|
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. |
Sometimes unjust laws need to be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
On September 18 2017 10:42 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The protest covered up the statue in a shroud. The symbolism isn't very hard to grasp. What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore. "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness? The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now. Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right? Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan. Then let's get specific. It's not just any statue, it's this statue. + Show Spoiler [If you want to see it] +Would you say that statue seems like it's built to praise the man it depicts? I would. "Regal" is one of the first words that comes to mind when I look at it. The people who put the statue up agreed – they wanted people to remember the man on the horse. Who is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest. Slave trader. Brilliant Confederate general. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The statue sits in a park in Memphis – the city council has voted to remove it before, but the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013 prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land. This isn't the only monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Here's another one, which protesters want to remove as well. In fact, you can see they had a similar idea to what you're criticizing: + Show Spoiler [Recontexualizing] +Would you say these protesters wanted people to forget the history of the depicted individual? Because adding signs describing the man seems like a funny way to accomplish that. Now imagine for a moment that you're a Memphian. There's a statue in your city, in a public park, glorifying the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Do you think it should stay up? Do you think it should be moved? Do you think a plaque should be added to recontextualize it? Or do you think that leaving it there, in that park, unaltered, is the best way to help people consider the man in all his complexity?
How long do I have to repeat myself? The slippery slope is first you talk about is confederate war heroes. Then you apply it to founding fathers and important revolutionary war heroes. I made an explicit point that moving from vandalizing and toppling the confederates in the night and doing the same to founding fathers writes the message that history is not politically correct and should be removed/hidden/forgotten. I think you're missing the forest for the trees by dipping back into the Civil War.
Of course, if you just protest everybody that mattered to US History, you'll have a hard time repealing stuff like the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act because everybody and their grandma can say, "See? It wasn't just about the war over slavery, they just want to get rid of everybody that's inconvenient to modern political perspectives!"
|
On September 18 2017 10:38 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:35 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't". "This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him." You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true. (1) The statue being covered up and nobody being able to see it is not the preferred outcome of the protestors.
If only somebody is saying repeatedly that the message being shown and the message protestors say they wish to convey are at odds with each other.
(2) "The entirety of his person to be acknowledged" is exactly what the protestors want.
(Using the same rhetorical flourish as I did doesn't make your point valid.)
See above. That's exactly what the protestors are not proving. It comes on the heels of confederate war statues vandalized and torn down, which came after two fringe groups fought in Charlottesville. The message is these guys are next, we don't have a place anymore for slaveowners or period attitudes on race.
|
On September 18 2017 22:12 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:38 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:35 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't". "This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him." You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true. (1) The statue being covered up and nobody being able to see it is not the preferred outcome of the protestors. If only somebody is saying repeatedly that the message being shown and the message protestors say they wish to convey are at odds with each other. Show nested quote +(2) "The entirety of his person to be acknowledged" is exactly what the protestors want.
(Using the same rhetorical flourish as I did doesn't make your point valid.) See above. That's exactly what the protestors are not proving. It comes on the heels of confederate war statues vandalized and torn down, which came after two fringe groups fought in Charlottesville. The message is these guys are next, we don't have a place anymore for slaveowners or period attitudes on race.
If the statue of Jefferson had been vandalised (in the sense of doing permanent damage to it) and torn down you would have a point. It wasn't. You don't have a point.
The protestors explicitly chose to do a thing to the statue which allowed it to be displayed undamaged afterwards. That is fundamentally different from the message you claim they were trying to make.
edit: If you choose to interpret the actions of the protestors in their worst possible light maybe you also have a point - however, that point is born out of your own prejudice, not reality.
|
United States42008 Posts
Danglars, they didn't shroud it because they were afraid of the statue and wanted to hide it/hide from it. They shrouded it because they wanted to start a conversation about the person behind the statue without damaging it in any way and they thought putting a tarp over it was the best way to make their point.
You keep arguing that they're a group of people who are afraid of statues and it's simply not true.
|
On September 18 2017 13:20 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:35 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't". "This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him." You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true. Continuously insisting that your projection onto reality is in fact the reality itself doesn't make it true. You have this ridiculous holier-than-thou attitude towards the act of draping a shroud over a statue, and insist that you know better than they do why they did it, and that it is completely unacceptable. What a joke. I do have to commend you though, for derailing this thread for so many pages about this statue nonsense. Maybe sometime soon we can go back to having useful discussions and less devil's advocate distraction.
Maybe you can agree to disagree if your best argument against mine is reiterating that your reality is better than my reality.
I don't pick what you guys find most objectionable and carry to the utmost end. ChristianS was surprised that my original post talked about two statues, one that was Francis Scott Key, the writer of the Star-spangled Banner. Trump was excoriated for saying
“I wonder, is it George Washington next week? And is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?” Historians and journalists, back then pretending to be the sane perspective, said Trump was making an absurd argument. You see, everybody knows we aren't memorializing them for their slaveholding or perspectives on race.
Until you come along and say, "Forget all that. I forget what everybody said about this ending with civil war figures. Let's focus in on why I've always thought it broadly applies to all historical figures and the protests send the right message whether Jefferson or Lee." I gather your definition of useful discussions is ones where you get to wipe away Charlottesville and everybody just goes along with it.
|
Trump's statement remains mostly incorrect. It is only "Thomas Jefferson the week after" in the sense of having a conversation about Jefferson, not in the sense of removing statues depicting Jefferson. I don't see how having a conversation about Jefferson is bad.
|
On September 18 2017 22:15 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 22:12 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:38 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:35 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:27 Aquanim wrote:On September 18 2017 10:19 Danglars wrote:
Covering it up shows the world they're too afraid to let it show.
...
They'd rather nobody see the man and examine what he did.
You keep saying this and it keeps not being true. Both their actions and their goals are entirely consistent with the viewpoint of "we think this statue should remain here undamaged because Jefferson is worth respecting, but his flaws should also be acknowledged and at the moment they aren't". "This statue should be covered up. We cannot afford the entirety of his person to be acknowledged, so you're not permitted to view him." You keep protesting this, but it does not cease to be true. (1) The statue being covered up and nobody being able to see it is not the preferred outcome of the protestors. If only somebody is saying repeatedly that the message being shown and the message protestors say they wish to convey are at odds with each other. (2) "The entirety of his person to be acknowledged" is exactly what the protestors want.
(Using the same rhetorical flourish as I did doesn't make your point valid.) See above. That's exactly what the protestors are not proving. It comes on the heels of confederate war statues vandalized and torn down, which came after two fringe groups fought in Charlottesville. The message is these guys are next, we don't have a place anymore for slaveowners or period attitudes on race. If the statue of Jefferson had been vandalised (in the sense of doing permanent damage to it) and torn down you would have a point. It wasn't. You don't have a point. The protestors explicitly chose to do a thing to the statue which allowed it to be displayed undamaged afterwards. That is fundamentally different from the message you claim they were trying to make.
They chose a protest that didn't reflect either the message you say they wished to send, or their supposed agreement with how I think Jefferson should be viewed. It was enshrouded. That's hiding it from view. Very ineffective way to say the three or four messages you've been repeating.
edit: If you choose to interpret the actions of the protestors in their worst possible light maybe you also have a point - however, that point is born out of your own prejudice, not reality.
I'm reflecting on his this appears to America. Trump's right: these movements were never about the disgusting war over slavery, it doesn't actually have an end. Who's next after Jefferson and Francis Scott Key?
Actually, they're doing such a bad job with those two that I think the protestors will get the message sooner than their defenders in journalism and the internet.
On September 18 2017 22:25 Aquanim wrote:
Trump's statement remains mostly incorrect. It is only "Thomas Jefferson the week after" in the sense of having a conversation about Jefferson, not in the sense of removing statues depicting Jefferson. I don't see how having a conversation about Jefferson is bad.
Haha "having a conversation about Jefferson." You can do that with protests at city hall, the state seat. You can do it with signs and chants. I've been saying this isn't showing you want to have a conversation about Jefferson, you want to cover him up in the square. Sorry, Aquanim, but this isn't showing what you think it shows.
|
On September 18 2017 22:09 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore.
"I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:04 IgnE wrote:
[quote]
Yeah the symbolism is: we've reexamined this statue and what it represents to the citizens under its haughty gaze, and collectively we've decided that, having examined the complicated man whose image is depicted, we'd rather not have the statue anymore.
"I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" means that you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man, rather than resorting to nonsensical arguments about "erasing history." Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness? The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now. Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right? Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan. Then let's get specific. It's not just any statue, it's this statue. + Show Spoiler [If you want to see it] +Would you say that statue seems like it's built to praise the man it depicts? I would. "Regal" is one of the first words that comes to mind when I look at it. The people who put the statue up agreed – they wanted people to remember the man on the horse. Who is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest. Slave trader. Brilliant Confederate general. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The statue sits in a park in Memphis – the city council has voted to remove it before, but the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013 prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land. This isn't the only monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Here's another one, which protesters want to remove as well. In fact, you can see they had a similar idea to what you're criticizing: + Show Spoiler [Recontexualizing] +Would you say these protesters wanted people to forget the history of the depicted individual? Because adding signs describing the man seems like a funny way to accomplish that. Now imagine for a moment that you're a Memphian. There's a statue in your city, in a public park, glorifying the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Do you think it should stay up? Do you think it should be moved? Do you think a plaque should be added to recontextualize it? Or do you think that leaving it there, in that park, unaltered, is the best way to help people consider the man in all his complexity? How long do I have to repeat myself? The slippery slope is first you talk about is confederate war heroes. Then you apply it to founding fathers and important revolutionary war heroes. I made an explicit point that moving from vandalizing and toppling the confederates in the night and doing the same to founding fathers writes the message that history is not politically correct and should be removed/hidden/forgotten. I think you're missing the forest for the trees by dipping back into the Civil War. Of course, if you just protest everybody that mattered to US History, you'll have a hard time repealing stuff like the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act because everybody and their grandma can say, "See? It wasn't just about the war over slavery, they just want to get rid of everybody that's inconvenient to modern political perspectives!"
Jesus Christ, is it so much to ask what you actually think about an issue you've spent this much time discussing? You don't have to repeat yourself, you can just say for the first time what you actually think should happen. It's like you've been an anti-anti-Trumper so long you've forgotten how to have an actual non-reactionary opinion on something.
If you think the statue should stay up to push back against the slippery slope, say that. If you think it should come down but unfortunately the current extremism on this issue makes that hard to do, say that. And while we're here, tell me if you really think that statue doesn't clearly imply praise for the general, but merely encourages people to "consider the man in all his complexity," or why you think it wouldn't do so better with an added plaque.
Was it xDaunt arguing the other day that anybody should be able to give a binary "good" or "bad" on any given issue? If I ask you whether leaving this statue up unaltered is good or bad and you continue to not answer, can we expect xDaunt to come in and start calling you a coward? I'd appreciate the consistency from him, at least.
|
On September 18 2017 22:28 Danglars wrote:...
They chose a protest that didn't reflect either the message you say they wished to send, or their supposed agreement with how I think Jefferson should be viewed. It was enshrouded. That's hiding it from view. Very ineffective way to say the three or four messages you've been repeating.
...
The protest didn't reflect the message they wished to send in your opinion. Enough other people in this thread have told you that they disagree with that assessment that you should at least think twice before proclaiming it as unassailable fact.
On September 18 2017 22:28 Danglars wrote:... Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 22:25 Aquanim wrote:
Trump's statement remains mostly incorrect. It is only "Thomas Jefferson the week after" in the sense of having a conversation about Jefferson, not in the sense of removing statues depicting Jefferson. I don't see how having a conversation about Jefferson is bad. Haha "having a conversation about Jefferson." You can do that with protests at city hall, the state seat. You can do it with signs and chants. I've been saying this isn't showing you want to have a conversation about Jefferson, you want to cover him up in the square. Sorry, Aquanim, but this isn't showing what you think it shows. ...
Again, it's not showing it to you. I suffer no delusions about my ability to convince you of anything. My purpose here is to ensure that somebody who wanders into this thread without context and sees your flawed arguments is not convinced by them.
|
On September 18 2017 22:30 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 22:09 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:42 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 10:21 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 10:02 ChristianS wrote:On September 18 2017 09:58 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 09:48 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 08:31 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2017 07:51 Nyxisto wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. I mean, the US itself is the result of a revolution and in a way ahistorical. Seems kind of weird to be obsessed about historical founding figures and great men. Isn't the whole point of the US that it renews itself and is whatever new generation makes it and all of that? I think you're confusing us with banana republics. They viva la revolucion! On September 18 2017 08:00 IgnE wrote:On September 18 2017 07:17 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Hilarious. Examine great men in view of their accomplishments and flaws. They founded a great nation where the world questions it's destiny and direction. Little men shroud and vandalize its founding figures, terrified at examining their place in history and deeper nature. Their cowardice is on view for the entire nation to see. Ok so if, when you say, "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" you mean "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety only so long as everyone agrees with me" you should just come out and say that. You should really try to actually answer the question. We have enough people trolling on side memes as it is. Tell me, What does "I'd rather have complicated men examined in their entirety" mean to you? Aside from "Haha you only want people to agree with you I refuse to answer." I quite explicitly told you what it means: you'd be open to taking down a statue upon reevaluation of said man Nah, if they're accomplishments are large and vital enough to recommend them to the public consciousness, leave them up. Don't whitewash their flaws. See them in the context of the time and revile them as you choose. Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the clear implication of most of these statues is praise for the depicted person, and by leaving them up we're tacitly accepting their praisworthiness? The clear implication is far from what you think the clear implication is. You have some kind of white knight view of humanity? Can people that do great things also do bad? Come on now. Okay, let's ignore that then. But what if you evaluate the complicated man in his entirety, and decide that his accomplishments aren't large and vital enough to be worth remembering in this public way? Or do you think that because someone thought they were important enough to make a statue of them, it necessarily follows that that person was right? Evaluate away. I presume the American people capable of seeing both the good and the bad. One statue doesn't remove one's rational judgement, unless you're some sort of psychotic hyperpartisan. Then let's get specific. It's not just any statue, it's this statue. + Show Spoiler [If you want to see it] +Would you say that statue seems like it's built to praise the man it depicts? I would. "Regal" is one of the first words that comes to mind when I look at it. The people who put the statue up agreed – they wanted people to remember the man on the horse. Who is it? Nathan Bedford Forrest. Slave trader. Brilliant Confederate general. First Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. The statue sits in a park in Memphis – the city council has voted to remove it before, but the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013 prevents local governments from renaming, relocating, or otherwise tampering with war memorials on public land. This isn't the only monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest. Here's another one, which protesters want to remove as well. In fact, you can see they had a similar idea to what you're criticizing: + Show Spoiler [Recontexualizing] +Would you say these protesters wanted people to forget the history of the depicted individual? Because adding signs describing the man seems like a funny way to accomplish that. Now imagine for a moment that you're a Memphian. There's a statue in your city, in a public park, glorifying the first Grand Wizard of the KKK. Do you think it should stay up? Do you think it should be moved? Do you think a plaque should be added to recontextualize it? Or do you think that leaving it there, in that park, unaltered, is the best way to help people consider the man in all his complexity? How long do I have to repeat myself? The slippery slope is first you talk about is confederate war heroes. Then you apply it to founding fathers and important revolutionary war heroes. I made an explicit point that moving from vandalizing and toppling the confederates in the night and doing the same to founding fathers writes the message that history is not politically correct and should be removed/hidden/forgotten. I think you're missing the forest for the trees by dipping back into the Civil War. Of course, if you just protest everybody that mattered to US History, you'll have a hard time repealing stuff like the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act because everybody and their grandma can say, "See? It wasn't just about the war over slavery, they just want to get rid of everybody that's inconvenient to modern political perspectives!" Jesus Christ, is it so much to ask what you actually think about an issue you've spent this much time discussing? You don't have to repeat yourself, you can just say for the first time what you actually think should happen. It's like you've been an anti-anti-Trumper so long you've forgotten how to have an actual non-reactionary opinion on something. If you think the statue should stay up to push back against the slippery slope, say that. If you think it should come down but unfortunately the current extremism on this issue makes that hard to do, say that. And while we're here, tell me if you really think that statue doesn't clearly imply praise for the general, but merely encourages people to "consider the man in all his complexity," or why you think it wouldn't do so better with an added plaque. Was it xDaunt arguing the other day that anybody should be able to give a binary "good" or "bad" on any given issue? If I ask you whether leaving this statue up unaltered is good or bad and you continue to not answer, can we expect xDaunt to come in and start calling you a coward? I'd appreciate the consistency from him, at least.
Is it too much to ask you to address the point I've been making? Serious question. If you have to reflect back to civil war figures to try and make a point, I say you're trying to change the issue to an easier one. Figures like Jefferson and Washington have so much merit to memorializing what they meant to the country. Your Forrest, and in some ways Lee, represent more than themselves but the war, so if some cities want to take them to a museum or take them down, have at it.
I thought it was obvious with the slippery slope that you moved from arguable cases (localized, legal, confederates in a civil war) to inarguable ones. America polls against removing both. Polled African Americans are against removing those statues (NPR/PBS/Marist). So get off your high horse and comment on the points until you're done. You have like two conservative defenders, and your goal seems to be bringing back in civil war statues and persons from the civil war to exhaust my time.
Do you see how moving from Lee/Jackson to Jefferson/Key might hurt repeal of the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act? You're literally on the side that suffers from your silence. If the civil war statues is just the lever action to diverse protests on all sorts of statues, the other side makes a compelling argument that the first should be opposed merely on the grounds that the next is bound to follow.
|
Statues are approaching racism as this thread's favorite topic.
|
On September 18 2017 22:32 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 22:28 Danglars wrote:...
They chose a protest that didn't reflect either the message you say they wished to send, or their supposed agreement with how I think Jefferson should be viewed. It was enshrouded. That's hiding it from view. Very ineffective way to say the three or four messages you've been repeating.
... The protest didn't reflect the message they wished to send in your opinion. Enough other people in this thread have told you that they disagree with that assessment that you should at least think twice before proclaiming it as unassailable fact.
Maybe you should let the "enough other people" make better arguments if appealing to the crowd is your mode of argumentation. I'm responding to you.
On September 18 2017 22:28 Danglars wrote:... Show nested quote +On September 18 2017 22:25 Aquanim wrote:
Trump's statement remains mostly incorrect. It is only "Thomas Jefferson the week after" in the sense of having a conversation about Jefferson, not in the sense of removing statues depicting Jefferson. I don't see how having a conversation about Jefferson is bad. Haha "having a conversation about Jefferson." You can do that with protests at city hall, the state seat. You can do it with signs and chants. I've been saying this isn't showing you want to have a conversation about Jefferson, you want to cover him up in the square. Sorry, Aquanim, but this isn't showing what you think it shows. ... Again, it's not showing it to you. I suffer no delusions about my ability to convince you of anything. My purpose here is to ensure that somebody who wanders into this thread without context and sees your flawed arguments is not convinced by them.
The only context you've offered is that you choose to mix up the message the protesters wish they were sending with the actual message any observer can see. The only conciliation you've offered is
If you choose to interpret the actions of the protestors in their worst possible light maybe you also have a point
It's the easiest apparent light to anyone seeing what the protest did and not actually there to ask the protesters about their goals. It's easily seen that enshrouding a statue is a particularly bad way to show you're willing to have the conversation about Jefferson in his totality. Same with vandalizing Francis Scott Key. Same with rejecting Trump's characterization that yesterday it was Lee & Jackson and tomorrow it will be Jefferson and Washington. Heck, I don't know if you come out with a better perspective had you even been there. They called Jefferson an "emblem of white supremacy" (he's no such emblem) and claimed people "fetishize the legacy of Jefferson" (slandering people that might like the statue). Clearly it's contextualization, haha.
|
The important thing here is Danglers has already admitted he thinks that the statue needs a plaque discussing the fact that Jefferson was a slaver and didn't even have the slight decency of freeing his slaves when he died. Everything else is him sticking in his trench and nothing anybody does will get him to budge from there.
|
If your actual argument is "The protestors did not use the best possible tactics" then sure, whatever, that's a not unreasonable position to hold.
I don't think that is how most of your previous posts on the subject read. However, if that is the only point you're trying to make, then I'll acknowledge that my reading of your previous posts was not in line with what you intended to convey and we can move on.
|
It all comes down to private or public properties.
If any statues in private properties gets taken down, that's illegal. The people that wants it to be taken down should pay property damage or go to jail as the result. The owner have all the rights to have statues in his/her territory.
If the statue is in public property and if a certain group of violent individuals wants to take them down, sure they can do that, but it needs to go through a voting process. If the majority of that specific municipality wants to keep the statues in place, the statues stay in place.
|
United States42008 Posts
RiK coming in with a completely separate discussion about whether it's okay to go onto other people's property and smash their shit.
Getting the majority to support the removal of a public monument involves starting a discussion of the monument through demonstrations and the like. A symbolic gesture like placing a tarp over a statue is a good way of achieving that.
|
On September 18 2017 22:51 Gahlo wrote:
The important thing here is Danglers has already admitted he thinks that the statue needs a plaque discussing the fact that Jefferson was a slaver and didn't even have the slight decency of freeing his slaves when he died. Everything else is him sticking in his trench and nothing anybody does will get him to budge from there.
Repeating the same tired assertions won't get me to change my mind, I can tell you that. We have to be thankful they didn't vandalize the statue, and we have to think enshrouding it means they want to have a conversation about him. Gehle, I thought people would tire earlier if all they had was opposite perspective assertions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/9R9PrIX.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LKfRa1G.jpg)
