Why are statues of abolitionists being torn down as well?
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,552
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 May 2021, 4:00 pm
Mikah wrote:
As I intimated earlier, this modern trend of attacking statues is not really an attack on racism, it's an attack on an ethnic group by attacking their history
You've claimed this before but it's never been more than a claim. Are white/Anglo people who condemn historical racism practices within Anglo societies actually waging war on Anglo people when they don't automatically side with the people who look like them?
Should they still align themselves with that bloc even when their interests aren't aligned? I'm not even sure kinda looks like me is a particularly good indicator that someone else has interests aligned with my own. Even if it might be deeply ingrained, it's utterly useless and distracting so it shouldn't be encouraged. If it isn't useful it shouldn't be promoted or normalized. Even if someone would like it to be a worthwhile metric for people to use, it isn't and wishing won't make it so.
A state with a multi-ethnic makeup is practically obliged to embrace a common national identity beyond a mere ethnic identity. Trying to embrace ethno-nationalism that treats part of the citizenry as less than full members of society harms that state and that society in the long run and it does this whether it admits to doing so or not.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
22 May 2021, 4:06 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Mikah wrote:
As I intimated earlier, this modern trend of attacking statues is not really an attack on racism, it's an attack on an ethnic group by attacking their history
You've claimed this before but it's never been more than a claim. Are white/Anglo people who condemn historical racism practices within Anglo societies actually waging war on Anglo people when they don't automatically side with the people who look like them?
Should they still align themselves with that bloc even when their interests aren't aligned? I'm not even sure kinda looks like me is a particularly good indicator that someone else has interests aligned with my own. Even if it might be deeply ingrained, it's utterly useless and distracting so it shouldn't be encouraged. If it isn't useful it shouldn't be promoted or normalized. Even if someone would like it to be a worthwhile metric for people to use, it isn't and wishing won't make it so.
A state with a multi-ethnic makeup is practically obliged to embrace a common national identity beyond a mere ethnic identity. Trying to embrace ethno-nationalism that treats part of the citizenry as less than full members of society harms that state and that society in the long run and it does this whether it admits to doing so or not.
If you're referring to slave traders I think nobody supports it or considers them as part of national identity. History is history and can't be changed.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,552
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 May 2021, 4:11 pm
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mikah wrote:
As I intimated earlier, this modern trend of attacking statues is not really an attack on racism, it's an attack on an ethnic group by attacking their history
You've claimed this before but it's never been more than a claim. Are white/Anglo people who condemn historical racism practices within Anglo societies actually waging war on Anglo people when they don't automatically side with the people who look like them?
Should they still align themselves with that bloc even when their interests aren't aligned? I'm not even sure kinda looks like me is a particularly good indicator that someone else has interests aligned with my own. Even if it might be deeply ingrained, it's utterly useless and distracting so it shouldn't be encouraged. If it isn't useful it shouldn't be promoted or normalized. Even if someone would like it to be a worthwhile metric for people to use, it isn't and wishing won't make it so.
A state with a multi-ethnic makeup is practically obliged to embrace a common national identity beyond a mere ethnic identity. Trying to embrace ethno-nationalism that treats part of the citizenry as less than full members of society harms that state and that society in the long run and it does this whether it admits to doing so or not.
If you're referring to slave traders I think nobody supports it or considers them as part of national identity. History is history and can't be changed.
Not just slave traders, why would planters or the entire rest of the population who directly benefited from that practice escape condemnation? You're painfully naive if you don't think people with deep involvement in the practice of slavery aren't celebrated in the American (and especially southern) national identity.
It's not just slavery either, why would the founders of the Klan deserve to be glorified? Why would those who perpetrated genocidal campaigns against indigenous people deserve to be glorified?
They're historic figures and history can't be changed, I agree. It just doesn't need to be remembered in a way that celebrates monsters.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
22 May 2021, 4:38 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Mikah wrote:
As I intimated earlier, this modern trend of attacking statues is not really an attack on racism, it's an attack on an ethnic group by attacking their history
You've claimed this before but it's never been more than a claim. Are white/Anglo people who condemn historical racism practices within Anglo societies actually waging war on Anglo people when they don't automatically side with the people who look like them?
Should they still align themselves with that bloc even when their interests aren't aligned? I'm not even sure kinda looks like me is a particularly good indicator that someone else has interests aligned with my own. Even if it might be deeply ingrained, it's utterly useless and distracting so it shouldn't be encouraged. If it isn't useful it shouldn't be promoted or normalized. Even if someone would like it to be a worthwhile metric for people to use, it isn't and wishing won't make it so.
A state with a multi-ethnic makeup is practically obliged to embrace a common national identity beyond a mere ethnic identity. Trying to embrace ethno-nationalism that treats part of the citizenry as less than full members of society harms that state and that society in the long run and it does this whether it admits to doing so or not.
If you're referring to slave traders I think nobody supports it or considers them as part of national identity. History is history and can't be changed.
Not just slave traders, why would planters or the entire rest of the population who directly benefited from that practice escape condemnation? You're painfully naive if you don't think people with deep involvement in the practice of slavery aren't celebrated in the American (and especially southern) national identity.
It's not just slavery either, why would the founders of the Klan deserve to be glorified? Why would those who perpetrated genocidal campaigns against indigenous people deserve to be glorified?
They're historic figures and history can't be changed, I agree. It just doesn't need to be remembered in a way that celebrates monsters.
I think the vast majority of people are neutral to statues. When I see a statue I often have no idea who the person the statue is supposed to be. If I decide to look it up online (which I almost never do) I'll find out what they've done in the past be it good or bad. I think the pulling down of them considering just how many have no idea who they really are or even care for that matter seems pointless.
There is also a very vague and blurred line between good and bad when it comes to statues I don't really care that much. Winston Churchill is an example. The moral threshold for not being at risk of a statue being torn down seems to be unrealistically high.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,552
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 May 2021, 4:45 pm
Nades wrote:
I think the vast majority of people are neutral to statues. When I see a statue I often have no idea who the person the statue is supposed to be. If I decide to look it up online (which I almost never do) I'll find out what they've done in the past be it good or bad. I think the pulling down of them considering just how many have no idea who they really are or even care for that matter seems pointless.
There is also a very vague and blurred line between good and bad when it comes to statues I don't really care that much. Winston Churchill is an example. The moral threshold for not being at risk of a statue being torn down seems to be unrealistically high.
There is also a very vague and blurred line between good and bad when it comes to statues I don't really care that much. Winston Churchill is an example. The moral threshold for not being at risk of a statue being torn down seems to be unrealistically high.
You'd probably be more familiar if the statue glorified the man who murdered your great-grandparents. For some people that example is literally why they make it a big deal.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
22 May 2021, 4:51 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think the vast majority of people are neutral to statues. When I see a statue I often have no idea who the person the statue is supposed to be. If I decide to look it up online (which I almost never do) I'll find out what they've done in the past be it good or bad. I think the pulling down of them considering just how many have no idea who they really are or even care for that matter seems pointless.
There is also a very vague and blurred line between good and bad when it comes to statues I don't really care that much. Winston Churchill is an example. The moral threshold for not being at risk of a statue being torn down seems to be unrealistically high.
There is also a very vague and blurred line between good and bad when it comes to statues I don't really care that much. Winston Churchill is an example. The moral threshold for not being at risk of a statue being torn down seems to be unrealistically high.
You'd probably be more familiar if the statue glorified the man who murdered your great-grandparents. For some people that example is literally why they make it a big deal.
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,552
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 May 2021, 5:06 pm
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
22 May 2021, 5:09 pm
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I think the vast majority of people are neutral to statues. When I see a statue I often have no idea who the person the statue is supposed to be. If I decide to look it up online (which I almost never do) I'll find out what they've done in the past be it good or bad. I think the pulling down of them considering just how many have no idea who they really are or even care for that matter seems pointless.
There is also a very vague and blurred line between good and bad when it comes to statues I don't really care that much. Winston Churchill is an example. The moral threshold for not being at risk of a statue being torn down seems to be unrealistically high.
There is also a very vague and blurred line between good and bad when it comes to statues I don't really care that much. Winston Churchill is an example. The moral threshold for not being at risk of a statue being torn down seems to be unrealistically high.
You'd probably be more familiar if the statue glorified the man who murdered your great-grandparents. For some people that example is literally why they make it a big deal.
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
But a statue never made you read history by your own admission. Statues celebrate an individual and so give that person an honorable place in society (Hitler should never be given one). They can, in the case of Confederate statues, be clear signs of oppression. Many Confederate statures were raised in the early 20th century more than 50 decades after the civil war to reinforce segregation.
Now, clearly, that history means very little to a person in Wales. But it is a big deal in the US. Symbolism is not lost on those it is directed against.
22 May 2021, 5:09 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area are somehow celebratory too?
Last edited by Nades on 22 May 2021, 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
22 May 2021, 5:11 pm
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area is somehow celebratory too?
Those are memorials remembering loss. Statues can have different functions.
22 May 2021, 5:12 pm
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area is somehow celebratory too?
Those are memorials remembering loss. Statues can have different functions.
They look like statues to me.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,552
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 May 2021, 5:12 pm
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area are somehow celebratory too?
Celebrating the good men who died in the mines, no?
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
22 May 2021, 5:15 pm
Nades wrote:
Jiheisho wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area is somehow celebratory too?
Those are memorials remembering loss. Statues can have different functions.
They look like statues to me.
Statues can have different functions. Not sure how to make that statement clearer.
22 May 2021, 5:16 pm
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area are somehow celebratory too?
Celebrating the good men who died in the mines, no?
How do you know that? They seem more historical too me and don't get into much detail about the men who died but rather what happened. Memorial, celebratory or historical, I see statue is a statue and not just celebratory in nature.
Being from the welsh mining valleys, statues actually have the opposite meaning to me as they appear to have to for you.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,552
Location: Right over your left shoulder
22 May 2021, 5:19 pm
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area are somehow celebratory too?
Celebrating the good men who died in the mines, no?
How do you know that? They seem more historical too me and don't get into much detail about the men who died but rather what happened. Memorial, celebratory or historical, I see statue is a statue and not just celebratory in nature.
Being from the welsh mining valleys, statues actually have the opposite meaning to me as they appear to have to for you.
What purpose does a memorial serve beyond celebrating the person it was raised to honour?
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
22 May 2021, 5:21 pm
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Nades wrote:
I often never think statues glorify anything so to speak. A lot of the statues in my area are of anonymous people who were killed in the mines who that represent the face of all those who died. A statue is a statue and is impartial. They can represent good or bad. Without evoking Godwin's law, someone could put up a statue of Hitler in the middle of my city and all it will do it make people read more about Hitler. Hitler despite being one of the most evil men in history is worthy of a statue because of his historical significance.
No, a statue memorializing Hitler would celebrate Hitler.
It's nice that you don't have to worry about questionable monuments, but not understanding why other people care about monuments to thieves and murderers isn't an argument against those people caring about having memorials to thieves and murderers in their communities.
On that logic the statues of miners near colliery disaster sites in my area are somehow celebratory too?
Celebrating the good men who died in the mines, no?
How do you know that? They seem more historical too me and don't get into much detail about the men who died but rather what happened. Memorial, celebratory or historical, I see statue is a statue and not just celebratory in nature.
Being from the welsh mining valleys, statues actually have the opposite meaning to me as they appear to have to for you.
Are you a miner? Were you or any of your family involved in the event or in creating the memorial? Perhaps those people erected those monuments in an act of grief. It was important for them to mark as it was a collective event for their community.
