hurricane laura strikes blow against the sassy statues.

[breadisfunny]

not sure where to put this i found this highly amusing. https://www.npr.org/sections/hurrica...n-lake-charles i guess even mother nature has had enough of the south's refusal to remove obviously offensive statues. also hope those affected by this stay safe and all that.

[Edge-]

I wonder if insurance will cover that, sure seems like an "Act of God" to me. Maybe they should like, take the hint.

[breadisfunny]

insurance doesn't typically cover acts of god. i found the part where one of the person involved was afraid to use her real name out of fear of retaliation from her employer.

[Very Tired]

So states in the west get fires, states in the east get hurricanes, states in the middle probably get stuck with tornadoes or something. It's a weird balance of natural disasters we have to put up with.

Wondering how much states could sue God for all this damage.

[Ursus]

Damn you Hurricane Laura, I'm already starting to forget history now that this statue has been toppled. Who was the Civil War between again? The East and the West?

[Rasulis]

I don't know about statue insurance. However, typical homeowner insurance policies do cover wind, rain, hail and lighting damage. Damages from volcanic eruption, wild fire, landslide, earthquake and flood are generally not covered. Homeowners need to get separate insurance coverage for those. It can get pretty complicated actually. For example, if an earthquake caused a gas line to rupture and the ensuing explosion destroyed a house, will the insurance policy cover the damage? How about a landslide that was caused by torrential rain or water line break?

[Masark]

There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context.

Except that few museums want to waste space on these mass produced pieces of crap erected in the name of white supremacy by terrorist organizations and their supporters.

[Calfredd]

Except that few museums want to waste space on these mass produced pieces of crap erected in the name of white supremacy by terrorist organizations and their supporters.

Don't forget literal traitors to America.

[Poopymonster]

Don't forget literal traitors to America.

But but but they couldn't be traitors to America, they were REAL Americans. They upheld the beliefs the founding fathers had. Like owning the Organic African Farming Implement Mark 1. Those Yankees were the real traitors... /s

[Santti]

Historical statues are not, and cannot, be "offensive". That's you talking with your feelings, which, I am unfortunately forced to remind you, do not matter. They have a place, a time and a context which the Left chooses to completely ignore in their Maoist style, Little Red Book, iconoclasm. The statues do not deserve to be torn down by an angry mob any more than being damaged by a storm.

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed. There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context. Or perhaps we could take a cue from the form Soviet Union and devote space specifically to them all where, again, they can be viewed in context.

Not exactly a new thing to bring down statues in USA.

Plus, most of these confederate statues are not even that old, erected way after the civil war. They have little historical significance, only to praise something that happened long a go. It's not much different than making a statue now, of someone who was known to maim and kill black people hundreds of years a go, and claiming "It can't be offensive, you are just overly sensitive". And have it erected at the city hall.

[Elegiac]

Historical statues are not, and cannot, be "offensive". That's you talking with your feelings, which, I am unfortunately forced to remind you, do not matter. They have a place, a time and a context which the Left chooses to completely ignore in their Maoist style, Little Red Book, iconoclasm. The statues do not deserve to be torn down by an angry mob any more than being damaged by a storm.

Feelings seem to matter plenty when it's someone kneeling during a song or burning a piece of fabric.

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed. There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context. Or perhaps we could take a cue from the form Soviet Union and devote space specifically to them all where, again, they can be viewed in context.

The appropriate context for such monuments is melted down and refashioned into something useful to society, much like the rest of the Confederacy.

And yes, there is a reason they cannot be housed in a museum; right wing complaining. The statues started getting torn down outright because y'all refused to even entertain moving them at all.

[Mihalik]

]Historical statues are not, and cannot, be "offensive".[/B] That's you talking with your feelings, which, I am unfortunately forced to remind you, do not matter. They have a place, a time and a context which the Left chooses to completely ignore in their Maoist style, Little Red Book, iconoclasm. The statues do not deserve to be torn down by an angry mob any more than being damaged by a storm.

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed. There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context. Or perhaps we could take a cue from the form Soviet Union and devote space specifically to them all where, again, they can be viewed in context.

Historical statues can in fact be offensive if their purpose is to promote ideas like...WHITE SUPREMACY or...TREASON.

The context in which these statues were put up matters. They were mostly put in either during the heyday of the 2nd KKK between 1915 and 1944 or during the heyday of the 3rd KKK during the Civil Rights Movement. In both cases they were put up to "put" black people "back in their places".

Claiming anything else...IS A FUCKING BULLSHIT LIE.

Would it be offensive if Germany stuck a statue of let's say....Rudolf Hess or Ernst Kaltenbrunner in front of a synagogue in Berlin? Or a statue of Claus Barbie in front of the offices of the Institut Francais? Because that is EXACTLY what these statues are. Monuments to historical war criminals put up to remind their victims of the power these people held over them.

[Vercincor]

Historical statues are not, and cannot, be "offensive". That's you talking with your feelings, which, I am unfortunately forced to remind you, do not matter. They have a place, a time and a context which the Left chooses to completely ignore in their Maoist style, Little Red Book, iconoclasm. The statues do not deserve to be torn down by an angry mob any more than being damaged by a storm.

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed. There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context. Or perhaps we could take a cue from the form Soviet Union and devote space specifically to them all where, again, they can be viewed in context.

Historical statues can most definitely be offensive.

Words can be offensive. Gestures can be offensive. And objects can be offensive.

The way all of these can be offensive is not the thing itself, but what they are trying to convey. Words, gestures and objects are all things Humans have created to express our thoughts, feelings and emotions. They represent ideas we wish to express to others.

Sometimes these representations have different meanings to other people, or their meanings can change over time. These new or different meanings are equally valid.

Take as an example the statues that have been a point of contention. To some people they can represent people that fought for their freedom. To others though they represent people who fought to keep their ancestors in chains.

You don't get to hand-wave way these different meanings just because you don't like them.

[Mihalik]

To some people they can represent people that fought for their freedom.

Whenever that excuse (Lost cause myth) is being used it's very very important to remind people what kind of freedom are we talking about. The freedom to own other human beings as property.

[Ursus]

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed.

Yes, it is unfortunate that this hurricane did not get permission before knocking over the statue. Maybe you should file a police report so they can put a warrant out for its arrest.

[Hilhen7]

Historical statues are not, and cannot, be "offensive". That's you talking with your feelings, which, I am unfortunately forced to remind you, do not matter. They have a place, a time and a context which the Left chooses to completely ignore in their Maoist style, Little Red Book, iconoclasm. The statues do not deserve to be torn down by an angry mob any more than being damaged by a storm.

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed. There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context. Or perhaps we could take a cue from the form Soviet Union and devote space specifically to them all where, again, they can be viewed in context.

Traitors don't get to have statues, they are lucky the confederate soldiers and generals didn't get executed in the first place....

[Edge-]

Historical statues are not, and cannot, be "offensive".

Would you say statues to Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot placed in public squares to be celebrated would be "offensive"?

They have a place, a time and a context which the Left chooses to completely ignore in their Maoist style, Little Red Book, iconoclasm.

What place do statues celebrating Confederate traitors who lost a rebellion aimed at preserving slavery, erected decades or even a century after the failed insurrection and the Confederate's death as a warning to local communities of color, have in polite society? These statues were almost all erected long after the Civil War, and their erection (hehehe) usually aligns with pushback on the civil rights movement and other pushes for equality.

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed.

Racists like statues celebrating other racists, shocking. That doesn't mean that it should be acceptable. Because a local group of neo-nazi's may want a statue of Hitler isn't cause to throw up our hands and say, "Well, it's history and they wanted it so I guess there's nothing we can do."

There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context.

Believe it or not, that's been the push to remove them for decades. Take them out of public spaces where they are presented without historical context and put them in a museum where they can be presented with historical context.



Who is this guy?! What did he do!? Why is he on a horse? Questions which the statue in public does not answer as far as I know, but information that can be presented in context in a museum. This went up in 1998 I believe, so hardly timely or a piece of "history".

They have no place being celebrated in public.

[Themius]

Historical statues are not, and cannot, be "offensive". That's you talking with your feelings, which, I am unfortunately forced to remind you, do not matter. They have a place, a time and a context which the Left chooses to completely ignore in their Maoist style, Little Red Book, iconoclasm. The statues do not deserve to be torn down by an angry mob any more than being damaged by a storm.

If their time is past, then we use our words and DEMOCRACY, to have them PEACEFULLY removed. There is no reason these works of art can't be re-homed in a museum where they can exist unmolested in context. Or perhaps we could take a cue from the form Soviet Union and devote space specifically to them all where, again, they can be viewed in context.

They're not historical.

For instance:

KKK and racist groups hellbent on changing history erected most of these statues in response to the civil rights movement to remind niiiiiii black people... where they belong That's what you're trying to defend. Statues put up by racist groups after the fact, to remind undesirables where they belong.

It's like defending statues put up of hitler by neo-nazis in1965 Germany, and calling it "but muh history"

[Queen of Hamsters]

Would you say statues to Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot placed in public squares to be celebrated would be "offensive"?



What place do statues celebrating Confederate traitors who lost a rebellion aimed at preserving slavery, erected decades or even a century after the failed insurrection and the Confederate's death as a warning to local communities of color, have in polite society? These statues were almost all erected long after the Civil War, and their erection (hehehe) usually aligns with pushback on the civil rights movement and other pushes for equality.



Racists like statues celebrating other racists, shocking. That doesn't mean that it should be acceptable. Because a local group of neo-nazi's may want a statue of Hitler isn't cause to throw up our hands and say, "Well, it's history and they wanted it so I guess there's nothing we can do."



Believe it or not, that's been the push to remove them for decades. Take them out of public spaces where they are presented without historical context and put them in a museum where they can be presented with historical context.



Who is this guy?! What did he do!? Why is he on a horse? Questions which the statue in public does not answer as far as I know, but information that can be presented in context in a museum. This went up in 1998 I believe, so hardly timely or a piece of "history".

They have no place being celebrated in public.

HAHAHAHA!

That face is pure memefuel, if I didn't know better, I would think it had been put up as an insult/mockery!

[Poopymonster]

Would you say statues to Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot placed in public squares to be celebrated would be "offensive"?



What place do statues celebrating Confederate traitors who lost a rebellion aimed at preserving slavery, erected decades or even a century after the failed insurrection and the Confederate's death as a warning to local communities of color, have in polite society? These statues were almost all erected long after the Civil War, and their erection (hehehe) usually aligns with pushback on the civil rights movement and other pushes for equality.



Racists like statues celebrating other racists, shocking. That doesn't mean that it should be acceptable. Because a local group of neo-nazi's may want a statue of Hitler isn't cause to throw up our hands and say, "Well, it's history and they wanted it so I guess there's nothing we can do."



Believe it or not, that's been the push to remove them for decades. Take them out of public spaces where they are presented without historical context and put them in a museum where they can be presented with historical context.



Who is this guy?! What did he do!? Why is he on a horse? Questions which the statue in public does not answer as far as I know, but information that can be presented in context in a museum. This went up in 1998 I believe, so hardly timely or a piece of "history".

They have no place being celebrated in public.

TIL: The Burger King was in the Civil War...