Statues

[lostwanderingsoul]

Probably need to ban all statues because there is probably someone somewhere who might be offended by any statue. Might as well ban paintings as well. And photos. And I'm sure many people are offended by books. Ban them too. We all have a right to never be offended so ban anything that might cause offense to anyone.

 

[Wu Wei]

The only statue allowed from now on

But then, it is possible that coil be offensive too...The heck with it, lets just rewrite history to make it politically correct and be done with it

 

[crossfire]

Here's what happened to the statue of Jimi Hendrix by the CHOP Zone:

 

[crossfire]

The Confederate Monument in the nearby Lakeview Cemetery didn't fare so well:

 

[Left Coast]

Historical figures have been criticized for other things,
eg, Ben Franklin as a womanizer.
And statues have been toppled for other reasons,
eg, Columbus for discovering Ameristan.

Human beings aren't perfect, eg, Martin Luther
King's cheating on his wife.
And some will vehemently disagree with people of the past,
eg, some conservatives hating Margaret Sanger.

If we're to allow mobs of BLM & liberal types to destroy
statues they hate, should we allow conservative mobs too?
Should anti-theists be allowed to wreck religious statues?
And believers to destroy statues of heathens?

You still propose no consistent standard....nor who gets to choose
it or how. If slavers' statues must be destroyed then what of all
those to G Washington & T Jefferson?

And still there's the issue of why supposed liberals want to become
the Taliban, ie, destroying historical statues? By this liberal rationale,
the Taliban was justified because of strong feelings of hatred towards
honorifics in other religions.
Nah....keep the statues....add meaningful commentary to teach about
the complete history, & our evolving views of it. That's useful.

Rev Rev Rev, so many things to take issue with, so little time!

1) Who in the world told you that Columbus' statue was taken down because he "discovered America"? Surely you know that's not the reason, right?

2) The consistent standard is that the government should represent the will of the people, and should have removed many of these statues, which literally commemorate people who went to war against the very notion of a United States, long long ago. So when the government doesn't do its job, guess what? The people will rise up and do it. And yep, that gets messy and lines get crossed. Don't want it to get messy? Advocate that the government does its job.

3) The notion that liberals are like the Taliban for removing statues of terrible people from public property is absurd. I've never heard you complain about early American colonists tearing down a statue of King George III. Or Hungarian protestors tearing down a statue of Stalin in 1956. Nor do any of those acts prevent us from learning the history of what happened in those time periods. So please stop with the nonsense equivocation.

 

[epronovost]

And statues have been toppled for other reasons,
eg, Columbus for discovering Ameristan.

Columbus statues are being toppled because he was genocidal tyrant, not the discoverer of the American continent. He was so brutal and cruel that he shocked the brutal regime of Spain. Have you been listenning to the critique of Columbus or are ou assuming people toppling is statues must be idiots by default?

You still propose no consistent standard....nor who gets to choose
it or how. If slavers' statues must be destroyed then what of all
those to G Washington & T Jefferson?

The standard is pretty simple: are these people guilty of crimes against humanity and have they fought and killed others to preserve inhumane institution in face of those who wished to abolish them. The second category is were those people convicted of grevious crimes against other people during their lifetime. That's a pretty damn simple and consistent standard. So why not Washington and Jefferon? Because they never killed or waged war to prreserve their slaves. They wage war and killed others to build one of the world first modern Republic.

By this liberal rationale,
the Taliban was justified because of strong feelings of hatred towards
honorifics in other religions.

By the "liberal rationale" the Taliban are insane and destroyed priceless historical art. That's of course if you cared about "the liberal rationale" instead of using your own prejudice and crippling willfull ignorance to make such judgement. Obviously, the world's largest Buddha statues do not commemorate the life of a monster.

 

[Koldo]

You need to educate yourself about this. There is a great deal of information out there about how these Confederate statues were being raised during the Jim Crow area in the South as a way to intimate and suppress the Black populations. They were raised in an effort by the Daughters of the Confederacy to promote the myth of the Lost Cause, that imagined Blacks were happy parts of the White families, and the war was not over slavery at all, which is a big lie of course.

They need to come down because they are symbols of White Supremacy over Blacks. That's why.

BTW, this is the nature of iconoclasm during revolts or major changes in society. Statues always get torn down in history whenever major shift like this occur.

I must have failed really hard at expressing myself considering this answer of yours. I can completely understand why people would want to see statues being taken down: They honor people or values that simply don't match the current time. What I don't understand is the opposition towards those statues being taken down.

 

[Windwalker]

I must have failed really hard at expressing myself considering this answer of yours. I can completely understand why people would want to see statues being taken down: They honor people or values that simply don't match the current time. What I don't understand is the opposition towards those statues being taken down.

oh, my apologies. I misread that. Yes, that is a good question. If people understand what they are really about, which is not about honoring history but promoting White Supremacy, then to object to that would not seem to make sense, if they agreed White Supremacy in fact needs to go now.

 

[Koldo]

oh, my apologies. I misread that. Yes, that is a good question. If people understand what they are really about, which is not about honoring history but promoting White Supremacy, then to object to that would not seem to make sense, if they agreed White Supremacy in fact needs to go now.

If I had to take a guess, I think it might have to do with the conservative spirit, something akin to: "if it is old, it must be preserved and respected". I just don't get it though, I have no idea why someone would adopt such thinking.

 

[WalterTrull]

No need to make statues to honor another sinful human like me.

Consider an analogy:
Did you ever consider we are statues to honor God??

 

[SomeRandom]

Topple them all down. Let the new world rise from the ashes like the mythical Phoenix.
Or something like that.

Could this finally be the impetus for a change in the systems? I’m cynical enough to express doubt but optimistic enough to express hope still.

 

[SomeRandom]

Here's what happened to the statue of Jimi Hendrix by the CHOP Zone:
View attachment 41286

Well at least he’s practicing good hygiene

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm reminded of the Berlin Wall decoration as it was torn down.

Visited the art gallery last year. Some of the pieces are pretty spectacular.

 

[Windwalker]

I don't celebrate my birthday. When once asked by the director at work why I turned down the opportunity for the workplace to put a big whoop-dee-doo together for my birthday I simply replied, I am not that important. I would rather people focus on praising God, and not focusing attention on me. I am not worthy, or important enough.

That's so sad. Everyone, including you are special and worthy of love and honor, and celebration as well. Self-worth is important. How can we love another, if we feel so unworthy?

I feel the same way about everyone else. No need to make statues to honor another sinful human like me.

Do you view everyone else as unworthy and unlovable too? That's harsh. It seems very dark and unhappy.

 

[Eyes to See]

That's so sad. Everyone, including you are special and worthy of love and honor, and celebration as well. Self-worth is important. How can we love another, if we feel so unworthy?


Do you view everyone else as unworthy and unlovable too? That's harsh. It seems very dark and unhappy.

No. Of course not. Just put the proper perspective on things. Humans go overboard on the loving of self.

When once a person called Jesus good he put things into perspective. He did not take the praise. He said "no one is good but one," referring to God.

"As he was going on his way, a man ran up and fell on his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”  Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God."-Mark 10:17, 18.

One should have a sense of self-worth, but only to the point that it is necessary:

"I tell everyone there among you not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think."-Romans 12:3.

If the perfect son of God refused to accept the title good, and deferred the praise to his Father Jehovah God, who am I to be any different? I am not better than him am I?

Now on the other hand Herod accepted the praise of the people when they started to praise him and shout: "A god's voice and not a man's!" Because of his haughty arrogance in accepting the praise, God struck him with worms and he died:

"Then the people who were assembled began shouting: “A god’s voice, and not a man’s!”  Instantly the angel of Jehovah struck him, because he did not give the glory to God, and he was eaten up with worms and died."-Acts 12:22, 23.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rev Rev Rev, so many things to take issue with, so little time!

1) Who in the world told you that Columbus' statue was taken down because he "discovered America"? Surely you know that's not the reason, right?

Of course.
But you know he didn't do the heinous deeds that followed, right?

And don't call me Shirley.

2) The consistent standard is that the government should represent the will of the people, and should have removed many of these statues, which literally commemorate people who went to war against the very notion of a United States, long long ago. So when the government doesn't do its job, guess what? The people will rise up and do it. And yep, that gets messy and lines get crossed. Don't want it to get messy? Advocate that the government does its job.

In many cases, it's not the will of the people (no plebiscite held).
It's often being done by mobs.
But neither do I always go along with the dubious "will of the people" either.
People....ugh....they've wanted some terrible things at times, eg, voting
down gay marriage.

3) The notion that liberals are like the Taliban for removing statues of terrible people from public property is absurd.

"Absurd"....or uncomfortable?
In both cases, they seek to remove from view that which offends them.
The main difference is the nature of the offense....political vs religious.
Although to the credit of some, not all Ameristanian statue opponents
want destruction. They'd put them in storage. Those people are
less talibanesque.

I've never heard you complain about early American colonists tearing down a statue of King George III. Or Hungarian protestors tearing down a statue of Stalin in 1956.

This is because no one brought those to my attention.
Are you presuming to know my views on them without asking?

Nor do any of those acts prevent us from learning the history of what happened in those time periods. So please stop with the nonsense equivocation.

Nonsense....that would be yo

Rev Rev Rev, so many things to take issue with, so little time!
1) Who in the world told you that Columbus' statue was taken down because he "discovered America"? Surely you know that's not the reason, right?

Of course.
But he didn't do the deeds which followed.
Attributing them to him is booOOooOOooOOgus.

2) The consistent standard is that the government should represent the will of the people, and should have removed many of these statues, which literally commemorate people who went to war against the very notion of a United States, long long ago. So when the government doesn't do its job, guess what? The people will rise up and do it. And yep, that gets messy and lines get crossed. Don't want it to get messy? Advocate that the government does its job.

In many cases, it's not isn't the will of the people (no plebiscite held).
It's being done by mobs too
But neither do I always go along with the dubious "will of the people" either.
People....ugh....they've wanted some terrible things at times.

3) The notion that liberals are like the Taliban for removing statues of terrible people from public property is absurd.

"Absurd"....or uncomfortable?
In both cases, they seek to remove from view that which offends.
The main difference is the nature of the offense.
Although to the credit of some, not all Ameristanian statue opponents
want destruction. They'd put them in storage. Those people are
less talibanesque.

I've never heard you complain about early American colonists tearing down a statue of King George III. Or Hungarian protestors tearing down a statue of Stalin in 1956.

Neither you nor anyone else had brought those to my attention,
so of course I've not opined about them.
Do you presume to know my views on them without having asked?
Prithee, what are they?

Nor do any of those acts prevent us from learning the history of what happened in those time periods. So please stop with the nonsense equivocation.

"Nonsense equivocation", eh.
I don't think you're using those words according to their definitions.
I've proffered multiple detailed proposals in such threads about
amending the statue displays to illuminate the full history. Clearly,
you disagree with my ideas. What are your objections to them?

 

[Revoltingest]

Columbus statues are being toppled because he was genocidal tyrant, not the discoverer of the American continent. He was so brutal and cruel that he shocked the brutal regime of Spain. Have you been listenning to the critique of Columbus or are ou assuming people toppling is statues must be idiots by default?



The standard is pretty simple: are these people guilty of crimes against humanity and have they fought and killed others to preserve inhumane institution in face of those who wished to abolish them. The second category is were those people convicted of grevious crimes against other people during their lifetime. That's a pretty damn simple and consistent standard. So why not Washington and Jefferon? Because they never killed or waged war to prreserve their slaves. They wage war and killed others to build one of the world first modern Republic.



By the "liberal rationale" the Taliban are insane and destroyed priceless historical art. That's of course if you cared about "the liberal rationale" instead of using your own prejudice and crippling willfull ignorance to make such judgement. Obviously, the world's largest Buddha statues do not commemorate the life of a monster.

In Baltimore, Columbus's statue was destroyed & tossed into the bay.
This is the kind of act I describe as talibanesque.
That it was less "priceless", less "historical", & less "art"
than the Taliban's targets doesn't make it any less talibanesque.

As I've proposed for other statues of people with problematic pasts,
It's better to enhance the message, illuminating history. This would
make both their accomplishments & sins readily known to the public.
Erasing the statues makes history silent, & squanders the opportunity
to increase full historical awareness.

 

[Revoltingest]

I must have failed really hard at expressing myself considering this answer of yours. I can completely understand why people would want to see statues being taken down: They honor people or values that simply don't match the current time. What I don't understand is the opposition towards those statues being taken down.

It seems impossible to explain. I've posted so many times in
so many threads, but it's almost never acknowledged.
See post #37.
And see....
Protesters attempt to tear down statue of Andrew Jackson in DC
If you see anything interesting in those posts, let me know.

I don't like or hate statues....any statues.
A stone likeness of some person in the past?
Meh.
I find them rather boring & meaningless.
But they exist.
I propose making them interesting.
Oh, well....what will happen will happen.
I won't miss them.

 

[Windwalker]

No. Of course not. Just put the proper perspective on things. Humans go overboard on the loving of self.

And they can go overboard in the other direction into self-deprivation. Which itself, is a form of self-glorification, masked as a humility.

When once a person called Jesus good he put things into perspective. He did not take the praise. He said "no one is good but one," referring to God.

"As he was going on his way, a man ran up and fell on his knees before him and put the question to him: “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit everlasting life?”  Jesus said to him: “Why do you call me good? Nobody is good except one, God."-Mark 10:17, 18.

I think, coming from Jesus, it was not a statement about others as being not good people. It was about himself, whom others adored and tried to elevate him to the heavens. I would not then take that verse to mean we are all bad human beings, fallen, oh woe and misery and darkness and fear follow me all the days of my life. Life is not like that, for most humans. Not all are "bad" at the core. There is good in the world, and I fully believe Jesus intended to show us that.

One should have a sense of self-worth, but only to the point that it is necessary:

"I tell everyone there among you not to think more of himself than it is necessary to think."-Romans 12:3.

If the perfect son of God refused to accept the title good, and deferred the praise to his Father Jehovah God, who am I to be any different? I am not better than him am I?

Not allowing someone to celebrate you as a person, using your birthday as that excuse to show you you're loved and appreciated with a party in your name, is not about saying you're worthy of worship. You're not usurping God's throne by accepting others love and generosity with grace and humility.

Some people don't like all the fuss, and that's fine. But to make it a religious tenet of faith, seem a bit excessive to me. I don't think getting rid of one's birthday parties, will get rid of their egos for them. Nor do I believe celebrating "you" once a year, is going to lead to egomania, where you claim you're the Christ, or something.

I have a feeling Jesus might say, "Lighten up. Here's your balloon. Happy Birthday." I can totally see it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Of course.
But you know he didn't do the heinous deeds that followed, right?

Shirley, it depends which particular deeds one is talking about. Unless you think he did nothing 'bad'?
It's also amazing how many Americans still think 'he discovered America' which is wrong on a few levels, but I doubt either of us are about to defend how history is taught.

And don't call me Shirley.

Whoops. Sorry about that, Chief.