|
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 January 17 2018 08:26 Simberto wrote:
I'd like to remind everyone that despite Danglars insisting on it, i don't think anyone here is actually for tearing down statues of your national anthem or smearing them with paint or anything else along those lines.
This whole discussion, similar to the one about shrouding the statue a while back, feels a bit surreal because it seems like Danglars is talking to other people. Not the people actually talking to him here in the forum.
I have no idea why this discussion has turned into "statues preserve history". That is at best tangentially related.
Why is the action of a single person who had a can of spraypaint and nothing to do so incredibly relevant? No one here is in favor of allowing random people to break down and deface whatever art they like. Which seems to be what Danglars believes people are talking about.
There is a tangential question of whether that statue should be there or not. But that is a different question which is being conflated with the initial report.
So here a quick summary of a position which i think most "leftists" here will agree upon.
1) That statue event isn't really important.
2) People should not be legally allowed to damage statues they don't like.
3) Sometimes people still do stuff that they are not allowed to. That is what a working law system is for. Use that law system to deal with those people.
4) A reasonable result is fining people and making them pay for fixing the thing.
All of the above applies similarly to basically any statues in public.
Now, a related topic is which statues should and should not be standing in places, and how one should act regarding stuff that one things should not be in place. This is where you will find diverging opinions between you and leftists, and within the leftist group too.
Then why waste so much breath arguing against their importance? It’s pretty easily seen that letting them stand and observing them as more than just racists in history is an honest default position. But if you missed it, I made an explicit comparison to the background of last year where protests called for their removal and Trump said they’d be coming for founding fathers after confedederate generals. It’s pretty easy to see you won’t lift a finger to stop it (because nobody from the left started by arguing for their importance in addition to libraries). You confer no value (except to point out racist thoughts of the author’s and assert racist content to their work). Step one in showing you aren’t as you appear is calling attention to their value apart from criticizing the work as racist. I won’t hold my breath, but I will continue to read.
|
|
|
On January 17 2018 08:27 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:07 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:57 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 06:36 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:18 Toadesstern wrote:
[quote]
Is the anthem racist? - Probably not in it's entirety but the part GH quoted seems... a bit problematic nowadays
Is the author racist? - If what P6 wrote in here about him is true then yeah.
Does either make you want to call for that statue to be removed? - Not really. Unless that specific problematic part is on there? You can always change your anthem a bit to be more up to date with the current times if need be. We got rid of two of our stanzas (no idea if that's the word) in the german one as well because of all that... you know, “Germany above all else in the World” which does sound kind of hitlerish Well, I’ll take “a bit problematic nowadays” over “racist” as it goes. I’m all for plaques saying what salient features of this and that stand out (perserverence in the cause for freedom). I’m very much against erasing history because human beings do great things and wrong things. It also sends the wrong message about how adults should respond to the depth of individuals. Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. I did learn all of that and it’s all written down in books. It is where they wrote down the last two verses to the national anthem. Not in the national consciousness, which would rather forget the history of slavery and oppression in our nation. Not in the statues erected by people wishing to rewrite the history of a war fought to preserve the enslavement of an entire race of people. Historians want to preserve an accurate retelling of history as it was, not as people wish to remember it. Bring down all the statues. The historians will write down why there were put up and why they were taken down. We will never forget them. Then I really wish you would apply those lessons. You keep dancing back and forth on stupid Americans that are cursed to whitewash racism, but it’s all great if you bury the past in libraries where it has to be sought out. You show a great disrespect for history and its memorialization in the public square. You protest against it, for sure, but I’m starting to realize you’ll never recognize this aspect of your character. I have no problem with memorializing history. I just don't fear the memorial being taken down or changed. Statues are great if put up for the right reasons. But we are not slaves to them once they are put up. We are not required to endure the flawed monuments of a previous generation that wished to return to the days of slavery and oppression. The preservation and accuracy of history does not require that. But if getting rid of those statues causes people to read more history books, bring me the hammer. On January 17 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:01 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:54 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 06:36 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Well, I’ll take “a bit problematic nowadays” over “racist” as it goes. I’m all for plaques saying what salient features of this and that stand out (perserverence in the cause for freedom). I’m very much against erasing history because human beings do great things and wrong things. It also sends the wrong message about how adults should respond to the depth of individuals. Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. I mean there are statues of MLK but if they get torn down and defaced that would be okay because they don't preserve history and shouldn't be protected. Clearly. Spray paint over Rosa Parks? Nothing to see here, just a bunch of kids, why was this up in the first place? Everybody knows there’s public libraries where we inter history! That’s the enlightened view! I hear MLK cheated on his wife, so clearly any statues of him or boulevards named after him or holidays honoring him are problematic on women’s rights. This is pretty ironic, because most people who talk about MLK bemoan how sanitized his history has become in service of making him palpable to whites uncomfortable with the realities of the civil rights movement. Most people I know would love it if MLK was celebrated for more than a couple lines in “I have a dream.” You would hamstring all attempts to even know the quick basics if all public monuments to him are subject to removal. You bemoan the ignorance, but advocate for a double helping of it. It’s sad. I taught history. It is the teacher standing next to the statue explaining the history to the kids, not the statue. All of the classes I taught did not require a statue to teach the basics. To be honest, preserving a historical figure's home is a better teaching tool than a statue. There are sections of the countries with no statues and they managed to learn US history. We will be fine. The movement is defacement and removal. I don’t care if you think you don’t have a problem with memorializing history, I have a problem with you actually seeing fit to remove them (not stand in the way of removing them). They ought to be preserved for what they are and reflected upon by young and old. Then when and if you’re inspired, go to the library or search online for the full story. Like my previous comparison, you don’t have to be Mao’s goons effacing the cultural past, to just stand by as its done anyways, content in your own innocence. I’m also in favor of teachers taking children to historical places about time including statues, graves, and historical buildings. You’re more at home with a teacher telling students where the statue used to stand, and the intricacies of the artistry from the past, than to actually stand next to the statue. Covered in spray paint. Unable to exist in history because of the puritanical present.
Your argument is that all statues are sacrosanct and must be preserved regardless of the facts surrounded them or what they represent. But even you know that argument is bad. The reality is the confederate statues are going to come down some day and it will have no impact on our national history. But you want to cling to this argument because you cannot think of a better one. Or maybe you have not been provided with one. You attempts to moralize on the subject is puerile, like someone throwing a tantrum when they realizing they won't get their way or someone won't do what they want. I am unmoved by your faux outrage.
|
On January 17 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
I asked why that tweet was worthy of discussion in the thread. The only good thing that came about from it was Danglars learning that there are two more verses to the anthem.
I learned that opinions span from “a bit problematic” to “racist.” The people that think the anthem is racist are much more vocal than the people that think it’s a bit problematic or maybe even innocent.
|
On January 17 2018 08:41 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:29 Plansix wrote:
I asked why that tweet was worthy of discussion in the thread. The only good thing that came about from it was Danglars learning that there are two more verses to the anthem. I learned that opinions span from “a bit problematic” to “racist.” The people that think the anthem is racist are much more vocal than the people that think it’s a bit problematic or maybe even innocent.
The star spangled banner was written by Francis Scott Key, a slave owner and supporter of slavery. In the song, he writes about how it is sad that the slaves turned on their masters. The song, as written, is racist. That section was removed and is forgotten, leaving the celebration of America remaining. Devoid of context or its own history, it is never seen as the song of a racist by our nation. And it is sung over and over as a point of pride and reverence to our national character.
The Star Spangled Banner, in all its history, in a prefect representation of this country and its national character. I wouldn't change it in any way.
|
On January 17 2018 08:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:05 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:55 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 06:36 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:18 Toadesstern wrote:On January 17 2018 05:32 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Maybe you missed Charlottesville. Is the anthem racist? Is the author racist? Does either make you want to call for that statue to be removed.
GH: Is it “home of the brave” that’s the racist part, or maybe “land of the free?” Rocket’s red glare also might be dog whistling. Is the anthem racist? - Probably not in it's entirety but the part GH quoted seems... a bit problematic nowadays Is the author racist? - If what P6 wrote in here about him is true then yeah. Does either make you want to call for that statue to be removed? - Not really. Unless that specific problematic part is on there? You can always change your anthem a bit to be more up to date with the current times if need be. We got rid of two of our stanzas (no idea if that's the word) in the german one as well because of all that... you know, “Germany above all else in the World” which does sound kind of hitlerish Well, I’ll take “a bit problematic nowadays” over “racist” as it goes. I’m all for plaques saying what salient features of this and that stand out (perserverence in the cause for freedom). I’m very much against erasing history because human beings do great things and wrong things. It also sends the wrong message about how adults should respond to the depth of individuals. Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. You have still not said why any of this is positive. What do we gain by celebrating these men? I’m gonna sounds trite here, but those who don’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it. Considering today’s public school system, national monuments are a very good thing. Now, am I correct in assuming “public consciousness” is not a good for you. IE public ignorance of its history isn’t so bad? I pity your history programs. I really do. Mohdoo vs the Statue of Liberty I suppose. You’ve given me a great many reasons to believe you wouldn’t oppose the destruction or vandalizing of that one too. You've still yet to make an effective argument. What history are you saying people are being prevented from repeating from this statue existing? Overall, your entire argument is an appeal to tradition. You haven't actually laid out any advantages of these statues or showed why they prevent mistakes being made again. You are falsely equating the existence of written history with the erecting of statues.
Listen, I think you’re shutting your eyes to the argument because you’re closed off to the line of reasoning. I never had high hopes of convincing you that you’re wrong on this or backwards. I endeavored to show it nonetheless for readers and for my own personal satisfaction. It’s interesting to note that you reject all value I assign to them, both in promoting discussions of history and noting them for what they should be remembered. It’s inspiration to find the larger story. If you don’t learn it in the public schools (ours suck, but maybe you missed that part), you need entry points into an appreciation for history. Statues are one of them. There is also a movement to brand some as racists and diminish their accomplishments apart from that (again, if you missed that, oh well, pay more attention in the next five years). Removing the statue serves the end to misremember the totality of their role in history. I’m not going to repeat myself forever to convince someone in zlefin-mode to actually faithfully examine the argument presented and not dismiss immediately with poor rationalizations.
|
On January 17 2018 08:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:27 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:07 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:57 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 06:36 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Well, I’ll take “a bit problematic nowadays” over “racist” as it goes. I’m all for plaques saying what salient features of this and that stand out (perserverence in the cause for freedom). I’m very much against erasing history because human beings do great things and wrong things. It also sends the wrong message about how adults should respond to the depth of individuals. Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. I did learn all of that and it’s all written down in books. It is where they wrote down the last two verses to the national anthem. Not in the national consciousness, which would rather forget the history of slavery and oppression in our nation. Not in the statues erected by people wishing to rewrite the history of a war fought to preserve the enslavement of an entire race of people. Historians want to preserve an accurate retelling of history as it was, not as people wish to remember it. Bring down all the statues. The historians will write down why there were put up and why they were taken down. We will never forget them. Then I really wish you would apply those lessons. You keep dancing back and forth on stupid Americans that are cursed to whitewash racism, but it’s all great if you bury the past in libraries where it has to be sought out. You show a great disrespect for history and its memorialization in the public square. You protest against it, for sure, but I’m starting to realize you’ll never recognize this aspect of your character. I have no problem with memorializing history. I just don't fear the memorial being taken down or changed. Statues are great if put up for the right reasons. But we are not slaves to them once they are put up. We are not required to endure the flawed monuments of a previous generation that wished to return to the days of slavery and oppression. The preservation and accuracy of history does not require that. But if getting rid of those statues causes people to read more history books, bring me the hammer. On January 17 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:01 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:54 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. I mean there are statues of MLK but if they get torn down and defaced that would be okay because they don't preserve history and shouldn't be protected. Clearly. Spray paint over Rosa Parks? Nothing to see here, just a bunch of kids, why was this up in the first place? Everybody knows there’s public libraries where we inter history! That’s the enlightened view! I hear MLK cheated on his wife, so clearly any statues of him or boulevards named after him or holidays honoring him are problematic on women’s rights. This is pretty ironic, because most people who talk about MLK bemoan how sanitized his history has become in service of making him palpable to whites uncomfortable with the realities of the civil rights movement. Most people I know would love it if MLK was celebrated for more than a couple lines in “I have a dream.” You would hamstring all attempts to even know the quick basics if all public monuments to him are subject to removal. You bemoan the ignorance, but advocate for a double helping of it. It’s sad. I taught history. It is the teacher standing next to the statue explaining the history to the kids, not the statue. All of the classes I taught did not require a statue to teach the basics. To be honest, preserving a historical figure's home is a better teaching tool than a statue. There are sections of the countries with no statues and they managed to learn US history. We will be fine. The movement is defacement and removal. I don’t care if you think you don’t have a problem with memorializing history, I have a problem with you actually seeing fit to remove them (not stand in the way of removing them). They ought to be preserved for what they are and reflected upon by young and old. Then when and if you’re inspired, go to the library or search online for the full story. Like my previous comparison, you don’t have to be Mao’s goons effacing the cultural past, to just stand by as its done anyways, content in your own innocence. I’m also in favor of teachers taking children to historical places about time including statues, graves, and historical buildings. You’re more at home with a teacher telling students where the statue used to stand, and the intricacies of the artistry from the past, than to actually stand next to the statue. Covered in spray paint. Unable to exist in history because of the puritanical present. Your argument is that all statues are sacrosanct and must be preserved regardless of the facts surrounded them or what they represent. But even you know that argument is bad. The reality is the confederate statues are going to come down some day and it will have no impact on our national history. But you want to cling to this argument because you cannot think of a better one. Or maybe you have not been provided with one. You attempts to moralize on the subject is puerile, like someone throwing a tantrum when they realizing they won't get their way or someone won't do what they want. I am unmoved by your faux outrage.
But don't you see that it would be a weird whitewashing of history to see a bunch of statues everywhere except for the ones that people don't like anymore? Its always going to be in history that there were confederate statues and them going down will change absolutely nothing about them being there or what those people did.
It just seems that people are protesting people pruning history to suit what they like with more pruning.
|
On January 17 2018 08:39 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:27 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:07 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:57 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:On January 17 2018 06:36 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Well, I’ll take “a bit problematic nowadays” over “racist” as it goes. I’m all for plaques saying what salient features of this and that stand out (perserverence in the cause for freedom). I’m very much against erasing history because human beings do great things and wrong things. It also sends the wrong message about how adults should respond to the depth of individuals. Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. I did learn all of that and it’s all written down in books. It is where they wrote down the last two verses to the national anthem. Not in the national consciousness, which would rather forget the history of slavery and oppression in our nation. Not in the statues erected by people wishing to rewrite the history of a war fought to preserve the enslavement of an entire race of people. Historians want to preserve an accurate retelling of history as it was, not as people wish to remember it. Bring down all the statues. The historians will write down why there were put up and why they were taken down. We will never forget them. Then I really wish you would apply those lessons. You keep dancing back and forth on stupid Americans that are cursed to whitewash racism, but it’s all great if you bury the past in libraries where it has to be sought out. You show a great disrespect for history and its memorialization in the public square. You protest against it, for sure, but I’m starting to realize you’ll never recognize this aspect of your character. I have no problem with memorializing history. I just don't fear the memorial being taken down or changed. Statues are great if put up for the right reasons. But we are not slaves to them once they are put up. We are not required to endure the flawed monuments of a previous generation that wished to return to the days of slavery and oppression. The preservation and accuracy of history does not require that. But if getting rid of those statues causes people to read more history books, bring me the hammer. On January 17 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:01 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:54 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. I mean there are statues of MLK but if they get torn down and defaced that would be okay because they don't preserve history and shouldn't be protected. Clearly. Spray paint over Rosa Parks? Nothing to see here, just a bunch of kids, why was this up in the first place? Everybody knows there’s public libraries where we inter history! That’s the enlightened view! I hear MLK cheated on his wife, so clearly any statues of him or boulevards named after him or holidays honoring him are problematic on women’s rights. This is pretty ironic, because most people who talk about MLK bemoan how sanitized his history has become in service of making him palpable to whites uncomfortable with the realities of the civil rights movement. Most people I know would love it if MLK was celebrated for more than a couple lines in “I have a dream.” You would hamstring all attempts to even know the quick basics if all public monuments to him are subject to removal. You bemoan the ignorance, but advocate for a double helping of it. It’s sad. I taught history. It is the teacher standing next to the statue explaining the history to the kids, not the statue. All of the classes I taught did not require a statue to teach the basics. To be honest, preserving a historical figure's home is a better teaching tool than a statue. There are sections of the countries with no statues and they managed to learn US history. We will be fine. The movement is defacement and removal. I don’t care if you think you don’t have a problem with memorializing history, I have a problem with you actually seeing fit to remove them (not stand in the way of removing them). They ought to be preserved for what they are and reflected upon by young and old. Then when and if you’re inspired, go to the library or search online for the full story. Like my previous comparison, you don’t have to be Mao’s goons effacing the cultural past, to just stand by as its done anyways, content in your own innocence. I’m also in favor of teachers taking children to historical places about time including statues, graves, and historical buildings. You’re more at home with a teacher telling students where the statue used to stand, and the intricacies of the artistry from the past, than to actually stand next to the statue. Covered in spray paint. Unable to exist in history because of the puritanical present. Your argument is that all statues are sacrosanct and must be preserved regardless of the facts surrounded them or what they represent. But even you know that argument is bad. The reality is the confederate statues are going to come down some day and it will have no impact on our national history. But you want to cling to this argument because you cannot think of a better one. Or maybe you have not been provided with one. You attempts to moralize on the subject is puerile, like someone throwing a tantrum when they realizing they won't get their way or someone won't do what they want. I am unmoved by your faux outrage.
Nope. I argue that the campaign for removal is wrongheaded. People like you dismiss their value (and I guess sometimes double back to affirm their value because you arrive at absurd conclusion). People in this forum fail to appreciate the need to examine historical figures deeper than just racist/notracist. And you’ll flee to “they are going to come down some day” like fate exists outside arguments. Maybe that’s as far as you get in conclusions, I don’t really know.
|
Everyone gearing up for the #Girther movement? There can be no doubt the Presidential Phsycian straight face lied to America, dear leader style. Was half expecting him to say Trump had 18 straight holes in one.
|
On January 17 2018 08:50 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 08:39 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:27 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:15 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 08:07 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:57 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:50 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 06:39 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Can you elaborate on how this "erases history"? The idea of changing or removing the anthem doesn't really seem to change anything. We've got everything written down. What is being lost? Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. Ask for your money back. You should have learned that public displays help the national consciousness. That includes celebrating great men that weren’t saints through-and-through, and also points of national embarrassment that we should learn from in other ways. Maybe you learned but now choose to forget or not apply lessons from history in complicated figures that should lead to investigation and examination. If you think some conflicted figure gets a bad rap, go argue for an accompanying plaque instead of calling shit racist and moving on. I did learn all of that and it’s all written down in books. It is where they wrote down the last two verses to the national anthem. Not in the national consciousness, which would rather forget the history of slavery and oppression in our nation. Not in the statues erected by people wishing to rewrite the history of a war fought to preserve the enslavement of an entire race of people. Historians want to preserve an accurate retelling of history as it was, not as people wish to remember it. Bring down all the statues. The historians will write down why there were put up and why they were taken down. We will never forget them. Then I really wish you would apply those lessons. You keep dancing back and forth on stupid Americans that are cursed to whitewash racism, but it’s all great if you bury the past in libraries where it has to be sought out. You show a great disrespect for history and its memorialization in the public square. You protest against it, for sure, but I’m starting to realize you’ll never recognize this aspect of your character. I have no problem with memorializing history. I just don't fear the memorial being taken down or changed. Statues are great if put up for the right reasons. But we are not slaves to them once they are put up. We are not required to endure the flawed monuments of a previous generation that wished to return to the days of slavery and oppression. The preservation and accuracy of history does not require that. But if getting rid of those statues causes people to read more history books, bring me the hammer. On January 17 2018 08:09 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 08:01 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 07:54 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 07:32 Sermokala wrote:On January 17 2018 07:29 Plansix wrote:On January 17 2018 06:59 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Removing statues is removing public reminders of our historical past. These ought to exist in public to center the present between past and future. Removing the visible reminders is a strike for relegating history to libraries only for people who decide to seek it out. I would say the same for any Spencer types that want to take out a public monument calling attention to Selma or the fugitive slave act or the dred Scott decision. As someone who got a whole degree in history, statues do not preserve history. They have never done that. They do distort history to favor the political views of the people who put up the statue. But they in no way preserve our history. Books, records and historians preserve our history and its accuracy. But if you want to fight for the views of the people who put up the confederate monuments, feel free. I mean there are statues of MLK but if they get torn down and defaced that would be okay because they don't preserve history and shouldn't be protected. Clearly. Spray paint over Rosa Parks? Nothing to see here, just a bunch of kids, why was this up in the first place? Everybody knows there’s public libraries where we inter history! That’s the enlightened view! I hear MLK cheated on his wife, so clearly any statues of him or boulevards named after him or holidays honoring him are problematic on women’s rights. This is pretty ironic, because most people who talk about MLK bemoan how sanitized his history has become in service of making him palpable to whites uncomfortable with the realities of the civil rights movement. Most people I know would love it if MLK was celebrated for more than a couple lines in “I have a dream.” You would hamstring all attempts to even know the quick basics if all public monuments to him are subject to removal. You bemoan the ignorance, but advocate for a double helping of it. It’s sad. I taught history. It is the teacher standing next to the statue explaining the history to the kids, not the statue. All of the classes I taught did not require a statue to teach the basics. To be honest, preserving a historical figure's home is a better teaching tool than a statue. There are sections of the countries with no statues and they managed to learn US history. We will be fine. The movement is defacement and removal. I don’t care if you think you don’t have a problem with memorializing history, I have a problem with you actually seeing fit to remove them (not stand in the way of removing them). They ought to be preserved for what they are and reflected upon by young and old. Then when and if you’re inspired, go to the library or search online for the full story. Like my previous comparison, you don’t have to be Mao’s goons effacing the cultural past, to just stand by as its done anyways, content in your own innocence. I’m also in favor of teachers taking children to historical places about time including statues, graves, and historical buildings. You’re more at home with a teacher telling students where the statue used to stand, and the intricacies of the artistry from the past, than to actually stand next to the statue. Covered in spray paint. Unable to exist in history because of the puritanical present. Your argument is that all statues are sacrosanct and must be preserved regardless of the facts surrounded them or what they represent. But even you know that argument is bad. The reality is the confederate statues are going to come down some day and it will have no impact on our national history. But you want to cling to this argument because you cannot think of a better one. Or maybe you have not been provided with one. You attempts to moralize on the subject is puerile, like someone throwing a tantrum when they realizing they won't get their way or someone won't do what they want. I am unmoved by your faux outrage. But don't you see that it would be a weird whitewashing of history to see a bunch of statues everywhere except for the ones that people don't like anymore? Its always going to be in history that there were confederate statues and them going down will change absolutely nothing about them being there or what those people did. It just seems that people are protesting people pruning history to suit what they like with more pruning.
Call me when they’re going to change the history books. I’ve got better things to do than defend a confederate statue a local community wants to remove because a bunch of racist put it up in the Jim Crow era. I’m sure they will put up a nice statue to replace it.
|
On January 17 2018 08:55 On_Slaught wrote:
Everyone gearing up for the #Girther movement? There can be no doubt the Presidential Phsycian straight face lied to America, dear leader style. Was half expecting him to say Trump had 18 straight holes in one.
We already had someone try to suggest that Trump's physician went above and beyond (in a positive sense) prior examinations in this very thread lol
|
The argument that you should take "racist" statues down seems weird to me, even if they were put up for racist motives. Shouldn't the message now be: "This is a great reminder of how bad we screwed up and need to do better moving forward"?
|
On January 17 2018 06:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 06:10 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 17 2018 05:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 17 2018 05:32 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 05:20 Simberto wrote:On January 17 2018 05:00 Danglars wrote:On January 17 2018 04:42 GreenHorizons wrote:lol, because obviously there are no protests for those things too? You'd think with things like freezing schools the guy would care more about that than some dumbass statue, but we know why the statue got him angry but the schools only got mentioned in context of the statue. That guy is a total tool and does the whole "if Black people really cared" schtick like he's not a racist jackass but sincerely concerned for black people. But again, didn't give a shit about freezing schools in Baltimore until he could use it to make a completely fallacious point. I can find a tweet with less editorializing if necessary. I remember all the uproar with “it’s just a shroud” and “forget about when we said confederates vs founding fathers was a clear difference and one wouldn’t slip into the other.” Well, is the spray paint just another kind of shrouding the statue? Does this have nothing to do with the anthem? Some people put graffiti on a statue. Fine them and have them pay for cleaning it. Does anyone here differ in the opinion that that is what should be done? Sometimes people do stupid stuff, but on the list of stupid stuff, this is a pretty small offense. In a nation of 300 million people, you are going to find someone that did something stupid every day. No one was hurt, and i doubt that any irreversable damage was done. Doesn't really sound like a thing of national importance. Maybe you missed Charlottesville. Is the anthem racist? Is the author racist? Does either make you want to call for that statue to be removed. GH: Is it “home of the brave” that’s the racist part, or maybe “land of the free?” Rocket’s red glare also might be dog whistling. You really think there's room to debate whether thinking black people are inferior to white people is racist? As to the song: And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash’d out their foul footstep’s pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave. The part that laments slaves siding with their freedom over allegiance to their masters. You know this has been a complaint for a long time too right? Like all of the pomp and circumstance surrounding the US lauding itself for it's awesome freedomness has ALWAYS (as in every generation) been seen as racist by black people? I feel like I shouldn't have to say this, but expressly depriving them of that freedom is pretty much the core reason. Considering the behavior you deem reasonable for conservatives/republicans (voting Trump and beyond) for feeling like they are getting left out, you should be amazed at the restraint and patience black people have shown this country and political system. You should also be completely sympathetic with them legitimately voting for someone far outside of mainstream acceptability (Obama is practically Jeb! in this context). The lyrics that no-one sings don't really read pro-slavery... This seems like an odd stretch. Slavery was happening during the whole song. The "freedom" being sung about didn't apply to black people. The guy who wrote it didn't envision/desire free black Americans ever being a thing.
So what? This isn't even a complete argument, let alone a good one.
|
I don’t see this story going places.
|
On January 17 2018 09:04 Aveng3r wrote:
The argument that you should take "racist" statues down seems weird to me, even if they were put up for racist motives. Shouldn't the message now be: "This is a great reminder of how bad we screwed up and need to do better moving forward"?
you can have that message without having the same statues. you could put up more positively oriented statues for instance.
also the statues weren't designed (and crafted) to display that message, but to display a very different one, and that probably rather shows, at least in some of them.
It's also a sore point because a lot of people don't admit the screwup was so bad/ongoing racial tensions. if there weren't those it'd all be less of an issue.
and is it so unreasonable to remove statues that were put up unreasonably in the first place?
|
On January 17 2018 09:04 Aveng3r wrote:
The argument that you should take "racist" statues down seems weird to me, even if they were put up for racist motives. Shouldn't the message now be: "This is a great reminder of how bad we screwed up and need to do better moving forward"?
Uhh yeah. But put people to the test and they declare them valueless (libraries!) and privilege racists that might look at the statue with anger in their heart. It really presumes Americans are too stupid to see flawed human beings or high malevolence up close, and its going to make racism ok again. You just have to ask enough questions to hear the true view, then press on a little more to see the backtracking. Also, note the silence when statues of MLK are brought up.
|
On January 17 2018 09:04 Aveng3r wrote:
The argument that you should take "racist" statues down seems weird to me, even if they were put up for racist motives. Shouldn't the message now be: "This is a great reminder of how bad we screwed up and need to do better moving forward"?
If a statue makes a significant part of the population uncomfortable and feel unwelcome, maybe that is not a good statue to have standing on a public space.
This is not something new, people have been doing that for ages. It is just the first thing it is happening in the US afaik.
People removed the giant stalin statues after the fall of the soviet union, we don't have any Nazi memorials in Germany anymore (As in, things that nazis put up, we do have stuff commemorating bad stuff nazis did). Your own soldiers took down the Saddam statues in Iraq quite prominently if i recall correctly.
So removing statues from public places when the public no longer agree with what those statues stand for is not really a completely unheard of thing.
There are better ways to remember bad stuff your that happened than having the propaganda of the bad stuff doers stand around uncommented. Like for example putting up memorials that explicitly have the goal of commemorating the bad stuff.
|
On January 17 2018 09:15 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 17 2018 09:04 Aveng3r wrote:
The argument that you should take "racist" statues down seems weird to me, even if they were put up for racist motives. Shouldn't the message now be: "This is a great reminder of how bad we screwed up and need to do better moving forward"? If a statue makes a significant part of the population uncomfortable and feel unwelcome, maybe that is not a good statue to have standing on a public space. This is not something new, people have been doing that for ages. It is just the first thing it is happening in the US afaik. People removed the giant stalin statues after the fall of the soviet union, we don't have any Nazi memorials in Germany anymore (As in, things that nazis put up, we do have stuff commemorating bad stuff nazis did). Your own soldiers took down the Saddam statues in Iraq quite prominently if i recall correctly. So removing statues from public places when the public no longer agree with what those statues stand for is not really a completely unheard of thing. There are better ways to remember bad stuff your that happened than having the propaganda of the bad stuff doers stand around uncommented. Like for example putting up memorials that explicitly have the goal of commemorating the bad stuff.
Thats all pretty fair. I hadn't thought of the saddam example.
I suppose you could argue that the removal of said statue is in itself a recognition of moving forward, doing better, etc
|
Frankly I don't believe a fucking word out of his mouth. He's asking us to ignore what is plainly visible to us. In no universe is Trump 239lbs. In no universe is somebody who eats like he does at 71 and gets zero exercise "in great health." I don't even buy he is 2 inches taller than Obama. Doesn't pass the eye test.
The fact that a weight of 239 puts him .1 BPI from being medically obese is a huge, and obvious, red flag. If I can't trust basic numbers like that, how can I trust anything else he says?
|
Can't wait for the Booker v. Gillibrand #fakeoff. Maybe get Harris in there too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
