Tearing down statues

[SincereOnlineGuy]

Does anybody know where Lenin might rate on the scale of being likely to be torn down by the (m)asses?

 

Does it help or hurt that he's in the parking lot of a taco restaurant?

 

 

[Libby1]

56 minutes ago, enigma32 said:

I notice they didn't stop with only taking down statues of Confederate leaders. Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, and Washington have all had statues destroyed or removed. I made a comment on a news article the other day on FB talking about a statue being torn down. I said that Mt' Rushmore was going to be next. People didn't laugh or try and defend Mt. Rushmore either....almost everyone was in support of destroying it. IMO, this is not about getting rid of racism, it is about getting rid of the USA. 

John McWhorter, an English professor at Columbia University has written and spoken quite extensively about the extent to which anti-racism has become a sort of religion...though I wonder if it might be more accurate to say that anti-fascism is the new religion, with anti-racism being a denomination.  Religious, because if you question it you're a modern form of evil. 

If you say to me "trans women are women" and I ask "can you define the word woman for me so that I can better understand what you' mean"...then I'll be labelled transphobic,.  Simply because I asked a question you probably can't answer without relying on traditional mainstream definitions.  Or maybe you would start tentatively skirting around the concept of "the soul of a woman"...which I'm certainly open to the notion of, but it takes us into spiritual territory...and once we start incorporating people's spiritual beliefs into law and politics, our systems of government sacrifice a little bit more of that secular nature we claim to aspire to.

Most people probably know deep down that mobs toppling controversial statues down in rage is  the kind of oddly zealous behaviour you don't expect to see within a secular, democratic society.   There are mechanisms within democracies for dealing with such mattters.  Debate and discussion is a good one.  That gives various groups within society a chance to have their views heard and to feel like active participants in any process of change (even if it's a change they voted against).  Local Councils voted in to represent the views of the wider society in an area can take the final decision by voting.  It's less dramatic and fun than letting rip and giving in to destructive instincts, but it's more in keeping with a civilised democracy.

Just going ahead and tearing the statue without having any debate or discussion sends a message of "this thing is so evil and wrong that we just can't afford to wait any longer.   We must deal with it right now."  And maybe the show of  anger and violence towards an inanimate object gives the crowd some temporary sense of catharsis from the terrible weight of this sense of original sin.  It's symbolic of something all right, but that "something" probably isn't nearly as virtuous as the people egging it all on would like to paint it as being.

[Ellener]

1 hour ago, Libby1 said:

Most people probably know deep down that mobs toppling controversial statues down in rage is  the kind of oddly zealous behaviour you don't expect to see within a secular, democratic society.  

Yes, and many in America have fought long and hard to remain secular!

Courthouses were starting to display religious symbols in much the same way so many of these statues were erected not during Reconstruction as memorials to the dead, but between 1890 and 1950 as symbols to enforce racial segregation.

In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky government sponsorship of religion was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, prohibiting our government from establishing a religion, or from favoring one religion over another, or from favoring religious over nonreligious beliefs. But there have been numerous displays and legal challenges since, generally following populist opinion.

[Libby1]

1 hour ago, Ellener said:

Yes, and many in America have fought long and hard to remain secular!

Courthouses were starting to display religious symbols in much the same way so many of these statues were erected not during Reconstruction as memorials to the dead, but between 1890 and 1950 as symbols to enforce racial segregation.

In 1980 the Supreme Court ruled that a Kentucky government sponsorship of religion was unconstitutional and violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, prohibiting our government from establishing a religion, or from favoring one religion over another, or from favoring religious over nonreligious beliefs. But there have been numerous displays and legal challenges since, generally following populist opinion.

If it can be shown that a statue or monument was built specifically to enforce racial segregation, then I can't see how anybody would be able to defend the decision to keep it - unless it had some amazing artistic merit and historical value (eg nobody's calling for the Colosseum to be destroyed, despite the cruelty that brought it into existence in the first place).  If there's dispute as to whether any of those monuments should remain, I guess that's what it would come down to.  Whether public interest arguments for them being abolished versus any arguments for them to stay. 

We have a few statues of former monarchs in our city, and they serve as meeting places or landmarks for people to look for when you're giving them directions.  If people suddenly decided to demolish the meeting place statue, a lot of people would probably be upset for no reason other than that a lot of their first dates or social arrangements with friends over the years used the statue as a meeting point.

While fond memories of first meetings "at the statue" might not be a good enough reason for keeping that statue, I think it's understandable that people tend to feel sadness at the passing of familiar landmarks that they never really thought about - and in a lot of cases (unless there's been long running controversy) might not have associated with slavery or racism.  In cases where those statues do serve some social function as landmarks (for giving directions) or meeting points, perhaps there's an argument for making some adjustments to them.

That Robert Lee statue in Virginia, for instance, is a very ornate structure and it looks like exactly the sort of landmark people would use as a meeting point.  I would probably suggest removing as much of the human body as possible and maybe covering the horse with a bronze rug, if such a thing were possible - then having it as a monument to animals who were used in war efforts.  It just seems a pity to destroy such an ornate pedestal, and the bronze horse is very attractive.  But I guess if people were still going to have an issue with the remaining statue and pedestal because of what they once stood for, it would still be vandalised regularly...giving the area an ugly, run down appearance which  I'm sure nobody wants.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Libby1

[Ellener]

@Libby1 That reminds me of an Oscar Wilde line:

When you are not on your pedestal you are not interesting...

He wrote that in prison; imprisoned for being gay. He said of himself 'I was one who stood in symbolic relations to the art and culture of my age.'

Statues are just symbols of their era.

[Tamfana]

18 hours ago, Libby1 said:

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

They have pursued Democratic processes.  Those processes failed.  We, society, failed. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by Tamfana

[NuevoYorko]

19 hours ago, Libby1 said:

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

It absolutely addresses the aspect of "social ills" demonstrated by the elevation of symbols and images of proponents of slavery.  Again, do you see statues of Hitler and Nazi flags in town squares or in front of government buildings in Germany or elsewhere in Europe?  

Like it or not,  destruction of property has played a part in hundreds of movements towards social and governmental  reform / change throughout history; the Boston Tea Party, destruction of the Berlin Wall, Nelson Mandela's guerrilla force,  for example.

Here, the vast majority of these monuments were created and erected during the Jim Crow era on purpose to "teach" about the values that the Confederacy was fighting for in the Civil War.  Slavery is a big one.  This concerted effort to continue to define the southern states by these values rather than the stated values of the USA is definitely of historical significance.  We don't need the results of it given places of honor.

Here is a non-partisan article about the history of these monuments:

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

[elaine567]

7 minutes ago, Tamfana said:

They have pursued Democratic processes.  Those processes failed.  We, society, failed. 

The processes did not fail, "the people" disagreed.
If we supplant democracy with mob rule then where does that lead?

[Tamfana]

3 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

The processes did not fail, "the people" disagreed.
If we supplant democracy with mob rule then where does that lead?

I think it was racism within the systems, not a popular decision intentionally made, such as by voting. Heck, the whole public really wasn't aware of the scope of the racist abuse of power until cell phone recording came along. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by Tamfana

[sothereiwas]

7 minutes ago, Tamfana said:

Heck, the whole public really wasn't aware of the scope of the racist abuse of power until cell phone recording came along. 

Except what the "public is aware of" is mostly wrong now, due to what gets promoted. People believe nonsense like police are more likely to kill minorities thanks to selective news coverage. 

[elaine567]

No-one in Bristol cared a damn about the Colston statue before BLM got involved, suddenly an online poll suggesting its removal, that had been moseying along going nowhere,  jumped to thousands overnight...

[Tamfana]

2 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

No-one in Bristol cared a damn about the Colston statue before BLM got involved, suddenly an online poll suggesting its removal, that had been moseying along going nowhere,  jumped to thousands overnight...

Great!  And I assume no one really cares about Colston's statue being gone since no one cared about him. 

Edited June 22, 2020 by Tamfana

[sothereiwas]

28 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

No-one in Bristol cared a damn about the Colston statue before BLM got involved, suddenly an online poll suggesting its removal, that had been moseying along going nowhere,  jumped to thousands overnight...

That's fine I think? Isn't that how it's supposed to work, followed by more official steps, and then whatever comes next?

[elaine567]

3 minutes ago, sothereiwas said:

That's fine I think? Isn't that how it's supposed to work, followed by more official steps, and then whatever comes next?

Yes, but a lot of "protesters took the law into their own hands and dunked the statue in the harbour...

[Angelle]

6 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

Yes, but a lot of "protesters took the law into their own hands and dunked the statue in the harbour...

I thought that was funny. Especially when they updated its location on Google maps.

[carhill]

Alternatively, the attacks on statues can be a learning opportunity, one about how they came to be and how they can be removed and replaced  without mob rule and, two, history.

The American Museum of Natural History is removing a statue of one of our past Presidents, Teddy Roosevelt, from in front of the museum, fortunately it appears the big bronze statue won't be torn down by mob rule, and the discord over the statue caused me to review Teddy Roosevelt and his time in our history. I always remembered him as the rough rider on the horse President but didn't really delve deep into his history and legacy, including with the African American community since racism is the current reason for statue removals/destruction.

Here's one snippet of Teddy's history, apparently a controversial one.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booker_T._Washington_dinner_at_the_White_House

[preraph]

People need to at least remember that a culmination of all that history is why we are what we are today -- and that is the country most people on earth most want to live in.  No place is perfect.  No people are perfect.  Here, if you don't like your situation, you can just change it individually.  You have that power.  Everyone does.  

[sothereiwas]

53 minutes ago, elaine567 said:

Yes, but a lot of "protesters took the law into their own hands and dunked the statue in the harbour...

Yes, that part is a problem. 

[SincereOnlineGuy]

5 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

 Again, do you see statues of Hitler and Nazi flags in town squares or in front of government buildings in Germany...?  

 

No.   as they would be illegal

 

 

[NuevoYorko]

4 hours ago, SincereOnlineGuy said:

No.   as they would be illegal

 

 

As they should be.  If their counterparts were illegal here in the US, we would not be having this problem.

[NuevoYorko]

2 minutes ago, enigma32 said:

So, you think statues of Grant, Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, and Lincoln should be illegal here then? They have been damaged or destroyed here already. If they should be illegal, on what grounds? 

No.  Did you read my post, or just immediately commence with arguing?

 

[gaius]

The Confederacy and the Third Reich aren't really in the same category so I wouldn't compare a statue of Lee to a statue of Hitler @NuevoYorko 

If you want to make the sole litmus test of someone's legacy be their view on race and slavery then you might as well rip down statues of almost everyone who lived in the pre civil war years, and a lot of people afterward as well. Lincoln included. His wife came from a slave holding family and he always made it clear freeing slaves was not his primary goal. His main motivation for emancipation was as a tactical weapon against the south and to help prevent Europe from intervening in the war.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that...." - Abraham Lincoln

[SincereOnlineGuy]

4 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

As they should be.  If their counterparts were illegal here in the US, we would not be having this problem.

That's like saying:

 

"If Covid were illegal here in the US, we would not be having this problem"

 

why bother?

[SincereOnlineGuy]

13 hours ago, Angelle said:

White people hurt, rape, and kill people all the time. Nobody talks about "white on white" violence, which I've experienced myself, as a child, and an adult. 

 

But that isn't relevant to the reality right in front of our eyes.

 

The underlying truth in our present-day reality is that it is THE POOR who are the ones being discriminated against FAR more than any other subset of anybody.  But because discrimination against THE POOR is such an American (and to a lesser extent worldly) pastime, nobody anywhere has any true interest in making THAT illegal.

African American society very rightfully resents the reality that far too often, discrimination intended for  the poor  is disproportionately heaped upon African Americans  because of the deeply inappropriate perception  that the groups are essentially one and the same.  (or that they overlap in such great numbers that people arrive there merely by playing the percentages)

If you tell any police officer in the land that the guy driving that nice car up in front of him is Kareem, or Lebron, or Forest Whitaker... the officer won't raise an eyebrow  (unless he's a fan, or unless there is any cause for concern that nearby society figures it out, and makes the (celebrity) unsafe).

If store security is informed that Lebron or Kareem is walking down the aisles, and looking cautiously to see who's watching, security will understand that it is highly probable that Kareem or Lebron is hoping not to be recognized and cause a stampede.  There will be ZERO prejudice solely because either is 'black'.

 

What society has done for centuries has been to conflate two groups, which are  The Poor,  and African Americans...   and it just isn't fair that being African American is treated as a visible indicator of somebody's economic wealth.

Now if you want to take crime statistics  and somehow factor out economic wealth of involved parties and only then  compare stats between black and white...  then at least you are attempting to be fair (in your then-mostly-pointless analysis of raw skin tone).

But to just take today's offered stats from all over, and compare black to white, with zero mention or knowledge of economic wealth of the individuals, you're just not conducting a fair study.

 

Are police more likely to spend their 8 hour shifts on cases largely skewed toward The Poor ???     Of course!!!!  (every now and then the shoplifter at Macy's or Target is going to be Winona Ryder, but not that often )

 

Are a disproportionate number of those involved (on either side{victims, perps} ) of those police cases going to be African American???   Of course  (but NOT in any way because  of raw skin tone).

 

Some great (realistic observations which a lot of us never think of) have been coming to light of late in the midst of all of this upheaval, and a few grand thinkers are pointing out how challenging it can be for African Americans to buck the trends and swim against a more challenging societal current than what many of us have known.  LOTS of the absurd statues our society has around certainly seem to be trying to honor some people who were pretty low, and it takes SOME of what is ongoing at present to point this out to everyone.

 

Whatever evolution is ahead would be a whole lot easier if there was any realistic way to command (everybody, really) to cease immediately the use of skin tone to suggest or indicate perceived economic wealth.  Do the police practice that??? (of course they do...   but it is largely implicit... and then it replays and reinforces itself each night, as their calls skew disproportionately toward The Poor...   so maybe it does get worse after years on the force).

I myself don't have any problem with the cops... though I find these days I'm afraid to approach and offer the reassurance I'd like to offer...   perhaps because they should suddenly be more "on guard" and "aware of their surroundings"  than what feels comfortable to me.    (*** note strong parallel to the stereotypical African American merely standing with his friends in front of their own homes, when the stereotypical white woman clutches her purse tightly and crosses the street  --  nobody is especially comforted  by that feeling of another's discomfort)

(and obviously, if that were Lebron and Kareem and Richard Sherman... they would collectively have zero use for whatever was in that woman's purse...  so it certainly isn't reeeeeeeeeally the fact that they are African American  which alters anything)    (*** aside from that mythical woman's perception of their being poor. )

You could tell that (stereotypical female character I just made-up here) that the dude over there... that big, older guy standing there...    4 doors up the street...    they call him "Mean Joe Greene"...  and she wouldn't clutch her purse and cross the street merely because he's black (provided somebody told her who he was...  or if she'd recognized him from the most famous Super Bowl Commercial of all time).

 

SO IF WE as a society could sit down and figure out ways to cease our life-long urge to cross-identify  The Poor  with mere persons of color  THEN we would accomplish SO much on behalf of ourselves, really...   that the entire world would be a better place because of our efforts.

The media will go to all lengths to report the race of somebody alleged to have committed a crime, and they'll go to all lengths to find out that person's past criminal record, and they'll make the victim seem even more sweet and innocent than may be the case, then they'll tell you whose community leader came out of the woodwork to show up at a news conference... but they make zero effort to document the economic status of the perp  and then one wonders why nobody can do a large study cross-referencing crime and race while controlling for *poverty* among those stats.

 

Sadly, it doesn't seem like society will ever be able to "solve poverty"...   but IF that happened, my instinct suggests that "racism" would become shockingly reduced... and because it became so rare, those nearby who witnessed raw race-related crime/attacks would more quickly come to the aid of the target while helping to put the holdout racists in their rightful places.

 

Short of solving poverty,  surely somebody out there with education in social studies can find a way to help all of us not tend to see "lower economic status" when we (truly randomly )  see most African Americans.   (if you go to the Lakers game, and sit at courtside, and Jack Nicholson is 3 seats away from you, and there are two African American women between you and Jack...  that's not "random" )

 

Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaybe somehow Police training  will unearth the ways to bring about such fairness, and from that we might all learn how to incorporate new thinking into our own routines.

 

 

Oh, and finally, there will be large pockets of people out there who can't see all that I've just written as the core issue  behind the vast majority of the alleged racism  out there.  Oddly, unlike many of the individual scenarios sometimes wrongly labeled as "racism",   the core implication of recognizing/perceiving poverty in someone else (even if they're green Martians)...   most definitely IS (some kind of "ism"...  though not precisely race-based)  (the USE of race factors to perceive or recognize poverty in someone else is certainly racism at its core) (and in modern America it is way too easy to do that)

[Libby1]

14 hours ago, NuevoYorko said:

It absolutely addresses the aspect of "social ills" demonstrated by the elevation of symbols and images of proponents of slavery.  Again, do you see statues of Hitler and Nazi flags in town squares or in front of government buildings in Germany or elsewhere in Europe?  

Like it or not,  destruction of property has played a part in hundreds of movements towards social and governmental  reform / change throughout history; the Boston Tea Party, destruction of the Berlin Wall, Nelson Mandela's guerrilla force,  for example.

Here, the vast majority of these monuments were created and erected during the Jim Crow era on purpose to "teach" about the values that the Confederacy was fighting for in the Civil War.  Slavery is a big one.  This concerted effort to continue to define the southern states by these values rather than the stated values of the USA is definitely of historical significance.  We don't need the results of it given places of honor.

Here is a non-partisan article about the history of these monuments:

https://www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monuments

The nazi statues were, as I mentioned in an earlier post, removed immediately after the war on the orders of allies and under the denazification programme.  There were still around 8.5 million nazis living in German at that time, and the primary goal was to prevent any of them from attaining positions of power or influence.  I obviously can't remember the Boston Tea Party, but I remember coverage of the fall of the Berlin wall.  There was no controversy around that, so far as I can recall.  The removal of border controls was seen as a joyful occasion, and a lot of the crowds removing the wall were looking for souvenirs of a historic occasion.

Re the article you've linked, Ellener has already put forward that many of these statues were erected long after the civil war was over, and with the intention of enforcing segregation laws.  Or, as your article more neutrally puts it, encouraging certain values.  Values that are no longer held or approved, and that are connected with segregation which is now unlawful.  So essentially, you're making a case to remove them - which is exactly what you should do, and what I'm arguing that people should do.  Make a case.  The problem with mobs who take matters into their own hands is that they leapfrog over that process....which is when statues and other artefacts from the past start being destroyed indiscriminately.

So I suppose the core issue here, for me, is that the destructive mob is often used as a catalyst for change - and you reflect that with your post (though I wouldn't compare the fall of the Berlin wall to the removal or destruction - by crowds - of these statues for reasons I've already mentioned).  In other words, the mob can be useful to those who want to push changes through in the face of resistance.  But once the power of the angry crowd, set on destruction, is set in motion it can be hard to stop.  Especially when people in that crowd discover how much fun they can have vandalising and destroying things.  

It's onen thing to see genuinely oppressed people remove statues in anger.  The toppling of Saddam Hussein's statue being a case in point.  But a lot of the people participating in the vandalism are white activists who, by their own logic, cannot be the victims of racism (not a position I agree with, but it's very clearly the position of activists in this matter).  So whatever passion they have about all of this, it is not the passion of the oppressed.  

I would push for charges of criminal damage for people who destroy property in these circumstances,.  If you let them off with it on the basis of "sometimes vandalism is necessary to promote change others are resistant to" then you're not going to be in much of a position to do anything when they start destroying property that you don't believe should be destroyed.  Destructive, angry crowds aren't famous for their skill in employing boundaries or rigorously thought through decisions as to what should be destroyed and what should be retained.