To advocate for capitalism is a good thing.
But that alone isn't statue-worthy.
-
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!
Should we add plaques to statues of slave owners?
- Thread starter Erebus
- Start date
But that alone isn't statue-worthy.
Brian2
Veteran Member
Plaques sound like a good thing, otherwise we act like the Taliban who have wrecked ancient historical monuments because of their links to other gods or religions.
The statues would be documenting the change in historical times and be a part of our further education instead of the removal of them being a testament to the intolerance of our time.
BUT it is becoming more of an intolerant age,,,,,,,,,,,soooo,,,,,,,,,,,,
Koldo
Outstanding Member
As a brazilian, I can grant you that I had to look all by myself for the flaws. The average brazilian would never know any flaw of those notable people. This is what happens when there is way too much focus on the good things they have accomplished.
You live on that continent, right?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Um... yes. yes, and, uh, yes (i know it's hard to admit that a lot of important people in the past owned slaves).
I think that simply being against what happened in history is not good enough. If you don't want the statues, then you ought to put forth something that you want in their place. But simply being anti-history is futile. History doesn't change because you don't like it.
Samael_Khan
Qigong / Yang Style Taijiquan / 7 Star Mantis
Well it isn't erasing history if one removes statues, as getting rid of a statue doesn't get rid of the person's historical record. But it could also be said that some of those people with statues made in their honour have had their history sugar coated, which that in itself is erasing history, especially with regard to their atrocious acts.
I don't think that eliminating a statue of someone who owned slaves should be done because owning slaves in the past was common and if that was the criteria it would be interesting to see whose statues are left. I don't think we should judge people of the past with todays moral standards, but acknowledge whatever progression they made from the morality of the time. People who have slaves today though know better, and shouldn't have statues placed up.
I think that there should be plaques but also detailing books that discuss the individuals history in depth so that people can understand rather than condemn.
He's only talking about Scotland, a relatively tiny country. USA has so many more statues, that I think its silly to apply some kind of federal prohibition. We've got museums, and we've got plenty of ways to retain memory of the past. I don't think our statues are old enough or valuable enough that we need to guarantee they remain forever. They can go, and we'll still have the records, the photos and all kinds of relics.
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
How many statues of communists did US state governments build?
Excellent question.
That would require some research into the background of each.
These won't be as obvious as sins like fighting for the Confederacy.
For example, a statue of Henry Ford would decry his anti-semitism.
Last edited:
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
I did not expect the US leadership of the 19th and 20th century to be permeated by secret communists, but I guess you would know a lot more about this sort of thing than I do.
Yes, I do. What continent do you live on?
Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Let's not throw in such exponents of nonviolence, freedom and racial equality like Churchill and Washington alongside oppressive colonialist warmongers like Gandhi.
Those advocating for keeping statues 'as is' (even with plaques) seem to me to accept being dictated by the past, when if we were to make such a decision now then we would likely not do such. And this applies to a lot of history such that we have to make a decision to let some things go rather than causing more problems for ourselves or for future generations. Revisionism is just as much a process in society as much else when we progress so as not to be tied to old ways. I can remember when drinking troughs for horses were a common feature on some roads. Not much call for these now.
I know only that we've had many sympathizers.
The list of sins wasn't something I thought to
research for identifying the sinners. That's
far beyond the scope of the thread & forum.
I agree. They accomplished something truly positive even while being products of their times.
Statutes to southerners? What did they accomplish - they are losers. If we're going to build statues to losers who advocated something best left on the ash heap of history, then we need statues of Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Mussolini and the like (neatly avoiding invoking Godwin).
BUT, these are not ancient historical monuments. They were stood up in an effort to try to promote the ideals of the racist South and their failed war against the Federal government. They were erected through the efforts of the Daughters of the Confederacy, trying to "soften" the sin of Southern enslavement of people of color, re-labeling it as the "Lost Cause" mythology, trying to preserve the memories of their loved ones as the last of the soldiers who fought in that failed rebellion had died in old age.
That is NOT history. That is mythology. And these statues are raised in support of the ideal of racial discrimination. There's no getting around this. They are part of the Jim Crow South trying to promote a vision of itself as noble and just, rather than as traitors who died fighting a treasonous war. It was all the brainchild of the Daughters of the Confederacy in the early 1900's to rewrite history.
So no. They should not have a plaque added to them. They should be removed as Fake History:
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical,[1][2][3] negationist ideology that holds that the cause of the Confederacy during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one. The ideology endorses the supposed virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the war as a struggle primarily to save the Southern way of life,[4] or to defend "states' rights" such as the right to secede from the Union, in the face of overwhelming "Northern aggression." At the same time, the Lost Cause minimizes or denies outright the central role of slavery and white supremacy in the buildup to and outbreak of the war.[3]
Lost Cause of the Confederacy - Wikipedia
Last edited:
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
It really depends on what the person being depicted is being honored for. A statue of Jefferson writing or reading the Declaration of Independence is honoring him for what he helped to write and for being a founder of our country. Worthy accomplishments deserving of celebration, in my opinion. However, a statue of Jefferson depicting him standing among a bunch of kneeling chained slaves, one that honors and celebrates the fact that he once owned other people as slaves, has no place in our society.
In the first case the statue should remain and a plaque explaining that as insightful and visionary as Jefferson may have been when it came to the pursuit of liberty and freedom for all, he was seriously flawed in that he didn't extend those same liberties and freedoms to people of color... or to females for that matter. In the second case there is no reason whatsoever to leave such a statue in place, since the owning of people as property is not something worthy of celebration.
I like the idea of statues to shame, not just to honor.
Benedict Arnold should have more than the Boot Monument.
Secret Chief
Vetted Member
That sounds like a difference of opinion (rather than a fault), unless one can similarly say that a person has a fault if they advocate capitalism.
