|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 16 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Meant to make this one post... Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:
And many of those weren't fighting against the strongest imperial power of their era in a time when such revolutions didn't happen.
Dunno if what Mohdoo is saying is accurate though. Seems a wee bit dubious. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been in k-12 history classes so I'm not sure what it's like now, but I remember when I went through it, it was pretty much as described, probably worse. Poll: Do you know who Crispus Attucks is without googling him?(Vote): No
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): Sounds familiar, but no
Luke Cage mentions his name, maybe not the best example as a result 
|
On September 16 2017 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:10 Velr wrote:
Fun part is, plenty of countries have been founded soing a "revolution" against all odds - most didn't have an ocean seperating them from the opressor. Yeah, I'm somewhat unimpressed by the "surviving 200 years thing" too.
I mean they were surrounded by a massive although weak Spain and an angry Britain to the north and they survived the civil war where Britain and France considered supporting the confederates. I think they can be proud in the sense they have risen to the worlds premier power but the act of breaking wasn't that difficult considering Britain had alienated every European (after betrayals in the War of the Austrian Succession and then the Seven years War) and was thousands of miles away.
|
On September 16 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Meant to make this one post... Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:
And many of those weren't fighting against the strongest imperial power of their era in a time when such revolutions didn't happen.
Dunno if what Mohdoo is saying is accurate though. Seems a wee bit dubious. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been in k-12 history classes so I'm not sure what it's like now, but I remember when I went through it, it was pretty much as described, probably worse. Poll: Do you know who Crispus Attucks is without googling him?(Vote): No
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): Sounds familiar, but no
Thought I knew, googled to confirm.
+ Show Spoiler +Though I only knew as much as "black guy got shot in Boston Massacre." Dunno if he did anything else of note.
|
On September 16 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Meant to make this one post... Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:
And many of those weren't fighting against the strongest imperial power of their era in a time when such revolutions didn't happen.
Dunno if what Mohdoo is saying is accurate though. Seems a wee bit dubious. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been in k-12 history classes so I'm not sure what it's like now, but I remember when I went through it, it was pretty much as described, probably worse. Poll: Do you know who Crispus Attucks is without googling him?(Vote): No
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): Sounds familiar, but no
he was the guy who the high school that Oscar Robertson helped become the first all black high school champions in the country was named after.
also John Adams lawyered most of the soldiers out of a punishment. But I like random revolutionary figures so prob not the best person to ask.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 16 2017 08:36 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
also a reminder the Jon Adams lawyered most of the soldiers out of a punishment
I watched a documentary on that one. It showed that it was perfectly reasonable to mistake the bait of the colonists from a commander's order to fire, and that even if the commander gave such an order it might not have been distinguishable. Seems like it could have been something similar in the actual event.
|
On September 16 2017 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:27 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Meant to make this one post... On September 16 2017 08:15 LegalLord wrote:
And many of those weren't fighting against the strongest imperial power of their era in a time when such revolutions didn't happen.
Dunno if what Mohdoo is saying is accurate though. Seems a wee bit dubious. Honestly, it's been a while since I've been in k-12 history classes so I'm not sure what it's like now, but I remember when I went through it, it was pretty much as described, probably worse. Poll: Do you know who Crispus Attucks is without googling him?(Vote): No
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): Sounds familiar, but no
I'll admit the best I remembered was "black guy in the American Revolutionary War." I'd be curious whether folks like xDaunt and Danglars would consider him an American? If so, why?
Why should it be a debate? He was killed protesting alongside future Americans, and his death (along with the rest of them, since a lot of them probably didn't care about him due to his soon color) sparked some real outrage in the colonies, contributing to the rise of our country.
|
On September 16 2017 08:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:36 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
also a reminder the Jon Adams lawyered most of the soldiers out of a punishment I watched a documentary on that one. It showed that it was perfectly reasonable to mistake the bait of the colonists from a commander's order to fire, and that even if the commander gave such an order it might not have been distinguishable. Seems like it could have been something similar in the actual event.
yeah from what I've read it was more of a mob throwing stuff at the soldiers than a massacre
|
Trying to wade into this conversation without seeming like a douche is probably going to be impossible. Never mind. If they are going to protest the statues, maybe its better to stick a sign next to them explaining your point rather than just covering it up.
Symbolically, it works better.
Fuck it though, shrouding a statue is neither a slippery slope nor a terrible crime when compared to marching through the streets with torches and guns trying to intimidate any PoC or locals who disagree with you.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime.
|
On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime.
It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments.
Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism.
And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals.
|
are there stats on how frequent non-political vandalism of statues is?
|
On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime.
The thing that everyone is ignoring (except Mohdoo who ninja'd my point), though, is that you can't throw away history. You can cover up as many statues as you want, you can burn them down, but history is still there. Its not like the statue is the only remaining vestige of the memory of whoever.
We have books, data, history teachers etc.
Vandalizing statues is a symbolic act driven by relevant political concerns. I think they've gone about it wrong, but at the same time we're having the conversation, aren't we?
|
There are whole sections of history without monuments that we remember. Its fine to remove them and fine to keep them.
Also, all statues and monuments guilty historical revisionism. Very few of them accurately display history with any context. As the folks at 99% invisible always say, who put up the monument is far more important that who the monument if of.
|
On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals.
That's true, much of "Western History" is this.
|
On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals.
But there's no revisions taking place. No one is saying none of this happened or something. People are, if anything, drawing attention to more of history and making more facts more widely known. What do you think this vandalism is hoping to rewrite?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On September 16 2017 08:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2017 08:49 LegalLord wrote:On September 16 2017 08:47 Mohdoo wrote:On September 16 2017 08:45 LegalLord wrote:
I personally look very poorly upon statue vandalism as a general concept. It's popular in some circles of Europe for some reason, but that's their own problem. Really it's just a petty and unproductive form of populism that seems to imply that you should throw away history if you aren't fond of it. Which, to be fair, is a popular European pastime. It's not possible to throw away history, though. But you can throw out monuments. Nothing changes history or the recording of history by cycling out monuments. Yeah? Then do it through the proper legal channels of voting for its removal. Vandalism, or vandalism to coerce legal officials into taking the cowardly choice of moving the statue, really is a petty historical revisionism. And yes it does change history. There is plenty of precedent of statues being smashed being very closely tied to attempts to rewrite the books to a narrative more suited to the fancy of the vandals. But there's no revisions taking place. No one is saying none of this happened or something. People are, if anything, drawing attention to more of history and making more facts more widely known. What do you think this vandalism is hoping to rewrite?
We talking specifically about Robert E Leet statue, to be sure?
|
It has become increasingly clear to me that it isn't a case of a "few bad apples" in the police with regards to corruption, abuse of power, and racial violence. It is a systemic, pervasive issue in which the majority of the police are guilty of abuse either explicitly or tacitly. And many of those currently innocent are only so through chance - they'd cover for a corrupt officer at the first chance. Maybe they'd have some moral quibbles at first, but after the second incident on they'd go away.
My first reaction to a cop when I see one is to do anything possible to not draw their attention - I'm vaguely ethnic looking, but unless I interact with them not enough to be profiled. The chance of being killed by a cop far outweighs the chance of any benefits, even in situations you are generally recommended to call one.
Even if the police were clean a decade ago they'd have had their ranks bloated by those who have learned that a badge is license to kill black people at will with no repercussions. I doubt they were clean a decade ago - it is probably true that the racist institution has gotten MORE racist, though.
My thoughts on the recent innocent verdict, which involved one cop wondering why another was worried about the death of a "nigger".
|
I find it amusing that people have such a problem with vandalism as a form of protest, but celebrate the founding of our country, where we used vandalism and more as a form of protest.
|
On September 16 2017 07:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
There's a certain hypocrisy involved when a person can stand for the right of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech of white supremists and neo-nazis to march with guns, but not for the freedom of assembly and freedom of protest and free speech to drape a statue in cloth. One would had thought that to have the moral fortitude to stand for the rights of such would naturally lead to stand for the rights of others.
Btw, from an outsider's perspective, the mythology and worship of George Washington and your founding fathers is a bit odd. There really isn't anything comparable in Europe. Maybe Stalin. Or to a lesser extent Churchill.
There's a certain pain involved when someone can't distinguish between what you have the right to do and what's a good idea in society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
