Augustus
…
Says the perfectly reasonable chap getting huffy because he misread several posts and hallucinated some insult and now blames others for his poor reading and overactive imagination...
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Approve Of Destroying Confederate Monuments?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
Says the perfectly reasonable chap getting huffy because he misread several posts and hallucinated some insult and now blames others for his poor reading and overactive imagination...
Once again, living up to a title.
When describing the motivations of others, I'll often use words like suggesting or indicating, since it's possible I'm misinterpreting. But sure...advocating.
To a degree. There are a great many statues given prime placement in key areas, specifically designed to push a false narrative.
Putting a plaque on them that suggests the person being glorified and the cause being honoured are not worthy of honour is something. But if starting from scratch it's not a clear way of actually communicating what happened, imho.
I think where we differ is that you see some historical value in the statue. I don't. I see value in history, and in remembering it with some accuracy. I think we're agreed on that.
Not necessarily, no. On occassion that might be appropriate.
With the accurate rendition of history where possible? Sure. Part of why I think tearing down a lot of these statues makes sense. But I'm not in the 'lets hide history' mob. We need to face our ugly truths, and realise we all have them.
Glorifying them though?
With slightly more nuance I'm okay with celebrating the actions of an individual, even if there were other actions I'd judge less favourably though a modern lens.
But celebrating them for the actions that appear unfavourable even in their moment? Yeah...that is too far for me. Celebrating Confederate secession is a strange conceit.[/QUOTE]
Heyo
Veteran Member
Just FYI, Auschwitz is located in Poland.
There are similar monuments and museums in Germany like Bergen-Belsen.
I was bust'n yer chops.
I recall one proposal I made on RF (can't find the post)
about enhancing one statue of some Confederate
by adding a group of smaller figures around him.
Little bronze slaves being viciously worked & whipped
by the same Confederate. A plaque would explain
the full history of that "hero".
That should give a sense of how I'd prefer these
offensive statues be preserved & repurposed.
Thanx!
(Me brain was on vacation when I posted that.)
If a memorial is not installed, it doesn't have any message at all. It doesn't exist. That's like asking what's the meaning of a song that someone who hasn't been born yet will possibly write in the future, and how can we change that message.
Maybe you mean to ask this question a different way? Such as how do you change the meaning of a symbol that already exists? One answer to that is by collectively destroying it. Here is a great example of changing the meaning of a symbol:
There is a difference between a museum and the heart of town square. A museum is somewhere one can go to remember the past and reflect upon it. For instance, you might walk into a museum as see a hangman's gallows erected in a display about the old West. But if that same gallows were erected in the center of town square, it would send an entirely different message and meaning to the people who live there, one of a watchful eye that promises their deaths if they mess with the law there. Right?
So there's nothing wrong with remembering the civil war. In fact we should do that. "Never forget" messages as a warning for instance of such low points of our humanity, such as the lynchings of the racist south. But to put up displays glorifying those in the center of town square, is in fact of message of threat, intimidation, and aggression. Placement changes the message. It's not just a statue itself. It's how its displayed and what message it is sending.
I think the point of this thread was to try to disparage "liberals" by drawing some sort of correlation between them wanting to remove confederate statues, which has been a controversy from the very start, with the Taliban who destroyed Buddhist antiquities in an act of religious fanaticism (a loss to the whole world collectively, I'll add, completely unlike the modern Confederate monuments).
You do realize that this whole erecting monuments to save face for the South goes way back to right after the Civil War itself? Drawing comparisons between what the Taliban did and what Americans decried from the very outset, is disingenuous to say the very least. Here's an article from the NY Times, dated August 16, 1865, to underscore this point: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1865/08/16/78748465.html?zoom=16.01&pageNumber=4
"We believe that a positive good is to be gained by preserving the memorials of rebel cruelty. The thing most needed since the prostration of the rebellion is to make it odious and infamous. It is not so now in the South. The great body of people there yet speak of it with respect.
So, this is really a Union versus the Confederacy issue, which has become politicized by the Republicans (formerly the Southern Democratic "Dixiecrats" whose Lost Cause mythology took over the Republican party of Lincoln).
Comparing any of this with the Tablian, is absolutely absurd. And that is the point of this thread.
Some agree with Evolution and some with Creationism. Which has the better more well-reasoned and established support behind them, is the real heart of the matter here.
Also, there are not "only opinions". There are opinions that are ill-informed and lacking support, and opinions that are well-informed and well-supported. Not all opinions are of equal value, to be perfectly clear here. No, you're not entitled to your opinion
This is covering old ground.If a memorial is not installed, it doesn't have any message at all. It doesn't exist. That's like asking what's the meaning of a song that someone who hasn't been born yet will possibly write in the future, and how can we change that message.
Maybe you mean to ask this question a different way? Such as how do you change the meaning of a symbol that already exists? One answer to that is by collectively destroying it. Here is a great example of changing the meaning of a symbol:
There is a difference between a museum and the heart of town square. A museum is somewhere one can go to remember the past and reflect upon it. For instance, you might walk into a museum as see a hangman's gallows erected in a display about the old West. But if that same gallows were erected in the center of town square, it would send an entirely different message and meaning to the people who live there, one of a watchful eye that promises their deaths if they mess with the law there. Right?
So there's nothing wrong with remembering the civil war. In fact we should do that. "Never forget" messages as a warning for instance of such low points of our humanity, such as the lynchings of the racist south. But to put up displays glorifying those in the center of town square, is in fact of message of threat, intimidation, and aggression. Placement changes the message. It's not just a statue itself. It's how its displayed and what message it is sending.
I think the point of this thread was to try to disparage "liberals" by drawing some sort of correlation between them wanting to remove confederate statues, which has been a controversy from the very start, with the Taliban who destroyed Buddhist antiquities in an act of religious fanaticism (a loss to the whole world collectively, I'll add, completely unlike the modern Confederate monuments).
You do realize that this whole erecting monuments to save face for the South goes way back to right after the Civil War itself? Drawing comparisons between what the Taliban did and what Americans decried from the very outset, is disingenuous to say the very least. Here's an article from the NY Times, dated August 16, 1865, to underscore this point: https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1865/08/16/78748465.html?zoom=16.01&pageNumber=4
"We believe that a positive good is to be gained by preserving the memorials of rebel cruelty. The thing most needed since the prostration of the rebellion is to make it odious and infamous. It is not so now in the South. The great body of people there yet speak of it with respect.
So, this is really a Union versus the Confederacy issue, which has become politicized by the Republicans (formerly the Southern Democratic "Dixiecrats" whose Lost Cause mythology took over the Republican party of Lincoln).
Comparing any of this with the Tablian, is absolutely absurd. And that is the point of this thread.
I've nothing to add.
To believe one has The Truth instead of opinions
makes discussing differing opinions more difficult.
IOW...
No, you're not entitled to claim opinions as fact.
Nothing I have said is claiming the Truth in some absolutist mentality. These are matters of opinion. But some are crappy opinions and others are well-reasoned and well-supported opinions. I prefer to side with reason.
That's quite different than claiming The Truth, in an absolutist sense. It's not an all or nothing thing, that it's either you're an absolutist 'I've got the Truth!', or an erroneously relativistic, "it's nothing but opinions and it's all the same". Rather, it is a weighted scale of reason and support. Black and white thinking is not a thing you can accuse me of.
BTW, you can't just brush aside everything I just said as "covering old ground". You have never acknowledged that you were way off beam to try to draw a colletory between the removal of the Confederate statues, and the Taliban. Unless you retracted that earlier? If not, why haven't you? It's not "old ground", if you still imagine against reason that that is a valid comparison.
True dat.
And which do you embrace? And can you support them in reasoned discussion, or do you just resort to accusing those who disagree with you with absolutist thinking and resort to logical fallacies to support your "lost cause"?
Do you really want to pursue personal criticism?And which do you embrace? And can you support them in reasoned discussion, or do you just resort to accusing those who disagree with you with absolutist thinking and resort to logical fallacies to support your "lost cause"?
You won't like my views. So I'll pass on going there.
I respect it when someone acknowledges when they were in error.
No, and no. I don't see the point, because where does it end. I don't even care when people fly the Confederate flag anymore.
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
There is nothing to be gained by destroying history.
Geeze, give it a rest.
The comfort of not seeing it?
Truth in love
Well-Known Member
It happened. For all the good bad ugly and indifferent it was a thing.
We need to remember try to learn from it.
Dachau
I figured. Bust away. My chops aren't bust proof, but I dish out enough crap talking to people. Fair that I get a little back occasionally.
Yeah, and I think we're largely aligned on the idea of remembering history, keeping it alive and educating people. History is way more interesting in reality than the banal parody we commonly teach (as I think you're aware).
Mostly, I wouldn't be bothered investing further into these. I'd rip down the revisionist history ones, leave a few dotted around with more fulsome explanations of both the good and bad they represent (where there is more than just bad...) and move some to museums.
But ultimately my goals are probably similar to yours, even if my plan is different.