The Statute and the Man

LOST said:

Two hundred years from now someone will call for tearing down a statute of Barack Obama because:

"He ate animals".

Everyone is a flawed human. Why in this country in this day and age are we building statues to people as if they were gods? Why do we continue to revere these bigger than life stylized renderings of people?

I'm all for putting every public statue and monument in storage. Let's remember people in the history books. 

unicorn_and_rainbows said:

Hahaha said:

As a black woman, I can tell you that it has always worked my nerves when I hear people wax poetic about the sanctity and infallibility of the Founding Fathers. I live near Washington's Home in Morristown and have visited the slave quarters there. It's chilling. My hometown, Madison NJ, is named after James Madison, a slave owner who came up with the 3/5th rule. These men are not perfect and don't deserve my reverence. They stole land from indigenous people. They kept humans as slaves. They did not recognize women as equals. What is to celebrate there?




I say tear down all their statues. Rename every school. Rename every town (including my own). But I know what's realistic and this is not.  

So you are saying that Donald Trump was correct at his Wednesday press conference.

For me, its a matter of intent.  When someone puts up a statue of Jefferson, odds are they aren't doing it because he was a slave owner.  When they put up a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, odds are that they aren't doing it because the admire him as a tactician. That said, the irony of someone espousing freedom while selling children isn't lost on me.  I can see how statues of Jefferson might well be very offensive to some folks.  If we manage to hang on as a united nation (a prospect about which I am rather doubtful) this will be a discussion that we will eventually have to have.

Klinker said:

For me, its a matter of intent.  When someone puts up a statue of Jefferson, odds are they aren't doing it because he was a slave owner.  When they put up a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, odds are that they aren't doing it because the admire him as a tactician. That said, the irony of someone espousing freedom while selling children isn't lost on me.  I can see how statues of Jefferson might well be very offensive to some folks.  If we manage to hang on as a united nation (a prospect about which I am rather doubtful) this will be a discussion that we will eventually have to have.

Even if we don't hang together as a nation, the problem of how to reconcile memorializing the noble while acknowledging the base within the same person remains. I notice your avatar is the flag of California. Tell me, did the people who raised the original flag of the Bear Republic do so over unpeopled land, their hands unsoiled by the blood of any previous inhabitants? In a future where California is its own nation, what flags and monuments should shine beneath that golden sun?

LOST said:

Two hundred years from now someone will call for tearing down a statute of Barack Obama because:

"He ate animals".

And opposed gay marriage.

PVW said:

Klinker said:

For me, its a matter of intent.  When someone puts up a statue of Jefferson, odds are they aren't doing it because he was a slave owner.  When they put up a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, odds are that they aren't doing it because the admire him as a tactician. That said, the irony of someone espousing freedom while selling children isn't lost on me.  I can see how statues of Jefferson might well be very offensive to some folks.  If we manage to hang on as a united nation (a prospect about which I am rather doubtful) this will be a discussion that we will eventually have to have.

Even if we don't hang together as a nation, the problem of how to reconcile memorializing the noble while acknowledging the base within the same person remains. I notice your avatar is the flag of California. Tell me, did the people who raised the original flag of the Bear Republic do so over unpeopled land, their hands unsoiled by the blood of any previous inhabitants? In a future where California is its own nation, what flags and monuments should shine beneath that golden sun?

I don't think I would use the flag from the Bear Flag Revolt as my avatar and I would draw a distinction between that flag and the Flag of the State of California which it inspired but I do see your point. Of course, again, a lot of this goes to intent.  I made the California Flag my avatar because it has become a symbol (in California at least) of the struggle against fascism and the fascist in the White House. Billy Bob Maga is flying a confederate flag on his porch because he whole heartedly supports fascism and bigotry.  There's a difference.  Similarly, a statue of Washington might be erected as a monument to Freedom but a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest is almost certainly a monument to oppression.  How anyone defends a statue of Andrew Jackson is beyond me but maybe that is just the Cherokee in me still feeling outrage.

unicorn_and_rainbows said:

Hahaha said:

As a black woman, I can tell you that it has always worked my nerves when I hear people wax poetic about the sanctity and infallibility of the Founding Fathers. I live near Washington's Home in Morristown and have visited the slave quarters there. It's chilling. My hometown, Madison NJ, is named after James Madison, a slave owner who came up with the 3/5th rule. These men are not perfect and don't deserve my reverence. They stole land from indigenous people. They kept humans as slaves. They did not recognize women as equals. What is to celebrate there?




I say tear down all their statues. Rename every school. Rename every town (including my own). But I know what's realistic and this is not.  

So you are saying that Donald Trump was correct at his Wednesday press conference.

If that's what you want to hear, then sure. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But this isn't about Trump. Honestly, this isn't a fight I care to take up and I don't think liberals should either when there are more important things we should be doing. These cultural wedge issues are a distraction.  

But if you ask me if I think a statue of Washington, Madison, Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson et al should be taken down, I'll  still say yes. 

As someone noted above, this is a conversation we (as a nation) need to have.  

The Southern Poverty Law Center published a comprehensive survey of public symbols of the Confederacy in April.

A total of 1,503 public symbols that include:

• 718 monuments and statues, nearly 300 of which are in Georgia, Virginia or North Carolina;
• 109 public schools named for Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis or other Confederate icons;
• 80 counties and cities named for Confederates;
• 9 official Confederate holidays in six states; and
• 10 U.S. military bases named for Confederates.

A timeline shows spikes around 1900 and during the Civil Rights movement of the late '50s and '60s.

I was not aware of the Mount Rushmore of the Confederacy at Stone Mountain Georgia that was started in 1922, abandoned, but then completed by the state of Georgia in 1972, when Jimmy Carter was governor:

Billed as the largest high-relief sculpture in the world — larger than Mount Rushmore — the Confederate Memorial Carving stands 400 feet above the ground and covers three acres of the mountainside.

paulsurovell said:

I was not aware of the Mount Rushmore of the Confederacy at Stone Mountain Georgia that was started in 1922, abandoned, but then completed by the state of Georgia in 1972, when Jimmy Carter was governor:

I wasn't aware of this either.  Looks like you can go from Walmart and take Jefferson Davis Drive or Stonewall Jackson Drive to Robert E Lee Blvd to get to it.

I actually have been to the Stone Mountain monument. It was probably about 1982.

jamie said:

paulsurovell said:

I was not aware of the Mount Rushmore of the Confederacy at Stone Mountain Georgia that was started in 1922, abandoned, but then completed by the state of Georgia in 1972, when Jimmy Carter was governor:

I wasn't aware of this either.  Looks like you can go from Walmart and take Jefferson Davis Drive or Stonewall Jackson Drive to Robert E Lee Blvd to get to it.

I wonder how many Southerners aren't aware of who's buried in Grant's Tomb.

So now it's the Christopher Columbus statue at Columbus Circle that's going to be under the gun in NYC. History has its good,the bad, and ugly but it's our history,you can't just teach the good in school and leave out the bad and ugly. All these elected officials should just slow down and think what there doing. What was right in 1865 is not right today, everyone knows that but you can't change our history. We must learn from our past.The men that fought in our Civil War were Americans,as a veteran I respect everyone of them, there were some fierce battles fought and 450 thousand men died. You could change all the names of streets and towns but your only white washing our history from our future generations. 

FrankWarzocha said:

So now it's the Christopher Columbus statue at Columbus Circle that's going to be under the gun in NYC. History has its good,the bad, and ugly but it's our history,you can't just teach the good in school and leave out the bad and ugly. All these elected officials should just slow down and think what there doing. What was right in 1865 is not right today, everyone knows that but you can't change our history. We must learn from our past.The men that fought in our Civil War were Americans,as a veteran I respect everyone of them, there were some fierce battles fought and 450 thousand men died. You could change all the names of streets and towns but your only white washing our history from our future generations. 

Many of these statues and schools were erected during times of civil strife and designed to send a message and under fear that the Confederate states were losing their "heritage." Pretending they were built in times of ignorance is a bit of a rewrite. They knew just what they were doing and why they were doing it. So it's less about what was right in 1865 (since very few of them were built then), but what was the intention in 1900, 1950, etc.

Removing statues celebrating men of ill repute is not whitewashing history. No one is suggesting that they not be included in museums or history lessons.

There was a movement to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 with Harriet Tubman and people lost their s**t. Last I heard she will appear on one side and Jackson on the other. A slave and a slave owner on either side of the bill. WTF, people?

When does preserving someone's version of history supersede someone else's? If these monuments deeply hurt people - isn't that cause for consideration and removal? 

.. and the US gets a 'racism early warning' from the UN over fears of ethnic or religious conflict:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/23/charlottesville-un-committee-warns-us-over-rise-of-racism

Slaves were brought into this country as early as the mid 1600 hundreds and the owners were black,there were at lease close to 4000 black owners who owned over 12000 slaves. So why are we not hearing anything about this and just hearing about the white owners in the 18 hundreds ? Why not the other side of the story which goes back earlier then the Civil War ?

FrankWarzocha said:

there were at lease close to 4000 black owners who owned over 12000 slaves. 

I am not quite sure where you got that stat but I do recall from my college history classes that it was fairly common for free blacks to purchase their wives and children to save them from a life in slavery.  I know that this would be my goal if I were in such a nightmarish situation.

Klinker said:

FrankWarzocha said:

there were at lease close to 4000 black owners who owned over 12000 slaves. 

I am not quite sure where you got that stat but I do recall from my college history classes that it was fairly common for free blacks to purchase their wives and children to save them from a life in slavery.  I know that this would be my goal if I were in such a nightmarish situation.

He got that quote from a alt-right meme that's been going around since Charlottesville. The truth is that very few blacks owned slaves and the vast majority did it to protect family. But Frank already knew that. He's just having fun with the "but-what-about"/false equivalence game. LOL. Good try, though. 

Hahaha said:

Klinker said:

FrankWarzocha said:

there were at lease close to 4000 black owners who owned over 12000 slaves. 

I am not quite sure where you got that stat but I do recall from my college history classes that it was fairly common for free blacks to purchase their wives and children to save them from a life in slavery.  I know that this would be my goal if I were in such a nightmarish situation.

He got that quote from a alt-right meme that's been going around since Charlottesville. The truth is that very few blacks owned slaves and the vast majority did it to protect family. But Frank already knew that. He's just having fun with the "but-what-about"/false equivalence game. LOL. Good try, though. 

Its hard for modern folks to comprehend the horror that was slavery but the idea of having to buy your children is truly the stuff of nightmares. As such, I suppose it is a good reminder of the magnitude of the Evil that we are up against.

Come on,it's a know fact that Africa had slaves for thousands of years and there own people were brutal toward them. There own people sold them to come here. So if I make a point and you don't agree I'm evil ? Okay. Think want you want. 

FrankWarzocha said:

Come on,it's a know fact that Africa had slaves for thousands of years and there own people were brutal toward them. There own people sold them to come here. So if I make a point and you don't agree I'm evil ? Okay. Think want you want. 

I think you either have a monument to this ancient slavery that you don't want taken down... or your point has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

dave23 said:

FrankWarzocha said:

So now it's the Christopher Columbus statue at Columbus Circle that's going to be under the gun in NYC. History has its good,the bad, and ugly but it's our history,you can't just teach the good in school and leave out the bad and ugly. All these elected officials should just slow down and think what there doing. What was right in 1865 is not right today, everyone knows that but you can't change our history. We must learn from our past.The men that fought in our Civil War were Americans,as a veteran I respect everyone of them, there were some fierce battles fought and 450 thousand men died. You could change all the names of streets and towns but your only white washing our history from our future generations. 

Many of these statues and schools were erected during times of civil strife and designed to send a message and under fear that the Confederate states were losing their "heritage." Pretending they were built in times of ignorance is a bit of a rewrite. They knew just what they were doing and why they were doing it. So it's less about what was right in 1865 (since very few of them were built then), but what was the intention in 1900, 1950, etc.

Removing statues celebrating men of ill repute is not whitewashing history. No one is suggesting that they not be included in museums or history lessons.

I see a lot of this 'take them down and put them in a museum' sentiment.  I'm not so sure that's practical or even deserved.  I have not done any research, but I'm inclined to believe that if I walk into any random museum I will find suitable representation of these historical figures already there.  I'm also willing to bet that a museum in the south will give preferential treatment or floor space to southern figures. 

Are we now saying we need to make space in these museums for the recently removed statues?  Will we be building additions to these museums to make space?  You can guess my thoughts on that.  

For those that are in favor of keeping up the statues out of fears of "erasing history," I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on making that history more fully present. Putting the statues up in the first place, after all, was an act of erasing history -- it erases the Southern patriots who refused to agree with secession and who fought with the U.S. army against the Confederacy. It erases the Southerners whom the Confederacy fought to keep in bondage. And given the context in which many of the statues were raised -- the height of Jim Crow and racial terror against African Americans -- it erases the history of those Southerns who rejected the idea that Southern identity means white supremacy.

So if we keep the statues up, how do you propose we make sure we are not erasing history by doing so? How would we go about adding the right context to turn these statues from attempts at suppressing history into tools for revealing it?

Statute or statue?

Red_Barchetta said:

I see a lot of this 'take them down and put them in a museum' sentiment.  I'm not so sure that's practical or even deserved.  I have not done any research, but I'm inclined to believe that if I walk into any random museum I will find suitable representation of these historical figures already there.  I'm also willing to bet that a museum in the south will give preferential treatment or floor space to southern figures. 

Are we now saying we need to make space in these museums for the recently removed statues?  Will we be building additions to these museums to make space?  You can guess my thoughts on that.  

I was responding to the notion that removing these statues is "whitewashing history." If those figures are already well represented in museums, then of course we don't need expand museums to accommodate them. (Though if one city has so many of these statues that entire wings need to be built to house them, then that's another issue.)

dave23 said:

Red_Barchetta said:

I see a lot of this 'take them down and put them in a museum' sentiment.  I'm not so sure that's practical or even deserved.  I have not done any research, but I'm inclined to believe that if I walk into any random museum I will find suitable representation of these historical figures already there.  I'm also willing to bet that a museum in the south will give preferential treatment or floor space to southern figures. 

Are we now saying we need to make space in these museums for the recently removed statues?  Will we be building additions to these museums to make space?  You can guess my thoughts on that.  

I was responding to the notion that removing these statues is "whitewashing history." If those figures are already well represented in museums, then of course we don't need expand museums to accommodate them. (Though if one city has so many of these statues that entire wings need to be built to house them, then that's another issue.)

Baltimore is currently deciding where to relocate 4 large statues that were removed from public squares recently. They are considering putting them in a Civil War cemetery. Personally, I'd prefer they were pulverized, but that's not going to happen. So of the choice between a public museum space and a public cemetery space, the latter is the lesser of two unsavory solutions.

How about we compromise and leave the statues in place but rearrange them in amusing poses? I think a statue of Lee with his head shoved up his back end would be a perfect representation of Southern claims that they were not fighting to protect slavery.

Here's a Confederate General who is practically "erased from history". Read why.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-confederate-general-who-was-erased-from-history_us_599b3747e4b06a788a2af43e?ncid=engmodushpmg00000003