Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
To some it might be.
-
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
It would indeed be an interesting comparison....
Different time spans & influences on religion,
culture, economics, etc.
Most of the public avoids museums (much to my
annoyance). Public displays are important to
inform the masses. Monuments of another era
often benefit from modern interpretive additions.
You did just fine...one of the best posts.
Had it been shorter, it would be less interesting.
Then maybe it's time for a robust push to inform the wider public of the importance of museums as beacons of living history.
Duh.
But they can illuminate history.
For many people, it might be their only
contact with whatever is commemorated.
I have personally found it so at times.
We try...oh, how we try.
But museums are a tough sell.
Typically, one must journey there.
But the far more numerous public monuments are
much more accessible because people can just
happen upon them. And they're less overwhelming
than a museum with too many exhibits for the modern
whippersnapper's short attention span.
The Art Gallery of Ontario has a great collection of African masks, sculpture, weapons and household goods, that I very much enjoy visiting. The Royal Ontario Museum has collections of art and artifacts from many cultures, both distant and near past, that I also enjoy visiting. My taste doesn't tend to run to modern art so much -- although I don't disdain it, either.
But I am the best arbiter of how my time is better spent, don't you think?
PureX
Veteran Member
The question wasn't about how you prefer to spend your time. The question is about public monuments, most of which are not works of art, but works of public propaganda paid for by rich people to promote their selfishness.
I contrasted them.
Anyways you need a scriptural argument: comments from famous American founders or lawyers or philosophers or something like that. Against you are writings like the Ozymandias poem and songs like "Nothing lasts forever" and "All we are is dust in the wind." As you can see script is very powerful, so find some that supports your position. It can be anything: Benjamin Franklin quotes or Abraham Lincoln or Mark Twain. Just find someone famous and clever that people like and quote them on this.
"Scripture is the equivalent of a memorial for rational statements." -- Brickjectivity
There, I have made your argument for you.
A double standard implies two different standards in the same place, but that is not what this is. This is different standards in different places. In a particular locality people will have one standard, and in another they will have another. You want to have a universal standard of either always destroying all statues or never destroying any. Is that right? Just want to be clear.
You raise an important point. Let me raise one though. There is only so much space. What if space is the consideration? Is it Ok, then, to remove a memorial? You ought to specify under what conditions a memorial should be moved or destroyed if any. What if a hospital is needed, and it is inconvenient to put it anywhere else?
Can we differentiate between cemeteries and memorials since memorials are installed specifically to be historical landmarks, but gravestones are only for remembering individuals? Are you opposed to getting rid of old cemeteries, too?
You've made someone else's argument.
Not mine.
I don't see the impermanence of material
things as reason to allow their destruction
when they still have utility, ie, teaching history.
The double standard that I see....
Liberals (some):
Destroy Confederate statues because they're offensive.
Don't destroy Buddha statues.
They offend the Taliban, but not us.
Taliban:
Destroy Buddha statues because they're offensive.
We don't care about Confederate statues.
They offend Ameristanian liberals, but not us.
Space isn't the issue.
But there could be practical concerns. If a statue of
Buddha were in a location where a new highway
must run, that would be a vastly different discussion
from destroying it because it offends Muslims.
Once again, it seems that my concerns aren't recognized.
I don't propose saving everything as is. I'm addressing
the destruction of things with historical significance
simply for the reason that they offend the masses.
How significant is the cemetery in question?
How compelling is the alternative use for the land?
Do you propose destroying the monuments & corpses
or just moving them?
This really doesn't address the issue in the OP.
Well, then, I think you have a rational point. Destroying History because it is offensive is very tempting though.
That is probably true. It's interesting to think about it like that.
So it is....
The Taliban, the PRC, & even in Ameristan.
I understand what you are saying about the historical value of monuments and am sorry that you feel unheard.
Unheard?
I'm sure that more hear me than want to.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Buddha was a traitorous **** who fought a war to preserve slavery.
And most Confederate monuments went up as a response to gains in black rights, like the Civil Rights movement that saw another surge of them.
They aren't worth honoring, especially what they are being honored for. Get rid of them.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I am a bit late, but like so many others I oppose destroying the statues. Keep them somewhere and label what they are and the real reason why they were erected. It was part of an attempt to "keep the negro in his place". In fact if at all possible they should be consigned to an African American history museum. Somewhere in the basement would seem to be appropriate.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
That’s false equivalence on a pretty monumental scale (see what I did there?). You do your argument no favours by drawing this fallacious comparison.
This is a contentious issue in the U.K. too. There are statues to slave traders and empire builders, as well as streets, buildings and in the case of Cecil Rhodes a scholarship named after these people. Personally I don’t favour pulling down statues - what’s the point if the attitudes the statues endorse remain unchanged? Some years ago Liverpool City Council took the decision to leave names like Penny Lane (yup, James Penny was a slave trader) in place, but build a museum of slavery to tell the story of that dark chapter in the city’s past.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
Yes. You know, I'm thinking that the statues are more analogous to an offensive poster (I mean one stuck to a wall, not someone here) than they are to works of art. A poster that said "Hitler was great" might incidentally be very artistically painted, but I don't think many would object to tearing it down.