EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2747
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
HelpMeGetBetter
United States766 Posts
| ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On October 15 2020 11:14 Starlightsun wrote: Guess I am ignorant I thought Napoleon was generally considered a "great man" aside from having the morals of his time which seem backwards to us now. Purely as generals I guess he and Lee both have impressive accomplishments. But yeah Napoleon was many other things than a general. "Great" has never meant good. Napolean is considered one of the Great Men of History, which is a sometimes argued point of view (Tolstoy in particular despised the idea) that history pivots on the actions of particular Great Men who define eras and change the course of civilisations. Napolean was enormously disliked at most points of his career because he moved from 'hero of the revolution' to 'dictator' to 'Emperor' in a very short space of time. But for all that he pretty much changed the course of european history in general because he kicked so much ass everywhere he went. Which is an oversimplification of a tremendously involved and complex historical period, but no, Napolean was never considered especially good. Honourable for the most part, and not without virtue (but who is without virtue?), but power-hungry to a fault. As a final point, both Hitler and Mussolini are Great Men of History. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11945 Posts
On October 15 2020 11:14 Starlightsun wrote: Guess I am ignorant I thought Napoleon was generally considered a "great man" aside from having the morals of his time which seem backwards to us now. Purely as generals I guess he and Lee both have impressive accomplishments. But yeah Napoleon was many other things than a general. Napoleon fought multiple massive wars of aggression and established a dictatorship in his home country. That alone should disqualify him from being viewed as mostly positive. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On October 15 2020 12:26 Simberto wrote: Napoleon fought multiple massive wars of aggression and established a dictatorship in his home country. That alone should disqualify him from being viewed as mostly positive. Just to be clear I was specifically talking about descendants of people Napoleon expressly tricked and tried to enslave (Former Haitian slaves had to pay France for their lost property [the former slaves they forced to pay them were the property France was compensated for] that live in the shadow of his statues potentially wanting them gone from their sight (and redress maybe?) and whether the people arguing Lee should be removed would oppose those Haitian-Parisians (and those outside Paris in France generally). | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On October 15 2020 12:12 iamthedave wrote: "Great" has never meant good. Napolean is considered one of the Great Men of History, which is a sometimes argued point of view (Tolstoy in particular despised the idea) that history pivots on the actions of particular Great Men who define eras and change the course of civilisations. Napolean was enormously disliked at most points of his career because he moved from 'hero of the revolution' to 'dictator' to 'Emperor' in a very short space of time. But for all that he pretty much changed the course of european history in general because he kicked so much ass everywhere he went. Which is an oversimplification of a tremendously involved and complex historical period, but no, Napolean was never considered especially good. Honourable for the most part, and not without virtue (but who is without virtue?), but power-hungry to a fault. As a final point, both Hitler and Mussolini are Great Men of History. Thanks I appreciate the history lesson. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11945 Posts
On October 15 2020 12:52 GreenHorizons wrote: Just to be clear I was specifically talking about descendants of people Napoleon expressly tricked and tried to enslave (Former Haitian slaves had to pay France for their lost property [the former slaves they forced to pay them were the property France was compensated for] that live in the shadow of his statues potentially wanting them gone from their sight (and redress maybe?) and whether the people arguing Lee should be removed would oppose those Haitian-Parisians (and those outside Paris in France generally). And my answer is that there shouldn't be any Napoleon statues around to begin with. Or statues of Julius Cesar. Or statues of Hitler. Dictators who start massive wars of aggression shouldn't be revered in that way, even if they are good at fighting massive wars of aggression. Napoleon was also an asshole in a lot of other ways, like what you described. All of those warmongering dictators are. And the descendants of people these dictators were an asshole to shouldn't be living under their statues. But mostly, i think that warmongering dictators don't deserve statues in general. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
| ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8153 Posts
I will tell you, as a frenchman, what a statue of Napoleon represents: the spread of the ideals of enlightenment through Europe. The countless victories of revolutionary armies, made of peasants against coalitions of all the princes of Europe and their mercenaries. The establishment of institutions that have made it to modern day such as the Code Civil and the Legion d'Honneur. An era of insane social mobility after centuries of feodalism where many generals and marshals were born poor and with no perspective. A romantic, heroic inspiration for generations of writers, artists and poets. This is what, culturally, Napoleon on his horse represents. Is it a fair picture of the man? No. But statues are not meant to be fair pictures, they are meant to exalt an idea and an ideal. Every frenchman knows that Napoleon was actually kind of a dick and a tyran. This is not what we celebrate with those statues. And you can't disconnect their meaning from the culture that erects them. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4435 Posts
On October 15 2020 13:31 GreenHorizons wrote: I find myself personally in the "no statues of people" camp mostly. I just know how the US works and MLK would be gone immediately while the slavers and warmongers would linger indefinitely. I wouldn't try to make sense of the radicals toppling statues, anything has been fair game. Another statue of Abraham Lincoln was toppled in Portland recently + Show Spoiler + Back in July the rabid mob even vandalized an elk statue (also in Portland)+ Show Spoiler + .The Elk was removed due to damage at the base and safety concerns. | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9241 Posts
| ||
|
EnDeR_
Spain2931 Posts
On October 15 2020 17:07 Dan HH wrote: I'm fine with both building/keeping statues of controversial/deeply flawed people and with protesters tearing them down. I may disagree with either of those actions on a case by case basis, but that's also okay. I don't understand why this position isn't more common. I do think there is a distinction between say Napoleon statues (deeply flawed character but the statue is meant to represent enlightenment in Europe) and Rober E Lee statues (erected as a symbol of oppression during the Jim Crow era). In fairness, I don't think I've ever been curious enough to go check who the random white guy on a horse is when visiting cities; so don't really get the drive to protect statues of horrible people at all costs that seems to be prevalent in some sections of the population. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8153 Posts
On October 15 2020 17:29 EnDeR_ wrote: I do think there is a distinction between say Napoleon statues (deeply flawed character but the statue is meant to represent enlightenment in Europe) and Rober E Lee statues (erected as a symbol of oppression during the Jim Crow era). In fairness, I don't think I've ever been curious enough to go check who the random white guy on a horse is when visiting cities; so don't really get the drive to protect statues of horrible people at all costs that seems to be prevalent in some sections of the population. Exactly. The confederate monuments are a very special case and they deserve a very special treatment. Once again the maximalist position ("let's tear down every statue of everyone who did bad things!!") is hugely harmful to the progressive side of the argument. It alienates everyone who is not an extremist and gives plenty of ammo to the white supremacists defending those confederate statues. And they do need to go down. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
I do think there is a distinction between say Napoleon statues (deeply flawed character but the statue is meant to represent enlightenment in Europe). So make a statue of enlightenment and not the dictator that enslaved and extorted Haitians but I suppose he's not one that's been targeted by protests in France so they can start with those. When people insist on keeping the person it becomes about the person and not the 'good stuff' they claim it represents imo. We don't need statues (or giant heads carved on stolen land) of slavers and genocidal criminals whether they "discovered America", fought for the South, or against the British. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4768 Posts
On October 15 2020 16:45 Biff The Understudy wrote: Well it all comes down to what the symbol is in a given culture / context. I will tell you, as a frenchman, what a statue of Napoleon represents: the spread of the ideals of enlightenment through Europe. The countless victories of revolutionary armies, made of peasants against coalitions of all the princes of Europe and their mercenaries. The establishment of institutions that have made it to modern day such as the Code Civil and the Legion d'Honneur. An era of insane social mobility after centuries of feodalism where many generals and marshals were born poor and with no perspective. A romantic, heroic inspiration for generations of writers, artists and poets. This is what, culturally, Napoleon on his horse represents. Is it a fair picture of the man? No. But statues are not meant to be fair pictures, they are meant to exalt an idea and an ideal. Every frenchman knows that Napoleon was actually kind of a dick and a tyran. This is not what we celebrate with those statues. And you can't disconnect their meaning from the culture that erects them. As a pole i second this. Napoleon was very important to polish indepedence movement as he fought three countries that partitioned Poland (Prussia, Austria ans Russia) and restored (altough briefly) polish state. 90 thousend poles fought in his army during invasion of Russia and for us his Eouropean wars where not wars of agression but wars for independence. Lets not forget that countries which he fought where itself imperialist and very prone to fought wars of agression. My ancestors wanted Napoleon to win and for good reason. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
From that point on, you can't compare both. Because their use is so different. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9958 Posts
On October 15 2020 18:38 Biff The Understudy wrote: Exactly. The confederate monuments are a very special case and they deserve a very special treatment. Once again the maximalist position ("let's tear down every statue of everyone who did bad things!!") is hugely harmful to the progressive side of the argument. It alienates everyone who is not an extremist and gives plenty of ammo to the white supremacists defending those confederate statues. And they do need to go down. Did you really just put the label 'extremist' on people who disagree with the veneration of individuals? What are you, the Stasi for bland conformism? | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10937 Posts
Btw: Napoleon is also seen positive in Switzerland, he basically created modern Switzerland. | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9958 Posts
On October 15 2020 20:54 Velr wrote: Wanting to knock every statue down, is an extreme position, no matter how you spin it. Btw: Napoleon is also seen positive in Switzerland, he basically created modern Switzerland. What is it about statues that allow you to classify any position on their existence 'extreme'? I would say the concept that we should celebrate ideas, not individuals is fairly nuanced and not extreme at all. The only way you can call it 'extreme' is that we've always had statues of individuals, so we should continue to have them, and anyone that says otherwise is an extremist. You could call it a minority point of view which is fair enough, but minority =/= extreme. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24211 Posts
On October 15 2020 20:54 Velr wrote: Wanting to knock every statue down, is an extreme position, no matter how you spin it. It's not like they're bridges, they're statues. | ||
| ||
