Who deserves a statue?

[Augustus]

‘Crook’: Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The vandalism of several statues in Flanders has left locals questioning the motivations of the damage, after a statue of Julius Caesar – not Leopold II – was defaced over the weekend.

The statue of Caesar in Velzeke, in Zottegem (East Flanders), was damaged during the night of Saturday to Sunday, with the word ‘krapuul’ (crook) scrawled on the base of the statue. The spear that Caesar held in one hand was also torn off.

'Crook': Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The latest fad is to apply anachronistic 21st C moral standards to reevaluate the legacy of historical figures and pull down the statues of those who are deemed unsuitable.

In general:

1. Which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places?
2. What 'crimes'/factors should prevent people from having statues of them in public?
3. To what extent can positive contributions cancel out such 'crimes'/factors?

Thoughts?

 

[Secret Chief]

1. None.
2. See (1)
3. See (1)

The "deserve" bit is the issue obviously. No person is "faultless" in the eyes of everyone.

 

[Harel13]

Statues aren't super common in Israel. The ones we have are usually heroic militiamen (from before the creation of the state), heroic military personnel and Zionist thinkers. These are all figures that are central to the culture and history of Israel and represent values of Israeli society. No one, of course, is perfect, but that's not what's focused on when erecting the statue. It's what they gave to their people that's important.

I don't know what would be a justifiable reason to remove a statue. Like I said, in Israel, the statues are erected because they represent Israeli values. If they did something truly horrible that isn't compatible with those values, I doubt they would have statues in the first place.

 

[Yerda]

‘Crook’: Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The vandalism of several statues in Flanders has left locals questioning the motivations of the damage, after a statue of Julius Caesar – not Leopold II – was defaced over the weekend.

The statue of Caesar in Velzeke, in Zottegem (East Flanders), was damaged during the night of Saturday to Sunday, with the word ‘krapuul’ (crook) scrawled on the base of the statue. The spear that Caesar held in one hand was also torn off.

'Crook': Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The latest fad is to apply anachronistic 21st C moral standards to reevaluate the legacy of historical figures and pull down the statues of those who are deemed unsuitable.

In general:

1. Which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places?
2. What 'crimes'/factors should prevent people from having statues of them in public?
3. To what extent can positive contributions cancel out such 'crimes'/factors?

Thoughts?

Are you genuinely worried about the justifications for erecting and removing statues? As in a philosophical inquiry into public ethics of sorts?

Since it says something about what a society might value maybe things like creating/improving the conditions that lead to harmonious society. I've never really thought about it before but I'd certainly prefer not to see slavers, warmongers, and defenders of inequity and injustice honoured publicly.

I can see why a bad dude might be a hero to some. To take a UK example that's been in the news, Edward Colston might well have made many families very rich and help entrench the political power of a certain set of people and they might be grateful enough to build him a monument. But I can see why it seems like a good idea to not publicly honour a guy who traded in humans, mostly African, in a country where people of African descent are supposed to be the equal in worth, rights and dignity of the descendents of people he kidnapped them for.

On the whole though, I'm pretty sure this is all just part of the flaming culture war hysterics that we all have to eat everyday in order that some people never have to admit that society isn't working for lots of us.

 

[Augustus]

Are you genuinely worried about the justifications for erecting and removing statues? As in a philosophical inquiry into public ethics of sorts?

Yes. I'm interested in people's thoughts, hence I asked:

1. Which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places?
2. What 'crimes'/factors should prevent people from having statues of them in public?
3. To what extent can positive contributions cancel out such 'crimes'/factors?

 

[Augustus]

1. None.
2. See (1)
3. See (1)

The "deserve" bit is the issue obviously. No person is "faultless" in the eyes of everyone.

So there should be no statues of famous people in public places?

Or do you mean it as a technicality based on 'deserve'?

 

[Yerda]

Yes. I'm interested in people's thoughts, hence I asked:

1. Which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places?
2. What 'crimes'/factors should prevent people from having statues of them in public?
3. To what extent can positive contributions cancel out such 'crimes'/factors?

I'm not sure there are definitive answers. Like I said,

Since it says something about what a society might value maybe things like creating/improving the conditions that lead to harmonious society.

There are obvious crimes/factors like being a slave trader but I don't think I could draw up a category.

I don't know what could cancel out things like the above.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

‘Crook’: Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The vandalism of several statues in Flanders has left locals questioning the motivations of the damage, after a statue of Julius Caesar – not Leopold II – was defaced over the weekend.

The statue of Caesar in Velzeke, in Zottegem (East Flanders), was damaged during the night of Saturday to Sunday, with the word ‘krapuul’ (crook) scrawled on the base of the statue. The spear that Caesar held in one hand was also torn off.

'Crook': Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The latest fad is to apply anachronistic 21st C moral standards to reevaluate the legacy of historical figures and pull down the statues of those who are deemed unsuitable.

In general:

1. Which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places?
2. What 'crimes'/factors should prevent people from having statues of them in public?
3. To what extent can positive contributions cancel out such 'crimes'/factors?

Thoughts?

Seems like you're approaching the question with an assumption that's worth unpacking: that the decision to put up a statue of an individual is based on that individual's personal merits.

While this might be the case in some instances, it certainly isn't true across the board.

 

[Augustus]

Seems like you're approaching the question with an assumption that's worth unpacking: that the decision to put up a statue of an individual is based on that individual's personal merits.

That is not correct. You are reading in your own assumptions.

There is nothing in the question 'which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places' that limits the answer to forms of personal merit.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That is not correct. You are reading in your own assumptions.

There is nothing in the question 'which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places' that limits the answer to forms of personal merit.

The word "deserve" implies that, IMO.

Plenty of statues get erected for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of the person depicted. For instance, the Confederate statues that are in the news now were erected mainly as a demonstration of power against the marginalized descendants of slaves and against the "North."

Edit: there's also spite. For instance, the monument to General Brock isn't just meant to memorialize a war hero; it's also intended to taunt the Americans. There's a reason why Brock's statue is at the top of a tall column: by being in full view of American soil on the other side of the river, it communicates the message to any Americans in view "before you think of invading us again, remember what happened last time."

Even if negative things came to light about Brock, the statue would still serve its purpose.

Brock's Monument - Wikipedia

 

[PureX]

I think the powers that be should be very glad that people are puling down statues of dead aristocrats rather than lopping the heads off live ones.

 

[PureX]

This lady deserved her statue.

This statue in Varberg, Sweden commemorates the day of 13 April 1985 when local housewife Danuta Danielsson whopped Neo Nazi Seppo Seluska with her handbag. She became a local hero.

Amen, Sister!

 

[Augustus]

The word "deserve" implies that, IMO.

It really just means seeing as we have statues in society, what kinds of people do you think these should be of.

You might think all Presidents deserve a statue, or leaders during critical periods in history for example.

Edit: there's also spite. For instance, the monument to General Brock isn't just meant to memorialize a war hero; it's also intended to taunt the Americans. There's a reason why Brock's statue is at the top of a tall column: by being in full view of American soil on the other side of the river, it communicates the message to any Americans in view "before you think of invading us again, remember what happened last time."

Even if negative things came to light about Brock, the statue would still serve its purpose.

Brock's Monument - Wikipedia

"Figureheads of certain symbolic events deserve statues"


What other kinds of people do you think should get statues?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It really just means seeing as we have statues in society, what kinds of people do you think these should be of.

You might think all Presidents deserve a statue, or leaders during critical periods in history for example.



"Figureheads of certain symbolic events deserve statues"


What other kinds of people do you think should get statues?

If you're going to misrepresent what I say, I'll put you back on ignore.

 

[Augustus]

If you're going to misrepresent what I say, I'll put you back on ignore.

????

I wasn't trying to represent what you said at all, I was trying to get you on to the topic of the thread.

 

[Nakosis]

 

[sun rise]

The latest fad is to apply anachronistic 21st C moral standards to reevaluate the legacy of historical figures and pull down the statues of those who are deemed unsuitable.

1. Which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places?
2. What 'crimes'/factors should prevent people from having statues of them in public?
3. To what extent can positive contributions cancel out such 'crimes'/factors?

1) To me the only people who should have statues are those who did inspirational acts. Actually it's not people but creatures as this statue of a famous Japanese dog does because of his loyalty and fidelity.

2/3) I've not thought that through in any detail. Certainly I would not have a statue to someone who was, for example, an enemy general who did nothing special in a war (at least most of the Southerners did).

I do think that it's fine to have statues to the founders of America even if by today's standards they did wrong things.

 

[Secret Chief]

So there should be no statues of famous people in public places?

Or do you mean it as a technicality based on 'deserve'?

The former.

 

[74x12]

‘Crook’: Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The vandalism of several statues in Flanders has left locals questioning the motivations of the damage, after a statue of Julius Caesar – not Leopold II – was defaced over the weekend.

The statue of Caesar in Velzeke, in Zottegem (East Flanders), was damaged during the night of Saturday to Sunday, with the word ‘krapuul’ (crook) scrawled on the base of the statue. The spear that Caesar held in one hand was also torn off.

'Crook': Julius Caesar statue vandalized in Flanders

The latest fad is to apply anachronistic 21st C moral standards to reevaluate the legacy of historical figures and pull down the statues of those who are deemed unsuitable.

In general:

1. Which kinds of people deserve to have statues in public places?
2. What 'crimes'/factors should prevent people from having statues of them in public?
3. To what extent can positive contributions cancel out such 'crimes'/factors?

Thoughts?

I agree Julius Caesar is not really that great of a character from a moral point of view. He's mainly admired for other things such as skill in warfare, tactics and strategy and skill in politics ... at least until he got shanked.

As for who "deserves" a statue that depends who you ask. Someone could be a monster to one group of people and a savior to another.

 

[Augustus]

As for who "deserves" a statue that depends who you ask. Someone could be a monster to one group of people and a savior to another.

If I asked you, what would you say? What kind of people should be commemorated?