Who deserves a statue?

[Augustus]

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.

There's one of those in Edinburgh, Greyfriars Bobby - Wikipedia

Also there is a statue to Wojtek the bear nearby: Wojtek (bear) - Wikipedia

Animal statues are good because we can project positive human characteristics onto them, but not negative ones

 

[sun rise]

Animal statues are good because we can project positive human characteristics onto them, but not negative ones

Statues maybe. But live animals are another matter - Dogs at least can be mischievous, naughty and so forth. Cats are notorious for negative responses to humans who don't cater sufficiently to them.

 

[QuestioningMind]

‘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?

1. If we insist on putting up statues of people then they should be of people who have had a significant positive effect on the communities in which they are displayed.
2. I'm not sure if any crime/offense is too great, as long as the person also had a significant positive effect on the community. In my opinion the issue should be what precisely the statue if honoring the person for. For instance, George Washington is deserving of a statue, because he lead the army during the Revolutionary War and was our first president. The fact that he owned slaves should not make him ineligible for a statue. However, a statue depicting Washington standing with a bunch of black people in chains kneeling at his feet - i.e. a statue that celebrates the fact that he owned slaves - should not be allowed.
3. See above answers.

 

[SomeRandom]

‘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?

No one.
Unless it’s a piece of art in a museum, I don’t understand why they have to be erected in the first place.
If it’s some big literary figure or something then you could argue artistic expression, I suppose. If it’s to commemorate some big historical moment, again I can see the artistic merit in such an argument.

But just random “heroes” in history? I have history books for that and the study of such history in academia, I don’t need some statue looming ominously in a park to get that.

 

[Tambourine]

The only Emperor who deserves a statue would be Emperor Norton of America:

he had shed no blood; robbed no one; and despoiled no country; which is more than can be said of his fellows in that line

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.

It takes time to assemble a guillotine...

 

[Secret Chief]

Cats are notorious for negative responses to humans who don't cater sufficiently to them.

Sorry, it's probably just me not understanding, but it almost seems as if, well, you're criticising cats??? As I say, it's no doubt just me misconstruing your adoration for the feline gods, I just thought you'd like to clear up this (apparent) little wording error.

 

[sun rise]

Sorry, it's probably just me not understanding, but it almost seems as if, well, you're criticising cats??? As I say, it's no doubt just me misconstruing your adoration for the feline gods, I just thought you'd like to clear up this (apparent) little wording error.

I'll take your suggestion under advisement.

 

[Ponder This]

‘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?

That more important question is who gets to decide. Random Person X generally doesn't have the right to take down a public statue whether or not the person depicted deserves to have a statue.

 

[Twilight Hue]

‘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?

No better than the Taliban except it's political instead of religious.