of Bristol could place an accompanying informational plaque, explaining that Colston made his fortune by trading slaves, and place an adjacent memorial to the Africans who were abducted and most likely died on those sea voyages. Younger generations would then be informed and educated about the evils of racism, and the complexity of Bristol's history, instead of seeing -- nothing. 

Because you could also just start destroying things and taking sh-ts. Personally, I think history matters and it's worth preserving, the good bad and ugly. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by rjc149

[Emilie Jolie]

23 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

But one could argue that looting Target and pooping on overturned cop cars is a catalyst for change in this country. Yes, it's drawing attention to the matter, but is that the way to do it? I don't think it is. 

I see erasing history as censorship and revisionism. I think that's a very dangerous road to travel. Maybe the town of Bristol could place an accompanying informational plaque, explaining that Colston made his fortune by trading slaves, and place an adjacent memorial to the Africans who were abducted and most likely died on those sea voyages. Younger generations would then be informed and educated about the evils of racism, and the complexity of Bristol's history, instead of seeing -- nothing. 

Because you could also just start destroying things and taking sh-ts. Personally, I think history matters and it's worth preserving, the good bad and ugly. 

I agree with the importance of history good, bad and ugly and from what I understand, the City of Bristol has said they will start a consultation process on what to do next.

I think it's too easy to criticise what should and shouldn't be done to raise awareness of a long-standing and highly charged issue from the sidelines. People have been trying to get things moving on racism for a long time. This was ticking time-bomb, so in a way we are now reaping what we sowed with our silencings, denials, stallings, victimisings, looking the other way, etc. We've past that point where we are still pretending racism isn't that bad, still desperately trying to hold on to the 'good' parts of whatever sick stuff we did in the past. This isn't going away, and it's tearing countries apart.

So you know, if you have a handy manual on how to negociate this period stress-free, please share it!

Edited June 12, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[rjc149]

4 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

So you know, if you have a handy manual on how to negociate this period stress-free, please share it!

1. Don't just start tearing statues and memorials down, don't act brashly. 

2. Educating your children about history is a more effective remedy against bigotry than physically erasing the documentation of it.  

I'm not a manual-writer. But that would be numbers 1 and 2. 

You know who else started blowing up historical monuments they didn't like? ISIS. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by rjc149

[Emilie Jolie]

10 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

1. Don't just start tearing statues and memorials down, don't act brashly. 

2. Educating your children about history is a more effective remedy against bigotry than physically erasing the documentation of it.  

I'm not a manual-writer. But that would be numbers 1 and 2. 

You know who else started blowing up historical monuments they didn't like? ISIS. 

Not getting into an ISIS argument, sorry. It's completely off topic, and inappropriate. Deflections are not going to make this particular situation go away.

Point 1 is too late and 2 has been asked for decades - why is it an emergency now, suddenly? Why was it not an emergency every time it was requested of us? Why do we keep on voting for people who don't care about dealing with these issues when needed? People have had enough, and that's fair. You were right, you're not a manual writer.

Edited June 12, 2020 by Emilie Jolie