On statues...

Non-fashion, non-skirt, non-gender discussions. If your post is related to fashion, skirts or gender, please choose one of the forums above for it.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 11440
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: On statues...

Post by crfriend »

Brad wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:45 pm
I don't call it rewriting history. I call it history as it was meant to be written.
History as we would write it now? What happens if what we're doing now is entirely wrong?
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!

User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: On statues...

Post by Jim »

When statues honor traitors and enemies of our country, and this was done to support systemic racism, I believe they should be removed. We don't have statues of Hitler, and he's part of history, also.

Replace the statues with statues of civil rights leaders, and have some placards with pictures of the former statues explaining the racist history behind them. Then you are not erasing history, but making it better known.

Happy-N-Skirts
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 402
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2016 5:39 pm

Re: On statues...

Post by Happy-N-Skirts »

I would like to keep this forum to the subject of skirts.

I have to defend the reputation of men like Robert E. Lee. In the context of history he was defending his country and his people and would not make war on his home and heritage any more than I would in the present context. Robert E. Lee was no racist and never owned a slave. His father in law owned slaves and left in his will that they would all be freed in 1862, which Lee upheld. Lee only lived in Arlington for a very short period, The Lee family lived in Brooklyn much longer and in St.Louis longer. Lee was an engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers and became a cavalry colonel in Texas until shortly before Virginia succeeded. I ask you what would be racist about Robert E. Lee? Please read his biography before you make such an accusation and call him a racist or a traitor. My ancestors were defending their homes from teenagers with guns stealing, burning, and destroying everything. Ask yourself who was the aggressor and invader. My great great grandfather was a doctor and was chief surgeon of a brigade. Do you think he was a traitor? A racist? Please don't just join a mob and destroy statues and distort history.

Let's get back to wearing skirts.

Ray
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:03 am
Location: West Midlands, England, UK

Re: On statues...

Post by Ray »

This is the Off Topic section, so I think a little non-skirting leeway is allowed.

It’s a tricky one. I’m with Moon in that statues appear to be a celebration or promotion of individuals - but I am wary of simply tearing down statues, only to find out that the individual wasn’t as bad as others.

Edinburgh is considering this issue, as there are many statues of individuals with, shall we say, a blemished past. One idea is to leave the statue, but put a plaque on the plinth which gives a revisionist perspective and narrative. In doing this, the Edinburgh councillors hope that the statue and plaque will educate visitors and give some context to the individual and their actions.

It seems like a good idea to me.

If our historical perspective changes again in the future, just update the plaque...

Freefrom
Active Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 3:29 pm
Location: Devon UK

Re: On statues...

Post by Freefrom »

A well known and popular British statesman, renowned for his quotes, is recorded to say. ''History will be kind to me for I shall write it''. And he did; it does.

Freefrom
Active Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sat May 18, 2019 3:29 pm
Location: Devon UK

Re: On statues...

Post by Freefrom »

Freefrom wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:29 am
A well known and popular British statesman, renowned for his quotations, is recorded to say. ''History will be kind to me for I shall write it''. He did; it is.

User avatar
Kirbstone
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4328
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2010 7:55 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: On statues...

Post by Kirbstone »

and as we all know, History is written by the victors.

Tom
Carpe Diem......Seize the Day !

Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: On statues...

Post by Stu »

There are statues and there are statues.

I would not blame anyone for wanting to remove a statue of Hitler, or Pol Pot. These men had no redeeming features and their crimes are still fresh in the memories of people walking around today. The same would apply to recently deposed brutal dictators, like Saddam Hussain.

However, the idea that people who did good works for their communities in their day, which was centuries ago, should suddenly have their statues removed because a minority have looked into their backgrounds and discovered they were less than perfect is absurd and offensive. People are, and always have been, products of their time.

Mandela was far from perfect and he was responsible for the deaths of innocent people. Outside York Minster in England sits a statue of Constantine the Great, a Roman Emperor who kept and traded slaves in Britain, as well as enjoying other Roman brutalities that were part of life back then and being an unashamed colonialist and Roman supremacist. Are these protesters demanding his statue be hauled down and thrown into the River Ouse? Or is slavery only evil when it is committed by one particular race against one other particular race?

We need to be clear that BLM is not simply a body seeking equality for all; it is a Marxist organisation that seeks the overthrow of capitalism and one of its chief tactics is to construct a raft of confected grievances. They absolutely do not represent all black people.

User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4915
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)
Contact:

Re: On statues...

Post by moonshadow »

Once again, and I do respect everyone's opinion on this, in fact until very recently, I shared it, that is until I considered the perspective in the article submitted, frankly a perspective I've not seen anyone here acknowledge...

That being: why was the statue erected in the first place?

We, like everyone else continue to chant "we're destroying history!", but again I ask, what have the statues to do with history... at least the history of the 1860's?

Put yourself back in the early 1900's when the statue was erected. You are black, you live in Virginia and for the last several decades after the war ended, you've observed your home state grant liberty after liberty for you and other blacks. Then suddenly, such as what's happening today nationally, there is a massive conservative backlash, new conservative politicians are put in the state house...

The constitution if your state is LITERALLY re-written to strip you of many of the freedoms you gained, you can't vote, you're cast down as a second class citizen. The Ku Klux Klan is rapidly on the rise, you know you can be lynched or killed for speaking your mind, you're children go to second class, segregated schools, you're not allowed to live in white affluent neighborhoods, you can't sit at the same lunch counter with them.

Virginia has entered what's known as the "Byrd years".

You thought things would change after your parents were emancipated, but now here you sit, and suddenly these statues, honoring generals that, had that side had won, you'd still be in outright bondage are popping up everywhere.

Now you all are going to sit here and tell me that such a statue wouldn't bother you?

Come on man....
-Moon Shadow
"How do you propose to control me when you can't even control yourself?"

User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4915
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)
Contact:

Re: On statues...

Post by moonshadow »

... I'll ask that you all read the Wikipedia article I linked to above. You want history...? There you have it.. a sizable accounting of life in Virginia when those statues went up....
-Moon Shadow
"How do you propose to control me when you can't even control yourself?"

pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1245
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: On statues...

Post by pelmut »

Stu wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 10:32 am
I would not blame anyone for wanting to remove a statue of Hitler...
In a small town near me a newly-built street of houses has been named after a local mine owner.  Obviously someone didn't do their homework, because he was one of the most hated people in the town.  His mansion was demolished soon after his death, his grave is the only untended one in the churchyard and people who knew him still recount personal experiences of what a vile person he was.

My comment was that they might have better luck selling the houses if they re-named the street "Adolf Hitler Strasse".
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.

Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: On statues...

Post by Stu »

moonshadow wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:53 am
Now you all are going to sit here and tell me that such a statue wouldn't bother you?

Come on man....
It wouldn't bother me in the slightest - quite the reverse. The fact is these generals didn't win, and I would realise that my status as a free man is testament to that.

I think the same thing when I see the statue of Constantine the Great outside York Minster who would, in his day, have enslaved Britons like me. He was of his time and the colonial power, and excesses of his Empire, are cast into history.
Last edited by Stu on Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jim
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 914
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 1:39 am
Location: Northern Illinois, USA

Re: On statues...

Post by Jim »

Happy-N-Skirts wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 4:59 am
I would like to keep this forum to the subject of skirts.

I have to defend the reputation of men like Robert E. Lee. In the context of history he was defending his country and his people and would not make war on his home and heritage any more than I would in the present context. Robert E. Lee was no racist and never owned a slave.
...

Let's get back to wearing skirts.
Let's tear down the Robert E Lee statues while wearing skirts.

Lee was a high officer in the US Army. He then led troops fighting against the US Army. That's enough to call him a traitor in my eyes.

According to Wikipedia, which seems well-sourced here
[Lee] accepted "the extinction of slavery" provided for by the Thirteenth Amendment, but opposed racial equality for African Americans... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
That's enough to conclude he was a racist. But the also was a cruel slave master. Keep reading the referenced article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E. ... tis_slaves
And don't forget that the Civil War was about maintaining the peculiar institution of slavery.

Put up placards with pictures of the former statues near their current locations, explaining the history of Lee and these statues so you don't "erase history." Then erect a new statue of a civil rights leader instead.

User avatar
moonshadow
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 4915
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:58 am
Location: Appalachian Mountains (VA)
Contact:

Re: On statues...

Post by moonshadow »

Stu wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 12:44 pm
wouldn't bother me in the slightest - quite the reverse. The fact is these generals didn't win, and I would realise that my status as a free man is testament to that.

I think the same thing when I see the statue of Constantine the Great outside York Minster who would, in his day, have enslaved Britons like me. He was of his time and the colonial power, and excesses of his Empire, are cast into history.
You've never been a black man or woman in Jim Crow era America. I asked you to put yourself in their shoes... you have not. Have you ever been told you don't have a voice (vote) because of the color of your skin? Have you ever had to attend second rate schools because of same, while others, just because they have lighter colored skin are afforded better?

You (and others too) have glossed over many points I've made about why the statue was erected to begin with. Yes... I will beat on that horse, why? Because nobody as of yet has bothered to answer the question, nor even acknowledge that I even asked it.

The question is being avoided because we all can see the obvious... these statues were put in place in the early 20th century to remind blacks of their place.... I think we all are reasonable people, and I think that's why the question is being dodged, because then our conscience would scream to us what these statues truly represent, and that is, black oppression, and we all know that that's wrong.

You are engaging in "whataboutisms" a common political tactic to avoid a hard point. "What about statues of Hitler, Constantine, so on and so forth".

Those are not my concern. We're discussing the current event of removing Jim Crow era statues....
-Moon Shadow
"How do you propose to control me when you can't even control yourself?"

Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: Sweden

Re: On statues...

Post by Stu »

moonshadow wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:39 pm
You've never been a black man or woman in Jim Crow era America.
No, why? Is there a statue of Jim Crow somewhere? It would be perfectly reasonable to take that down as that is within living memory, but not soldiers who fought battles 160 years ago.
moonshadow wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:39 pm
Have you ever had to attend second rate schools because of same, while others, just because they have lighter colored skin are afforded better?
Are you suggesting that children are allocated schools on the basis of their skin colour? I don't believe a word of that.
moonshadow wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:39 pm
any points I've made about why the statue was erected to begin with
They were presumably erected to commemorate people who, at the time, were viewed as honourable or brave, even if today we consider that they were flawed characters.
moonshadow wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:39 pm
these statues were put in place in the early 20th century to remind blacks of their place.
If you can show evidence of that motivation in respect of a specific statue, then you would have a fair argument. Without such evidence, then I refer you to my previous point. These men were local heroes at the time and the statues weren't there to tell "blacks" anything.
moonshadow wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:39 pm
You are engaging in "whataboutisms" a common political tactic to avoid a hard point. "What about statues of Hitler, Constantine, so on and so forth".
I am saying people should be consistent with their arguments. Some people find the sight of men wearing skirts offensive. Some people find the sight of religious symbolism offensive. The usual answer is to tell such people that nobody is forcing them to look at them. With ancient statues of controversial figures who died long before even our grandparents were around, then place a plaque near said statue outlining the individual's life and actions, and allow observers tom read what is written and make up their own minds. But unless there is a clear majority in any community demanding the removal of a statue, it should be regarded in the same way that I regard it as a historical artefact to be left alone.

Let's leave destroying statues and other acts of public space censorship to ISIS and the Taliban. We are supposed to be better than that.

Post Reply