Statue removal

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Statue removal

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Skip wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 8:58 pm Of course it's history, and that is why it excites emotion: that was its function in the first place. When Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte or Saddam Hussein had a statue erected to his own glory, displayed in a prominent position, the idea was to inspire pride in his followers and fear in his enemies. When he lost his power, he lost his right to self-glorification.

I think the Confederacy did, too. Glorifying leaders who chose the losing side is a gesture of defiance on the part of the losers. The winners have been more than patient - they have been downright indulgent - in allowing this to continue as long as it has.
I think people claiming it glorifies the confederacy are mistaken. Just because it involves a man who fought in the confederacy (not necessarily supported it) doesn't mean it celebrates that, because the commissioner of the statue (Paul Goodloe McIntire) didn't even seem to support the confederacy when it was built. As far as we know, it serves no other purpose than as a reminder of the past, along with the other statues funded by McIntire.

There's a big difference to statues built from dictatorship, for dictatorship, when the manpower to get that done often involves slavery itself, and has a clear intention of being built for the purpose you state. The Charlottesville memorial was built long after Lee died, he wasn't even aware that such a thing existed.

I hear what you're saying about the principle of forcing taxpayers to maintain a statue they don't like - whatever fraction they end up paying to maintain a statue - the problem is the reason they don't like it is based on omitted, skewed and misinformation.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:44 pm I'm also pretty sure there are still artefacts depicting Julius Caesar and Napoleon around.
Probably, but not at the expense of their victims' descendants, without those people's consent.
.....Why just pick on little-known statues in lesser-known spots?
I'm not picking on any statues anywhere. If a monument offends the population that elects the people who have their offices in the building behind the lawn that statue are standing on, then that statue needs to be moved someplace where their admirers can keep enjoying them at their own expense and the other people don't have to be reminded of them, and what they stood for, every day.
Last edited by Skip on Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip »

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:02 pm There's a big difference to statues built from dictatorship, for dictatorship, when the manpower to get that done often involves slavery itself, and has a clear intention of being built for the purpose you state.
National heroes aren't admired for for their dictatorship; they're admired for their leadership and courage and determination and whatever. They stand for the self-regard of the nation; people identify with them; they are powerful symbols. In Paris, Napoleon was justifiably admired. In Moscow and London, not so much. Russians would be unhappy to be asked to erect a statue to Napoleon , and nobody would blame them.

In a civil war, there are no borders for the hero to be inside or outside of. The lines are not so clear-cut and an armistice doesn't end the conflict.

If it were no more than an example of history, why would anyone become violent in its defense? The American Civil War never actually ended. The Confederacy never actually conceded its right to oppress black people, even half-way into the next century. The death of the hero, and time passing, doesn't change what he was defending. Slavery. There really is no way to quibble your way out of the cause of that war, or its long-term consequences. Jefferson and Washington were slave-owners, but were not responsible for the killing 100,000 young men in the interest of retaining that status. Lee was not exactly and obscure little cog in that conflict.
And there is no way to put the ignorance-blame on the people who hear and see and feel, every day of their lives, the resentment of the ex-masters and their insistence that "the South will rise again". That one statue is not the only way Dixie keeps celebrating itself: the flags are still in evidence, the battles are re-enacted every year, the songs are sung, the memorials and monuments stand tall and proud, not only in Charlottsville, but all over the southern states, where the KKK and other organs of white supremacy have enjoyed a renaissance in recent times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/c ... tatue.html
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:34 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:44 pm I'm also pretty sure there are still artefacts depicting Julius Caesar and Napoleon around.
Probably, but not at the expense of their victims' descendants, without those people's consent.
.....Why just pick on little-known statues in lesser-known spots?
I'm not picking on any statues anywhere. If a monument offends the population that elects the people who have their offices in the building behind the lawn that statue are standing on, then that statue needs to be moved someplace where their admirers can keep enjoying them at their own expense and the other people don't have to be reminded of them, and what they stood for, every day.
There's that old 'offended on behalf of....' again. I'm so sick of hearing that word. It's not a 'population', it's a tiny group of politically-motivated nincompoops.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:15 am There's that old 'offended on behalf of....' again. I'm so sick of hearing that word. It's not a 'population', it's a tiny group of politically-motivated nincompoops.
There was no "on behalf of". Actual residents of those cities and towns have been pissed off for decades and had no recourse. Now, they're finally getting some political representation in their own town councils and state legislatures. If you don't like it, go tell them why they're wrong.
It's nothing to do with me.
BTW - What's it to do with you?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:56 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:15 am There's that old 'offended on behalf of....' again. I'm so sick of hearing that word. It's not a 'population', it's a tiny group of politically-motivated nincompoops.
There was no "on behalf of". Actual residents of those cities and towns have been pissed off for decades and had no recourse. Now, they're finally getting some political representation in their own town councils and state legislatures. If you don't like it, go tell them why they're wrong.
It's nothing to do with me.
BTW - What's it to do with you?
Have you taken surveys then? What does anything have to do with anyone?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:24 am What does anything have to do with anyone?
I wouldn't know, in most cases. On this topic, I've done no more than provide a little objective information. There is a longish explanation, background, plus link, above, in response to Sir-Sister-of-Suck, who appears equally clueless re US history and race relations.
But don't let any of that interfere with your campaign against... whatever seems to have got so far up your nose.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:49 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:24 am What does anything have to do with anyone?
I wouldn't know, in most cases. On this topic, I've done no more than provide a little objective information. There is a longish explanation, background, plus link, above, in response to Sir-Sister-of-Suck, who appears equally clueless re US history and race relations.
But don't let any of that interfere with your campaign against... whatever seems to have got so far up your nose.
I thought he made a lot of sense and was pretty reasonable. I'm not sure what your argument is. That anyone who disagrees with you is clueless about American history and 'race relations'? I doubt if many people on the planet would be clueless about US race relations.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:16 am I doubt if many people on the planet would be clueless about US race relations.
Ah, good. Then you do understand that the problem is not just Lee or this particular statue. You understand why the black residents, as well as many white ones, object to the symbols of an unrepentant Confederacy being on prominent display all over the South; why the municipal government decided to move this one; why the white supremacists violently resist the removal of their symbols and other people protest their involvement.

In which case, your objection is to my comments personally. Fair enough, I won't make any more here.
thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by thedoc »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:44 pm Why just pick on little-known statues in lesser-known spots?
Easy targets.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Statue removal

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Skip wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:47 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote: Fri Aug 18, 2017 11:02 pm There's a big difference to statues built from dictatorship, for dictatorship, when the manpower to get that done often involves slavery itself, and has a clear intention of being built for the purpose you state.
National heroes aren't admired for for their dictatorship; they're admired for their leadership and courage and determination and whatever. They stand for the self-regard of the nation; people identify with them; they are powerful symbols. In Paris, Napoleon was justifiably admired. In Moscow and London, not so much. Russians would be unhappy to be asked to erect a statue to Napoleon , and nobody would blame them.
I was talking about some of the people you mentioned who erected statues in their name, like Saddam Hussein. These statues have far different meanings and origins than that of the Robert E Lee memorial.
If it were no more than an example of history, why would anyone become violent in its defense? The American Civil War never actually ended. The Confederacy never actually conceded its right to oppress black people, even half-way into the next century. The death of the hero, and time passing, doesn't change what he was defending. Slavery. There really is no way to quibble your way out of the cause of that war, or its long-term consequences. Jefferson and Washington were slave-owners, but were not responsible for the killing 100,000 young men in the interest of retaining that status. Lee was not exactly and obscure little cog in that conflict.
People become violent because they project a sort of glorification onto it, but that doesn't mean it was built with that in mind. As I said, against the proclamations you'll hear from the alt-right, the statue does not have such a clear message for why it exists. They find their own meaning where there is none. Paul Goodloe McIntire built several statues of various historical figures, because he had an appreciation of the arts. If we allow people to redefine what statues mean, I think people on both sides of this issue are complaining about something they've created; I think that Thomas Jefferson and Washington are much more despicable than Lee. As I explained, he wasn't fighting for slavery, he made a pragmatic choice as a general for what he thought would be the best thing for his state. He was actually against the south succeeding from the union, and did not want to go to war over it. As far as I know, his wife even owned slaves, but he did not.
And there is no way to put the ignorance-blame on the people who hear and see and feel, every day of their lives, the resentment of the ex-masters and their insistence that "the South will rise again". That one statue is not the only way Dixie keeps celebrating itself: the flags are still in evidence, the battles are re-enacted every year, the songs are sung, the memorials and monuments stand tall and proud, not only in Charlottsville, but all over the southern states, where the KKK and other organs of white supremacy have enjoyed a renaissance in recent times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/13/us/c ... tatue.html
There is no one who 'resents their ex-master' today because there haven't been slaves in the US for well over a century. There is legitimate racism in the world to be concerned over, but no one should be wasting their time and attention on a statue meant to stand for merely historical purposes.
User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 940
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: Statue removal

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck »

Skip wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:49 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:24 am What does anything have to do with anyone?
I wouldn't know, in most cases. On this topic, I've done no more than provide a little objective information. There is a longish explanation, background, plus link, above, in response to Sir-Sister-of-Suck, who appears equally clueless re US history and race relations.
But don't let any of that interfere with your campaign against... whatever seems to have got so far up your nose.
I think it's these progressives who are clueless about wider US history and race relations. They're clueless about the omitted details that their peers are not immediately interested in. You might be aware that Thomas Jefferson owned 100s of black slaves, and you don't think it means as much as leading a confederate state, but if these progressives were actively aware of this fact, I have little doubt they would make Jefferson a prime target. Especially if you consider what I've noted about the full context of Lee's situation, they become much more comparable to each other.

Consistent application of their principles is one thing, but my main issue is, as explained, their lack of knowledge of where this statue came from and what Robert E Lee actually stood for.
Last edited by Sir-Sister-of-Suck on Sat Aug 19, 2017 8:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Skip wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:13 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Sat Aug 19, 2017 10:16 am I doubt if many people on the planet would be clueless about US race relations.
Ah, good. Then you do understand that the problem is not just Lee or this particular statue. You understand why the black residents, as well as many white ones, object to the symbols of an unrepentant Confederacy being on prominent display all over the South; why the municipal government decided to move this one; why the white supremacists violently resist the removal of their symbols and other people protest their involvement.

In which case, your objection is to my comments personally. Fair enough, I won't make any more here.
Since you refuse to address any of my points then I suppose there's no point in continuing either. The reason self-proclaimed 'Progressives' never have any rational arguments is because they are fanatics, and fanaticism is a mental illness. I suppose in their minds they are being completely reasonable :roll:
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: Statue removal

Post by Londoner »

I would think a better solution would be to leave Lee and put up another statue, one that symbolises how that society thinks about itself now. The juxtaposition would both change the meaning of the Lee statue and add meaning to the new one. The existence of the two monuments side by side would then represent change, progress.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip »

Londoner wrote: Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:52 am I would think a better solution would be to leave Lee and put up another statue, one that symbolises how that society thinks about itself now. The juxtaposition would both change the meaning of the Lee statue and add meaning to the new one. The existence of the two monuments side by side would then represent change, progress.
That might have worked in 1960 or '70. Quietly removing the go-Dixie monuments one by one, to low-profile places of safety, night have worked.
Now, it's far too late. It no longer matters what happens to each of the specific monuments, small and large, in any of the southern states that still have a significant Confederate attitude. It doesn't matter what was in the minds of the people who raised the statues or in the minds of the dead men they depict. Nobody's reading minds. What's being read is the simplest possible message - because tweets and slogans and symbols are the only means of communication in America anymore. These monuments have become focal points of division and animosity that have continued to simmer just below the surface of pretend civil accord, but could always be exploited for political advantage. Now they're in the open, with presidential approval, nobody's going to talk them back down.

The USA is broken. Has been for a long time, but it looked, briefly, as if it might heal. Not anymore. A people addicted to obsolescence decided last fall that it's easier to throw their country away than try to repair it. Unfortunately, they've already maxed out their credit and can't buy a new one.

Interesting times.
Post Reply