Tearing down statues

[NuevoYorko]

21 hours ago, sothereiwas said:

I haven't read the rest of your post, but the first sentence makes me think you're misusing the term strawman. 

I apologize, I have been under the assumption that the majority of us here understand the term "straw man argument."  Let me help you:

Quote

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, meanwhile the proper idea of argument under discussion was not addressed or properly refuted.

In this case,  the tizzy over "erasing history" is a straw man.  There is no question of "erasing history."  There is a question about publicly honoring,  usually in government and common community spaces, figures and / or symbols that elevate slavery.  

 

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Let me help you:

Let me help YOU

 

3 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

In this case,  the tizzy over "erasing history" is a straw man. 

It would only be a straw man if someone explicitly claimed you had actually advocated for erasing history. If someone did that then yes, it would be a strawman. What it actually seems to be is a related fallacy, the red herring fallacy, where someone attempts to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. There's also a fancy latin term for it, but last time I just used one of those in the interest of being concise someone got offended. 

 

[Libby1]

18 minutes ago, NuevoYorko said:

Right.  That is a main goal of protests, whether they be peaceful and organized or chaotic and destructive.  If non participants are left  feeling "uneasy" or "annoyed" then the protests are probably at least somewhat meaningful.  

Chaotic and destructive protets, or riots, are meaningful to the extent that they can mean a society is breaking down - which is certainly going to make people feel uneasy.   There can be a range of factors for that.  Increased poverty rates across the board, a pandemic, lockdown...large groups may come together to focus on one specific issue, especially if an event related to that issue triggers protests, but the underlying factors might be far more complex. 

Let's say society in the US or the UK broke down completely, and in 300 years time historians were analysing why it happened.  They'd certainly be able to say "protests were triggered by the police killing George Floyd" but I doubt any of them would attribute the entire breakdown to racism.  They'd be looking at a broad range of factors over a substantial period of time, and in a far more dispassionate way than media commentators today are inclined to do.  They wouldn't be held back, in objective analysis of events, by the political agendas that influence how we perceive things today.   Wars we participated in would probably be a major focus of interest.  Economic slumps.  Key global events.  I'd bet (not that any of us will be there to claim winnings) that historians would perceive these protests very much in terms of "people had been in lockdown due to a pandemic, there was economic instability and uncertainty about the future - with many people increasingly concerned about global warming.  Bubbling tensions boiled over when...(death of George Floyd).

[carhill]

Quote

One man was shot in Old Town as a protest over the “La Jornada” sculpture in front of the Albuquerque Museum erupted into violence Monday evening.

The shooting occurred during a clash following a peaceful protest to remove the controversial sculpture, a monument that features conquistador Juan de Oñate. The FBI is assisting in the investigation, according to an APD spokesman. U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich, meanwhile, called on the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate the shooting.

The night began with peaceful protest and prayer but tensions began to escalate when protesters took a pickaxe to the statue and members of the heavily armed New Mexico Civil Guard, a civilian group, tried to protect the monument.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1466626/one-man-shot-during-protest-in-old-town-albuquerque.html#click=https://t.co/BVRxgGHhgc

[gaius]

I wonder how many people walking by these statues nowadays even know who these historical figures are. I'd guess at least half, maybe even 3/4 wouldn't recognize a statue of Robert E Lee or know he was a slave holder. Unless you told them. Which is kind of depressing.

Maybe to cheer myself up I'll find a statue of Walt Whitman, tell a black lives matters crowd it's Robert E Lee and watch as they tear it down.

[schlumpy]

I want a front row seat when they blow the faces of Mount Rushmore. 

[Prudence V]

On 6/17/2020 at 2:34 AM, schlumpy said:

I want a front row seat when they blow the faces of Mount Rushmore. 

I think the Six Grandfathers should be restored to their pre-conquest state. 

[Tamfana]

On 6/15/2020 at 2:45 PM, Libby1 said:

But praising angry mobs for focusing their rage on monuments to tear down just doesn't seem like the best way forward.  Anger gives people a very temporary burst of feeling powerful and energised, and sometimes it does result in them achieving very short term aims...but longer term, giving way to anger tends to set people back.

I wouldn't go that far.  Anger against injustice caused the formation of the US and democracy wasn't a set back. Same in France and elsewhere.  All started with these types of popular demand.  Harming an object is insignificant in questions of justice and our country's values.  

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tamfana

[Ellener]

I think the plan is to put up different statues celebrating other aspects of our history, it is here anyway. 

In Tenessee there's a change .org petition calling for a statue of Dolly Parton to recognise all her philanthropy: the Dollywood foundation that has provided books and scholarships to millions of American children, to the millions of dollars she has donated to dozens of organizations such as the Red Cross and COVID-19 research centers.

[sothereiwas]

3 hours ago, Prudence V said:

I think the Six Grandfathers should be restored to their pre-conquest state. 

All human families in the Americas come from immigrants. To believe otherwise is historically ignorant. 

[NuevoYorko]

On 6/16/2020 at 5:54 PM, gaius said:

I wonder how many people walking by these statues nowadays even know who these historical figures are.

They'd know it was a person honored by the society in which the statue is displayed.  

[Tamfana]

55 minutes ago, Ellener said:

I think the plan is to put up different statues celebrating other aspects of our history, it is here anyway. 

In Tenessee there's a change .org petition calling for a statue of Dolly Parton to recognise all her philanthropy: the Dollywood foundation that has provided books and scholarships to millions of American children, to the millions of dollars she has donated to dozens of organizations such as the Red Cross and COVID-19 research centers.

Dolly rocks.  

[sothereiwas]

57 minutes ago, Ellener said:

I think the plan is to put up different statues celebrating other aspects of our history, it is here anyway. 

It's not like we have a law that only allows a set number of statues, and in order to erect a new monument one existing monument has to be defaced and removed. Build more if you want to donate more. 

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, Tamfana said:

I wouldn't go that far.  Anger against injustice caused the formation of the US and democracy wasn't a set back. Same in France and elsewhere.  All started with these types of popular demand.  Harming an object is insignificant in questions of justice and our country's values.  

There's a woman on my Facebook friends list who's very involved in this stuff (in the UK). Actually whenever there's a local or national activist movement, she's in the thick of it...and when there isn't something like that going on, she's getting into personal disputes.  Various times she's messaged me wanting to "pick your brains" about a dispute she's got into with somebody...and it's always from the perspective of "might I have a legal case against them?"  My feeling generally is, why the hell would you want to get involved in the absolute nightmare of an action that you very likely won't win?  What about at least trying to resolve this dispute in a reasonable adult way?"   I think she just doesn't feel alive or like she has a purpose unless she's involved in a fight or a cause of some kind. She needs the drama.

I can't speak to what's going on in the US, but we've had statues torn down where I live.  People are on here saying that there are very strong cases for removing these statues.  Great.  If there's a good argument for removing a particular statue then go through the correct channels and make it.  That is what we do in a rational society.  It's how we create a better society.  But taking a view of "to hell with that, I prefer the dramatic, symbolic gesture of ripping the statue down" in a democratic society just looks like a bunch of people letting off steam after lockdown to me.  If they were really worried about that statue and set on removing it, they'd have done it before now, and through the proper channels.

[Tamfana]

9 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

That is what we do in a rational society.  It's how we create a better society.  But taking a view of "to hell with that, I prefer the dramatic, symbolic gesture of ripping the statue down" in a democratic society just looks like a bunch of people letting off steam after lockdown to me.  If they were really worried about that statue and set on removing it, they'd have done it before now, and through the proper channels.

I see your point.  I just think that we don't have a rational society if certain groups are disproportionally harmed by another group.  Whites killing black people for no reason is irrational.   

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, Tamfana said:

Whites killing black people for no reason is irrational.   

It should be noted that the specific demographic breakdown you've cited is actually one of the least common. I'm a little puzzled why you would choose a relatively uncommon circumstance and then choose that specifically as your bone of contention, ignoring other similar but more common occurrences. 

Actually I'm not puzzled, I just wanted to point out the demagoguery. 

[Tamfana]

So only the most common problems deserve remedy?  Okay. Let's do sexual assault then.  VERY common.  On board with protesting for that?  Can we pull down statutes for that?  lol

Okay, so which are the most/more common problems that do deserve attention from society since whites killing blacks for no reason is not common enough so not worth addressing in your view.

To me, bottom line is you guys really REALLY value those statutes of racists. 

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tamfana

[sothereiwas]

2 minutes ago, Tamfana said:

So only the most common problems deserve remedy?

That's a strawman argument, which means it's an argument I never made, but which you are trying to attribute to me. 

You selected the specific demographics of your hypothetical (albeit relatively rare) murder scenario because you can't warp more common or even generic non-demographically specific murders to fit the narrative you're trying to promote. That's it, pure and simple. If you want to say killing people for no reason is irrational and should be discouraged, I'm on board, but you didn't say that, because it's not useful to your overarching agenda. Transparent. 

[Tamfana]

35 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

That's a strawman argument, which means it's an argument I never made, but which you are trying to attribute to me. 

You selected the specific demographics of your hypothetical (albeit relatively rare) murder scenario because you can't warp more common or even generic non-demographically specific murders to fit the narrative you're trying to promote. That's it, pure and simple. If you want to say killing people for no reason is irrational and should be discouraged, I'm on board, but you didn't say that, because it's not useful to your overarching agenda. Transparent. 

huh?  transparently what?  Wanting to address white on black killing (and police abuses, systemic racism, all that)?  Yeah, I do.  

I'm so confused.  Do you think that's sinister or something?

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tamfana

[Libby1]

8 minutes ago, Tamfana said:

huh?  transparently what?  Wanting to address white on black killing (and police abuses, systemic racism, all that)?  Yeah, I do.  

I'm so confused.  Do you think that's sinister or something?

Do you think removing these statues will address the social ills you mention?

[Tamfana]

They're symbolic and tearing them down is symbolic, like tearing down statues has always been symbolic. It's a silly side issue to complain about but meaningful in the symbolism. Societies need to address racism as people of different races move around the globe.  People who want to know history study history.  These statues have no value any longer.  

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tamfana

[Libby1]

48 minutes ago, Tamfana said:

They're symbolic and tearing them down is symbolic, like tearing down statues has always been symbolic. It's a silly side issue to complain about but meaningful in the symbolism. Societies need to address racism as people of different races move around the globe.  People who want to know history study history.  These statues have no value any longer.  

Tearing statues down is generally symbolic of a regime being rejected.  Something that often takes place in the immediate aftermath of an oppressive regime being toppled.  To me, when a mob tears statues down in a democracy that has processes available for removing offensive statues, the mob is rejecting those democratic processes.  The act they're engaging in is symbolic, to me, of a rejection of the democracy they live in.  I don't care about a statue of somebody who was involved in the slave trade.  What I care about is preserving the principles of democracy our society is underpinned by.  I think the kind of mobs who ignore democratic processes for accomplishing things like statue removal, and who simply take it upon themselves to tear down the things they want to get rid of, are the kind of mobs who could help wave in a more oppressive sort of society than the one we currently enjoy.

[Tamfana]

10 minutes ago, Libby1 said:

The act they're engaging in is symbolic, to me, of a rejection of the democracy they live in. 

Well that's not their stated intention so maybe try to understand what it is they're rejecting.  I've never really thought of slave traders and resurrectionists (sp?) as symbols of democracy.  The democratic process failed to address racism from the govt.  

Edited June 21, 2020 by Tamfana

[Libby1]

7 minutes ago, Tamfana said:

Well that's not their stated intention so maybe try to understand what it is they're rejecting.  I've never really thought of slave traders and resurrectionists (sp?) as symbols of democracy.  The democratic process failed to address racism from the govt.  

You misunderstand me.  I'm not suggesting that slave traders are symbolic of democracy.  What I'm saying is that there are democratic processes available to get rid of statues commemorating them...and that if the mob doesn't bother pursuing those democratic processes because it would rather just take matters into its own hands there and then, that's a rejection of democracy.  The mob might not want it depicted in those terms.  That might not be the message they'd prefer to send out...but nonetheless that's what they're doing.  Rejecting the option of pursuing their grievance (about a statue) through a legal, democratic route.

Edited June 21, 2020 by Libby1

[Ellener]

6 hours ago, Libby1 said:

Rejecting the option of pursuing their grievance (about a statue) through a legal, democratic route.

Haven't lots of these statues simply been removed by the local authorities? They have here after two were vandalised, and are going to be relocated as part of historic sites. There's been a taskforce to decide what to do with them since 2017, but people didn't agree. Already one relocation the town have said they don't want it there either. Our mayor said this week: "It's my hope that we can in a very positive and constructive way move forward and not glorify anything that's been in our past. No one wants to erase history, just try to provide the proper context for the things that we do have."