Tearing down historical statues the European edition

[Thekri]

There are clear cases where you'll find yourself hard pressed in arguing that the event or person being portrayed represents anything but bigotry or prejudice. Confederate monuments can fall within that category.

Then... there's ambiguous cases that only become ambiguous due to the present social and cultural circumstances.

I would risk proposing, in Churchill's case, that the man is celebrated, be it in statue or any other cultural vehicle, due to his role as leader of Britain during WW2. That said, you would have to have an elementary level grasp of history to not know that the man was, at several moments of his life, racist. That, however, is not, I wager, the motive why he's celebrated in that fashion.

I tend to view these .... initiatives in a negative light. It is all but a quite selective approach to history fueled by one's own ideological leanings. One's taking the entire lifespan of a given figure, applying a reductionist perspective and, thus, reducing the sum of that figure to that specific moment and attitude in their time, because, evidently that is the interpretation suitable to those particular goals.

And it can be, sometimes, indiscriminate and ignorant. You may have heard or not of the case of the Matthias Baldwin statue in Philadelphia being vandalized https://nypost.com/2020/06/15/boston...h-freed-slave/ . And in case it matters https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/philadelphia-inquirer/

Feel free to provide sources asserting that that was an attempting at hijacking or undermining the legitimacy of the causes being fought for.

And before I get jumped on, I don't dismiss the above mentioned possibility, but nor do I accept that that is the case for every statue vandalized.

The Hitler "counter argument" is in essence silly.

One could easily ask as well: why haven't we erased monuments to Gandhi? After all, the man has been deemed to have been racist and a segregationist in his youth, within the framework of the British empire. But I suspect we all know that's not what why we celebrate the man?

One could also stir the hornets nest and observe that these statues mostly pertain to white figures, clear or ambiguous cases, but god forbid we point that out or even make a defense, and we'll hand up in our white fragility cage once more.

I am pretty much in complete agreement, and that is the nuance I was ridiculing @TexasRules for lacking. Historical context is important, and in the vast majority of cases, historical context is essential to understanding the role of almost everyone.

I am a big fan of slapping context onto such bits of history. A perfect example that is going on near me, is that Clemson University is attempting to remove all references to John C. Calhoun from their campus. Now if you know who John C. Calhoun is, you know why they don't want him associated with their university. He was pretty much the poster child for the defense of Southern Slavery. But I would very much prefer they do NOT remove references to him, because John C. Calhoun is forever associated with Clemson, weather they like it or not. Clemson was founded based on Calhoun's will, it is located on his land, founded with his money, and built by his slaves. It is named for his Son-in-Law, who was its first President and founder. Clemson's mission was to bring agricultural and engineering knowledge to the Upstate of South Carolina, which is what it has done, and continues to do, and it has been very successful at.

Rather then pretending the racist founder never existed, I would prefer they own that shit, and put it up there with all the uncomfortable context. Make it clear that yes, we got founded by a horrible person, and yes, the land and money came from the enslavement of human beings, but we have acknowledged that, moved past it, and in the ultimate spite to John C. Calhoun's memory, we are now using his legacy for the advancement of all South Carolinians, white and black. I find that far more important and poetic then just refusing to acknowledge he has any connection to Clemson university in the first place. This isn't unique to Clemson (It is just the one I live right next too), Oxford went through something similar with Cecil Rhodes. I would much rather slap the historical context unto it, and treat the whole thing as a learning opportunity that darkness in our past is a part of every people and culture on the planet, and that we can move past it.

That said, I do respect the right of Clemson, or any other organization to remove the offending Statue/Names if they so choose. I don't agree with it, but that is their right, and it is better then leaving it there without context.

[Bodonius]

I disagree there are plenty of statues of people that enhance their surroundings.

Ah ok, im ok with tearing that one down, i dont like violence.

Its a joke, you should add to, not tear down history.

[zealo]

Wow...look at that "violent protester" attacking those "peaceful demonstrators" :P

Just for some context to the event here, the guy being hit with the handbag were a literal nazi, who at the time was a member off the now dissolved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nordic_Realm_Party

When you're a nazi what you're demonstrating for isn't really peaceful at all.

[Egomaniac]

As I said above

And as I said... if you don't want to glorify individuals or events...don't make statues of them.

- - - Updated - - -

Just for some context to the event here, the guy being hit with the handbag were a literal nazi, who at the time was a member off the now dissolved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nordic_Realm_Party

When you're a nazi what you're demonstrating for isn't really peaceful at all.

Yeah, I'm aware.

[Grimbold21]

I am pretty much in complete agreement, and that is the nuance I was ridiculing @TexasRules for lacking. Historical context is important, and in the vast majority of cases, historical context is essential to understanding the role of almost everyone.

I am a big fan of slapping context onto such bits of history. A perfect example that is going on near me, is that Clemson University is attempting to remove all references to John C. Calhoun from their campus. Now if you know who John C. Calhoun is, you know why they don't want him associated with their university. He was pretty much the poster child for the defense of Southern Slavery. But I would very much prefer they do NOT remove references to him, because John C. Calhoun is forever associated with Clemson, weather they like it or not. Clemson was founded based on Calhoun's will, it is located on his land, founded with his money, and built by his slaves. It is named for his Son-in-Law, who was its first President and founder. Clemson's mission was to bring agricultural and engineering knowledge to the Upstate of South Carolina, which is what it has done, and continues to do, and it has been very successful at.

Rather then pretending the racist founder never existed, I would prefer they own that shit, and put it up there with all the uncomfortable context. Make it clear that yes, we got founded by a horrible person, and yes, the land and money came from the enslavement of human beings, but we have acknowledged that, moved past it, and in the ultimate spite to John C. Calhoun's memory, we are now using his legacy for the advancement of all South Carolinians, white and black. I find that far more important and poetic then just refusing to acknowledge he has any connection to Clemson university in the first place. This isn't unique to Clemson (It is just the one I live right next too), Oxford went through something similar with Cecil Rhodes. I would much rather slap the historical context unto it, and treat the whole thing as a learning opportunity that darkness in our past is a part of every people and culture on the planet, and that we can move past it.

That said, I do respect the right of Clemson, or any other organization to remove the offending Statue/Names if they so choose. I don't agree with it, but that is their right, and it is better then leaving it there without context.

I don't think you'll find myself in disagreement.

My main objection is that there are indiscriminate readings, and to sarcastically embrace my white guilt, they mostly tend to be about white figures, regardless of what they have done.
In addition to the example in the post quoted, you have this one too https://rmx.news/article/article/rio...to-free-slaves . I

I'll repeat, I'm not opposed to the idea of such things being delegitimizing attempts, but these are just cases of
- indiscriminate & reductionist interpretations
- Rage and the dumping of said rage of anything that is viewed to be representative of.... "white"
- Ignorance

[JohnBrown1917]

Makes me wonder if people who glorify Churchill would also be okay with statues of Stalin in public spaces.

[Bodonius]

Just for some context to the event here, the guy being hit with the handbag were a literal nazi, who at the time was a member off the now dissolved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nordic_Realm_Party

When you're a nazi what you're demonstrating for isn't really peaceful at all.

Like many BLM that want to kill all white people, its not peaceful at all.
Seriously, we need less hateful racist groups like nazis and BLM.

[Shadowferal]

Makes me wonder if people who glorify Churchill would also be okay with statues of Stalin in public spaces.

I'm sure you tried that somewhere.

[JohnBrown1917]

Like many BLM that want to kill all white people, its not peaceful at all.
Seriously, we need less hateful racist groups like nazis and BLM.

If you want to out yourself as a racist so badly you could have done it in fewer words.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure you tried thay somewhere.

I'm pretty sure i've voiced my strong dislike of Stalin many times

[PC2]

Makes me wonder if people who glorify Churchill would also be okay with statues of Stalin in public spaces.

I mean just build a Stalin statue and put one up if you want to, nobody is stopping you.

[Egomaniac]

Like many BLM that want to kill all white people, its not peaceful at all.

*Citation fucking needed

[Bodonius]

If you want to out yourself as a racist so badly you could have done it in fewer words.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm pretty sure i've voiced my strong dislike of Stalin many times

BLM is a racist organization. Just read up
Just use google BLM, kill white people and there you see lots

[Egomaniac]

I mean just build a Stalin statue and put one up if you want to, nobodies stopping you.

And if people tear down that statue...are they "tearing down history"?

[Bodonius]

*Citation fucking needed

Ok, some BLM members want to kill all white people. And the rest dont say no dont say like that

You seen a BLM member telling white people arent part of the problem, or good or something positive?

[Egomaniac]

Ok, some BLM members want to kill all white people. And the rest dont say no dont say like that

*Citation still fucking needed

[Shadowferal]

*shrugs

Protesters want to get rid of Walt Whitman in NJ.

dumb fucks...

[PC2]

And if people tear down that statue...are they "tearing down history"?

If it's a historical statue of Stalin then yeah, usually a statue has to be up for some amount of decades before it is considered historical.

[Bodonius]

*Citation still fucking needed

If you cant even google I really cant help you. I wont post that racist shit

[Acidbaron]

As a Belgian i don't disagree with for example moving Leopold 2 statues to a more museum location, rather than public landmarks.

The reality is a lot of us Europeans kind of tucked away our colonial past and never really came to terms with it.

But i believe the first step should be to really invest more in education about our history surrounding these events, because removing statues does not raise awareness or shed light on our history. All it does is usher in a different form of ignorance.

[Egomaniac]

If it's a historical statue of Stalin then yeah, usually a statue has to be up for some amount of decades before it is considered historical.

If it's a depiction of a historical event or person...why does it matter how long it has been up? The history isn't any different.