I think you're the first to admit that destroying
statues is OK, be they of Buddha or Confederates.
(It's hard to keep track....so many posts to read.)
-
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
statues is OK, be they of Buddha or Confederates.
(It's hard to keep track....so many posts to read.)
My general view on these things is that, it's their town property, and if the town council wants to tear it down, it's their prerogative to do so. Whether I approve or not is irrelevant, since I don't live in that town.
I don't think it's comparable to the destruction of religious statues, although since I don't live in an area under Taliban jurisdiction, I have no say in what they do.
There is a statue of Pancho Villa in downtown Tucson, and there are a few people who would like to tear that down. But if the local government wants it up, then it stays up.
I can see the point they're making, since allowing Confederate symbology to remain makes it appear the local authorities approve of the causes and motivations of the Confederacy in the Civil War. Since they obviously do not, then they're ostensibly arguing that the monument must go. As to having a general monument to veterans of all wars, that would also be their prerogative.
I think this may be reflective of overall changes in perceptions and attitudes regarding U.S. history and that of the Civil War. There were certain historical myths that grew out of the Civil War, and the symbols and statues meant different things to different people, depending on what they were taught about their history.
Augustus
…
The statues were not of any historical or cultural importance at that time.
You can't see the difference between destroying unique parts of global cultural heritage and removing generic modern statues?
The owner of Fulham football club unilaterally decide to put up this statue of Michael Jackson at their stadium.
Given he was a paedophile, had nothing to do with Fulham FC and it was a completely **** statue, people obviously complained and the statue was later removed.
Would you say this was akin to the Taliban because, once built, there was an obligation to keep it there in perpetuity?
Certainly not to you. But to the Taliban, statues to Buddha
are very offensive. No doubt the Taliban aren't offended in
the least by Confederate statuses.
This illustrates how strong feelings of hatred create myopia
regarding the larger issue of preserving history.
The Buddha statues promote a blasphemous message
that offends many Muslims just as much as the racism
of the Confederacy offends you.
Replace "racism" with "blasphemy".
Your argument is the Taliban's.
So when Buddha statues are the property of Muslims
taking offense, are you similarly sanguine?
That is to focus upon why the statues offend.
People offended by Confederate statues seem to
have no understanding that Muslims could be just
as offended by statues of Buddha.
To care about what offends one's own group, but
to not care about what offends others leads to this
double standard.
I'm sure the Taliban saw no historical or
cultural importance in the Buddha statues.
Your question is loaded. You presume that
Confederate themed statues have no such
heritage. Oh, I so disagree.
The Civil War looms large in our history, &
in the history of the world involved in the
slave trade.
I would not say that.
Why?
Michael Jackson has no historical significance.
Buddha....the Civil War....slavery....those are
things of great import.
Suppose Russia erected a giant statue of me
in St Petersburg.....
If it offended people, I'd have no problem tearing
it down because I played no role in Russia's history.
We went through similar in the UK a few years back with statues commemorating slave traders and colonialists being destroyed.
The apparently offended some people.
Personally i feel they (and of course the confederate monuments this thread is about) are a part of history and should be left undamaged. Perhaps as educational, a reminder of our (or your) past.
The apparently offended some people.
Personally i feel they (and of course the confederate monuments this thread is about) are a part of history and should be left undamaged. Perhaps as educational, a reminder of our (or your) past.
Clizby Wampuscat
Well-Known Member
Monuments come and go depending on the people in power. I am more interested in preserving history not monuments that celebrate people or events. When you destroy history you are destroying reality and truth. Two things I think are important to keep humanity progressing and getting better, if that is possible.
Augustus
…
So? You are asking my opinion.
No, you are mind-reading badly.
What I said was "Any decision would need to be made on a case by case basis based on the person depicted and the cultural, historical and artistic merits of the statue, not simply "Person X bad".
The idea that not all confederate statues have cultural and historical significance doesn't mean no confederate statues have cultural and historical significance. It's not all or nothing.
That's your opinion.
I'm sure the Taliban saw no historical or cultural importance in the Buddha statues
You are doing what you criticise others for here.
Problem is, the movement to destroy moments also often is able to re-write history.
Altfish
Veteran Member
No.
If a monument is no longer appropriate it should be moved to a museum and displayed with an explanation of why it was removed.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't see Buddhists too bothered by the destruction of the statues. Disappointed perhaps at the display of behavior by radicals, but the statues themselves are a testament of impermanence fulfilled. Like a sand mandala with a wave of a hand.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
That's why historical reminders need preservation. Like Nazi war memorabilia and the like.
Saying, do differently what this generation has done.
I very seldom am for tearing things up. Move them if you must, but don't tear them up. Give them to a museum, and use them to teach the truth about the civil war(hopefully, from a neutral and educational standpoint). They seem to create division, so remove them, but don't forget the history, lest we be damned to repeat it.
Same with the Buddhas. If someone simply cannot stand their presence, give them to someone who will appreciate them. Allah doesn't mention Buddhists as existing(the 'unbelievers' seem to be references to specific groups residing in the area of the Qur'an), so I see no conflict religiously with the Buddhist statues being given away. It would be the logical thing to do.
But I don't think we're dealing with logic in either scenario. Just raw emotion. The Confederate statues make people feel yucky. The Buddhist statues make the Taliban feel yucky. We're dealing with feelings here, on both sides.
Same with the Buddhas. If someone simply cannot stand their presence, give them to someone who will appreciate them. Allah doesn't mention Buddhists as existing(the 'unbelievers' seem to be references to specific groups residing in the area of the Qur'an), so I see no conflict religiously with the Buddhist statues being given away. It would be the logical thing to do.
But I don't think we're dealing with logic in either scenario. Just raw emotion. The Confederate statues make people feel yucky. The Buddhist statues make the Taliban feel yucky. We're dealing with feelings here, on both sides.
Audie
Veteran Member
You just compared themThere is no comparison between these two. The history of these monuments is the early 1900's, and it had a specific political revisionist history in mind. They represent something entirely different than statues of religious figures, such as Buddha, or Jesus, or Mary, which are devotional in nature.
Here's an excerpt about the history of these monuments, erected by the United Daughters of the Confederacy:
“The conventional view of the UDC is that they are innocent old ladies who just want to remember their Confederate ancestors,” said Jalane Schmidt, a race and religion professor at the University of Virginia. “They created an ideology which glorified the ‘Old South,’ and dressed this up in seemingly harmless cotillion balls and bake sales.Daughters of Confederacy Put Up Statues, Indoctrinated Generations, Historians Say - BirminghamWatch
“What is harmful about them is that for generations, they vetted textbooks, which were adopted into Southern public schools. These books promoted a false Lost Cause version of history to impressionable young white students, who then grew up to enforce segregation.”
Chief among Lost Cause principles is that the Civil War was not about slavery. The Confederacy was simply defending its states’ rights and homeland from Northern aggression, according to that belief. Another idea included in the Lost Cause is that slaves were contented and happy with their condition, and slaveholders were mostly kind to them.
Members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Source: Alabama Department of Archives and History.
These principles permeated the South through textbooks, pamphlets and speeches written or influenced by the Daughters, according to historians. Today, Southerners often repeat these same ideas when they oppose removing monuments.
So these monuments are about a living ideal the denial of the evils of slavery in the South and the bloody civil war that was fought to end it. They symbolize racism, not religious devotion.
Telepathy isn't one of my superpowers.
The Taliban made their decision regarding Buddha statues.
The politician & community made their decision to bulldoze a statue.
Their reasoning is the same.
Now who's bad at mindreading....& text reading too.
I recall much objection to the destruction.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Sure, as they should. But I'm sure it isn't going to eat them alive over the destruction of the statues.
Unless some don't exemplify detachment very well. ;0)
Is your post is about how ultimately no one
will care about statues that aren't there?
If yes, I'd see that as erasure.
I like my history to be more....
- Public & in your face.
- Not afraid to offend when the history itself was offensive.
- Illuminating regarding the good, the bad, & how it relates to our time.
Careful, you'll have the Talban inviting you to join them in their devotional quest to liberate the world from the nasty matriarchal dominance.