Page 1 of 46
1
2
3
11
... LastLast
  1. #1

    Tearing down historical statues the European edition

    https://apnews.com/8825a7fce7d07e4d91b4d248fa411a8a

    French President Macron:
    Unusually for a French leader, Macron acknowledged that someone’s “address, name, color of skin” can reduce their chances at succeeding in French society, and called for a fight to ensure that everyone can “find their place” regardless of ethnic origin or religion. He promised to be “uncompromising in the face of racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination.”

    However, he insisted that France will not take down statues of controversial, colonial-era figures as has happened in some other countries in recent weeks.

    Amid calls for taking down statues tied to France’s slave trade or colonial wrongs, Macron said “the republic will not erase any trace, or any name, from its history ... it will not take down any statue.”

    “We should look at all of our history together with lucidity” including relations with Africa, with a goal of “truth” instead of “denying who we are,” Macron said.

    Government minister Sibeth Ndiaye — a close Macron ally and the most prominent black figure in current French politics — wrote an unusually personal essay Saturday in Le Monde calling for France to rethink its colorblind doctrine, which aims at encouraging equality by ignoring race altogether.

    “We must not hesitate to name things, to say that a skin color is not neutral,” she wrote. She called on the French to “confront our memories” about their history and find a “shared narrative” with former colonies.
    I agree that history needs to be shown as to not repeat it and show why things needed to be changed.

    Then we get this nutter: Left-wing activist and chair of the Lambeth “independent” police advisory board Lorraine Jones
    https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch...n-churchill-is

    Last week, statues of Churchill and former President Abraham Lincoln were vandalized by “anti-fascist” and “antiracist” rioters in London.

    “I think that what needs to happen,” Jones continued, “which I know has already started, we need to look at the people that are being placed on a high pedestal in this society, the reasons why they are, and honestly and rightfully [decide] if they are supposed to be removed.”

    “And the sooner the government can make the decisions to take down the statues which shouldn’t be there, place them in a museum, like there are some people have requested, the better,” Jones added.

    “Should the statue of Churchill be there or not?” Newman asked.

    “I’ve heard many arguments on both sides; some say that he’s a racist some say that he’s a hero,” said Jones. “I haven’t personally met him, but what I would say is that that question of whether he should remain should be put to the community.”
    Video of her saying she never met a guy who died over 50 years ago: https://twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth/...46646965276680

    Who lives in England and doesn't know who Winston Churchill was?

  2. #2
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,422
    Man it sure is a shame they took down all the statues in Germany I'm really curious about this "Adolph Hitler" and can't for the life of me figure out what his deal was. If only there were some monuments semi-glorifying him so we could unravel the mystery of "World War Two". Ah well. /s
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  3. #3
    Really we can tear them all down. If acting like common for the age is all it takes then all need to go down. Martin luther king was a homofobe i guess he need to go also.

  4. #4
    I am Murloc! Thekri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A highly disgruntled constituent of Lindsey Graham.
    Posts
    5,725
    Playing the victim: TexasRules addition.

    It is a complex topic handled with all the nuance of a gorilla with a sledgehammer. Nobody learns history through statues, and the only statement a statue makes is that that person behaved in an exemplary manner. There is a reason Germany does not have statues to Hitler, even though he is very much part of their history. We don't have statues to Benedict Arnold in the US either, but he is still a part of history (We do have a statue of his boot... without the name of its owner).

    Also, is this the thread where you are going to explain what tear gas is? Or define literally anything you are talking about? Would you care to make a statement on ANY character you don't think it is acceptable to have a statue of? Or are you going to continue to refuse to take a position on anything?
    "We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. We have it under control. It’s going to be just fine." DJT- Jan 22, 2020
    "And again, when you have 15 people, and the 15 within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero, that’s a pretty good job we’ve done." DJT- Feb 26, 2020
    “It’s going to disappear. One day — it’s like a miracle — it will disappear.” DJT- Feb 27, 2020

  5. #5
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,651
    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.

  6. #6
    What purpose, exactly, do you think statues serve that historical documentation doesn't?

  7. #7
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    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.
    Simple solution: put up a memorial to the victims of the Bengal famine where Churchill's statue is.
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  8. #8
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    Simple solution: put up a memorial to the victims of the Bengal famine where Churchill's statue is.
    What's the obstacle to having both?

  9. #9
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    What's the obstacle to having both?
    The latter being partially responsible for the former. Thus it begs the question:

    What is trying to be memorialised by Churchill, and why can't it be done without celebrating a racist drunk?
    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    What purpose, exactly, do you think statues serve that historical documentation doesn't?
    Well, with actual historical documentation you might actually be forced to learn something that you might not like. Can't have that.

  11. #11
    Warchief Mekkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    My desk, Lurkin'.
    Posts
    2,195
    Statues of anyone is shitty imo, never glorify anyone

  12. #12
    Something I saw brought up was the idea of getting in contact with artists from the countries that were affected by the colonialism and asking them to make additions to the statues, so as to put them in context and show what the consequences were.
    And additionally actually getting a dialogue going about which, if any, of those statues is actually worth keeping out in the open and not just in some museum for example.

  13. #13
    Void Lord Elegiac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Late Capitalism
    Posts
    51,422
    Quote Originally Posted by Mekkle View Post
    Statues of anyone is shitty imo, never glorify anyone
    I disagree there are plenty of statues of people that enhance their surroundings.

    "Multiculturalism has failed!" angrily types a person of European descent living in the Americas in a Germanic language using Roman characters on a device coded with Arabic numerals before leaving in a huff to go watch cartoons made in Japan.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post
    What's the obstacle to having both?
    Well...eventually you'll run out of space for more memorials.

  15. #15
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    The latter being partially responsible for the former.
    I've addressed this, or at least implied it previously.

    Understanding and acknowledging history and celebrating particular moments of it aren't mutually exclusive.

    I don't think that there's a way out of this rabbit hole, if these initiatives insist on applying their logic, or at least how I understood it, because you'll have to do it to every single statue of everybody.

    As I've mentioned, if they're intent on reducing the character of said figures to their bigoted attitudes or bigoted moments of their lives, then yes, you have to do it to everyone regardless of their race.

    Much like, I think, the propositions for more conscientious police training, one would just to change the teaching of History to be less... glorified and more real.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Elegiac View Post
    I disagree there are plenty of statues of people that enhance their surroundings.

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

  17. #17
    The Insane PC2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    California
    Posts
    18,881
    @TexasRules, I say 100% focus on being creative and constructive. Build new and better things and a better future. Those who waste their time thinking about what to destroy are losers and not builders.
    -------
    A problem consists of a conflict between two ideas. Problems are soluble.
    Fallacies: Ad hominem, Generalizing history to predetermine the future.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Grimbold21 View Post

    Much like, I think, the propositions for more conscientious police training, one would just to change the teaching of History to be less... glorified and more real.
    You want to teach history in a less glorified way? Get rid of statues altogether. Statues, especially statues placed in public spaces, serve to glorify the individuals or events that they are portraying.

  19. #19
    Titan I Push Buttons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    11,218
    Quote Originally Posted by s_bushido View Post
    What purpose, exactly, do you think statues serve that historical documentation doesn't?
    Draw attention to people you otherwise might never hear about?

    I never heard of Nathan Hale, for example, until I saw a statue of him. Which makes sense, since he was just a young dude who spied for the US during the American Revolution, got caught, and was executed... He had hardly any impact on history in the grand scheme, such that you aren't exactly going to find sections of history books devoted to him, nor would you learn about him in school outside of perhaps Connecticut.

    He's famous for his patriotism, nothing else. He's the guy who purportedly said "I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country" as his final words at his hanging.

    Stuff like that should be remembered, but if this guy wasn't memorialized via statues and other commemorations, short of utterly devoting yourself to the study of the American Revolution in particular and researching the most cursory and obscure goings on of the time, you would probably never know anything about this; and even then you still probably wouldn't know about it since at the end of the day, he was just some random 21 year old dude hanged by the British in 1776...

  20. #20
    Old God Grimbold21's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Azores, Portugal
    Posts
    10,651
    Quote Originally Posted by Egomaniac View Post
    You want to teach history in a less glorified way? Get rid of statues altogether. Statues, especially statues placed in public spaces, serve to glorify the individuals or events that they are portraying.
    Understanding and acknowledging history and celebrating particular moments of it aren't mutually exclusive.
    As I said above

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •