Let the fragments learned from statues be more & better info.
-
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!
Statues
- Thread starter WalterTrull
- Start date
Koldo
Outstanding Member
For that and a lot of other purposes we have the internet nowadays.
No need for statues.
Yeah....unprompted, people on their own google historical figures to learn about them.
I disagree with the idea that if the info exists somewhere, the masses will seek it out.
I'm confident opinion polls have been taken. I'm inclined to agree that there probably haven't been many proposals on ballots (there should be).
How does any of that change the content of what I actually said? Let's say a majority of Americans (or locals in some state or town) oppose statue removal, 55-45, or even more generously, 60-40. Is the raw fact of that statistic going to change my mind on what should happen? Obviously not. Nor would it change yours, I assume.
My position is that when an injustice has hit critical enough mass, even if it's not felt by a majority, if the government does not take steps to rectify that injustice, people will predictably take matters into their own hands. I'm not advocating they should. It's simply a sociological and political fact that they will. Because those statues have no place representing who we are as a nation. And they represent a system of brutal oppression and dehumanization that we should be horrified is part of our history, not to mention its ongoing systemic echoes that persist today.
So what, exactly, is your beef?
Um, I do.
How did you learn about the Civil War, Rev? I assume you went to school as a younger man, did you not?
Koldo
Outstanding Member
If they don't seek it, they also won't learn anything from statues.
Ordinary folks don't bother to check the vast majority of statues they come across.
And of course, you represent John (& Joan) Q Public.
I was there (in the north, evading the draft).
I expect that only the people who happen upon the statues will learn from them.If they don't seek it, they also won't learn anything from statues.
That's all I ever intended....except for Jackson's statue with my improvements.
It would become a destination for tourists from around the world.
I sought to change that.
So somehow, from a classroom, without experiencing a Confederate statue in vivo on public land, you managed to learn the history of the period in question.
Post #68.
Me too.
Generally I don't change my positions based on whether I'm in the minority, particularly on political issues. If you don't care, so be it.
I haven't "hand waved away" anything.
You are misrepresenting me in an extremely unkind and slanderous way, and I will ask you as politely as I can manage not to do so again before I report you.
I have never advocated violent protest. Never. Acknowledging the simple political reality that violent protest in this climate of high frustration is likely to occur, is not advocacy for that violence. Do not misrepresent my position on that point again.
Secondly, protestor violence perpetrated against inanimate objects is quite different from police violence perpetrated against human beings. So let's not for one moment equivocate between them. It's insulting to pretend they are remotely morally equivalent. I wish the people like yourself who are so outraged at violence against the image of someone who's been dead for 150 years would express more outrage at the humans beings living among us in 2020 who are literally being killed and brutalized by police who do not face justice for their violent crimes.
Third, much of the violence being perpetrated at protests has been perpetrated by opportunists who aren't affiliated with BLM, and even by right-wingers who have used the opportunity to undermine the movement.
4th, it is simply a fact that the vast majority of protestors are peaceful. Go attend one, see for yourself. I'm sorry if that doesn't fit into whatever narrative you've spun in your head about us.
The Erikson thing is one level, and of course there was a whole civilisation already well established regardless.
But he never set foot in 'America' (unless one likes to claim Puerto Rico), so...yeah...somehow 'The Americas' is commonly morphed into 'America' in some people's minds.
Then there is the revision of history that occurred post-War of Independence which granted him increased fame.
Much like many of the Confederate statues, raised well and truly post the War, with the intent of adding a particular slant to history.
I generally find it ironic when people arguing about statues being required because 'history shouldn't be forgotten' are actually pretty ignorant of history.
Oh, and just in the interests of avoiding any misconstruement, that last sentence is not aimed at you, either from the 'ignorance of history' or the 'glorification of statues' angle.
I deleted post #71.
It's the best I can do.
Does it really matter which portion of the "new world" he did or didn't visit?
Here's a novel idea.....
Keep statues & monuments, but add messages which really would educate.
Let's not go there, even to make a hypothetical point.
It's a heinous crime which we shouldn't associate with fellow posters.
This symbol was blown up. But I think it's message in its destruction is indelibly written on history's pages and in the minds of people. Can't you agree?
A question....
Should all monuments to & statues of slave owners be removed?
No. I agree with you about not everyone is without sin. But where I would say they should be, is if they actively sought to promote slavery, and were treasonous in the process. Anything glorifying a treasonous war with a false narrative, is not history to begin with, but revisionist propaganda.
I think anything that stands glorifying white supremacy over blacks, as a political statement, such as those damned confederate statues raised by the Daughters of the Confederacy erected in support of a false narrative of history and the war, are no-brainers. Debate can be had over some others.
But, in the process of a revolution, a lot of collateral damage can occur. Iconoclasm is not necessarily a surgeon's scalpel.
Your standard would seem to allow Andrew Jackson's statues to remain,
since his actions weren't treasonous, & only showed fairly typical illegality.
Yet his values were (IMO) as bad as the Confederates.
I said, those that were no overtly treasonous, are open for debate, not an automatic get out of jail free pass. Were we to have a debate about Jackson, things like this would need to be considered: https://www.history.com/news/andrew-jackson-presidency-controversial-legacy
Records show he beat his enslaved workers, including doling out a brutal public whipping to a woman he felt had been “putting on airs.” And when any of them ran away, he pursued them and put them in chains when they were recovered. In an 1804 newspaper advertisement for a 30-year-old runaway named Tom, he offered an extra $10 for every 100 lashes doled out to the escapee.
As the United States expanded, the seventh president also opposed policies that would have outlawed slavery in western territories. And when abolitionists attempted to send anti-slavery tracts to the South during Jackson’s presidency, he helped ban their delivery and called the anti-slavery advocates monsters who should “atone for this wicked attempt with their lives.”
Despite Jackson’s support of slavery and participation in the slave trade, early biographers downplayed his pro-slavery stance, writes historian Mark R. Cheatham, who calls their reluctance to examine Jackson as a slave owner “surprising and disappointing.”
Let's put it this way, history will never forget the evil orange one in the office of presidency today, but does anyone really want a statue built to Trump? (Oh god, don't answer that. I just felt myself throw up a little. As the United States expanded, the seventh president also opposed policies that would have outlawed slavery in western territories. And when abolitionists attempted to send anti-slavery tracts to the South during Jackson’s presidency, he helped ban their delivery and called the anti-slavery advocates monsters who should “atone for this wicked attempt with their lives.”
Despite Jackson’s support of slavery and participation in the slave trade, early biographers downplayed his pro-slavery stance, writes historian Mark R. Cheatham, who calls their reluctance to examine Jackson as a slave owner “surprising and disappointing.”
)