[D'rek]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 August 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Do I need to take down my Caeser statue and SPQR flags down now?

Heh, I was just thinking/posting about that, too. When is the historical cut-off after which owning slaves and/or genocide mean you aren't allowed statues, but before which it's historical enough to be allowed?

Seems to me like you're allowed statues as long as you're on the "winning" side. Maybe if the South had won (and later abolished slavery anyways) Lee statues would be fine but the Washington statues would be getting torn down?

[HoosierDaddy]

.

D, on 17 August 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 August 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Do I need to take down my Caeser statue and SPQR flags down now?

Heh, I was just thinking/posting about that, too. When is the historical cut-off after which owning slaves and/or genocide mean you aren't allowed statues, but before which it's historical enough to be allowed?

Seems to me like you're allowed statues as long as you're on the "winning" side. Maybe if the South had won (and later abolished slavery anyways) Lee statues would be fine but the Washington statues would be getting torn down?

Slavery still wouldn't have been okay. And the war to ensure it was okay would have still been wrong for them.

These people aren't martyrs to a good cause. To imply that is to say that slavery was fine; they were fighting for freedoms they already had, but not the millions of slaves. And the poor farmers of the south who were able to look at the slaves and say: "Well, at least I'm free" were the grunts on the Confederate lines who never had statues made of them because they weren't rich, white, and popular enough to get them. And those would be wrong too if they existed.

Ain't no choice in slavery. For or against.

Same thing with fascism and Nazis, neo-nazis, white-supremacists: For or against.

There is no middle ground grey territory. I can understand the background that causes it, but there is plenty of available information to disabuse that notion.

[QuickTidal]

D, on 17 August 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 August 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Do I need to take down my Caeser statue and SPQR flags down now?

Heh, I was just thinking/posting about that, too. When is the historical cut-off after which owning slaves and/or genocide mean you aren't allowed statues, but before which it's historical enough to be allowed?

Seems to me like you're allowed statues as long as you're on the "winning" side. Maybe if the South had won (and later abolished slavery anyways) Lee statues would be fine but the Washington statues would be getting torn down?

The difference is very much in the context and the era.

But I'll just leave this here instead.

[Malankazooie]

There's a simple answer to this:


google it, the video is hilarious.

[D'rek]

HoosierDaddy, on 17 August 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

.

D, on 17 August 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 August 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Do I need to take down my Caeser statue and SPQR flags down now?

Heh, I was just thinking/posting about that, too. When is the historical cut-off after which owning slaves and/or genocide mean you aren't allowed statues, but before which it's historical enough to be allowed?

Seems to me like you're allowed statues as long as you're on the "winning" side. Maybe if the South had won (and later abolished slavery anyways) Lee statues would be fine but the Washington statues would be getting torn down?

Slavery still wouldn't have been okay. And the war to ensure it was okay would have still been wrong for them.

These people aren't martyrs to a good cause. To imply that is to say that slavery was fine; they were fighting for freedoms they already had, but not the millions of slaves. And the poor farmers of the south who were able to look at the slaves and say: "Well, at least I'm free" were the grunts on the Confederate lines who never had statues made of them because they weren't rich, white, and popular enough to get them. And those would be wrong too if they existed.

Ain't no choice in slavery. For or against.

Same thing with fascism and Nazis, neo-nazis, white-supremacists: For or against.

There is no middle ground grey territory. I can understand the background that causes it, but there is plenty of available information to disabuse that notion.

Well there's your answer, then. "Slavery is/was never okay, and any leader of a society/movement that accepted slavery is not entitled to a statue."

Oh wait, that would include George Washington. Okay, new rule: "Slavery is/was never okay but some old societies accepted it as status quo and we don't want to demonize just owning them. So any leader of a society/movement that did anything to actively advance slavery is not entitled to a statue, but if they just owned slaves it's okay they can have a statue."

There ya go. Leave up Washington and Napoleon. But we need to tear down all the Lee, Charlemagne, and Caesars!

Sound about right?

[Andorion]

Down South, on 17 August 2017 - 06:38 PM, said:

D, on 17 August 2017 - 06:05 PM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 17 August 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Do I need to take down my Caeser statue and SPQR flags down now?

Heh, I was just thinking/posting about that, too. When is the historical cut-off after which owning slaves and/or genocide mean you aren't allowed statues, but before which it's historical enough to be allowed?

Seems to me like you're allowed statues as long as you're on the "winning" side. Maybe if the South had won (and later abolished slavery anyways) Lee statues would be fine but the Washington statues would be getting torn down?

I'm glad someone else said this. I was more or less gonna say history is written by the victor but I didn't in case people read what they want to read and think I'm bitter that we lost and wish we had won.

The difference from say statues of Rome or Greece, to statues of Confederates is once again, historical context.

The Confederate Statues symbolise a state that stood very firmly for slavery and the racial subjugation of black people. Racial problems are still highly relevant and sensitive in current American politics. By erecting and celebrating statues of Confederates, a political statement is made, in support of that regime of racial subjugation.

Lee or Jackson may have been extremely brave and honourable men, but they have come to symbolise the Condederate cause, a cause which is extremely racially offensive. And this where they differ from Washington and Jefferson, as they symbolise the establishment of the independent United States. Their statues and memorials make a completely different political statement.

(This is not to excuse any of the failings of the founding fathers, btw)

[amphibian]

I think the distinction lies in that Lee, Davis, Jackson and the many others went to war specifically to defend and extend slavery. Whereas Washington and the others had slaves and fought in a revolt for people to be freer from bad rule, although they were highly unequal in distribution of such freedom achieved.

I would be ok with pulling down Washington and Jefferson statues tho. Gettem outta here.

I also don't agree that there's only two possible positions to take on slavery. The spectrum of positions possible is weirdly wide and includes "No Position", although the truly moral thing to do is to be against it in every form.

[HoosierDaddy]

D'rek, these issues need to be put in context.

Like Khell, I have a history degree as well. Trying to compare these things is rough and hard, but there is no way I'm going to compare a mass-murdering Nazi with someone who wrongly held slaves for years.

[Andorion]

Guys, this debate reminded me of this discussionon SE's essay regarding the Lovecraft statue. Might be worth revisiting.

[D'rek]

I agree, the context matters hugely. 99.9% of surviving statues were constructed long after the event/person they commemorate, and a lot of the time they are not built for so straightforward of a reason as "Lee represents slavery and I sure do miss having slaves so here's a statue", just like they weren't raised hundreds of years ago with an inscription reading "this guy stabbed 8000 Saracens, beat his wife, got chlamydia from a goat and died."

Statues are always made to represent some ideal. That ideal is in the eye-of-the-beholder, and vary drastically across beholders. And the subject of all or nearly all statues have some dirty laundry we can throw at those ideals, too.

It's a big huge whack of complicated context, and yet this thread is chock full of "this statue represents only exactly what I say it does and that is the worst ideal possible (unlike all other statues because I like those ones)" devoid of context.

I wonder what the actual locals think the statue represents (or is supposed to represent). I'll bet it probably doesn't match what either side of the activists who drove in, the media, or the social media campaigns are saying.

[worry]

I have no problem comparing (or contrasting!) slave owners to genocide purveyors, but of course they wouldn't be 1:1 comparisons. But that's the point. Why compare/contrast things that you know are exactly the same? The whole point of a comparison is that the two (or more) things are different in some ways and alike in others.

Overall this latest discussion just lends credence to what Khell said: public statues (of say George Washington) don't and aren't meant to give you the whole story of anyone. They're meant to tell you about what the society that builds them (and maintains them) values about that person. Public GW monuments tend to honor his contributions to the Revolutionary War and the Presidency. Public Robert E. Lee monuments honor his contribution to the secession of Confederate states and the preservation of slavery.

[worry]

D, on 17 August 2017 - 07:33 PM, said:

a lot of the time they are not built for so straightforward of a reason as "Lee represents slavery and I sure do miss having slaves so here's a statue"

Here's where I think you and I would disagree. It very much IS this straightforward for the vast majority of Confederate memorials.

https://hyperallergi...aw-dylann-roof/

This post has been edited by worry: 17 August 2017 - 07:51 PM

[amphibian]

Dirty laundry is not equal in all cases and the statues being a symbol primarily of white supremacy is a very good reason to pull down the statues.

This is not as complicated as you're making it out to be. I even say that I would be ok with pulling down Washington and Jefferson statues because we have changed. We know - across pretty much every societal strata - that slavery is evil.

It would be an interesting thing to figure out what artistic representation of real life figures we would replace these statues with.

If someone says Hillary Clinton, boot them in the butt and tell them to try again.

[Aptorian]

amphibian, on 17 August 2017 - 07:53 PM, said:

Dirty laundry is not equal in all cases and the statues being a symbol primarily of white supremacy is a very good reason to pull down the statues.

This is not as complicated as you're making it out to be. I even say that I would be ok with pulling down Washington and Jefferson statues because we have changed. We know - across pretty much every societal strata - that slavery is evil.

It would be an interesting thing to figure out what artistic representation of real life figures we would replace these statues with.

If someone says Hillary Clinton, boot them in the butt and tell them to try again.

[D'rek]

Maybe you're all right. Maybe all those statues were built by arm-band-toting neo-nazis for the explicit purpose of reminding black people that these neo-nazis hate them and were christened by having every member of town stand in a swastika shape around the statue and zeig heil to it. And to this very day those statues mean nothing but how the locals hate black people. When the family is out for a stroll and a kid points at the statue and says "Who's that?" their parents tell them "That's Robert E Lee, kiddo, he reminds us all of how good it was to have slaves and we have a statue of him to remind ourselves of how superior our race is."

I don't know for sure that the above isn't true, and if it is it's wrong (obviously). Not my country, not my county, and if you all want to decide that the narrative has to be so black and white, you go for it. (China, meanwhile, will be laughing their butts off on top of their humongous new Guan Yu statue.)

But when all of this rubs off on Toronto (as it always does) and the horde of UoT students arrives up here trying to tear down the Big Joe Mufferaw statues because he symbolizes (and only symbolizes) racism against the Irish or some shit I'm releasing the hounds on them. (and NOT because I'm a neo-nazi! If the neo-nazis show up to counter-protest I'm siccing the hounds on them, too!)

[worry]

Hounds need to eat, I never denied that fact.

[worry]

But to be more serious, it's worth pointing out that some of those locals, those parents and their curious children, are in fact black people.

[amphibian]

Know what's a really weirdly happy thing to read about? Black and brown Americans going to places like Barbados and Haiti, where there are statues of slaves who revolted and became free.

They get so happy about seeing that, especially in comparison to the Confederacy statues. It's a really screwed up thing to read about on a few different levels and brings home just how bad these Confederacy imagery are.

[amphibian]

Read this regarding the whys of some of these statues: http://billingsgazet...880169.amp.html

So there were indeed lodges and fundraising groups of white supremacists who were intent upon making it clear that this was "their territory" via public art. The ceremonies may not have featured Nazis, but what's weird is that the Nazis borrowed a lot from Americans, especially the Confederacy.

[QuickTidal]

Bannon out.