Monuments and statues - discuss

[Ginevra]

Cut for privacy

Edited May 26, 2023 by Quill

[Pen]

I have been disturbed by attacks on statues of Washington, Churchill, Gandhi and even an abolitionist iirc recently.

I think all real people have significant faults and defects, but would prefer discussion of the good and the bad and a rational decision made

Though throwing statues into a lake in protest seems better to me than a lot of other forms of destruction even if it’s an abolitionist ‘s statue accidentally attacked. Better that than a grocery store or pharmacy... 

[Joker]

I personally feel everything related to the Confederacy should stay only in history books and museums. People have wanted these statues removed for so long so I get the frustration and anger.

IDK, all of my education took place in Texas and looking back at how much we were taught to respect traitors is ridiculous. This past year, I’ve been doing a lot of genealogy research on my family and the majority who were here and fought were Confederate soldiers and I still think the monuments need to be removed and don’t think they deserve the respect they’ve been given. It’s well past time for it to happen everywhere.

[gardenmom5]

they are now removing statues that I think the protestors aren't thinking things through.

In England - those supporting the protests are ripping down statues of Cecil Rhodes.  yeah, the guy was a jerk - but his money still funds education projects.  My feelings are - if they don't like him - don't take his money for education.   Same at Rice University.  Students are now also demanding the school change it's name as well.  If you don't support him, don't take the education money offered and go to college somewhere else.

in seattle - there is a memorial in a graveyard for a confederate someone  (I don't know much about it - but I have family members buried in this cemetery) - it has been defaced and demands it be removed. - this is in a cemetery.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

When you start tearing down or defacing statues of slaves (Cervantes), abolitionists (Lee, Lincoln, and Baldwin), monuments to black regiments (Shaw 54th), etc, it isn’t about black lives or colonization anymore.  
 

It’s getting a wee bit Jacobin in here.  I’m okay with local legislatures and even congress having a debate and vote to remove monuments - that allows debate and discussion and representation to reign. But I have a big issue allowing a mob to tear it down.

That’s close to where I’m at, and I also agree with Plum afa having open-air museums with removed monuments and context plaques. 

There is a part of me that wonders if any statue should ever have been made...graven images and such. Actually, I’m not a big fan of people as monuments because of course all people have their bad qualities. 

[Pawz4me]

46 minutes ago, Quill said:

I would like to discuss removal and desecration of monuments and statues, both as sanctioned by state or local governments and as happens organically during protesting. My thoughts on these matters are somewhat jumbled because I see many sides of the issue. 

Since, I believe it was 2015, I have been supportive of official government removal of monuments and statues honoring Confederate leaders or other figures whose reason for being honored is most definitely tone-deaf for the current times and whose construction in the first place speaks to nefarious ideas. Roger B. Taney’s statue being officially removed from the State Circle in Annapolis is a great example of a removal I supported. 

Yet, one reason I did and do support the removal of such statues is because riotous desecration and removal of monuments otherwise is less logical, more violent and less discriminant in target. I am very bothered by the riotous desecration and removal of a statue of George Washington, for example. To me, doing so incites animosity and makes those who have defended retaining monuments of dreadful jerks of history less willing to remove any monument. It makes progress less likely. 

However! I do understand how people, so frustrated that an abject symbol of oppression like General Lee, sitting proud on his horse, is not removed by governmental edict that they simply take them down in a fit of passion and if that means Washington comes down in the fray then, so be it! Uggh. I just don’t want that outcome, because it makes authoritarianism seem “necessary” in the eyes of those who weren’t understanding the problem. 

Discuss, please. 

 

18 minutes ago, Plum said:

I’ve come around to the idea of removing them along with branding like Aunt Jemima and Uncle Ben. I like the idea of putting them all in a museum. Russia has an open air museum to fallen monuments. I’m fine with that.
I don’t think it whitewashes history. We’ve preserved some locations where slave auctions took place. Those are much more meaningful lessons of our past than a confederate statue.  We have the internet and books. If they are in a museum, context can be added through plaques or videos. Statues, team names, brands all don’t bother me but they seem to have an impact on others and reinforce ideologies that as a whole might be better off left behind. 

Changing the names of schools with Washington and Jefferson is pushing it too far for me though. 

 

17 minutes ago, Arctic Mama said:

When you start tearing down or defacing statues of slaves (Cervantes), abolitionists (Lee, Lincoln, and Baldwin), monuments to black regiments (Shaw 54th), etc, it isn’t about black lives or colonization anymore.  
 

It’s getting a wee bit Jacobin in here.  I’m okay with local legislatures and even congress having a debate and vote to remove monuments - that allows debate and discussion and representation to reign. But I have a big issue allowing a mob to tear it down.

I'm pretty much in line with you all.

And I don't get the "statues are history" argument. Not at all. Unless the statue is incredibly old (like the Bamiyan Buddha statue destroyed by the Taliban) or done by a famous artist--so that it's historic as far as that artist's work--then how is it history?

[EmseB]

Jacobian, Orwellian, Atwoodian...isn't it Atwood where the first thing the "Christian" oppressors do is take down all the monuments and stuff they disagree with? Huxley maybe? I am getting all my dystopian fiction mixed up these days.

Edited June 24, 2020 by EmseB

[mom2scouts]

When people start damaging and tearing down statues of John Brown or Mattias Baldwin, it has nothing to do racism or slavery. They're just a bunch of vandals.  If there's things that should be removed, they should be removed by the city/state government. 

[Momto6inIN]

I am fine with voting and moving them to museums and providing context. I do think we would be hard pressed to find a statue of anyone that is completely and totally honorable in every cause they've ever supported or every word they've ever said in their entire adult lives.

But if you're going to get rid of Lee because of racism you better get rid of Margaret Sanger (eager proponent of eugenics) and Charles Darwin (clearly wrote that PoC were a lower rung on the evolutionary ladder) while you're at it.

[TheReader]

I am so all over the place on this, honestly. 

I think some people should definitely not have statues in their honor. Probably never should have. Certainly should be removed by legal means.

But then there are some that I think, "wait, but....." Local(ish) example: one of my sons attends Texas A&M. They have a statue on campus of a guy who really turned around the school, was president of the university for a while, was beloved while on campus, and much lore has grown around him/his statue (he had an open door policy for the students, and would encourage them share their thoughts, "penny for your thoughts" kind of thing, and so now, at final exam time, everyone goes and leaves a penny on his statue....). Anyway, the statue was placed b/c of his ties & influence & role at the school. 

But, prior to that, he did live and fight in the civil war. 

And then was also governor of our state. 

And so vandals spray painted his statue with BLM. 

Which to me is dumb, because, sure, yes, maybe he does have that history, but his statue was never erected for those reasons and has everything to do with what he did for the university (which was great) and nothing to do with anything before that, so, come on, let his statue stay. 

But then I wonder if that makes me part of the problem, and so I don't know what to think. 

 

[ktgrok]

1 hour ago, Arctic Mama said:

When you start tearing down or defacing statues of slaves (Cervantes), abolitionists (Lee, Lincoln, and Baldwin), monuments to black regiments (Shaw 54th), etc, it isn’t about black lives or colonization anymore.  
 

It’s getting a wee bit Jacobin in here.  I’m okay with local legislatures and even congress having a debate and vote to remove monuments - that allows debate and discussion and representation to reign. But I have a big issue allowing a mob to tear it down.

My only issue with this is that it allows a tyranny of the majority. If those who are rightly offended are by nature a minority of the population, that approach doesn't work. 

[gardenmom5]

36 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

The only colonialism I know is first hand accounts from my grandparents. My grandmother was not educated much, but she went to a British school run by missionaries. She was taught songs with words like 

The thistle, Shamrock, Rose entwine the Banyan Leaf forever.  Thistle for Scotland, Shamrock for Ireland, Rose for England and Banyan for India.

 

This is why knowing history, and *the why's*,  is so important.

The Thistle is the national flower of Scotland.   It goes back to when Scotland was an independent country.   It was adopted in the 13th century after their victory over attacking Vikings.  For Irish the Shamrock is a very long-held national symbol.  The Shamrock goes back to St. Patrick who used it as a symbol to explain the trinity.  A little research turns up that the Banyan Tree is a symbol for Shiva - a Hindu God.  It symbolizes immortality.  It is considered sacred to Hindus.  

 The Tudor rose is a combination of the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York (two rival factions of the House of Plantagenet) because it united the two houses ending The War of the Roses that went on and off for more than 100 years.  

 

[ktgrok]

I'm tired of the "but it's history" argument. 

A meme I saw put it pretty well. Satan is an important figure in church history, but if you start putting statues of him in your churches people might get the wrong idea about who you worship and what ideals you value. 

[Matryoshka]

44 minutes ago, TheReader said:

I am so all over the place on this, honestly. 

I think some people should definitely not have statues in their honor. Probably never should have. Certainly should be removed by legal means.

But then there are some that I think, "wait, but....." Local(ish) example: one of my sons attends Texas A&M. They have a statue on campus of a guy who really turned around the school, was president of the university for a while, was beloved while on campus, and much lore has grown around him/his statue (he had an open door policy for the students, and would encourage them share their thoughts, "penny for your thoughts" kind of thing, and so now, at final exam time, everyone goes and leaves a penny on his statue....). Anyway, the statue was placed b/c of his ties & influence & role at the school. 

But, prior to that, he did live and fight in the civil war. 

And then was also governor of our state. 

And so vandals spray painted his statue with BLM. 

Which to me is dumb, because, sure, yes, maybe he does have that history, but his statue was never erected for those reasons and has everything to do with what he did for the university (which was great) and nothing to do with anything before that, so, come on, let his statue stay. 

But then I wonder if that makes me part of the problem, and so I don't know what to think. 

So, you think it would be okay if Germans kept up statues of their 'heroes' from WWII?  Hitler did a lot of great things for the German people.  Created the Autobahn system, for one.  Should we just overlook that 'cause he killed some people because of their ethnicity?  It was only the people who weren't 'really' German.  

Find out when those statues were put up.  Bet it was not right after the Civil War.  It was much later, and the purpose was pure intimidation of the African-American populace, along with night riders and cross burnings and lynchings. To remember their 'place'.  Those statues were never put up for some innocent 'honor our history'.  And why are we honoring a history of armed uprising against our government for the express purpose of keeping other people as property?  Why is that something we want to honor?   Statues are indeed symbols, and if they are a nice penny-dropping memory for you, but a symbol of oppression and fear for a large swath of the populace, which feeling do you think should prevail?

[wintermom]

3 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

This is why knowing history, and *the why's*,  is so important.

The Thistle is the national flower of Scotland.   It goes back to when Scotland was an independent country.   It was adopted in the 13th century after their victory over attacking Vikings.  For Irish the Shamrock is a very long-held national symbol.  The Shamrock goes back to St. Patrick who used it as a symbol to explain the trinity.  A little research turns up that the Banyan Tree is a symbol for Shiva - a Hindu God.  It symbolizes immortality.  It is considered sacred to Hindus.  

 The Tudor rose is a combination of the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York (two rival factions of the House of Plantagenet) because it united the two houses ending The War of the Roses that went on and off for more than 100 years.  

 

I believe that the issue arises with the politics of why these 4 symbols are 'entwined' together, and what that actually meant to the average citizen of India at that time. My guess is that it was not because the 4 nations held equal positions of power in India, rather India was in a strangle hold by the British Empire. 

[Momto6inIN]

2 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

I'm tired of the "but it's history" argument. 

A meme I saw put it pretty well. Satan is an important figure in church history, but if you start putting statues of him in your churches people might get the wrong idea about who you worship and what ideals you value. 

 

1 minute ago, Matryoshka said:

So, you think it would be okay if Germans kept up statues of their 'heroes' from WWII?  Hitler did a lot of great things for the German people.  Created the Autobahn system, for one.  Should we just overlook that 'cause he killed some people because of their ethnicity?  It was only the people who weren't 'really' German.  

Find out when those statues were put up.  Bet it was not right after the Civil War.  It was much later, and the purpose was pure intimidation of the African-American populace, along with night riders and cross burnings and lynchings. To remember their 'place'.  Those statues were never put up for some innocent 'honor our history'.  And why are we honoring a history of armed uprising against our government for the express purpose of keeping other people as property?  Why is that something we want to honor?   Statues are indeed symbols, and if they are a nice penny-dropping memory for you, but a symbol of oppression and fear for a large swath of the populace, which feeling do you think should prevail?

When I say, "But it's history!" what I mean is that we don't want to - and can't if we want to remain a united nation - let it be forgotten that these statues were commissioned, bought and paid for, and proudly displayed by people who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause of slavery well after the Civil War was over. It is living historical proof that racism is alive and well in modern times, and we dare not let that be brushed under the rug. I agree that we don't need them in parks and they don't need to be celebrated, but we do need to keep them and not destroy them.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I can see how surviving Jews and native Germans alike after WWII would have possibly wanted to burn the concentration camps to the ground, one out of anger and the other out of shame. But considering there are people who deny the Holocaust really happened, I sure am glad they still exist so people can see the proof of it. You can tell people that history happened, or you can show them. I think showing is more effective.

So that's what I think, "But it's history!" means. It means we keep it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and let future generations sort it all out.

[Guest]

There are also battlefields like Shiloh and Gettysburg and a lot of others that already have museums. This seems like a good place for the statues. 

 

But I also think that those who say "but they're going too far now" need to realize that there have been lots of peaceful efforts to get said statues removed, the Confederate flag off the MS state flag and have pointed out how painful the glorification of the Confederacy and the old South is. They have been largely ignored, and often treated as though the very request is a violent, offensive act that should not be sanctioned. Given the response those who want to remove monuments to more appropriate settings have gotten in my area, honestly I have a hard time complaining about those who finally are getting fed up and tearing them down. 

 

 

[ktgrok]

Just now, Momto6inIN said:

 

When I say, "But it's history!" what I mean is that we don't want to - and can't if we want to remain a united nation - let it be forgotten that these statues were commissioned, bought and paid for, and proudly displayed by people who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause of slavery well after the Civil War was over. It is living historical proof that racism is alive and well in modern times, and we dare not let that be brushed under the rug. I agree that we don't need them in parks and they don't need to be celebrated, but we do need to keep them and not destroy them.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I can see how surviving Jews and native Germans alike after WWII would have possibly wanted to burn the concentration camps to the ground, one out of anger and the other out of shame. But considering there are people who deny the Holocaust really happened, I sure am glad they still exist so people can see the proof of it. You can tell people that history happened, or you can show them. I think showing is more effective.

So that's what I think, "But it's history!" means. It means we keep it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and let future generations sort it all out.

But...how many statues of Lee do we need, to serve that purpose? Everyone ever made? Doubtful. A lot of them were just crap generic statues with a mediocre head thrown on to represent him. We don't need hundreds of those. 

[gardenmom5]

It's time for watching 1776 - maybe it's time to do some remembering of the how's and why's this country was founded.  Much of it was taken from actual records and letters.  Maybe Ben Franklin should have gotten his way on having the national bird the Turkey.

 

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: The eagle is a scavenger, a thief and coward. A symbol of over ten centuries of European mischief.

John Adams: And the turkey?

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: The turkey is a truly noble bird. Native american, a source of sustenance to our original settlers, and an incredibly brave fellow who wouldn't flinch from attacking a whole regiment of Englishmen single-handedly! Therefore, the national bird of America is going to be...

John Adams: The eagle!

 

 

They tried to have an anti-slavery section in the Declaration of Independence, but were forced to give it up.  It it had stayed, there would have been no new nation of the United States - we'd have still been a colony.   Whether slavery would have been forced to be given up when Wilberforce got through laws in Parliament is unknown.  (Amazing Grace covers this part of English history.  The author of that beloved hymn - used to be the captain of a slave ship.  Something he lived to profoundly regret, and he came to support abolition.)

 

 

(discussing a passage condemning slavery in the Declaration of Independence)

Edward Rutledge: Remove it, or South Carolina will bury, now and forever, your dream of independence.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: John, I beg you, consider what you're doing.

John Adams: Mark me Franklin, if we give in on this issue, posterity will never forgive us.

Dr. Benjamin Franklin: That's probably true, but we won't hear a thing. We will be long gone. Besides, what will posterity think we were? Demigods? We're men, no more, no less. Trying to get a nation started against greater odds than a more generous God would have allowed. First things first John, independence America. If we don't secure that, what difference will the rest make?

John Adams: Jefferson, say something.

Thomas Jefferson: What else is there to do?

John Adams: Well man, you're the one who wrote it.

Thomas Jefferson: I wrote all of it, Mr Adams.

(Jefferson crosses out the passage. Adams angrily takes the document to Rutledge.)

John Adams: There it is Rutledge, you have your slavery, little good may it do you. Now vote, damn you!

Edward Rutledge: Mr. President, the fair colony of South Carolina, says Yea.

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Dreamergal said:

It is not so in my native Country.

Well, one of the great Indian epics is the Ramayana 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana'

Basically it is a story of a crown prince Rama who is one of the Avatars(incarnation)  of the Hindu God Vishnu and his wife Sita who are exiled. Sita is kidnapped by Ravana, the king of Lanka and there is a big battle, the classic good vs evil. But there are statues of Ravana all the time, there are festivals where his effigy is burnt, there are plays about him.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravana

We do not erase evil. We need reminders to know evil exists, Hindu Gods are always depicted destroying evil. 

We have art like Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno and I have heard of a painting called the Last Judgement. How are these not art ? Is art if it is only in the Church ? 

Interesting. Do humans fear Ravana? Like, was he an enemy to the other gods, or to humans too? 

And no one again is saying to get rid of things, but instead to not honor them in public spaces. No one is saying an art museum can't have a painting of General Lee. But we don't name our streets "Satan Rd" or "Hitler Blvd" for a reason, and that is the same reason we shouldn't name our streets or parks after enemies of the people. 

[lmrich]

Statues are not where people learn history. 

Case in point - overheard at the Jefferson Memorial in DC... 

Son: Dad who is that? 

Dad: Benjamin Franklin; he was the fourth president, wrote the Constitution, and invented electricity 

Son: Wow!

Swear on my life this happened while I was there. Monuments and statues are meant to glorify; not to teach. I am sick of folks saying we can't erase history. 

I have never understood the Confederacy thing (I have lived in the South for 38 years) - I mean they lost; they were the traitors; they were wrong.. I could go on and on.. and most of those statues were put up during Jim Crowe times with the intent to enforce racist behavior. I don't get how someone can be proud that their great-great grandaddy died on the battlefield fighting for slavery. 

[gardenmom5]

7 minutes ago, wintermom said:

I believe that the issue arises with the politics of why these 4 symbols are 'entwined' together, and what that actually meant to the average citizen of India at that time. My guess is that it was not because the 4 nations held equal positions of power in India, rather India was in a strangle hold by the British Empire. 

 

 I see your point about being entwinned.  India is now independent. Just as the US is now completely independent of England. If you go into history - our resources were also exploited for their gain and Americans treated as second class citizens.  That's why the founders fought for independence.

history is complex, and rarely straight forward.  Wilberforce used ploys to get proslavery Parliamentarians OUT of parliament on days they would vote on anti-slavery laws  without the opposition there would have been otherwise.  That's history.      And the english were treated horribly by the french- Normans after the norman conquest.  If we're going to go into history - we need to go into all of it.

 

[Joker]

6 minutes ago, Ktgrok said:

Interesting. Do humans fear Ravana? Like, was he an enemy to the other gods, or to humans too? 

And no one again is saying to get rid of things, but instead to not honor them in public spaces. No one is saying an art museum can't have a painting of General Lee. But we don't name our streets "Satan Rd" or "Hitler Blvd" for a reason, and that is the same reason we shouldn't name our streets or parks after enemies of the people. 

Same for schools. My brother teaches at a Robert E Lee high school. Over the past several decades the district has become predominately African American and they haven’t been able to get the name changed. Finally, with the current protests it looks like it will happen. It boggles my mind why people have refused for years to change it. It’s just wrong.

[Matryoshka]

11 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

When I say, "But it's history!" what I mean is that we don't want to - and can't if we want to remain a united nation - let it be forgotten that these statues were commissioned, bought and paid for, and proudly displayed by people who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause of slavery well after the Civil War was over. It is living historical proof that racism is alive and well in modern times, and we dare not let that be brushed under the rug. I agree that we don't need them in parks and they don't need to be celebrated, but we do need to keep them and not destroy them.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I can see how surviving Jews and native Germans alike after WWII would have possibly wanted to burn the concentration camps to the ground, one out of anger and the other out of shame. But considering there are people who deny the Holocaust really happened, I sure am glad they still exist so people can see the proof of it. You can tell people that history happened, or you can show them. I think showing is more effective.

So that's what I think, "But it's history!" means. It means we keep it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and let future generations sort it all out.

Yes, but the concentration camps are not statues, quite the contrary.  The equivalent would be plantation homes with slave quarters, other historical examples of slavery.  What would a statue of Hitler do to prove the horrors of the Holocaust?  Wouldn't deniers just say that it proves he was a great man?  Do all the statues need to be destroyed?  I could see an argument for keeping a few in select museums with proper curating.  Do they need to stay up in public squares protected by literal people with confederate battle flags (not even the actual confederate flag, btw) and Nazi flags for good measure (in case we can't see the parallels without them carrying them around themselves...)?  I think not.  

Also:

- The people who want them to stay up will vehemently deny that they have, or ever had, anything to do with racism, so leaving them up does not show or teach them that racism is alive and well, either when the statues were erected or now.

- Ask any person of color if they need a statue to remind them that racism is alive and well in America today.  I'm thinking there's, um, plenty of other testaments to that without having statues to it - which are pretty much in every square across the south.  There isn't a museum big enough to put them all in...

[gardenmom5]

10 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

The Banyan Tree is the national tree of India.  I assume the Maple tree is the national symbol of Canada or is it the Maple Leaf ? 

I'm not canadian, though I have traveled   there a number of times.  (BC, Banff area, Toronto).    sugar maples are common there (as they are in the northeast US), so maple syrup is in all sorts of things, as well as maple leaves used on many things.

 

[Guest]

Just out of curiosity-how many of us who grew up in the South can name even one statue? Incan think of two public monuments in my hometown. One is a cannon in front of the high school I attended, because it was the meeting point for early morning field trip pick ups. I can't tell you what war it came from. The other is a roadside historical marker that indicates that about a half mile away, some general fell off his horse in the Civil war. It sticks in my mind only because it is so random, since it didn't actually happen there, but actually in the middle of, based as best as we could figure it out as teens, the town roller skating rink. 

 

In my current city, I know the most infamous statue due to controversy-but honestly,the ones that stick in my mind are the brightly painted tigers and, in one suburb, horses from past urban art events. 

 

I am confident I have seen hundreds of statues of Civil war personages in my almost 50 years of life in the South. They really don't register. If the only people who notice them are the ones who are made to feel unwelcome because of them, that is all the more reason to remove them. But maybe leave the sign about the Guy falling off his horse....

[Matryoshka]

11 minutes ago, lmrich said:

Statues are not where people learn history. 

Case in point - overheard at the Jefferson Memorial in DC... 

Son: Dad who is that? 

Dad: Benjamin Franklin; he was the fourth president, wrote the Constitution, and invented electricity 

Son: Wow!

Swear on my life this happened while I was there. Monuments and statues are meant to glorify; not to teach. I am sick of folks saying we can't erase history. 

I have never understood the Confederacy thing (I have lived in the South for 38 years) - I mean they lost; they were the traitors; they were wrong.. I could go on and on.. and most of those statues were put up during Jim Crowe times with the intent to enforce racist behavior. I don't get how someone can be proud that their great-great grandaddy died on the battlefield fighting for slavery. 

This.  The bolded.

[katilac]

 

7 hours ago, dmmetler said:

There are also battlefields like Shiloh and Gettysburg and a lot of others that already have museums. This seems like a good place for the statues. 

But I also think that those who say "but they're going too far now" need to realize that there have been lots of peaceful efforts to get said statues removed, the Confederate flag off the MS state flag and have pointed out how painful the glorification of the Confederacy and the old South is. They have been largely ignored, and often treated as though the very request is a violent, offensive act that should not be sanctioned. Given the response those who want to remove monuments to more appropriate settings have gotten in my area, honestly I have a hard time complaining about those who finally are getting fed up and tearing them down. 

I have to respond within your quote: yes, those places for the statues already exist, hurray! And thank you for pointing out that there have been numerable peaceful efforts. Had those been effective, you would not have people doing it by force. 

 

7 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

It is not so in my native Country.

Well, one of the great Indian epics is the Ramayana 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramayana'

Basically it is a story of a crown prince Rama who is one of the Avatars(incarnation)  of the Hindu God Vishnu and his wife Sita who are exiled. Sita is kidnapped by Ravana, the king of Lanka and there is a big battle, the classic good vs evil. But there are statues of Ravana all the time, there are festivals where his effigy is burnt, there are plays about him.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravana

We do not erase evil. We need reminders to know evil exists, Hindu Gods are always depicted destroying evil. 

We have art like Paradise Lost, Dante's Inferno and I have heard of a painting called the Last Judgement. How are these not art ? Is art if it is only in the Church ? 

No, I think that was her point, you can have plenty of works of art depicting Satan or other evil figures, sure, but you don't want a straight-up statue of Satan on his throne in a church. You said that Hindu Gods are always depicted destroying evil, so you wouldn't have just a statue of the evil figure in a place of worship, would you? 

Edited June 25, 2020 by katilac

[katilac]

19 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

The Banyan Tree is the national tree of India.  I assume the Maple tree is the national symbol of Canada or is it the Maple Leaf ? 

The maple leaf 

[Joker]

2 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

Just out of curiosity-how many of us who grew up in the South can name even one statue? Incan think of two public monuments in my hometown. One is a cannon in front of the high school I attended, because it was the meeting point for early morning field trip pick ups. I can't tell you what war it came from. The other is a roadside historical marker that indicates that about a half mile away, some general fell off his horse in the Civil war. It sticks in my mind only because it is so random, since it didn't actually happen there, but actually in the middle of, based as best as we could figure it out as teens, the town roller skating rink. 

 

In my current city, I know the most infamous statue due to controversy-but honestly,the ones that stick in my mind are the brightly painted tigers and, in one suburb, horses from past urban art events. 

 

I am confident I have seen hundreds of statues of Civil war personages in my almost 50 years of life in the South. They really don't register. If the only people who notice them are the ones who are made to feel unwelcome because of them, that is all the more reason to remove them. But maybe leave the sign about the Guy falling off his horse....

There’s one at the courthouse in the city where I grew up. I have no idea who it is but the inscription says something about giving glory to their (Confederate soldiers) cause. Makes me sick thinking about it. It’s still there and people are fighting to keep it there. 

[gardenmom5]

53 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

So, you think it would be okay if Germans kept up statues of their 'heroes' from WWII?  Hitler did a lot of great things for the German people.  Created the Autobahn system, for one.  Should we just overlook that 'cause he killed some people because of their ethnicity?  It was only the people who weren't 'really' German.  

 

how do you feel about americans erecting statues of LENIN?  yeah - we've got one in seattle.  the russians trashed it.

eta" the protestors have left it alone.

Edited June 24, 2020 by gardenmom5

[Matryoshka]

9 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

how do you feel about americans erecting statues of LENIN?  yeah - we've got one in seattle.  the russians trashed it.

eta" the protestors have left it alone.

LOL, way better than Stalin?  j/k.  Yeah, I don't think that's such a hot idea either.

Speaking of Stalin, while most of his statues were taken down, I just found out there's still at least one up in Georgia (the country, not the state) - and I also just found out that Stalin was from Georgia (reading a huge novel set in Georgia - learning a lot!).  Home town guy or not, still think it should come down from the public square.

[Guest]

45 minutes ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

When I say, "But it's history!" what I mean is that we don't want to - and can't if we want to remain a united nation - let it be forgotten that these statues were commissioned, bought and paid for, and proudly displayed by people who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause of slavery well after the Civil War was over. It is living historical proof that racism is alive and well in modern times, and we dare not let that be brushed under the rug. I agree that we don't need them in parks and they don't need to be celebrated, but we do need to keep them and not destroy them.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I can see how surviving Jews and native Germans alike after WWII would have possibly wanted to burn the concentration camps to the ground, one out of anger and the other out of shame. But considering there are people who deny the Holocaust really happened, I sure am glad they still exist so people can see the proof of it. You can tell people that history happened, or you can show them. I think showing is more effective.

So that's what I think, "But it's history!" means. It means we keep it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and let future generations sort it all out.

Many statues differ from this, though, because there is nothing instructive about them. They are just a dude on a horse or a dude on a pedestal and don’t do anything to preserve the history of whatever that person was honored for. Before this became an issue, I couldn’t have told you who was sitting on a pedestal at the State Circle in Annapolis, MD. Before we started talking about monuments to the Confederacy, I had no clue who Roger B. Taney was, why anyone would honor him (still gives me pause), nor any of the history or time period it was meant to commemorate (supposedly). In the case of Taney, research led me to learn that he wasn’t known for anything except the Dred Scott decision. Now, why would we honor and commemorate a man who declared that black people could never be “citizens”? It’s important to note that he had no other role that would justify honoring him. He is therefore not in the same category as George Washington. 

 

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, dmmetler said:

There are also battlefields like Shiloh and Gettysburg and a lot of others that already have museums. This seems like a good place for the statues. 

 

But I also think that those who say "but they're going too far now" need to realize that there have been lots of peaceful efforts to get said statues removed, the Confederate flag off the MS state flag and have pointed out how painful the glorification of the Confederacy and the old South is. They have been largely ignored, and often treated as though the very request is a violent, offensive act that should not be sanctioned. Given the response those who want to remove monuments to more appropriate settings have gotten in my area, honestly I have a hard time complaining about those who finally are getting fed up and tearing them down. 

 

 

Yes. I feel that way, too. 

[Terabith]

I think all statues should be torn down and replaced by statues of Dolly Parton.  

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

I think all statues should be torn down and replaced by statues of Dolly Parton.  

I would go for that. As would a good chunk of the state of TN 🙂

[ktgrok]

53 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

. But I think we need to remember History because as we all know, it repeats itself and humanity never learns to be better really.

Right. But if statues did that, we'd have way better educated people by now, lol. 

8 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think all statues should be torn down and replaced by statues of Dolly Parton.  

Hmm...would need fancy engineering so it didn't fall over forward 🙂

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

Queen Victoria was called Empress of India and under whom  and in whose name a lot of colonization was done. There is a statue of her in India even now and many don't even know who she is. What should Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles or Prince William or Prince Harry do about it ? Disown Queen Victoria ? I have no sympathy for the royal family, they are the symbol of colonization for me and when I saw the Crown Jewels and the Kohinoor Diamond it slammed me in the face as a symbol of what the Brits stole from my native country. But I cannot hold Queen Elizabeth or Prince Charles or Prince William or Prince Harry for what their ancestors did or expect them not to be proud of her. Prince Philip is a horrible racist and it is known in the way he speaks  tossed off as gaffes. But I hope his children and grandchildren are better. Prince Harry seems to have learned even though he did things like the Nazi uniform as a youngster. He would not have married a biracial woman  I don't think unless he does not hold those views. 

I mean, I have no dog in that fight but if I lived in your native country, I probably wouldn’t think much of Queen Victoria. Probably, moving statues of Queen Victoria to a museum with contextual plaques would be the better idea. 

[Carol in Cal.]

13 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think all statues should be torn down and replaced by statues of Dolly Parton.  

Wait, not the monolith???  I thought we were advocating for replacement with monoliths? #camtkeepup

[Carol in Cal.]

I think it is good, right, and eminently reasonable to memorialize people who have served their countries or communities very well.  That is true even if they were flawed.  (I mean, who isn’t flawed?)

And that rules out all Confederate statues.  We are the United States of America.  The Confederacy is not our country.  It is a failed separatist other country.  

So my view is, legislatively and in an orderly fashion we should get rid of public displays of those, but keep the rest.  That’s my view.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Carol in Cal.

[Momto6inIN]

1 hour ago, Ktgrok said:

But...how many statues of Lee do we need, to serve that purpose? Everyone ever made? Doubtful. A lot of them were just crap generic statues with a mediocre head thrown on to represent him. We don't need hundreds of those. 

I definitely don't think they all need to be put in a museum. But I'm not sure how we decide or who should get to decide.

1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:

Yes, but the concentration camps are not statues, quite the contrary.  The equivalent would be plantation homes with slave quarters, other historical examples of slavery.  What would a statue of Hitler do to prove the horrors of the Holocaust?  Wouldn't deniers just say that it proves he was a great man?  Do all the statues need to be destroyed?  I could see an argument for keeping a few in select museums with proper curating.  Do they need to stay up in public squares protected by literal people with confederate battle flags (not even the actual confederate flag, btw) and Nazi flags for good measure (in case we can't see the parallels without them carrying them around themselves...)?  I think not.  

Also:

- The people who want them to stay up will vehemently deny that they have, or ever had, anything to do with racism, so leaving them up does not show or teach them that racism is alive and well, either when the statues were erected or now.

- Ask any person of color if they need a statue to remind them that racism is alive and well in America today.  I'm thinking there's, um, plenty of other testaments to that without having statues to it - which are pretty much in every square across the south.  There isn't a museum big enough to put them all in...

I definitely agree with you that they shouldn't be in public squares or in places of honor! I'm just saying that we shouldn't throw them out or destroy them all, but put them in a museum. And have a display detailing how they were erected during Jim Crow as a way to keep PoC in their place. I know that I am moved with shame and horror when I see a museum display with a slave auction block or chains from a slave ship, much more than I am of simply reading about them. I realize that PoC don't need these reminders of racism, and that white supremacists would not be moved by them, but surely there are many other white people like me who are not in either category that would be?

49 minutes ago, Quill said:

Many statues differ from this, though, because there is nothing instructive about them. They are just a dude on a horse or a dude on a pedestal and don’t do anything to preserve the history of whatever that person was honored for. Before this became an issue, I couldn’t have told you who was sitting on a pedestal at the State Circle in Annapolis, MD. Before we started talking about monuments to the Confederacy, I had no clue who Roger B. Taney was, why anyone would honor him (still gives me pause), nor any of the history or time period it was meant to commemorate (supposedly). In the case of Taney, research led me to learn that he wasn’t known for anything except the Dred Scott decision. Now, why would we honor and commemorate a man who declared that black people could never be “citizens”? It’s important to note that he had no other role that would justify honoring him. He is therefore not in the same category as George Washington. 

 

I don't think all statues nees to be kept. But I do think there are all sorts of strange things in museums that I appreciate knowing about and that give me a richer view of the past that very likely someone somewhere along the line thought it would be better and kinder and more appropriate or whatever to throw out.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

This subject is not my hill to die on, but my opinion, with caveats is to let the statues stand as a memorial to our country's history.  My caveat is that the comedy news show Last Week Tonight did a great episode (strong language/content warning) on this topic, and I agree with many points made.  When confederate statues have gone up in the last 50-75 years... yeah, those can certainly come right back down.  But statues that have been around "forever"?  To me, they are similar to books written in other times, where reading the book allows us to look through another lens and viewpoint, and are often as effective a lesson in worldview as the story plot itself.  Aren't things like the Colosseum, Pyramids, etc also essentially the glorification of slave labor?  But we recognize that these also bear significant historical importance, so we are not razing them to the ground (yet).  Our history is younger, but no less valid for preservation.  

I agree upthread with the idea that OTHER things are more important to preserve- the blocks on which slaves were auctioned, battle fields of the Rev and Civ wars, etc.  I also agree upthread that these statues would be better voted out (and ideally into a museum or similar) than destroyed by mobs.  

I wold also love to see some more creative solutions to this problem.  I'm not sure if anyone remembers the "scandal" surrounding the charging bull statue and the Fearless Girl statue in NY, but why not attempt to reimagine these statues or their settings?  

 

[Pen]

We have Rosa Parks Schools and Rosa Parks statue in cities in my region— if it is discovered she ever did anything bad in her life should they be renamed? torn down? Personally I think not, because we have the statue and name to commemorate something achieved—not to try to say that the person had no flaws. 

And I think that is true also for a number of other figures such as Washington, Churchill, Gandhi ... 

Maybe Public School 1, Public School 2 etc is a better way to name schools.   

But I rather like names more than just numbers.

🤷‍♀️

 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Pen

[Pen]

5 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

There is so much history in India from BC onwards. So many monuments and sculptures which are controversial. I mean the Taj Mahal itself which is supposed to be a monument of Love was built by the Mughal Emperor ShahJahan who loved his wife so much. He was one of the better Emperors .It took 22 years to build the Taj and legend and even some guides there will tell you he ordered the hands of the architect to be cut off so there would not be a building like the Taj again. Others say impossible, he was not such a horrible person.

The interesting thing is building the Taj depleted the treasury and ShahJahan was focused only on it. The seeds of Colonization were sowed during this time. He borrowed money from the British East India Company which was eventually taken over by the British government. His son who was opposed to it imprisoned his father and ShahJahan could see the Taj only from afar till he died. His son was the last great Emperor of India. The dynasty weakened and eventually fell after him and within a few years the British conquered India. The next Empress of India was Queen Victoria. So what do you do with history like that ? Which is a good monument ? 

 

Cutting off the architect’s hands if true is horrific, but it would not help the architect to tear down the Taj Mahal.  

[Matryoshka]

16 minutes ago, Pen said:

We have Rosa Parks Schools and Rosa Parks statue in cities in my region— if it is discovered she ever did anything bad in her life should they be renamed? torn down? Personally I think not, because we have the statue and name to commemorate something achieved—not to try to say that the person had no flaws. 

And I think that is true also for a number of other figures such as Washington, Churchill, Gandhi ... 

Maybe Public School 1, Public School 2 etc is a better way to name schools.   

But I rather like names more than just numbers.

🤷‍♀️

 

If we find that Rosa Parks incited or was a leader in an actual war for the oppression of others?  

These statues are not of ordinary citizens that had 'flaws'.  They're not even of regular soldiers.  They were leaders of a country that is not ours that was founded for the express purpose of the right to enslave other humans and cost millions of American lives.   That is not a 'flaw', or a comment they made in their writings.   They were also literal traitors to the US, the country we all now live in.  And the statues glorify them for doing that, not for some other achievement.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Matryoshka

[gardenmom5]

2 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

When I say, "But it's history!" what I mean is that we don't want to - and can't if we want to remain a united nation - let it be forgotten that these statues were commissioned, bought and paid for, and proudly displayed by people who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause of slavery well after the Civil War was over. It is living historical proof that racism is alive and well in modern times, and we dare not let that be brushed under the rug. I agree that we don't need them in parks and they don't need to be celebrated, but we do need to keep them and not destroy them.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I can see how surviving Jews and native Germans alike after WWII would have possibly wanted to burn the concentration camps to the ground, one out of anger and the other out of shame. But considering there are people who deny the Holocaust really happened, I sure am glad they still exist so people can see the proof of it. You can tell people that history happened, or you can show them. I think showing is more effective.

So that's what I think, "But it's history!" means. It means we keep it all - the good, the bad, and the ugly - and let future generations sort it all out.

Eisenhauer demanded the soldiers who liberated the camps take pictures.  lots and lots and lots of pictures because he knew people would deny it ever happened.

Today - there are a lot of people who deny the Armenian Holocaust (the first time the NYT used the word was in reference to what the Turks did to the Armenians.  Decades before Hitler.).  Not all of those deniers are because they find it politically expedient.   75% of the Armenian population were killed.  Including dh's great-grandparents.

 Dh's father was a Japanese POW - I've read quite a bit on the subject.  There was a Japanese tv crew who followed a former Japanese POW around when he returned to Japan because they wanted to hear the side they never heard in Japan. 

[Pam in CT]

re context is all

1 hour ago, Momto6inIN said:

 

When I say, "But it's history!" what I mean is that we don't want to - and can't if we want to remain a united nation - let it be forgotten that these statues were commissioned, bought and paid for, and proudly displayed by people who were sympathetic to the Confederate cause of slavery well after the Civil War was over. It is living historical proof that racism is alive and well in modern times, and we dare not let that be brushed under the rug. I agree that we don't need them in parks and they don't need to be celebrated, but we do need to keep them and not destroy them.

Maybe I'm way off base, but I can see how surviving Jews and native Germans alike after WWII would have possibly wanted to burn the concentration camps to the ground, one out of anger and the other out of shame. But considering there are people who deny the Holocaust really happened, I sure am glad they still exist so people can see the proof of it. You can tell people that history happened, or you can show them. I think showing is more effective....

Yes.  I have only visited a couple of the concentration camps.  But the ones I've seen go to very great lengths to provide that context.  They most definitely are not glorifying Nazism. They are memorializing and documenting and detailing Nazism.  Serving as witness to the horror, not celebrating the horror.

 

1 hour ago, Matryoshka said:

Yes, but the concentration camps are not statues, quite the contrary.  The equivalent would be plantation homes with slave quarters, other historical examples of slavery.  What would a statue of Hitler do to prove the horrors of the Holocaust?  Wouldn't deniers just say that it proves he was a great man?  Do all the statues need to be destroyed?  I could see an argument for keeping a few in select museums with proper curating.  Do they need to stay up in public squares protected by literal people with confederate battle flags (not even the actual confederate flag, btw) and Nazi flags for good measure (in case we can't see the parallels without them carrying them around themselves...)?  I think not.  

Also:

- The people who want them to stay up will vehemently deny that they have, or ever had, anything to do with racism, so leaving them up does not show or teach them that racism is alive and well, either when the statues were erected or now.

- Ask any person of color if they need a statue to remind them that racism is alive and well in America today.  I'm thinking there's, um, plenty of other testaments to that without having statues to it - which are pretty much in every square across the south.  There isn't a museum big enough to put them all in...

The bolded is a tell, isn't it.  

That the bolded is true, evidences that the prototypical heroic figure on a half-rearing horse does NOT, in fact, acknowledge/ serve as "witness" to the horrors of slavery and racism but rather celebrate... something else.

 

 

56 minutes ago, Quill said:

Many statues differ from this [provision of context], though, because there is nothing instructive about them. They are just a dude on a horse or a dude on a pedestal and don’t do anything to preserve the history of whatever that person was honored for. Before this became an issue, I couldn’t have told you who was sitting on a pedestal at the State Circle in Annapolis, MD. Before we started talking about monuments to the Confederacy, I had no clue who Roger B. Taney was, why anyone would honor him (still gives me pause), nor any of the history or time period it was meant to commemorate (supposedly). In the case of Taney, research led me to learn that he wasn’t known for anything except the Dred Scott decision. Now, why would we honor and commemorate a man who declared that black people could never be “citizens”? It’s important to note that he had no other role that would justify honoring him. He is therefore not in the same category as George Washington. 

Why, indeed?

 

 

Personally I think the standard of "gave a huge hunk of his or her life to serve country/community" is reasonable.  Yes, every single person, those with Big Roles in the course of human history as well as the rest of us, are flawed and complicated.

But there is to my mind a significant difference between honoring/ glorifying military leaders who literally sought to secede from the country in order to preserve their "states' rights" to maintain slavery, and (flawed) military leaders like Washington who actually fought FOR this nation.  Or between a SCOTUS Chief Justice whose principal legacy is Dred Scot and, say, the (flawed) Chief Justice Warren Burger, whose legacy is long and complicated and not always agreeable to me, but who insisted that no one, not even the POTUS, was above the rule of law of this nation.  Without the historical/ witnessing context provided by (say) the Dachau or NAAHM exhibits... without that history... the message the exultant generals on the horses are ACTUALLY sending is not consistent with the words coming out of their apologists' mouths.

[Pen]

2 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

I am not saying tear down the Taj Mahal, but people rhapsody at the Taj and ShahJahan is known as a man who loved his wife so much he built an everlasting monument for love. But even that allegedly pure and beautiful monument for eternal love hides of lot of ugliness is what I am saying. Even beautiful monuments have ugly history.

 

I knew you weren’t.

I was just thinking that tearing it down would add ugliness and in no way restore the architect hands . Maybe better to tell the story, and to do so in a way that allows the horror to come through. 

[Pen]

8 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

If we find that Rosa Parks incited or was a leader in an actual war for the oppression of others?  

These statues are not of ordinary citizens that had 'flaws'.  They're not even of regular soldiers.  They were leaders of a country that is not ours that was founded for the express purpose of the right to enslave other humans and cost millions of American lives.   That is not a 'flaw', or a comment they made in their writings.   They were also literal traitors to the US, the country we all now live in.  And the statues glorify them for doing that, not for some other achievement.

 

By “these statues” do you mean Washington, Churchill, and Gandhi? 

[gardenmom5]

15 minutes ago, Dreamergal said:

 

The interesting thing is building the Taj depleted the treasury and ShahJahan was focused only on it.  

sort of reminds me of mad king ludwig.  He bankrupted Bavaria building Neuschwanstein.  After decades of working on it, he was found in the middle of the lake.  in his boat.  drowned.  work stopped that day.  It wasn't long after they started doing tours - and making money off of it.

we went, I was revolted.  it was an homage to a madman's fantasy and richard wagner (who had been banned from the country. he was a swine.)  

21 minutes ago, CuriousMomof3 said:

Isn't the Lenin statue on private property?

 

it's out in the open and right off the street..  Some of the stuff they're going after is behind fences and well onto private property.  absolutely lame excuse .