Jump to content

Removing Civil War Monuments


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, MigL said:

And did the statue of Colston ever mention the slave trade he participated in ?

No. And the council have been trying for years to get a new plaque put on it. But they couldn't get agreement on words describing his involvement. So there was zero chance that he was ever going to be seen as anything other than a generous philanthropist based on the statue.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Aside from the fact that a lot of these Civil War monuments were erected after the fact, for political/ideological reasons ( and so should and can be removed ), why stop at slave owners, or people who

"CSA monument with the inscription "to honor the sacred memory of the pioneers who built Orange County after their valiant efforts to defend the Cause of Southern Independence" in Santa Ana Cemetery.

Disappointing. 

Posted Images

Interesting conversation, thanks folks.

Has there been any noticeable hostility in the U.S. towards earlier North American history?

Such as: the Founding Fathers; British, French, Spanish colonisations; pre Civil War slave owners; pre colonisation slavery by the indigenous peoples?

Or has is been predominately about the South's activities before, during and after the Civil War?  (And, of course, the unlawful behaviour displayed by some of today's law enforcement officers.)

Edited by Dord
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dord said:

Interesting conversation, thanks folks.

Has there been any noticeable hostility in the U.S. towards earlier North American history?

Such as: the Founding Fathers; British, French, Spanish colonisations; pre Civil War slave owners; pre colonisation slavery by the indigenous peoples?

Or has is been predominately about the South's activities before, during and after the Civil War?  (And, of course, the unlawful behaviour displayed by some of today's law enforcement officers.)

One thing that comes to mind is hostility toward the celebration of Columbus day.

State adoption of MLK day was not unanimous, at the outset

(edit to add: a push to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill)

Relevance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dord said:

Interesting conversation, thanks folks.

Has there been any noticeable hostility in the U.S. towards earlier North American history?

Such as: the Founding Fathers; British, French, Spanish colonisations; pre Civil War slave owners; pre colonisation slavery by the indigenous peoples?

Or has is been predominately about the South's activities before, during and after the Civil War?  (And, of course, the unlawful behaviour displayed by some of today's law enforcement officers.)

I don't know if I'd call it hostility but all bad acts and actors are called out on a regular basis. The treatment of indigenous peoples in North America by  colonialists, the Vietnam war, action of the Founding Fathers, etc.

I imagine that would be true in all countries in the West. For example Mr. Colston.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, MigL said:

Are you advocating for banning/re-writing books which present uncomfortable reminders of our sordid past, as well as monuments/statues ?

I don't understand how you've managed to conflate, burning books with removing a statue:

A statue provides no context, it just idolises.

A book provides the context of that culture and therefore the reason to either, idolise or dispise.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

I don't know if you've ever seen the movie Blazing Saddles, which, although a comedy, did have a 'message'.
Do you seriously think that movie could be made today ?

It might be more difficult today, because the culture has changed (for the better)...

The English, and I think funnier, version is "Till death us do part" and given the context it provide's I'd be happy to see a statue of Alf Garnet replace Colston's.

 

 

Quote

Although Speight said he wrote the series to challenge racism, it was felt by some critics that many people watched it because they agreed with Alf Garnett's views

Edit, forgot to add... 😁😝🙄

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and you're probably getting tired of me repeating it.

If you ask 50 schoolchildren in Bristol who Colston is, and what he represents, you might have very few who'll tell you he was a slaver.

If you ask 50 American schoolchildren about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn they will all know exactly who you are talking about, and other characters in the stories. It is required reading in schools.

So which do you think has more influence on impressionable, open minds ?
And no, don't misread that, as me advocating for the removal of books which portray life as it actually was.
I'm advocating ( actually, proposing, I don't feel strongly enough about it to advocate ) education, to go along with all symbols of the past, whether books, pictures, statues, or what have you.

That is just my opinion.
But if people feel like they are doing something about racism by tearing down symbols of the past, to make themselves feel good about the way they act now, who am I to argue or object.

Edited by MigL
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, MigL said:

But if people feel like they are doing something about racism by tearing down symbols of the past, to make themselves feel good about the way they act now, who am I to argue or object

Your argument works in both directions, though. You ask "where does it stop?" (or maybe SJ did... either way, my point remains)... and you mentioned should we also remove Huck Finn from public libraries.

Well, the "where does it stop" question goes the other way, too. What if it were a statue of Adolf Hitler in the town square? What if it were a statue of Timothy McVeigh, or Charles Manson in the public square? You ask where does it stop? 

I ask in return, Exactly! Where does it stop and why would we leave those statues there?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm getting tired of repeating myself, and you're probably getting tired of me repeating it.

If you ask 50 schoolchildren in Bristol who Colston is, and what he represents, you might have very few who'll tell you he was a slaver.

The topic here was civil war statues, meaning they were traitors and they lost their war. I don’t see that drawing the line at traitors to be a difficult decision.

 

Quote

If you ask 50 American schoolchildren about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn they will all know exactly who you are talking about, and other characters in the stories. It is required reading in schools.

It’s fiction, and does not represent a government endorsement of slavery/subjugation/mistreatment of anyone. It’s apple vs oranges

 

Also, people are not entitled to have their statues displayed on public property. What books are assigned as reading is up to teachers, in the furtherance of the education of children

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, swansont said:

One thing that comes to mind is hostility toward the celebration of Columbus day.

State adoption of MLK day was not unanimous, at the outset

(edit to add: a push to remove Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill)

Relevance?

Ironic

index.jpg.8054b626202dcfb7e9f2bd99cfbcca46.jpg

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, iNow said:

A bit of a separate topic, but NASCAR just banned confederate flags from their races. Things are changing

Marines and Navy banning them from spaces under their control.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, swansont said:

The topic here was civil war statues

No.
The topic here was the Colston statue.
Which was merged with the 3 year old Confederate monument thread.


 

3 hours ago, iNow said:

I ask in return, Exactly! Where does it stop and why would we leave those statues there?

There are plenty of people who did good throughout history, who also did bad things.
And sometimes whether something is good or bad changes, throughout history.
It's very easy to pick and choose those few who did only bad things, as it is to choose the even fewer who did only good things ( are there any ? some question Mother Theresa, various Popes, Mohammad and Jesus  ). The vast majority of people have done ( and do ) both good and bad during their lifetimes.
I personally, don't have a problem commemorating the good that a person may have done, as long as there is education about the bad/offensive actions also.
We are all human, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, MigL said:

There are plenty of people who did good throughout history, who also did bad things

Sigh.

That is the problem. Colston (and others) are only known for their Great WorksTM - that is why the statue exists existed, and is all that was mentioned on the plaque.

As pointed out earlier, attempts to bring even a small amount of balance were blocked.

There might be some people who would say that we shouldn't even acknowledge the good things that such people did, but I think that is going too far. First note that he was a slave trader and mass murderer and then record (not as a justification, just as a fact) that some of his money was used for philanthropic purposes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iNow said:

A bit of a separate topic, but NASCAR just banned confederate flags from their races. Things are changing

It would be interesting to find out whether the Nazi swastika, the SS logo, the Communist symbolism of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge are also banned by NASCAR.
I would think they probably are not.
Most likely, because there is plenty of education about the evils these symbols represent; not so much about Confederate symbolism.

So I guess you can go through life banning everything that anyone finds offensive, or you can educate people as to the bad, and good, of certain people, or organizations.
( I know you mentioned it as a separate topic, but I thought it tied in fairly well with my previous post )

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MigL said:

No.

<looks at thread title. looks at OP.  sees no contradiction with statement>

 

1 hour ago, MigL said:


The topic here was the Colston statue.
Which was merged with the 3 year old Confederate monument thread.

Thank you for agreeing with me, that this thread was about civil war statues. Makes your “no” confusing, though.

You later made a comparison of British action with reading found in US school curriculum and deemed the analogy apt. I disagree, because if I go through towns/cities I’m not confronted by works of literary fiction in the town square. 

I think we’re caught up.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, MigL said:

So I guess you can go through life banning everything that anyone finds offensive, or you can educate people as to the bad, and good, of certain people, or organizations.

Is that the responsibility of NASCAR, a private organization hosting private races at private tracks for public entertainment? They could ban purple socks at their races if they wanted to, and that’s exactly as it should be.

They recognize these symbols for what they are... hateful relics from an oppressive past generally displayed by racist people seeking to exclude others based on ignorant things like skin color... and NASCAR has decided that they don’t want these views associated with them or their organization or displayed at their events.

Likewise, the general public at large has decided that we don’t want these state sanctioned statues celebrating hate and oppression of our neighbors, family, and friends In our public spaces or funded by our shared tax dollars. 

Again, would you argue so forcefully if the statue were of Hitler? If not, consider asking yourself why. 

Edited by iNow
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, iNow said:

If not, consider asking yourself why. 

I have.
And the answer ( I gave myself ) is that education, about what is harmful and what is beneficial to society, is more useful than simply trying to ban everything that anyone considers harmful.
I hope you didn't think I would have a different answer for myself.


 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

<looks at thread title. looks at OP.  sees no contradiction with statement>

I guess if you choose to ignore the following part

2 hours ago, MigL said:

The topic here was the Colston statue.
Which was merged with the 3 year old Confederate monument thread.

or if you are a stickler for detail ( guess an experimental Physicist would need to be )
And that is the reason for comparing their effect on UK schoolkids ( exposed to the statue ) and US schoolkids ( exposed to M Twain's works ).Not to you in the town square.

 

I guess I'll be dropping this now; as I said, it really makes no difference o to me one way or the other.
( just don't ever come to take away my Mark Twain, and other American classics )
It seems the 'trees' of my posts are being argued against, while the 'forest' of my posts is being totally missed.
But this is a discussion forum and I like to examine contrary points of view.
Thanks for indulging me, and keeping it civil.

Edited by MigL
Link to post
Share on other sites

As I replied earlier, we need to take things on a case by case basis. We also need to recognize that each of us may have differing viewpoints in each of those cases. 

For me, it makes sense to remove confederate stuff and perhaps the Colton stuff. Enough people are bothered by it that we should just stop.

Sure, display in your house or on your truck or have it tattooed on your arm... whatever, I don’t care. I’ll consider you a dumbass, but that’s you’re right and I’ll defend it despite disagreeing... but don’t use my tax dollars to put these symbols of hatred and oppression front and center in the middle of town. That’s borderline terrorism against our black loved ones.

Hitler is easy, too. Screw that guy and all he stands for and all those he still inspires to this day. You want a statue? Build one yourself. Don’t have a ribbon cutting with the mayor, and if the ribbons already been cut then he’ll yeah we’re tearing that piece of garbage down.

I read that a Columbus statue was also brought down recently, I think yesterday and maybe in DC. I have a tougher time with that one and am not as supportive if it’s removal m as I am with the confederate or nazi stuff. But you know what? That’s okay. Let’s talk about it. I want to understand your views. Why was that so painful for you to see? IMO that’s what matters here. The talking, not tearing down.

Empathy and understanding... and respecting that we should just stop needlessly inflicting hurt on others with the things we celebrate in our town squares... things that evolve as culture evolves. Acceptable one day, heinous the next...

But let’s leave books out of it. Those aren’t monuments paid for with tax dollars and erected for attention in our public squares. They’re not symbols we choose to represent our values and fundamental natures... maybe as individuals we do, but not as a community. Also, I like Mark Twain... and it’s really Fahrenheit-451 you’re talking about there anyway. 

That’s all. End ramble. 

https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/06/10/874417376/homage-to-hate-pelosi-calls-for-confederate-statues-removed-from-u-s-capitol

Quote

In an open letter to the Joint Committee on the Library, Pelosi asked Congress to "lead by example" and remove 11 Confederate statues from the Capitol. 

"The statues in the Capitol should embody our highest ideals as Americans, expressing who we are and who we aspire to be as a nation. Monuments to men who advocated cruelty and barbarism to achieve such a plainly racist end are a grotesque affront to these ideals. Their statues pay homage to hate, not heritage. They must be removed“
<snip>
[CA Rep Lofgren:]
“The Capitol building belongs to the American people and cannot serve as a place of honor for the hatred and racism that tears at the fabric of our nation, the very poison that these statues embody."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MigL said:

If you ask 50 schoolchildren in Bristol who Colston is, and what he represents, you might have very few who'll tell you he was a slaver.

If you ask 50 American schoolchildren about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn they will all know exactly who you are talking about, and other characters in the stories. It is required reading in schools.

Two thing's, how is that relevant? and If you asked 50 schoolchildren in Bristol who Colston is, before they tore down the statue; then asked the same children now, I imagine the answers would be diametrically opposed, which is kinda the point of tearing it down.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

So which do you think has more influence on impressionable, open minds ?
And no, don't misread that, as me advocating for the removal of books which portray life as it actually was.
I'm advocating ( actually, proposing, I don't feel strongly enough about it to advocate ) education, to go along with all symbols of the past, whether books, pictures, statues, or what have you.

And since they refused to do that, in this case, even to the extent of an expanitary plaque (that great educational tool).

I would imagine, the act of throwing a statue into a river would be more influential than required reading at school; I for instance had to read "of mice and men" at school and all I thought at the time was, go on mate kick that little shit's arse... 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, swansont said:

A third thing is how did the importance of education appear as the criterion by which this should be measured?

To be honest, I have no clue why anyone would WANT to argue with the premise.

 

Because the last time I checked, the little shit still needed his arse kicked...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 10:04 PM, Dord said:

Interesting conversation, thanks folks.

Has there been any noticeable hostility in the U.S. towards earlier North American history?

Such as: the Founding Fathers; British, French, Spanish colonisations; pre Civil War slave owners; pre colonisation slavery by the indigenous peoples?

Or has is been predominately about the South's activities before, during and after the Civil War?  (And, of course, the unlawful behaviour displayed by some of today's law enforcement officers.)

 

On 6/9/2020 at 11:03 PM, swansont said:

Relevance?

Looking from the outside, the USA seems to be somewhat vocal and have quite polorised views so I was pondering what the future may hold following the heightened awareness of slavery and positivity created by the BLM movement.

Although the current focus is mainly on the activities of the USA, UK and some other Western countries starting around the 17th century, the abuse of slavery extends back to at least Classical times and most, if not every, nation's history is tainted by it in one way or another.

So I think it is a legitimate question to ask what - or more properly - who next?

Or, indeed, will there be a "next"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Dord said:

 

Looking from the outside, the USA seems to be somewhat vocal and have quite polorised views so I was pondering what the future may hold following the heightened awareness of slavery and positivity created by the BLM movement.

Although the current focus is mainly on the activities of the USA, UK and some other Western countries starting around the 17th century, the abuse of slavery extends back to at least Classical times and most, if not every, nation's history is tainted by it in one way or another.

So I think it is a legitimate question to ask what - or more properly - who next?

Or, indeed, will there be a "next"?

 

103254550_2927737267352335_1524459573103770908_o.jpg

10 minutes ago, Dord said:

So I think it is a legitimate question to ask what - or more properly - who next?

I don't know... You???

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

 

103254550_2927737267352335_1524459573103770908_o.jpg

 

People are not removing statues because they were built by slaves. Many of the confederate statues in question were erected much later, with the express purpose of spreading misinformation about the civil war. Rewriting history. 

It’s ironic to think tearing them down is rewriting history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.