Thomas Jefferson statue toppled in Portland

[Stevicus]

Portland protesters tear down ‘racist’ statue of Thomas Jefferson

Protesters in Portland, Ore., Sunday evening tore down a statue of Thomas Jefferson outside a high school that was named after him, according to a report.

The tear-down came about during a march organized by Rose City Justice to protest police brutality – one of many demonstrations in weeks following the death of George Floyd while in the custody of the Minneapolis Police Department.

The group had gathered outside Jefferson High School in Northeast Portland before marching to the park, Fox 12 reported. By the time they returned, a statue of Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. president, had been pulled from its pedestal by a smaller group.

Earlier in the day, the statue’s pedestal had been defaced with graffiti that labeled Jefferson as a slave owner. Jefferson had more than 600 slaves, despite publicly speaking out on the institution and writing the words “all men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence.

Well, it seems it had to happen sooner or later.

List of presidents of the United States who owned slaves - Wikipedia

List of slave owners - Wikipedia

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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

 

[Stevicus]

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

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.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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

That was a 'spit out my drink laughing' comment, brilliant

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. People should be more worried about the present than the past, particularly on these kinds of issues such as racism.
Jefferson's monument for instance, was not put up there because he was racist, it was put up there because he was a famous politician, POTUS in particular. But then at the same time, if I was an American I'd probably hate all the Presidents anyway, lol.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

You find it weird that people don't judge all statues equal?

 

[VoidoftheSun]

You find it weird that people don't judge all statues equal?

I find it weird that people want to destroy statues, monuments all of a sudden in the typical al-Qaeda manner, statues and monuments that have been there for a very long time nonetheless. It doesn't bother me or even interest me, but I find it weird and strange nonetheless.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I find it weird that people want to destroy statues, monuments all of a sudden in the typical al-Qaeda manner, statues and monuments that have been there for a very long time nonetheless. It doesn't bother me or even interest me, but I find it weird and strange nonetheless.

The rationale is generally the same in terms of their destruction. They want to destroy something that statue represents. The issue is that statues can represent many things at once, depending on the viewer. But still...I wouldn't want a statue of Hitler in my street, so there is a line there somewhere, I think you'd agree.
For me, tossing a statue of Edward Colston makes sense. Removing Jefferson, Cook or Churchill, less so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

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

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.

 

[Stevicus]

That was a 'spit out my drink laughing' comment, brilliant

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. People should be more worried about the present than the past, particularly on these kinds of issues such as racism.
Jefferson's monument for instance, was not put up there because he was racist, it was put up there because he was a famous politician, POTUS in particular. But then at the same time, if I was an American I'd probably hate all the Presidents anyway, lol.

For me, very little is sacred, so I'm not particularly heartbroken about statues being torn down. I don't know if this is very productive activity, though. It seems a waste of time and an empty, symbolic gesture.

Our history is what it is. From a certain point of view, one might say that the American nation was founded by a band of cutthroats, pirates, and murderers and that our entire existence is built on a pack of lies. That's kind of a bleak truth to have to face.

I think the only way to make a clean break from the past is to have a complete change in government. Not just a different president or the same pendulum going back and forth between the same two parties. We almost have to start over completely from scratch.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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.

Woah yeah, I see that, you have a point I didn't notice before. It has me scratching my chin with curiosity right now. Truly bizarre.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

For me, very little is sacred, so I'm not particularly heartbroken about statues being torn down. I don't know if this is very productive activity, though. It seems a waste of time and an empty, symbolic gesture.

Our history is what it is. From a certain point of view, one might say that the American nation was founded by a band of cutthroats, pirates, and murderers and that our entire existence is built on a pack of lies. That's kind of a bleak truth to have to face.

I think the only way to make a clean break from the past is to have a complete change in government. Not just a different president or the same pendulum going back and forth between the same two parties. We almost have to start over completely from scratch.

Yeah I definitely agree with you basically about all those points.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But then at the same time, if I was an American I'd probably hate all the Presidents anyway, lol.

That I can't do. The Founding Fathers, for all their flaws and for all the short comings in the Union they established, they established as assured rights and created a radically new system of a mixed democracy-republic that guarantees you the right to peacefully assemble, the right to freely speech, the right to protest, the right to believe whatever religion you want. In many ways it was similar to other systems that were a direct response to the wrongs of previous systems, but with John Locke providing much fuel for plagiarism, what was then was a response to address the grievances of state over a course of history. No troop quartering. No tests of religious faith to hold office. No official religion. Freedoms never before bestowed upon citizens in such a way. No kings or nobles and no such positions can be inherited. The citizens were even allowed to arm themselves for the purpose of defense. For the 18th century, those ideas being used to govern a state were grand and radical. Truly a beacon of inspiration and par of new heights for the world. Yes, it was flawed. But it was left open, they didn't want the living to be governed by the dead, and it is because of those reasons we have been able to correct and fix the short comings and wrong doings of the past.
Today, yes, it is rather quaint and other countries are doing just as fine, even without a written constitution. But America's is still the oldest and really was a model of inspiration.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

That I can't do. The Founding Fathers, for all their flaws and for all the short comings in the Union they established, they established as assured rights and created a radically new system of a mixed democracy-republic that guarantees you the right to peacefully assemble, the right to freely speech, the right to protest, the right to believe whatever religion you want. In many ways it was similar to other systems that were a direct response to the wrongs of previous systems, but with John Locke providing much fuel for plagiarism, what was then was a response to address the grievances of state over a course of history. No troop quartering. No tests of religious faith to hold office. No official religion. Freedoms never before bestowed upon citizens in such a way. No kings or nobles and no such positions can be inherited. The citizens were even allowed to arm themselves for the purpose of defense. For the 18th century, those ideas being used to govern a state were grand and radical. Truly a beacon of inspiration and par of new heights for the world. Yes, it was flawed. But it was left open, they didn't want the living to be governed by the dead, and it is because of those reasons we have been able to correct and fix the short comings and wrong doings of the past.
Today, yes, it is rather quaint and other countries are doing just as fine, even without a written constitution. But America's is still the oldest and really was a model of inspiration.

You also have a point with this but it still remains, to my mind, a point of ideals around certain principles rather than the actuality of the governmental/political history that has taken claim to them and the figures that have claimed to be somewhat of a 'representative' of them, so to speak.

 

[Stevicus]

The rationale is generally the same in terms of their destruction. They want to destroy something that statue represents. The issue is that statues can represent many things at once, depending on the viewer. But still...I wouldn't want a statue of Hitler in my street, so there is a line there somewhere, I think you'd agree.
For me, tossing a statue of Edward Colston makes sense. Removing Jefferson, Cook or Churchill, less so.

I think the statues of Hitler would have been torn down right away, which might make a difference. If they decided to keep statues of Hitler standing around for 50 years and then suddenly decide to remove them, then that might raise a few eyebrows as to why they ever kept it up at all.

On the other hand, not having any statues of Hitler certainly hasn't made anyone forget who he was or what he looked like, as he's one of the most recognizable political figures of the 20th century.

It could be that a lot of these statues have remained because a lot of people really don't know history and don't know who these figures are or what they did. Or at least, they didn't know until recently. Someone obviously spilled the beans.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Our history is what it is. From a certain point of view, one might say that the American nation was founded by a band of cutthroats, pirates, and murderers and that our entire existence is built on a pack of lies. That's kind of a bleak truth to have to face.

Facts are basically they were traitors to the Crown (John Hancock perhaps saying it the loudest), they did employ pirates, they did employ mercenaries, they did go against the standards of conduct of war for the time. Those are all indisputable facts. If it was right or justified, that is where it becomes complicated.

 

[Stevicus]

Facts are basically they were traitors to the Crown (John Hancock perhaps saying it the loudest), they did employ pirates, they did employ mercenaries, they did go against the standards of conduct of war for the time. Those are all indisputable facts. If it was right or justified, that is where it becomes complicated.

I agree that history can be complicated, but I also don't think we need to become too attached to it one way or the other. We can still borrow from or even plagiarize much of what the Founding Fathers wrote, but we don't have to revere them as anything more than flawed human beings who did some good things and some bad things, and in some cases, some very horrible things. Some of their ideals are still sound and useful, even if they themselves didn't always practice what they preached.

The bottom line is that we can't really change history, and the structure of the society we're living in is what it is. I'd like to think that we, as a society, could just try to make the best of it and move forward, but I don't think that's going to happen.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

On the other hand, not having any statues of Hitler certainly hasn't made anyone forget who he was or what he looked like, as he's one of the most recognizable political figures of the 20th century.

I haven't thought of it like that before, but, yes, Hitler certainly is very recognizable.

I agree that history can be complicated, but I also don't think we need to become too attached to it one way or the other. We can still borrow from or even plagiarize much of what the Founding Fathers wrote, but we don't have to revere them as anything more than flawed human beings who did some good things and some bad things, and in some cases, some very horrible things. Some of their ideals are still sound and useful, even if they themselves didn't always practice what they preached.

The bottom line is that we can't really change history, and the structure of the society we're living in is what it is. I'd like to think that we, as a society, could just try to make the best of it and move forward, but I don't think that's going to happen.

IMO, of course what made America into a nation was the Founding Fathers, but what "made" America is rather the ideals it stands for. Ideals that are so good the UN Declaration of Human Rights at parts reads very similar to those words penned by Jefferson that he plagiarized from Locke. Jefferson, however, being the author of the Constitution, though a flawed human, penned us a Constitution with the intention that we should be able to fix and address it's flaws and shortcomings at later dates (possibly the greatest brilliance of the Constitution). He is a very important figure in history in regards to liberal democracies and libertarianism (both in regards to property and social policy) being made into a policy of law.
Perhaps though when we are ancient history things will change and it will instead be those like Locke they remember and emphasize, sort of as we today remember Plato, Socrates, and Aristote as the fathers of the Western state and Democracy. But that too will probably require America to fade into the background as ancient Greece did.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I think the statues of Hitler would have been torn down right away, which might make a difference. If they decided to keep statues of Hitler standing around for 50 years and then suddenly decide to remove them, then that might raise a few eyebrows as to why they ever kept it up at all.

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.

On the other hand, not having any statues of Hitler certainly hasn't made anyone forget who he was or what he looked like, as he's one of the most recognizable political figures of the 20th century.

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.

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.

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.

It could be that a lot of these statues have remained because a lot of people really don't know history and don't know who these figures are or what they did. Or at least, they didn't know until recently. Someone obviously spilled the beans.

Agreed. There is also a small amount of 'give a man a hammer' going on, I think.

 

[PureX]

I find it weird that people want to destroy statues, monuments all of a sudden in the typical al-Qaeda manner, statues and monuments that have been there for a very long time nonetheless. It doesn't bother me or even interest me, but I find it weird and strange nonetheless.

It's no weirder than putting the statues up. It's all social expression, putting them up or taking them down. I don't see why you'd find that so weird. Times change. People change. What they feel and what they do to express what they feel, changes, too.

 

[Glaurung]

It's no weirder than putting the statues up. It's all social expression, putting them up or taking them down. I don't see why you'd find that so weird. Times change. People change. What they feel and what they do to express what they feel, changes, too.

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".