Tearing down statues

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, enigma32 said:

Like Robert E Lee for example. He was seen as a great leader in his time, and was respected around the world for his character and his prowess as a general. Was he also a racist? Possibly. 

Robert E. Lee was a slave owner with a long, illustrious pedigree of slave ownership. Upon joining the Confederate army, he freed his slaves as a political move, to corroborate his claim that he was fighting for Virginia, not slavery. 

On the first day of the battle of Gettysburg, July 1st 1863, his army drove scattered Union forces out of the town of Gettysburg. He then ordered all free black men in the town to be rounded up, shackled, and sent south to be slaves. 

If he wasn't racist, he wasn't an egalitarian either. But he was a product of his time, and his society. He is a part of American history, like George Washington and everyone else. He shouldn't simply be deleted. 

[rjc149]

1 minute ago, Emilie Jolie said:

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...

Yes I also grow weary of the "well, what do YOU propose we do?" rebuttal when one takes issue with wanton destruction and reprehensible behavior in the name of progress. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by rjc149

[Emilie Jolie]

15 minutes ago, rjc149 said:

Yes I also grow weary of the "well, what do YOU propose we do?" rebuttal when one takes issue with wanton destruction and reprehensible behavior in the name of progress. 

 Wanton destruction and reprehensive behaviour is a shared load, and 'we' have done most of it if you look at the timeline of the last 70 years alone - I guess we thought we were getting away with it scott-free... Who'd have thought some of it would come back to haunt us a few generations down the line? A complete mystery, as if all these issues were appearing out of the blue...

Edited June 12, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[rjc149]

16 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

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.

This is not an ISIS analogy, except for the "it's contrary to our world view, so we're getting rid of it" part. That's fascistic and dangerous. That's my point. 

Just now, Emilie Jolie said:

 Wanton destruction and reprehensive behaviour is a shared load, and 'we' have done most of it if you look at the timeline of the last 70 years alone - I guess we thought we were getting away with it scott-free... Who'd have thought some of it would come back to haunt us a few generations down the line? A complete mystery, as if all these issues were appearing out of the blue...

I don't think the injustices of history is a green light for disorder and destruction today. White culpability and non-white victimhood is not a justification for further injustice. Tearing down statues and looting businesses and destroying property and taking dumps on things isn't making things right. 

You're telling me that resentment and hatred over some statue has been stewing for decades, and it's finally boiling over? That statue has been there for centuries, but now it's suddenly unbearable? Now it's gotta go ASAP?

I think people can deal with a statue long enough for the trendy militant progressivism to simmer down, and a more rational approach can be taken to dealing with it. 

[Emilie Jolie]

1 minute ago, rjc149 said:

This is not an ISIS analogy, except for the "it's contrary to our world view, so we're getting rid of it" part. That's fascistic and dangerous. That's my point. 

I don't think the injustices of history is a green light for disorder and destruction today. White culpability and non-white victimhood is not a justification for further injustice. Tearing down statues and looting businesses and destroying property and taking dumps on things isn't making things right. 

You're telling me that resentment and hatred over some statue has been stewing for decades, and it's finally boiling over? That statue has been there for centuries, but now it's suddenly unbearable? Now it's gotta go ASAP?

I think people can deal with a statue long enough for the trendy militant progressivism to simmer down, and a more rational approach can be taken to dealing with it. 

White culprability is a justification for nothing, seemingly.  We just create a huge mess, let the situation fester and cross our fingers it'll go away by itself. Facing up to history is too difficult for us apparently, but nobody is allowed to call us out on it. Meanwhile the toppling of a statue is the end of the world...

Locals have asked to remove it before, or that a plaque be added, to no avail, for a while. I guess they were tired of waiting for the 'right time'.

Addressing past events isn't a trendy progressive pet project, it's just an expected and important part of a country's evolution, I think. 

[rjc149]

20 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Locals have asked to remove it before, or that a plaque be added, to no avail, for a while. I guess they were tired of waiting for the 'right time'.

This just kind of implies that the statue, an inert object, was creating a hostile environment for people that was becoming less and less tolerable, and despite their pleading, nothing was being done to remedy the injustice of a statue existing. So, it just had to be done. Matters had to be taken into their own hands.

Just seems -- dramatic.An overreaction. An inappropriate response. A pitchfork mob chanting as a symbol of a very, very bygone era is being thrown into a river. Like, okay. You really hate the thing that much, get rid of it. But trying to ascribe some sort of crusade to it -- just very self-aggrandizing. What was really accomplished? Was a racist regime legally overturned? Was your society radically reformed from a racist apartheid into an equal society? No. You threw an old statue into the river. You have empowered non-whites with militant victimhood. I suppose we'll see if that results in racial harmony. Personally, I doubt it. 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by rjc149

[Ellener]

4 hours ago, rjc149 said:

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. 

It's something we are addressing anew here in Texas because despite the commercial success of our city or perhaps because of it, we got a new wave of slavery which is known by another name now: 'human trafficking'. 

[Ellener]

2 hours ago, rjc149 said:

we'll see if that results in racial harmony. Personally, I doubt it. 

Personally is the key word.

'Let peace begin on earth, and let it begin with me' as the song goes.

 

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, rjc149 said:

This just kind of implies that the statue, an inert object, was creating a hostile environment for people that was becoming less and less tolerable, and despite their pleading, nothing was being done to remedy the injustice of a statue existing. So, it just had to be done. Matters had to be taken into their own hands.

Just seems -- dramatic.An overreaction. An inappropriate response. A pitchfork mob chanting as a symbol of a very, very bygone era is being thrown into a river. Like, okay. You really hate the thing that much, get rid of it. But trying to ascribe some sort of crusade to it -- just very self-aggrandizing. What was really accomplished? Was a racist regime legally overturned? Was your society radically reformed from a racist apartheid into an equal society? No. You threw an old statue into the river. You have empowered non-whites with militant victimhood. I suppose we'll see if that results in racial harmony. Personally, I doubt it. 

 

Yep. I saw an update from a local Facebook group I'm in which displayed the efforts of somebody who was, a week ago, roaming around the area in search of any monuments with links to slavery.  As a historical exercise there was value and interest to it, but it was clear from the post and the ensuing responses that this had primarily been a quest to find things to be outraged about.  If people want to be outraged, there's no shortage of current atrocities they can focus their minds on.  The most obvious and relevant being that slavery is very much alive and thriving not just in the less developed world but right here in the West. 

A google search of BBC UK Slavery network can take people to a case heard last year in which members of a gang were convicted of having enslaved around 400 victims who had been taken over from Poland, placed in horrifically squalid living conditions with several living to a room. Bank accounts were opened and benefits claimed in their names - all of which went to the gang members who lived in luxury.  Then of course there are the sexual exploitation cases.   Society isn't so great today that we have the luxury of wringing our hands over how bad people could be 200 years ago.  There are some absolutely terrible people right here and now.   But gathering together in mobs and tearing down old monuments to show how much better we are than yesterday's leaders is far easier, more fun and more photogenic than engaging in real efforts to heighten awareness of and try to help the hated Establishment tackle the bogeymen of today.

 

[Ellener]

'Look to the helpers'.

I heard a sermon by Rev Dr Leonora Montgomery here a while back and we were all exhausted that there had been another atrocity ( school shooting in this case )

The Rev is well known locally in Houston for decades of helping others set up city projects, and she acknowledged that sometimes it is overwhelming.

She said look for the helpers on the ground, there is always someone providing food, or shelter, or comfort. Observe and take comfort from them. Be one of them if you can.

 

[Emilie Jolie]

2 hours ago, rjc149 said:

This just kind of implies that the statue, an inert object, was creating a hostile environment for people that was becoming less and less tolerable, and despite their pleading, nothing was being done to remedy the injustice of a statue existing. So, it just had to be done. Matters had to be taken into their own hands.

Just seems -- dramatic.An overreaction. An inappropriate response. A pitchfork mob chanting as a symbol of a very, very bygone era is being thrown into a river. Like, okay. You really hate the thing that much, get rid of it. But trying to ascribe some sort of crusade to it -- just very self-aggrandizing. What was really accomplished? Was a racist regime legally overturned? Was your society radically reformed from a racist apartheid into an equal society? No. You threw an old statue into the river. You have empowered non-whites with militant victimhood. I suppose we'll see if that results in racial harmony. Personally, I doubt it. 

 

A crusade? Militant victimhood? An overreaction? All this for a mere statue? 

 Is there a special way people need to ask for 'racial equality' that wouldn't hurt your feelings? Seems like no way to fight for equal rights is the correct way. Any excuse to whitewash the consequences of centuries of mistreatment. Shirting any responsibility has become second nature, even the way people process their pain has to be done to standards. There seemingly is no depth to the sense of superiority and entitlement. 

Yeah, all those non-whites should stay in their place and patiently wait for rjc and co to decide how, where and when to hear their grievances, and if they dare do it their own way when they run out of patience? All hell breaks loose. White fragility indeed. We can dish it out (and more) but we can't take it.

 

[AMarriedMan]

18 hours ago, Prudence V said:

How is this playing out on your home patch? 

In no way as a result of the Black Lives Matter movement. That particular issue does not concern us historically or in the present.

But I agree with the idea that statues are not neutral markers of history. First of all, they often occupy central locations in cities where they were erected to honor the people they depict and their deeds. I think the statues of slave traders and the like should be taken down and removed. Destroyed? I do not condone the destruction of art. Such statues can be warehoused or relocated to less prestigious locations.

[lana-banana]

The idea that we shouldn't destroy things of historical significance doesn't really hold weight when you think of how many gorgeous old buildings are razed every day to put in generic luxury condos with a Starbucks. It already happens all the time; it's usually just a faceless billionaire developer rather than a crowd. At least the crowd is part of the community!

That America continues to have statues and prominent naming rights for people who literally committed treason is unique, and shocking to anyone from countries with a comparable history. (Erik Foner's massive tome on Reconstruction is a good overview of how the South sabotaged re-integration efforts, and how the new Union didn't do enough to stamp the resistance out.) It is unfathomable to imagine serious people arguing Nazi statues are about "heritage" and "knowing history". 

For sites of major historical significance, use plaques (like we already do). Let people decide for themselves about statues---some might be worth putting in a museum, but many Confederate statues are mass-produced junk. Naming rights should be put to a vote, as some people might not care, or might have creative workarounds to keep initials (DC is none too keen to be named after Christopher Columbus, but its council has proposed the name "Douglass Commonwealth" should it ever be a state or formally renamed). I certainly don't think kids should go to schools named after anyone who fought to own slaves.

[AMarriedMan]

1 hour ago, lana-banana said:

The idea that we shouldn't destroy things of historical significance doesn't really hold weight when you think of how many gorgeous old buildings are razed every day to put in generic luxury condos with a Starbucks. It already happens all the time; it's usually just a faceless billionaire developer rather than a crowd. At least the crowd is part of the community!

That America continues to have statues and prominent naming rights for people who literally committed treason is unique, and shocking to anyone from countries with a comparable history. (Erik Foner's massive tome on Reconstruction is a good overview of how the South sabotaged re-integration efforts, and how the new Union didn't do enough to stamp the resistance out.) It is unfathomable to imagine serious people arguing Nazi statues are about "heritage" and "knowing history". 

For sites of major historical significance, use plaques (like we already do). Let people decide for themselves about statues---some might be worth putting in a museum, but many Confederate statues are mass-produced junk. Naming rights should be put to a vote, as some people might not care, or might have creative workarounds to keep initials (DC is none too keen to be named after Christopher Columbus, but its council has proposed the name "Douglass Commonwealth" should it ever be a state or formally renamed). I certainly don't think kids should go to schools named after anyone who fought to own slaves.

Statues are easy to move unlike buildings. Old buildings get razed all the time, always have and always will be. As long as a new place can be found for a statue of someone whose statue is no longer desirable at a prime location, there is no reason to purposefully destroy it. 

[schlumpy]

7 hours ago, rjc149 said:

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

Don't forget the Taliban.

 

[schlumpy]

6 hours ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Facing up to history is too difficult for us apparently, but nobody is allowed to call us out on it. Meanwhile the toppling of a statue is the end of the world...

Locals have asked to remove it before, or that a plaque be added, to no avail, for a while. I guess they were tired of waiting for the 'right time'.

Addressing past events isn't a trendy progressive pet project, it's just an expected and important part of a country's evolution, I think. 

And you may advocate that point view if you wish. I write letters to my representatives and Senators all the time. They never seem to listen. How much longer do I have to wait? Can't they understand how important my point of view is to the future of the United States and maybe even the world. Maybe if wrote down my thoughts, tied them to brick and then sent that through my Senators living room window it would be Catalyst for change. A ripple form which waves of change would form. Think so?

Tearing down a statue is a clear sign that the group you have attached yourself to respects the law only when it suits them. Your political answer to their act by hoping some good will come from it makes you culpable. That's vigilantism and can work against you as well as for you, because the people you approve of and associate with are not the only SOB's in the world that can destroy things.

[schlumpy]

5 hours ago, Ellener said:

Personally is the key word.

'Let peace begin on earth, and let it begin with me' as the song goes.

 

I love that song Ellener. It is so heartfelt and every time I have done it, I expect a door to open up and allow me to enter that world. It's never happened.

Now-a-days I rarely do it. Too many self-empowered people out there that become upset that someone believes in God. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by schlumpy

[schlumpy]

5 hours ago, Libby1 said:

But gathering together in mobs and tearing down old monuments to show how much better we are than yesterday's leaders is far easier, more fun and more photogenic than engaging in real efforts to heighten awareness of and try to help the hated Establishment tackle the bogeymen of today.

 

Right in the center of target. Good Shot!

Beautifully written as always.

[elaine567]

Seems to me that there is an assumption that ALL are on side with ripping up any part of Britain's perceived inglorious past and that once that is achieved, racism will be understood by all and that it will no longer exist. Everyone will be appalled at the slave trade, by the horror, by the injustice. 
They will then be overcome with guilt and seek to assuage all the hurt and pain endured.
BUT IMO that is naive.
Many in Britain already know about the slave trade and are pretty at ease with it.
Yes, most will think it awful but it was 200 years ago and nothing to do with them. 
They have no ambition to restart it, it was a different era.
Real racists I guess mostly do not care a fig about "history" and those that do probably feel  proud of the British Empire and what it achieved.
Riches acquired from around the world that made Britain a better and richer place to live... 

I doubt any of this will make one whit of difference, apart from rile up some who genuinely just want their history and statues left intact or those who are none too happy with  "thugs"  and mob rule on the streets...
We can preach goodness and tolerance, but it is a very hard life for many people, dog eat dog, and if some can see a chink of weakness anywhere to gain advantage then they will want to exploit it.
Race to some is that chink of weakness.
One can't change that basic human instinct with some statue toppling.

 

[Emilie Jolie]

Shlumpy,

Tearing down statues is a consequence of a long chain of events that barely made front news. Until it started appealing to our collective conscience, we had no real interest in putting offensive statues in museums or adding educational plaques to them; it didn't affect us, we were not troubled about walking past them, we had our conscience clear, we didn't see the big deal. Your personal issues are important, shlumpy, and it's a shame your representatives aren't listening to you. I don't know what you were contacting them about - would it be fair to say it is not on the same scale as the current issue, though?

All this reactive righteous indignation at the fate of statues very few people gave any second thought about 2 weeks ago is hypocritical posturing. The Bristol statue hasn't been destroyed, it'll be put in a museum so from our end, it sounds like the people of Bristol have managed to deal with it in a way that works for them there. That's the main thing.

FTR, I'm not advocating anything. Tearing down statues isn't my thing, but I can see past the gesture and see the symbolic significance. If not now, when?

Edited June 12, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[schlumpy]

9 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

I doubt any of this will make one whit of difference, apart from rile up some who genuinely just want their history and statues left intact or those who are none too happy with  "thugs"  and mob rule on the streets...
We can preach goodness and tolerance, but it is a very hard life for many people, dog eat dog, and if some can see a chink of weakness anywhere to gain advantage then they will want to exploit it.
Race to some is that chink of weakness.
One can't change that basic human instinct with some statue toppling.

 

Blessed with the wisdom of Athena.🙂

[schlumpy]

10 minutes ago, Emilie Jolie said:

Shlumpy,

Tearing down statues is a consequence of a long chain of events that barely made front news. Until it started appealing to our collective conscience, we had no real interest in putting offensive statues in museums or adding educational plaques to them; it didn't affect us, we were not troubled about walking past them, we had our conscience clear, we didn't see the big deal. Your personal issues are important, shlumpy, and it's a shame your representatives aren't listening to you. I don't know what you were contacting them about - would it be fair to say it is not on the same scale as the current issue, though?

All this reactive righteous indignation at the fate of statues very few people gave any second thought about 2 weeks ago is hypocritical posturing. The Bristol statue hasn't been destroyed, it'll be put in a museum so from our end, it sounds like the people of Bristol have managed to deal with it in a way that works for them there. That's the main thing.

 

Emile I just want to say that you are very good writer and I do have an appreciation for how you order your thoughts. Just wanted to interject some positive feelings among the discord.🙂

[Emilie Jolie]

7 minutes ago, schlumpy said:

Emile I just want to say that you are very good writer and I do have an appreciation for how you order your thoughts. Just wanted to interject some positive feelings among the discord.🙂

I appreciate that, thank you 🥰

At the end of the day, we're are human beings with our own concerns and perspectives, and we still live on the same planet. These are hard times at the moment because many people are dealing with various hardships, and it can be difficult to empathise with somebody else's hardship when we have so much going on ourselves, I get that and I'm guilty of that too sometimes, I can admit that 🥴

I don't doubt you're a lovely person in real life, shlumpy. We just disagree on a few (major!) things, but that's fine :).

Edited June 12, 2020 by Emilie Jolie

[serial muse]

8 hours ago, rjc149 said:

Robert E. Lee was a slave owner with a long, illustrious pedigree of slave ownership. Upon joining the Confederate army, he freed his slaves as a political move, to corroborate his claim that he was fighting for Virginia, not slavery. 

On the first day of the battle of Gettysburg, July 1st 1863, his army drove scattered Union forces out of the town of Gettysburg. He then ordered all free black men in the town to be rounded up, shackled, and sent south to be slaves. 

If he wasn't racist, he wasn't an egalitarian either. But he was a product of his time, and his society. He is a part of American history, like George Washington and everyone else. He shouldn't simply be deleted. 

But no one is suggesting he be "deleted". Just not celebrated in a town square.

My own family is from the deep south, and growing up I got regular doses of my geneaology, of the "War of Northern Aggression", of the knowledge that several of my ancestors were in the Confederate Army. I also have a history degree. I love history.

And I don't think that tearing down this statue erases history, my own or that of others, in any way shape or form! It clarifies it, and casts it into a clear white and unsentimental light, rather than this rosy revision of the past.

Because the Confederacy (thankfully) lost, the Civil War was fought over the subjugation of human beings, and yet this period of U.S. history is still bizarrely glorified by many people. Basically the South lost the war, but won the propaganda campaign. It is revisionist and deeply dishonest, and these statues are a symbol, to me, of that dishonesty and that revisionism. I know for a fact, from my own personal experience in school, that a lot of kids in this country (the U.S.) are not taught the full story of what happened. Tearing down statues does not change the fact that these people existed, and it doesn't erase them from the history books, nor should it. But it forces people to reckon with who they're glorifying and why - and it forces them, perhaps, to see these statues through other peoples' eyes - in this case specifically through Black peoples' eyes. That gaining of perspective is a thing that should have happened long ago.

There really isn't a good reason to cling to them, not when one takes a good hard look at the issue. I just don't see any good, rational arguments in their favor. And the emotional arguments in their favor are...deeply fraught, let's say.

Edited June 12, 2020 by serial muse

[Cookiesandough]

They trashed/vandalized a lot of statues and monument circle memorial. Epicenter of our city with a lot of memories not attached to racial injustice

Edited June 12, 2020 by Cookiesandough