Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of partly agree with Danglars here.
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
That's entirely fine. There is nothing wrong with that. These statues are a basic tribal instinct, not a necessity and certainly not something with a positive impact. Monuments should convey admiration for ideas and accomplishments, not people.
This statue in Russia is used to pay respect to mice who have been used for developing human medicine. It has a great meaning. Columbus had hands chopped off. Full stop, that's terrible. We should be proud we as a people are coming to realize barbarism isn't acceptable.
I completely reject the idea that statues of people as a practice is valuable. I don't think anyone has shown that. You certainly haven't yet. All you are pointing out is what a big change it is in our current culture. Culture has radically changed before.
Remember how women used to be considered property? Remember how slavery was common? Statues are not slavery, but I am trying to point out the fact that massive cultural changes do indeed occur and it doesn't make it bad, just shocking. It is ok for things to be shocking and uncomfortable. This won't be the last time our global culture undergoes radical change. This will happen many more times.
Let me ask you this: Do you think we are at some sort of "end point" of cultural advancement? Do you think we'll be roughly the same as a planet in 500 years? This is just a moment in time. Nothing about our position in history is unique or special. We are simply a chapter in a book.
On June 24 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote: I think most of this thread knows that Trump will use the excesses of the violent protests to justify his re-election. After all, aren't his enemies just a little bit *soft* on the idea of violence against statues and property, considering there is real deserved anger about real injustice? That's some of the backdrop to my current thinking. Biden hasn't embraced "defund the police," to his establishment credit, but his allies are not swift to decry the damage to businesses already wracked by coronavirus closure.
This is an artifact created in 1852 by Clark Mills. The first bronze-cast statue in the US and the first equestrian statue in US history. It's made of a former president responsible for both the Native American forced march called the Trail of Tears and defending America from the British and Indians during the War of 1812. Similarly, statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S Grant, Abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Junipero Serra, and Theodore Roosevelt have been defaced or taken down.
This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? [...]
[Re: Thomas Jefferson]Are we going to take down his statue. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? It is fine. You are changing history and culture.
back in 2017, go to the front of the class. I saw echoes of that on the confederate statue debate, and people told me slippery slope fallacy and denied any comparisons to more "virtuous" individuals that might be next. Looking at Trump's quote, it was remarkably prescient, especially for such an unthinking individual.
It shouldn't take some South Philly Italians to make the case for Christopher Columbus in the language of the working man, while the more educated-sounding interlocutor "educates" him about his evils. Compare and contrast that to the scene of young, woke white women spitting in the face of the police (particularly a black police officer) sent in time to stop Andrew Jackson suffering the same fate as statues of earlier presidents + Show Spoiler +
It's not a good look. It doesn't show a lot of the side of "it's valuable so put it in a museum instead," in this no-vote no-nuance take on their history.
I wager that the left and center-left have precious little time to make it clear that the violence against statues has gone too far in order to show they're sufficiently opposed to mobs tearing down stuff in a fervor. The voices that I was watching for were incensed that Trump did a dumb photo op in front of St John's Church, but conjured up little outrage that fires were started inside and around the church and the front was tagged. It was built in 1816, by the way. The means of dispersal of protesters was the only worthy news there. Look forward to later on the campaign trail:Trump points out that these localities, like rapes and shootings occurring inside East Seattle's "Autonomous Zone"/CHOP, have had Democratic mayors for decades. He says that the left that's called for a recasting of America's history in the 1619 project "true founding," has turned more towards erasure of history in a fit of rage. He says the opposition to statues was part of the same project against Confederate general statues and named bases, but now that it's turned to Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Grant, it's better seen as opposition to America, not the legacy of the Confederates. That's a powerful argument on the cultural side of politics, if you ask me. Count me in the camp that says Democrats have gone way too soft on remembering America's history--not only for the bad parts of it.+ Show Spoiler +
But, hey, look, Trump tweeted something dumb again! Read my 2,000 word piece about how he's a proto-fascist and is addicted to crowd size, what a loser
The slippery-slope is of course real, but I want to point out how mad this all is. you mentioned in passing the destruction of a Grant statue. This is nuts. We need look no further than this event to realize that the impulse to tear these statues down is either a thrill from the vandalism or a complete disdain and disregard for any of our history. Grant was a key general in winning the Civil War, helped pass some of the first civil rights laws, and was generally one of the most pro-civil rights presidents of his era. It is stupid to tear down a Grant statue, for pretty much any reason. These vandals have long since exhausted their benefit of the doubt, if they ever deserved it.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
Doesn't surprise me.
Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards".
On June 24 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote: I think most of this thread knows that Trump will use the excesses of the violent protests to justify his re-election. After all, aren't his enemies just a little bit *soft* on the idea of violence against statues and property, considering there is real deserved anger about real injustice? That's some of the backdrop to my current thinking. Biden hasn't embraced "defund the police," to his establishment credit, but his allies are not swift to decry the damage to businesses already wracked by coronavirus closure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVELtGOaqxY This is an artifact created in 1852 by Clark Mills. The first bronze-cast statue in the US and the first equestrian statue in US history. It's made of a former president responsible for both the Native American forced march called the Trail of Tears and defending America from the British and Indians during the War of 1812. Similarly, statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S Grant, Abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Junipero Serra, and Theodore Roosevelt have been defaced or taken down.
If you're hearing echoes of Trump saying
This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? [...]
[Re: Thomas Jefferson]Are we going to take down his statue. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? It is fine. You are changing history and culture.
back in 2017, go to the front of the class. I saw echoes of that on the confederate statue debate, and people told me slippery slope fallacy and denied any comparisons to more "virtuous" individuals that might be next. Looking at Trump's quote, it was remarkably prescient, especially for such an unthinking individual.
https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1271970452836159490 It shouldn't take some South Philly Italians to make the case for Christopher Columbus in the language of the working man, while the more educated-sounding interlocutor "educates" him about his evils. Compare and contrast that to the scene of young, woke white women spitting in the face of the police (particularly a black police officer) sent in time to stop Andrew Jackson suffering the same fate as statues of earlier presidents + Show Spoiler +
It's not a good look. It doesn't show a lot of the side of "it's valuable so put it in a museum instead," in this no-vote no-nuance take on their history.
I wager that the left and center-left have precious little time to make it clear that the violence against statues has gone too far in order to show they're sufficiently opposed to mobs tearing down stuff in a fervor. The voices that I was watching for were incensed that Trump did a dumb photo op in front of St John's Church, but conjured up little outrage that fires were started inside and around the church and the front was tagged. It was built in 1816, by the way. The means of dispersal of protesters was the only worthy news there. Look forward to later on the campaign trail:Trump points out that these localities, like rapes and shootings occurring inside East Seattle's "Autonomous Zone"/CHOP, have had Democratic mayors for decades. He says that the left that's called for a recasting of America's history in the 1619 project "true founding," has turned more towards erasure of history in a fit of rage. He says the opposition to statues was part of the same project against Confederate general statues and named bases, but now that it's turned to Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Grant, it's better seen as opposition to America, not the legacy of the Confederates. That's a powerful argument on the cultural side of politics, if you ask me. Count me in the camp that says Democrats have gone way too soft on remembering America's history--not only for the bad parts of it.+ Show Spoiler +
But, hey, look, Trump tweeted something dumb again! Read my 2,000 word piece about how he's a proto-fascist and is addicted to crowd size, what a loser
I stopped reading your concern trolling pwn the libs post when you called them "Indian's". Indian's are from India and to my recollection never attacked Murica.
You could say that First nation's people tried to defend their land against Murica and were defeated and often slaughtered, but I'm not sure that get's to what ever point you think you are making.
When trying to pretend to be sensible it would help if you didn't use racist terms for groups of people.
Perhaps if that statue is so important to history it should be a museum and it can have a plaque saying all the wonderful things about the statue and all the awful things the man in the statue did!
It is nice that Danglar's is also no longer going with dog whistle approach to racism and just putting it right out their like his fearful leader. You continue to win the award for the worst person on the message boards! Congrats I guess.
It's a difference in terminology between countries. While the term Indian is considered outdated and possibly offensive in Canada, it has common usage in America. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/
Indian is considered offensive in the US as well.They aren't from India.
Depends on who you ask, even among native Americans. Native Americans is generally the least offensive term, but I've met a very few that prefer American Indian.
Imagine being more upset that people wanna take down statues than the fact millions of Americans think the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Further imagine thinking that this nation’s stultified approach to its own history is unrelated to its love for statues.
On June 24 2020 04:19 farvacola wrote: Imagine being more upset that people wanna take down statues than the fact millions of Americans think the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Further imagine thinking that this nation’s stultified approach to its own history is unrelated to its love for statues.
Imagine being upset about the statues being taken down over the 100k deaths from COVID-19.
On June 24 2020 04:19 farvacola wrote: Imagine being more upset that people wanna take down statues than the fact millions of Americans think the Civil War wasn’t about slavery. Further imagine thinking that this nation’s stultified approach to its own history is unrelated to its love for statues.
Imagine being upset about the statues being taken down over the 100k deaths from COVID-19.
or the murderous and unaccountable police state failing to meet even the most basic human rights standards
On June 24 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote: I think most of this thread knows that Trump will use the excesses of the violent protests to justify his re-election. After all, aren't his enemies just a little bit *soft* on the idea of violence against statues and property, considering there is real deserved anger about real injustice? That's some of the backdrop to my current thinking. Biden hasn't embraced "defund the police," to his establishment credit, but his allies are not swift to decry the damage to businesses already wracked by coronavirus closure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVELtGOaqxY This is an artifact created in 1852 by Clark Mills. The first bronze-cast statue in the US and the first equestrian statue in US history. It's made of a former president responsible for both the Native American forced march called the Trail of Tears and defending America from the British and Indians during the War of 1812. Similarly, statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S Grant, Abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Junipero Serra, and Theodore Roosevelt have been defaced or taken down.
If you're hearing echoes of Trump saying
This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? [...]
[Re: Thomas Jefferson]Are we going to take down his statue. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? It is fine. You are changing history and culture.
back in 2017, go to the front of the class. I saw echoes of that on the confederate statue debate, and people told me slippery slope fallacy and denied any comparisons to more "virtuous" individuals that might be next. Looking at Trump's quote, it was remarkably prescient, especially for such an unthinking individual.
https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1271970452836159490 It shouldn't take some South Philly Italians to make the case for Christopher Columbus in the language of the working man, while the more educated-sounding interlocutor "educates" him about his evils. Compare and contrast that to the scene of young, woke white women spitting in the face of the police (particularly a black police officer) sent in time to stop Andrew Jackson suffering the same fate as statues of earlier presidents + Show Spoiler +
It's not a good look. It doesn't show a lot of the side of "it's valuable so put it in a museum instead," in this no-vote no-nuance take on their history.
I wager that the left and center-left have precious little time to make it clear that the violence against statues has gone too far in order to show they're sufficiently opposed to mobs tearing down stuff in a fervor. The voices that I was watching for were incensed that Trump did a dumb photo op in front of St John's Church, but conjured up little outrage that fires were started inside and around the church and the front was tagged. It was built in 1816, by the way. The means of dispersal of protesters was the only worthy news there. Look forward to later on the campaign trail:Trump points out that these localities, like rapes and shootings occurring inside East Seattle's "Autonomous Zone"/CHOP, have had Democratic mayors for decades. He says that the left that's called for a recasting of America's history in the 1619 project "true founding," has turned more towards erasure of history in a fit of rage. He says the opposition to statues was part of the same project against Confederate general statues and named bases, but now that it's turned to Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Grant, it's better seen as opposition to America, not the legacy of the Confederates. That's a powerful argument on the cultural side of politics, if you ask me. Count me in the camp that says Democrats have gone way too soft on remembering America's history--not only for the bad parts of it.+ Show Spoiler +
But, hey, look, Trump tweeted something dumb again! Read my 2,000 word piece about how he's a proto-fascist and is addicted to crowd size, what a loser
I stopped reading your concern trolling pwn the libs post when you called them "Indian's". Indian's are from India and to my recollection never attacked Murica.
You could say that First nation's people tried to defend their land against Murica and were defeated and often slaughtered, but I'm not sure that get's to what ever point you think you are making.
When trying to pretend to be sensible it would help if you didn't use racist terms for groups of people.
Perhaps if that statue is so important to history it should be a museum and it can have a plaque saying all the wonderful things about the statue and all the awful things the man in the statue did!
It is nice that Danglar's is also no longer going with dog whistle approach to racism and just putting it right out their like his fearful leader. You continue to win the award for the worst person on the message boards! Congrats I guess.
It's a difference in terminology between countries. While the term Indian is considered outdated and possibly offensive in Canada, it has common usage in America. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/
Indian is considered offensive in the US as well.They aren't from India.
I recall the term being used quite often in my school curriculum in the States. In California there is a multi-billion dollar industry of "Indian Casinos". I wouldn't use the term in Canada, but there isn't an assumed negative connotation to it in the States. Yet.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
Doesn't surprise me.
Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards".
Didn't we have this exact discussion a few weeks ago? I am going to say the same thing i did back then.
Remembering doesn't need statues on the streets. Remembering happens in schools and museums. Statues are for worship and to honour people. If we decide that someone whose statue is standing around isn't worth worship and honour, we can remove them. They can be put in a museum in a proper context if they are that important.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of partly agree with Danglars here.
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
That's entirely fine. There is nothing wrong with that. These statues are a basic tribal instinct, not a necessity and certainly not something with a positive impact. Monuments should convey admiration for ideas and accomplishments, not people.
This statue in Russia is used to pay respect to mice who have been used for developing human medicine. It has a great meaning. Columbus had hands chopped off. Full stop, that's terrible. We should be proud we as a people are coming to realize barbarism isn't acceptable.
I completely reject the idea that statues of people as a practice is valuable. I don't think anyone has shown that. You certainly haven't yet. All you are pointing out is what a big change it is in our current culture. Culture has radically changed before.
Remember how women used to be considered property? Remember how slavery was common? Statues are not slavery, but I am trying to point out the fact that massive cultural changes do indeed occur and it doesn't make it bad, just shocking. It is ok for things to be shocking and uncomfortable. This won't be the last time our global culture undergoes radical change. This will happen many more times.
Let me ask you this: Do you think we are at some sort of "end point" of cultural advancement? Do you think we'll be roughly the same as a planet in 500 years? This is just a moment in time. Nothing about our position in history is unique or special. We are simply a chapter in a book.
Here is the thing, Columbus doesn't have his statue for having chopped hands, but for being the first european to discover the new world (after Leif but whatever) and therefore opening a new era in human history.
Jefferson doesn't have statues for being a slaveowner but for being the writer of the declaration of of independence and a major political actor and thinker of his time.
A statue is not a stamp of virtue, and doesn't mean the guy was "good" or anything. Just that he or she achieved something really important and is worth remembering. Columbus and Jefferson certainly did. And yes, we need to remember the terrible things they did and reflect and learn. What better way to reflect and learn than statues?
On June 24 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote: I think most of this thread knows that Trump will use the excesses of the violent protests to justify his re-election. After all, aren't his enemies just a little bit *soft* on the idea of violence against statues and property, considering there is real deserved anger about real injustice? That's some of the backdrop to my current thinking. Biden hasn't embraced "defund the police," to his establishment credit, but his allies are not swift to decry the damage to businesses already wracked by coronavirus closure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVELtGOaqxY This is an artifact created in 1852 by Clark Mills. The first bronze-cast statue in the US and the first equestrian statue in US history. It's made of a former president responsible for both the Native American forced march called the Trail of Tears and defending America from the British and Indians during the War of 1812. Similarly, statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S Grant, Abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Junipero Serra, and Theodore Roosevelt have been defaced or taken down.
If you're hearing echoes of Trump saying
This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? [...]
[Re: Thomas Jefferson]Are we going to take down his statue. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? It is fine. You are changing history and culture.
back in 2017, go to the front of the class. I saw echoes of that on the confederate statue debate, and people told me slippery slope fallacy and denied any comparisons to more "virtuous" individuals that might be next. Looking at Trump's quote, it was remarkably prescient, especially for such an unthinking individual.
https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1271970452836159490 It shouldn't take some South Philly Italians to make the case for Christopher Columbus in the language of the working man, while the more educated-sounding interlocutor "educates" him about his evils. Compare and contrast that to the scene of young, woke white women spitting in the face of the police (particularly a black police officer) sent in time to stop Andrew Jackson suffering the same fate as statues of earlier presidents + Show Spoiler +
It's not a good look. It doesn't show a lot of the side of "it's valuable so put it in a museum instead," in this no-vote no-nuance take on their history.
I wager that the left and center-left have precious little time to make it clear that the violence against statues has gone too far in order to show they're sufficiently opposed to mobs tearing down stuff in a fervor. The voices that I was watching for were incensed that Trump did a dumb photo op in front of St John's Church, but conjured up little outrage that fires were started inside and around the church and the front was tagged. It was built in 1816, by the way. The means of dispersal of protesters was the only worthy news there. Look forward to later on the campaign trail:Trump points out that these localities, like rapes and shootings occurring inside East Seattle's "Autonomous Zone"/CHOP, have had Democratic mayors for decades. He says that the left that's called for a recasting of America's history in the 1619 project "true founding," has turned more towards erasure of history in a fit of rage. He says the opposition to statues was part of the same project against Confederate general statues and named bases, but now that it's turned to Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Grant, it's better seen as opposition to America, not the legacy of the Confederates. That's a powerful argument on the cultural side of politics, if you ask me. Count me in the camp that says Democrats have gone way too soft on remembering America's history--not only for the bad parts of it.+ Show Spoiler +
But, hey, look, Trump tweeted something dumb again! Read my 2,000 word piece about how he's a proto-fascist and is addicted to crowd size, what a loser
I stopped reading your concern trolling pwn the libs post when you called them "Indian's". Indian's are from India and to my recollection never attacked Murica.
You could say that First nation's people tried to defend their land against Murica and were defeated and often slaughtered, but I'm not sure that get's to what ever point you think you are making.
When trying to pretend to be sensible it would help if you didn't use racist terms for groups of people.
Perhaps if that statue is so important to history it should be a museum and it can have a plaque saying all the wonderful things about the statue and all the awful things the man in the statue did!
It is nice that Danglar's is also no longer going with dog whistle approach to racism and just putting it right out their like his fearful leader. You continue to win the award for the worst person on the message boards! Congrats I guess.
It's a difference in terminology between countries. While the term Indian is considered outdated and possibly offensive in Canada, it has common usage in America. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/
Indian is considered offensive in the US as well.They aren't from India.
I recall the term being used quite often in my school curriculum in the States. In California there is a multi-billion dollar industry of "Indian Casinos". I wouldn't use the term in Canada, but there isn't an assumed negative connotation to it in the States. Yet.
Again, that American schools still used the term when you were does not make it less offensive or not offensive.
Do you understand what ignorance is?
I use the term Native American but I don't recall seeing evidence that Native Americans are offended by the term Indian. Do you have such evidence.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
Doesn't surprise me.
Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards".
Didn't we have this exact discussion a few weeks ago? I am going to say the same thing i did back then.
Remembering doesn't need statues on the streets. Remembering happens in schools and museums. Statues are for worship and to honour people. If we decide that someone whose statue is standing around isn't worth worship and honour, we can remove them. They can be put in a museum in a proper context if they are that important.
I can celebrate the accomplishments of Jefferson without celebrating everything he did in his life.
Just like I think Wagner deserves statues for being one of the greatest composers in history and having gifted humanity with some of its immortal masterworks. He was a despicable antisemite, but the statues celebrate the musician not his political or racial opinions.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of partly agree with Danglars here.
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
That's entirely fine. There is nothing wrong with that. These statues are a basic tribal instinct, not a necessity and certainly not something with a positive impact. Monuments should convey admiration for ideas and accomplishments, not people.
This statue in Russia is used to pay respect to mice who have been used for developing human medicine. It has a great meaning. Columbus had hands chopped off. Full stop, that's terrible. We should be proud we as a people are coming to realize barbarism isn't acceptable.
I completely reject the idea that statues of people as a practice is valuable. I don't think anyone has shown that. You certainly haven't yet. All you are pointing out is what a big change it is in our current culture. Culture has radically changed before.
Remember how women used to be considered property? Remember how slavery was common? Statues are not slavery, but I am trying to point out the fact that massive cultural changes do indeed occur and it doesn't make it bad, just shocking. It is ok for things to be shocking and uncomfortable. This won't be the last time our global culture undergoes radical change. This will happen many more times.
Let me ask you this: Do you think we are at some sort of "end point" of cultural advancement? Do you think we'll be roughly the same as a planet in 500 years? This is just a moment in time. Nothing about our position in history is unique or special. We are simply a chapter in a book.
Here is the thing, Columbus doesn't have his statue for having chopped hands, but for being the first european to discover the new world (after Leif but whatever) and therefore opening a new era in human history.
The guy went to prison for his tyranny and died claiming to have landed in Asia but okay.
On June 24 2020 03:00 Danglars wrote: I think most of this thread knows that Trump will use the excesses of the violent protests to justify his re-election. After all, aren't his enemies just a little bit *soft* on the idea of violence against statues and property, considering there is real deserved anger about real injustice? That's some of the backdrop to my current thinking. Biden hasn't embraced "defund the police," to his establishment credit, but his allies are not swift to decry the damage to businesses already wracked by coronavirus closure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVELtGOaqxY This is an artifact created in 1852 by Clark Mills. The first bronze-cast statue in the US and the first equestrian statue in US history. It's made of a former president responsible for both the Native American forced march called the Trail of Tears and defending America from the British and Indians during the War of 1812. Similarly, statues of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S Grant, Abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, Junipero Serra, and Theodore Roosevelt have been defaced or taken down.
If you're hearing echoes of Trump saying
This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? [...]
[Re: Thomas Jefferson]Are we going to take down his statue. He was a major slave owner. Are we going to take down his statue? It is fine. You are changing history and culture.
back in 2017, go to the front of the class. I saw echoes of that on the confederate statue debate, and people told me slippery slope fallacy and denied any comparisons to more "virtuous" individuals that might be next. Looking at Trump's quote, it was remarkably prescient, especially for such an unthinking individual.
https://twitter.com/dpinsen/status/1271970452836159490 It shouldn't take some South Philly Italians to make the case for Christopher Columbus in the language of the working man, while the more educated-sounding interlocutor "educates" him about his evils. Compare and contrast that to the scene of young, woke white women spitting in the face of the police (particularly a black police officer) sent in time to stop Andrew Jackson suffering the same fate as statues of earlier presidents + Show Spoiler +
It's not a good look. It doesn't show a lot of the side of "it's valuable so put it in a museum instead," in this no-vote no-nuance take on their history.
I wager that the left and center-left have precious little time to make it clear that the violence against statues has gone too far in order to show they're sufficiently opposed to mobs tearing down stuff in a fervor. The voices that I was watching for were incensed that Trump did a dumb photo op in front of St John's Church, but conjured up little outrage that fires were started inside and around the church and the front was tagged. It was built in 1816, by the way. The means of dispersal of protesters was the only worthy news there. Look forward to later on the campaign trail:Trump points out that these localities, like rapes and shootings occurring inside East Seattle's "Autonomous Zone"/CHOP, have had Democratic mayors for decades. He says that the left that's called for a recasting of America's history in the 1619 project "true founding," has turned more towards erasure of history in a fit of rage. He says the opposition to statues was part of the same project against Confederate general statues and named bases, but now that it's turned to Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt, and Grant, it's better seen as opposition to America, not the legacy of the Confederates. That's a powerful argument on the cultural side of politics, if you ask me. Count me in the camp that says Democrats have gone way too soft on remembering America's history--not only for the bad parts of it.+ Show Spoiler +
But, hey, look, Trump tweeted something dumb again! Read my 2,000 word piece about how he's a proto-fascist and is addicted to crowd size, what a loser
I stopped reading your concern trolling pwn the libs post when you called them "Indian's". Indian's are from India and to my recollection never attacked Murica.
You could say that First nation's people tried to defend their land against Murica and were defeated and often slaughtered, but I'm not sure that get's to what ever point you think you are making.
When trying to pretend to be sensible it would help if you didn't use racist terms for groups of people.
Perhaps if that statue is so important to history it should be a museum and it can have a plaque saying all the wonderful things about the statue and all the awful things the man in the statue did!
It is nice that Danglar's is also no longer going with dog whistle approach to racism and just putting it right out their like his fearful leader. You continue to win the award for the worst person on the message boards! Congrats I guess.
It's a difference in terminology between countries. While the term Indian is considered outdated and possibly offensive in Canada, it has common usage in America. https://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/terminology/
Indian is considered offensive in the US as well.They aren't from India.
I recall the term being used quite often in my school curriculum in the States. In California there is a multi-billion dollar industry of "Indian Casinos". I wouldn't use the term in Canada, but there isn't an assumed negative connotation to it in the States. Yet.
Again, that American schools still used the term when you were does not make it less offensive or not offensive.
Do you understand what ignorance is?
I use the term Native American but I don't recall seeing evidence that Native Americans are offended by the term Indian. Do you have such evidence.
Not only can I give your many personal anecdotes it is part of the large reconciliation effort going on. Here it happening nationally, provincially and municipally. It is also why many First nations have tried to get various sports teams to change there names.
This explains your position in Canada. Do you have evidence that the Native Americans in the USA feel the same way? If so I'll agree with your original claims.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
Doesn't surprise me.
Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards".
No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of partly agree with Danglars here.
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
That's entirely fine. There is nothing wrong with that. These statues are a basic tribal instinct, not a necessity and certainly not something with a positive impact. Monuments should convey admiration for ideas and accomplishments, not people.
This statue in Russia is used to pay respect to mice who have been used for developing human medicine. It has a great meaning. Columbus had hands chopped off. Full stop, that's terrible. We should be proud we as a people are coming to realize barbarism isn't acceptable.
I completely reject the idea that statues of people as a practice is valuable. I don't think anyone has shown that. You certainly haven't yet. All you are pointing out is what a big change it is in our current culture. Culture has radically changed before.
Remember how women used to be considered property? Remember how slavery was common? Statues are not slavery, but I am trying to point out the fact that massive cultural changes do indeed occur and it doesn't make it bad, just shocking. It is ok for things to be shocking and uncomfortable. This won't be the last time our global culture undergoes radical change. This will happen many more times.
Let me ask you this: Do you think we are at some sort of "end point" of cultural advancement? Do you think we'll be roughly the same as a planet in 500 years? This is just a moment in time. Nothing about our position in history is unique or special. We are simply a chapter in a book.
Here is the thing, Columbus doesn't have his statue for having chopped hands, but for being the first european to discover the new world (after Leif but whatever) and therefore opening a new era in human history.
The guy went to prison for his tyranny and died claiming to have landed in Asia but okay.
On June 24 2020 04:03 Biff The Understudy wrote: I am sorry to say, and I'm reluctant to go die on that hill, but I kind of agree with Danglars here. And I agree with that Trump quote wholeheartedly (never thought the day would come).
I'm all for removing statues of confederate generals and renaming bases because, hell, those people did nothing else than betray their country in the name of a disgusting cause, but removing statues of Jefferson or even Columbus is just ludicrous.
I wrote that earlier, but statues should be an opportunity to learn and reflect. Remove every great man who did things that today are considered terrible and there won't be much left of our collective memory.
Doesn't surprise me.
Jefferson and Columbus were considered despicable people contemporaneously. This isn't even a case of "great men being held to unfair modern standards".
No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him.
lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hFxwej7.jpg)
