Thomas Jefferson statue toppled in Portland

[PureX]

Were the people consulted before the statue was toppled, or did a shrill minority take advantage of a particular social climate and force its opinion on said people by vandalism?

If a community elects to get rid of a statue because it feels that said statue represents ideals and values it rejects then that's one thing and I can respect that. I have no respect for a vocal few who take it upon themselves to vandalize the public square in the name of their "social expression".

Were all the people consulted on putting the statue up? Very unlikely. Those who act first, tend to get their way.

 

[PureX]

Were the people consulted before the statue was toppled, or did a shrill minority take advantage of a particular social climate and force its opinion on said people by vandalism?

If a community elects to get rid of a statue because it feels that said statue represents ideals and values it rejects then that's one thing and I can respect that. I have no respect for a vocal few who take it upon themselves to vandalize the public square in the name of their "social expression".

Were all the people consulted on putting the statue up? Very unlikely. Those who act first, tend to get their way.

 

[Glaurung]

Were all the people consulted on putting the statue up? Very unlikely. Those who act first, tend to get their way.

It doesn't matter. If you think a public monument is offensive, then convince that public though debate and civil process. Most if not all historical figures run afoul of modern liberal/progressive beliefs. That doesn't justify mob driven vandalism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I find hilarious is that people only care now but they didn't care last year, ten years ago, thirty years ago, fifty years ago (the various statues I mean).

Kind of weird iconoclasm going on in a way, though it's politically motivated etc

People have always cared. It's just that you didn't notice.

It isn't that people suddenly realized that Jefferson had slaves; what's happening is that the people who have always been angry at the idea of memorializing slavers are now less marginalized.

Exactly. They're going to have a tough time removing Jefferson's face from Mount Rushmore. Of course, Washington owned slaves, too.

After we're done with this object lesson in the history of slavery in the U.S., we'll move on to Westward Expansion. We might get a different perspective on some of the Union generals, such as Grant, Sherman, Custer, etc.

That "different perspective" has been around for a long time. Like @Shaykhahadun , you just didn't notice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It doesn't matter. If you think a public monument is offensive, then convince that public though debate and civil process. Most if not all historical figures run afoul of modern liberal/progressive beliefs. That doesn't justify mob driven vandalism.

A better strategy: be thankful that they aren't taking the approach used in the French Revolution. They didn't just mess around with statues; they'd actually disinter their enemies' bones and dump them in the river.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And they don't care Jefferson originally wrote the Declaration to condemn allowing slavery in the New World to begin with, and the Constitution originally to abolish slavery from the start.
They are definitely barking up the wrong tree.

Jefferson didn't condemn slavery.

He spoke about freedom for "all men" while denying it to slaves. It seems he saw them as less than "men."

 

[Stevicus]

People have always cared. It's just that you didn't notice.

It isn't that people suddenly realized that Jefferson had slaves; what's happening is that the people who have always been angry at the idea of memorializing slavers are now less marginalized.


That "different perspective" has been around for a long time. Like @Shaykhahadun , you just didn't notice.

No, I certainly noticed, but what I've also noticed is a certain hypocrisy and disingenuousness which has existed since the Civil Rights movement. Back then, there were those who had an abstract desire for justice, but there was also an apparent fear of treading on any sacred cows - something which has continued to this day.

It is somewhat fascinating to watch many of the rapid changes taking place. I came across this article which outlines some of it: Nonracist to antiracist: Seven rapid culture shifts since the killing of George Floyd

For me, I find myself questioning why these issues are still prominent a half-century and two generations after the Civil Rights movement. It's almost as if the movement has either gone backwards or remained stagnant for decades, and nobody seems to know why. That's the question you might want to ask, as opposed to chiding people for what you think they noticed or didn't notice.

 

[PureX]

It doesn't matter. If you think a public monument is offensive, then convince that public though debate and civil process. Most if not all historical figures run afoul of modern liberal/progressive beliefs. That doesn't justify mob driven vandalism.

We all know that it's the rich and powerful that decide who gets glorified by these monuments in most cultures, and certainly in ours. So I'm fine with the poor and unruly pulling their statues down when they've a mind to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I certainly noticed, but what I've also noticed is a certain hypocrisy and disingenuousness which has existed since the Civil Rights movement. Back then, there were those who had an abstract desire for justice, but there was also an apparent fear of treading on any sacred cows - something which has continued to this day.

You talk about "the Civil Rights movement" as if it's a hive mind with only one opinion.

It is somewhat fascinating to watch many of the rapid changes taking place. I came across this article which outlines some of it: Nonracist to antiracist: Seven rapid culture shifts since the killing of George Floyd

For me, I find myself questioning why these issues are still prominent a half-century and two generations after the Civil Rights movement. It's almost as if the movement has either gone backwards or remained stagnant for decades, and nobody seems to know why.

"Nobody," or you?

That's the question you might want to ask, as opposed to chiding people for what you think they noticed or didn't notice.

Don't blame me for taking your post at face value. Some people really are as ignorant as you made yourself out to be.

 

[Wu Wei]

So, when do we start burning the current history books and write new ones that are more politically correct, less offensive, and mostly fictional so everyone can look back on it as all sunshine and rainbows so everyone is happy

confederate status I never understood, name another country that puts up statues to honor the loser of a war and the cause of the losers

Jefferson, you owned slaves, yup fathered children with a slave, was also a founding father. And for the record many of the founding fathers owned slaves....so....we rip all their statues down too..... George Washington included.
Then what, cross all their names off the Declaration of Independence. And while we’re at it we might as well vilify everyone who ever quoted or write a book or had any affiliation with a founding father... oh and while we’re at it, it said all men are created equal.....never mentioned women

 

[Yazata]

Things like these protests and destruction of public monuments (which is a very Salafi-ISIS kind of action btw, it's not really radical, it's just animalistic) isn't really that forward-thinking.

I agree and think that the religious analogy is a good one.

What we are seeing is a strange kind of moral perfectionism, one that here in the United States is often associated (perhaps mistakenly) with Puritanism. People imagining themselves the righteous ones, always alert to condemn any and all imagined sin. (Hopefully we won't reach the point of the public executions that ISIS loved so much, but we are most definitely headed that way.) Sodomy!, blasphemy!... racism!, bigotry!... The incessant non-stop condemnations are all coming from the same psychological place and all have similar motivations -- to cleanse society. To enforce moral and cognitive conformity.

There's an accompanying desire to erase all of previous history, if that history doesn't rise to their arbitrary and unachievable standard. Leaving a blank slate upon which they can construct some fanciful genealogy of their own imagination.

The past is our inheritance from our parents and from everyone who came before us. It's the product of their struggles and the result of the labors of their lives. All of them were imperfect people in challenging circumstances, but most of them were good people trying as hard as they could. As Isaac Newton is supposed to have said, the reason why he could see so far is because he was standing on the shoulders of giants.

It's just hubris to think that the present generation can sweep the past away and construct everything fresh and clean and new, morally perfected... entirely on their own, based only on their own personal moral intuitions, the very same sort of intuitions that have always proved so imperfect in the past.

Psychologically, we live in a very adolescent age. That might arguably be a dangerous thing.

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, true. Even as I wrote it, I cursed myself for using such a lazy example. But your point is valid. These statues have stood for a long time. Why they are now problematic is an interesting mix of optimism and sadness for me.

I think it's a question that needs to be asked, and it deserves an honest answer.

Agreed. As he should be. I'm all for remembering the most divisive of our historical figures, I just think 'how' matters. Having recently travelled to Germany, I think it's entirely possible to have monuments, memorials and other ways to remember, but context is important.

I've never agreed with the idea of making any historical figure larger than life, either in the positive or the negative. I think it leads to skewed interpretations of history, making it all about an individual hero or villain, as if nobody else had anything to do with it.

Statues are generally a way of celebrating an overall contribution, which is why I find large, centrally located statues to Robert E Lee somewhat troublesome. In no way would I advocate forgetting Lee, and I'm well aware of the nuance in his background, and why he was fighting. But the statue seems to celebrate him as a sympathetic figure, and validates not just his particular rationale in fighting, but more broadly his cause. Just my opinion there, no need for us to go down that rabbit hole here.

I saw an interesting program on YouTube about the origins of the Lost Cause version of Civil War history and how it gained acceptance not just in the South, but in the North as well. I think it would be a mistake to suggest that these were monuments to treason or monuments to racism; they were designed to serve the interests of the US ruling class at the time and the image of America they were trying to convey to the masses. They were certainly racists but were trying to push the idea of "separate but equal," so at least on paper, they could claim to support racial equality.

Even those with ostensibly progressive views, such as Woodrow Wilson, had some rather strange ideas nevertheless. Woodrow Wilson is a sacred cow in American history, although somewhat tarnished in more recent times. Still, he might be comparable to Churchill in that he supported democracy against tyranny and wanted to push for unity among the liberal democratic nations, yet his internationalist vision was fiercely opposed by those considered to be "isolationists."

Churchill, on the other hand, is pretty clearly being celebrated for his actions in the Second World War, rather than some of his other, more dubious actions. And slave owning was sadly a fact of life for many influential figures in our past. I'd be on board with removing those who prospered from slave trading, regardless of whether they spent the money in 'positive ways' for the community. But slave owners like Benjamin Franklin aren't being remembered for their slave owning. Nor is Julius Caesar.

But the complete story might still need to be told just the same. It's not so much to demonize people, or at least, I don't see that it has to be like that. It's more a matter of showing that history is not quite so black-and-white as it's often portrayed. It might also explain many of the anomalies and inconsistencies which many people are wont to point out.

There's a famous saying that "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it," and I think there's a lot of truth to that. It's not simply a matter of remembering history, but also learning the right lessons and drawing the right conclusions. In the context of the protests and the chaotic events we've seen these past weeks, it seems clear that people want answers and they're demanding answers as to why things are the way they are in the United States.

But do we have any clear answers here? Does anyone even understand the questions? That's the only thing that would put this whole statue business into clearer perspective.

 

[Stevicus]

You talk about "the Civil Rights movement" as if it's a hive mind with only one opinion.

No, I never said that. My opinion is based on the results of the consensus.

"Nobody," or you?

Well, you too. That's obvious from the games you're playing here.

Don't blame me for taking your post at face value. Some people really are as ignorant as you made yourself out to be.

I honestly have no idea what you're getting at here, but you seem to have a bit of an attitude and you sound like you're just playing some internet game of trying to one up some imaginary opponent. This is not needed nor helpful. America is facing some very serious problems currently, and if all you want to do is sit on the other side of the border and gloat about it, I'm not interested.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Jefferson didn't condemn slavery.

The original drafts of the Declaration and Constitution did. The Southern States wouldnt have it though, as owning slaves was their god given right, and the seeds of the Civil War were sown.
The only reason the North conceeded on the issue was Benjamin Franklin convinced the other deligates to let the South have it just to make the Union happen, and that slavery wpuld soon die out on its own given how inhumane it is (with Franklin himself having started one of the first abolitionist movements in the New World).

 

[tytlyf]

Thomas Jefferson High School had a statue out front? How many other Thomas Jefferson High Schools across the country were vandalized as well with their statues?
The Thomas Jefferson memorial is still standing in DC.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is another statue I'd like to "improve".
Sign the Petition