Tearing down historical statues the European edition

[beanman12345]

"I don't see the attempt to destroy historical monuments as a positive."
- guy who admits he doesn't know history of said monuments, and when presented by said history, just hand waves and ignores it.

like at least try.

[breadisfunny]

If something stood for less then ten years it doesn't have much historical value... your trying to compare something that lasted for generations with something that likely didn't last one.

I get your trying for sarcasm but when people actually have to explain basic concepts to you it misses the mark.

that's not how history works.

[Muzjhath]

If something stood for less then ten years it doesn't have much historical value... your trying to compare something that lasted for generations with something that likely didn't last one.

I get your trying for sarcasm but when people actually have to explain basic concepts to you it misses the mark.

Monuments don't teach history. Schooling and school does.
Monuments glorify (generally, a monument can be a memorial and a remembrance. But to some degrees even those glorify). Monuments glorify what they portray.

A thing Romans knew. They were great at pulling down monuments built by emperors who weren't popular. Once said emperor was dead.

[Pannonian]

Because I don't see the attempt to destroy historical monuments as a positive.

There really hasn't been a time when it was supported were it wasn't the precursor to something terrible happening.

Honest question:

In 1945, nearly every city in my country had a hitler street, a hitler plaza, and a hitler statue.

Streets and plazas were renamed. Statues removed.

Do you see this destruction or re-writing of history?

Ah just saw your decade rule. So a Hitler statue from 19334should never be removed, but one from 1935 is fair game?

[Yadryonych]

Honest question:

In 1945, nearly every city in my country had a hitler street, a hitler plaza, and a hitler statue.

Streets and plazas were renamed. Statues removed.

Do you see this destruction or re-writing of history?

I mean allies certainly wanted to erase some heritage of his and rewrite public image of him from being a benevolent and beloved nation leader to a diabolical abomination

[Pannonian]

I mean allies certainly wanted to erase some heritage of his and rewrite public image of him from being a benevolent and beloved nation leader to a diabolical abomination

So... they took down the statues to correct a public misconception?

I wonder which statues would that apply too (something of "state rights" rings in my ears)

[Yadryonych]

So... they took down the statues to correct a public misconception?

I'd say to cement Germany's ultimate defeat. I understand people wanting to cement confederates ultimate defeat as well, it was strange to allow them to be built in the first place

[Gaidax]

I think there is a difference between Washington, Churchill and Hitler.

Tearing down statues the manner it's done is a slippery slope. What would come next? Book burning? Destruction of relics?

In my opinion, destroying statues of prominent people just because they did not adhere hundreds of years ago to what is expected today is a folly. There is one thing where there is a clear consensus about specific figure like Hitler and there is whole another thing when it comes to accomplished people of the past who made future real.

Of course there comes a point where you have statues to the truly questionable figures, like Confederate army notables, but IMO instead of taking hammer to these, their fate needs to be decided in more appropriate manner, for example properly dismantle and put them in museum or store off.

This way the goal can be accomplished without wanton destruction.

[Laughingjack]

that's not how history works.

Thank good we are talking about historical then.

[Felya]

Thank good we are talking about historical then.

No, now you are talking semantics. Your argument is the thing missing from destroying these statues, is a time machine. Your argument seems like one, where time and not history, that determine if a statue is “historical”.



What do you see in this picture? Is it ancient aliens? Is it a modern restoration that didn’t impact the historical relevance of Salamanca Cathedral, but showing that monuments don’t necessarily teach history? If I can watch Ancient aliens, telling me that the pyramids represent a history of alien intervention, I need to have an explanation how a statue without context, teaches anything.

Edit: FYI: When asking for statues that would represent events that need to be learned from these men, no one has been able to come up with any. Meaning, I don’t think people who defend statues, can actually contextualize what these statues represent... thus proving that these statues are ineffective in teaching anything...

[Themius]

Thank good we are talking about historical then.

"Look this statutes were put up by white nationalists to intimidate black people and remind them of their place while also terrorising them and lynching them. But they were built in the past therefore the statues celebrating the racists, built by the racist groups should stand!"

Nothing like being a black solider stationed at a base named after a person who wanted you dead or enslaved to boost morale.

[Yadryonych]

Nothing like being a black solider stationed at a base named after a person who wanted you dead or enslaved to boost morale.

The whole america is named after a slave owner Amerigo Vespucci, why would any race topicman serve such country is beyond me

[Themius]

The whole america is named after a slave owner Amerigo Vespucci, why would any race topicman serve such country is beyond me

Those are not equal you know. The America’s are named after him. But we are talking CONFEDERATE TRAITORS from the 1800s fighting to own. Slaves. Which is specific to USA and USA history. Vespucci is not. He died before chattel slavery even existed.

[Felya]

The whole america is named after a slave owner Amerigo Vespucci, why would any race topicman serve such country is beyond me

Imagine how Canada feels... they are North America, without even being named as such. /facepalm

- - - Updated - - -

Those are not equal you know. The America’s are named after him. But we are talking CONFEDERATE TRAITORS from the 1800s fighting to own. Slaves. Which is specific to USA and USA history. Vespucci is not. He died before chattel slavery even existed.

North and South America are named as such, because the cartographer wrote his name on the map. It was not named to remember or honor the guy. Compounding this, America in United States of America, is named after the continent... not as an honor to the cartographer.

Edit: If it makes it easier... it’s United States locates on the continent of America.

[Themius]

Imagine how Canada feels... they are North America, without even being named as such. /facepalm

- - - Updated - - -



North and South America are named as such, because the cartographer wrote his name on the map. It was not named to remember or honor the guy. Compounding this, America in United States of America, is named after the continent... not as an honor to the cartographer.

Edit: If it makes it easier... it’s United States locates on the continent of America.

I was going to expand but I was typing on my phone lol. But yeah... America is not named directly after anyone truly. It takes it's name from the name of the continents here, and a bunch of states and unified on that continent.

[Shadowferal]

It takes it's name from the name of the continents here, and a bunch of states and unified on that continent.

Logic for fucks sake.
"America"...the word originated from?
The continents didn't spontaneously have such names as "north America" or "south America" written on everyone's consciousness.

[Mayhem]

Logic for fucks sake.
"America"...the word originated from?
The continents didn't spontaneously have such names as "north America" or "south America" written on everyone's consciousness.

Who knows? Is there a statue of that America guy anywhere in the US?

[Ivanstone]

The whole america is named after a slave owner Amerigo Vespucci, why would any race topicman serve such country is beyond me

Its beyond me too. It should be changed but that would probably be pretty difficult.

But trashing a bunch of confederate statues that add no value to the United States of America? Pretty fucking easy.

[Rennadrel]

I think it's completely justified that statues of former slave owners and people who committed genocide be destroyed, they don't deserve to be recognized or celebrated. But we also should remember their existence as a reminder of what they did and why it's wrong.

[Ivanstone]

I think it's completely justified that statues of former slave owners and people who committed genocide be destroyed, they don't deserve to be recognized or celebrated. But we also should remember their existence as a reminder of what they did and why it's wrong.

Actually I can think of one use: Satire.

Intentional or Not.