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 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.
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.
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.
As far as I'm aware, and the "Natives" I've interacted with all prefer to be called by their Tribe names because they're all so different. In Miami, we have the Seminole tribe and Miccosukee Tribe. I don't think they mind "native american" if you don't know what tribe they're originally from. But their true preference is Tribe name.
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
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?
Written in a textbook and wikipedia. You have suggested statues as a good method of displaying history, but in my eyes you have not actually made a convincing case for why they should be considered a valid or preferred method. I understand that it is what we have done until this point and that its just kinda standard procedure since like 3000 years ago. But I don't see that as a reason to continue the practice. I think the core justification is still missing.
How about a statue of the declaration of independence? With a bottle of ink next to it and some tea or some shit? That would do a good job at symbolizing the declaration of independence. I don't see a core justification for a statue of Jefferson. I do believe we should be proud of the declaration of independence, and what that meant for the US as a country, as a people, but I am having a hard time seeing a statue of a person involved as something worthwhile or even beneficial.
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
That's not that difficult really.
He wasn't the first, have you forgotten about our good friend
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
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 [quote] 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.
I'm sorry because I've never see you as ignorant, but for example the Blackfoot nation is not Canadian or American, it govers territory in both countries. Many of the people travel back and forth, the Blackfoot nation is not the only one like this.
I'm not sure what you after, it really does not matter if some people do or don't find it offensive to whether it is or is not. It does not matter if it is used in school's or on websites. It is no different than if we were talking about this around the N word 50 years ago.
Edit: it didn't at some point become offensive, it always was just many people were ignorant to that fact.
The only people who can decide if the Native Americans in the USA don't like it when members of the USA use the term "Indian" is Native Americans in the USA. Perhaps there is a small amount of overlap between those Canadian issues you linked to and the type of evidence I am looking for... I hadn't noticed that and if I missed it I apologize. However, my point stands that you have no right to accuse Americans of being ignorant for using a term that Native Americans in the USA don't like, when talking about Native Americans in the USA, unless Native Americans in the USA have said so to the USA to some reasonable extent. Your logic for why you think the term is insulting is invalid unless some reasonable quantity of Native Americans in the location of question actually agree with you. I use the term Native American because I think your conclusions is correct, but I just don't agree that you've backed up your conclusion properly yet (although perhaps you are close due to overlaps between Native Americans in Canada and Native Americans in the USA).
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?
Written in a textbook and wikipedia. You have suggested statues as a good method of displaying history, but in my eyes you have not actually made a convincing case for why they should be considered a valid or preferred method. I understand that it is what we have done until this point and that its just kinda standard procedure since like 3000 years ago. But I don't see that as a reason to continue the practice. I think the core justification is still missing.
How about a statue of the declaration of independence? With a bottle of ink next to it and some tea or some shit? That would do a good job at symbolizing the declaration of independence. I don't see a core justification for a statue of Jefferson. I do believe we should be proud of the declaration of independence, and what that meant for the US as a country, as a people, but I am having a hard time seeing a statue of a person involved as something worthwhile or even beneficial.
We could have both?
I think Jefferson, as the writer of the Declaration, the founding father and one of the starting point of all political thought in 19th century North America is really worth remembering and celebrating. And we can remember and reflect on the slave owner. That's all very interesting.
Yeah I dunno who *we* is when millions of people in the US have startlingly wrong ideas about history that our abundance of statues have very obviously not addressed.
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
That's not that difficult really.
He wasn't the first, have you forgotten about our good friend
In the below video, CGP Grey (an educator who likes to way over analyze things) made a video about using the words Indian vs Native American.
His conclusion is that it’s better, when talking about people on reservations to call them Indians because that’s what they call themselves as a meaningful group. Although they typically prefer tribe names. Native American is too inclusive to the point that it’s essentially meaningless.
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
That's not that difficult really.
Who is "we"?
I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
That's not that difficult really.
Who is "we"?
I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye
Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that.
Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did.
On June 24 2020 05:05 RenSC2 wrote: In the below video, CGP Grey (an educator who likes to way over analyze things) made a video about using the words Indian vs Native American.
His conclusion is that it’s better, when talking about people on reservations to call them Indians because that’s what they call themselves as a meaningful group. Although they typically prefer tribe names. Native American is too inclusive to the point that it’s essentially meaningless.
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
That's not that difficult really.
Who is "we"?
I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye
Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that.
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.
He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration.
That's not that difficult really.
Who is "we"?
I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye
Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that.
Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did.
So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold
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?
Written in a textbook and wikipedia. You have suggested statues as a good method of displaying history, but in my eyes you have not actually made a convincing case for why they should be considered a valid or preferred method. I understand that it is what we have done until this point and that its just kinda standard procedure since like 3000 years ago. But I don't see that as a reason to continue the practice. I think the core justification is still missing.
How about a statue of the declaration of independence? With a bottle of ink next to it and some tea or some shit? That would do a good job at symbolizing the declaration of independence. I don't see a core justification for a statue of Jefferson. I do believe we should be proud of the declaration of independence, and what that meant for the US as a country, as a people, but I am having a hard time seeing a statue of a person involved as something worthwhile or even beneficial.
We could have both?
I think Jefferson, as the writer of the Declaration, the founding father and one of the starting point of all political thought in 19th century North America is really worth remembering and celebrating. And we can remember and reflect on the slave owner. That's all very interesting.
Why have both? Why build a statue of a person rather than the specific idea we are trying to admire? My point is that I am not seeing the specific benefit to commemorating the person, rather than the specific idea to be admired.
It feels like the logic you are saying "Since this person was extremely accomplished and significant to our history, we should make a statue of that person". The connection that I am not seeing is "And the reason we should make statues out of really accomplished or significant people is _______". I am only seeing references to history. I am not seeing a justification. It feels like you are implying it is a natural, understood, self-explanatory scenario. Perhaps I am simply ignorant, but I truly don't see that.
Let's say we made a big statue to admire the declaration of independence and used it to replace a statue of Jefferson. What would be the disadvantage to that?
On June 24 2020 03:55 Tachion wrote: [quote] 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.
I'm sorry because I've never see you as ignorant, but for example the Blackfoot nation is not Canadian or American, it govers territory in both countries. Many of the people travel back and forth, the Blackfoot nation is not the only one like this.
I'm not sure what you after, it really does not matter if some people do or don't find it offensive to whether it is or is not. It does not matter if it is used in school's or on websites. It is no different than if we were talking about this around the N word 50 years ago.
Edit: it didn't at some point become offensive, it always was just many people were ignorant to that fact.
The only people who can decide if the Native Americans in the USA don't like it when members of the USA use the term "Indian" is Native Americans in the USA. Perhaps there is a small amount of overlap between those Canadian issues you linked to and the type of evidence I am looking for... I hadn't noticed that and if I missed it I apologize. However, my point stands that you have no right to accuse Americans of being ignorant for using a term that Native Americans in the USA don't like, when talking about Native Americans in the USA, unless Native Americans in the USA have said so to the USA to some reasonable extent. Your logic for why you think the term is insulting is invalid unless some reasonable quantity of Native Americans in the location of question actually agree with you. I use the term Native American because I think your conclusions is correct, but I just don't agree that you've backed up your conclusion properly yet (although perhaps you are close due to overlaps between Native Americans in Canada and Native Americans in the USA).
I completely do, for personal as well as because it is factual. It was given to them based on ignorance and by a people who treated them as sub human. That is just the facts, if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance. That you are not wanting to be racist but are.
Objections to the usage of "Indian" and "American Indian" include the fact that "Indian" arose from a historical error, and thus does not accurately reflect the derivation of the people to whom it refers; and some feel that the term has absorbed negative and demeaning connotations through its historical usage that render it objectionable in context. Additionally, "American Indian" is often understood to mean only the peoples of the mainland body of the United States, which excludes other Native Americans in the United States who are considered indigenous peoples of the Americas; including the Haida, Tlingit, Athabascan, Inuit, Yup'ik (Yuits/Alutiiq/Cup'ik), Iñupiat, Aleut (i.e., the groups whose traditional languages are Eskimo–Aleut languages), Marshallese, and Samoan; who are referred to collectively as either Alaskan Natives, First Nations, Native Hawaiians or Siberians.
Supporters of the terms "Indian" and "American Indian" argue that they have been in use for such a long period of time that many people have become accustomed to them and no longer consider them exonyms. Both terms are still widely used today. "American Indian" appears often in treaties between the United States and the indigenous peoples with whom they have been negotiating since the colonial period, and many federal, state and local laws also use it.[10]
If your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you. That does not mean it is not, the same way the N word was once used commonly and not all black people are offended by it.
Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant?
You aren't reading what I wrote. "if you want to use that term because you don't think it is offensive I would suggest that it ignorance" I never expressed a desire to use the term. I specifically expressed that I think the term is likely offensive and I don't use it. You are starting with the conclusion and working backwards here. If the term is not offensive it's okay to use it. If the term is offensive then using it likely means you are ignorant. Saying you are ignorant because you use the term, prior to establishing that the term is offensive, is pointless. You are arguing with nobody.
"If your point is that some First nation's people are not offended and that lots of people use the term "Indian" I would agree with you." That is not my point. My point is that people in the USA using the term "Indians" to refer to Native Americans in the USA is okay unless the Native Americans in the USA are not okay with it. Of course, it doesn't need to be 100% of Native Americans in the USA... but it should be more than say, 1 person. If you can point to a Tribe that has formally stated that they do not prefer people refer to them as Indians, then I think that's sufficient evidence, even if some other Tribes are okay with the term. I don't think it's hard to find or provide this evidence, I'm just calling your logic chain into question. You are wrong until you provide this evidence. Then you are right and we can stop discussing this.
It bothers me when people get offended on behalf of other people, and it turns out those other people weren't even offended. I'm just asking you to show this is not the case. You may think the term "Indian" being incorrect from the getgo automatically makes the term offensive, but not all Native Americans agree with you, so at least show that some of them do (in the region of relevance given that you were addressing people from the USA when this was triggered).
You are not choosing a reasonable hill to die on here. I do not use the term Indian to refer to Native Americans, or am I suggesting other people do that in the USA or elsewhere.
edit: "Let me spin this around to you. What about calling native American's Indian's is not ignorant? " Answer: 99% of Native Americans in the USA aren't offended by it. Prove me wrong and you win.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/hFxwej7.jpg)
