Statue removal

What is art? What is beauty?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

commonsense
Posts: 1088
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by commonsense » Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:34 am

Skip wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:06 pm
When they're bitterly aggrieved that someone wished them "a happy holiday" instead of merry Christmas, it's because their traditions are being eroded. When someone objects to having another culture's sacred symbols made into a commodity and a joke, that's "oppressive political correctness gone mad".
When someone objects to a Confederate flag flown on a government building, that's PC, a mental illness. The people who defend keeping it there cite "our history" - but never propose putting a union flag up next to it. Nobody who is so staunchly defending the historical monuments of The South ever proposes depicting the general in question with his sword broken, drummed off the field in disgrace, nor erecting another statue beside it, of the general who defeated him.

Selective history; selective cultural icons; selective outrage.

Thing is: the monuments in controversy are triumphal [patently false] representations of the civil War. Their removal, like their location, is the decision of a duly elected city council or state legislature, in response to criticism, over a long period, by their constituents - not by a small group of outsiders who want to tell other people how to live. The same cannot always be said of the most outspoken opponents of these decisions.

Nobody objects to a cenotaph to fallen soldiers or commemorative plaque to a natural disaster that killed local residents; nobody objects to heritage buildings or memorials to artists, inventors and aviators. Nobody fights over preserving the memory of important events and notable persons.
Conflict arises, not over truth, but over ideology.
The Confederacy tore a nation in half and caused the death of over 600,000 combat troops as well as literally uncounted civilians and horses, the devastation of a landscape and loss of infrastructure, in defense of the institution of slavery. That is a fact. After losing the war, the same states continued for another century and more to mistreat their black population in both legal and illegal ways. That is a fact. The legacy of slavery itself, the struggle for political equality and the continuing prejudice are facts. A larger-than-life statue of a serene general on top of his tall horse is not an accurate depiction of the events from which he draws his fame.
These monuments are in no way defensible on the grounds of historical accuracy.
Yet, that is how the anti-removal faction presents its case.

An unbiased arbitrator might be able to find a compromise that does represent history, rather than nostalgia or aspiration.
It would very interesting to see how the lines, pro and con, would form up around that kind of public art.

Yours is a most thoughtful post. It seems to me that you are taking rightful jibes at both the PC-ers and the Pre-PC-ers in equal measure.
In order to better appreciate the nuances of your post, I would like to know how you define PC and what do you mean by "that's PC, a mental illness' in the statement,"When someone objects to a Confederate flag flown on a government building, that's PC, a mental illness".

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8065
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:55 am

thedoc wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:28 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:02 pm
That's because the PC have hijacked the word. One of the fundamental things that define a liberal is unflinching support for freedom of speech.
I base my usage on the actions of politicians who call themselves Liberal, what you call yourself and your actions mean more than some Wiki description, it was probably written by a liberal who wanted to white wash the term.
The word actually literally means 'free'. That can't ever be changed.

thedoc
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by thedoc » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:55 am
The word actually literally means 'free'. That can't ever be changed.
So you think that the meanings of words never change, "red neck" sure means something different than when I heard during the VietNam protests, and that has only been about 50 years. I don't think Jeff Foxworthy is old enough to remember that meaning.
Last edited by thedoc on Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Skip
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:34 am

commonsense wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:34 am
In order to better appreciate the nuances of your post, I would like to know how you define PC and what do you mean by "that's PC, a mental illness' in the statement,"When someone objects to a Confederate flag flown on a government building, that's PC, a mental illness".
I do not define the term: I think it means whatever the person using it wants it to mean, most frequently in a derogatory and/or hostile tone.
In this context, I refer to the usage of people - usually, though not explicitly, conservative in their views - who blame any number of society's ills on other people who demand a certain degree of courtesy, sensitivity and decorum in public discourse. The mental illness jibe is a nod to vegetariantaxidermy's most exhausted hobby-horse, second only to "hypocrites".

That introductory comment was by way of pointing out a contradiction that I often encounter.
Other than that, I have no intention of arguing with anyone. All I've done is answer the OP question and attempt to clarify the central issue.

If you've followed the thread, you may have noticed another inconsistency in the anti-PC narrative.
Have you ever known a legislator, at any level of government, to allocate resources to a project that would he felt would hurt his political career? How likely are they to bow to outside pressure that did not conform to their constituents/campaign contributors' wishes?

(All thumbs tonight. Can't type well.)
Last edited by Skip on Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:47 am, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4397
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Statue removal

Post by Greta » Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:37 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:18 am
Greta wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:28 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:00 pm


Quite the opposite. The only people on here who can 'shut down opinions' are the moderators. Having a boohoo because someone beats one in an argument is hardly being 'shut down'.
Since I have had no part of any arguments on the thread, it is dishonest and manipulative to claim that I was involved or "lost" (the latter being a naive and childish notion on a philosophy forum anyway). All I did was watch from the sideline and what I saw was a focus on shutting down alternative opinion with bullying forum tactics.
It's dishonest and manipulative to make snide, thinly-veiled insinuations while touting your own virtuousness at the hands of all the 'big meanies' who allegedly pick on you. It doesn't seem to count when you do it. I'll look over the thread and try to find what it is you are referring to and get back to you :)
What are you talking about? No one is picking on me.

My point was, and is, that it's very easy for members of dominant cultures to haughtily disregard the opinions of people whose cultures were dominated and defeated by the dominant culture. People from dominated cultures are easy to ignore and railroad, but is it ethical?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8065
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:22 am

Skip wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:34 am
commonsense wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:34 am
In order to better appreciate the nuances of your post, I would like to know how you define PC and what do you mean by "that's PC, a mental illness' in the statement,"When someone objects to a Confederate flag flown on a government building, that's PC, a mental illness".
I do not define the term: I think it means whatever the person using it wants it to mean, most frequently in a derogatory and/or hostile tone.
In this context, I refer to the usage of people - usually, though not explicitly, conservative in their views - who blame any number of society's ills on other people who demand a certain degree of courtesy, sensitivity and decorum in public discourse. The mental illness jibe is a nod to vegetariantaxidermy's most exhausted hobby-horse, second only to "hypocrites".

That introductory comment was by way of pointing out a contradiction that I often encounter.
Other than that, I have no intention of arguing with anyone. All I've done is answer the OP question and attempt to clarify the central issue.

If you've followed the thread, you may have noticed another inconsistency in the anti-PC narrative.
Have you ever known a legislator, at any level of government, to allocate resources to a project that would he felt would hurt his political career? How likely are they to bow to outside pressure that did not conform to their constituents/campaign contributors' wishes?

(All thumbs tonight. Can't type well.)
How do you explain the fact that I'm not remotely 'conservative' then? PC is hypocritical by definition. It's hardly my fault that many (American) people are too stupid to understand its meaning.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8065
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:25 am

thedoc wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 1:21 am
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:55 am
The word actually literally means 'free'. That can't ever be changed.
So you think that the meanings of words never change, "red neck" sure means something different than when I heard during the VietNam protests, and that has only been about 50 years. I don't think Jeff Foxworthy is old enough to remember that meaning.
I suppose your statue of liberty means 'statue of slavery' then. Or 'statue of ninkompoopery'.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 8065
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Statue removal

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Wed Aug 23, 2017 8:27 am

Skip wrote:
Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:06 pm
When they're bitterly aggrieved that someone wished them "a happy holiday" instead of merry Christmas, it's because their traditions are being eroded. When someone objects to having another culture's sacred symbols made into a commodity and a joke, that's "oppressive political correctness gone mad".
When someone objects to a Confederate flag flown on a government building, that's PC, a mental illness. The people who defend keeping it there cite "our history" - but never propose putting a union flag up next to it. Nobody who is so staunchly defending the historical monuments of The South ever proposes depicting the general in question with his sword broken, drummed off the field in disgrace, nor erecting another statue beside it, of the general who defeated him.

Selective history; selective cultural icons; selective outrage.

Thing is: the monuments in controversy are triumphal [patently false] representations of the civil War. Their removal, like their location, is the decision of a duly elected city council or state legislature, in response to criticism, over a long period, by their constituents - not by a small group of outsiders who want to tell other people how to live. The same cannot always be said of the most outspoken opponents of these decisions.

Nobody objects to a cenotaph to fallen soldiers or commemorative plaque to a natural disaster that killed local residents; nobody objects to heritage buildings or memorials to artists, inventors and aviators. Nobody fights over preserving the memory of important events and notable persons.
Conflict arises, not over truth, but over ideology.
The Confederacy tore a nation in half and caused the death of over 600,000 combat troops as well as literally uncounted civilians and horses, the devastation of a landscape and loss of infrastructure, in defense of the institution of slavery. That is a fact. After losing the war, the same states continued for another century and more to mistreat their black population in both legal and illegal ways. That is a fact. The legacy of slavery itself, the struggle for political equality and the continuing prejudice are facts. A larger-than-life statue of a serene general on top of his tall horse is not an accurate depiction of the events from which he draws his fame.
These monuments are in no way defensible on the grounds of historical accuracy.
Yet, that is how the anti-removal faction presents its case.

An unbiased arbitrator might be able to find a compromise that does represent history, rather than nostalgia or aspiration.
It would very interesting to see how the lines, pro and con, would form up around that kind of public art.
Hmm, as an aside, why is 'the Confederacy' such a 'baddie' to you? Look at the mess the US has made of the planet, and continues to do so. Destroying cultures and countries, killing countless people and making countless others homeless. This is what I mean about PC 'Progressives'. Inconsistent and disingenuous hypocrites the lot of them (unless you count 'consistently' hypocritical). Crying crocodile tears over some old statues, yet worshipping your military thugs and condoning the evil they do. 'Progressive': noun. Synonyms: hypocrite, impostor, pretender, opportunist, snake, trend-follower. Someone who is false in a cloying and patronising way and lacks integrity, while striving to appear virtuous and compassionate.

Btw, being anti-war and anti-military is extremely unpolitically correct at this time. Isn't that odd? You would think that with all the virtue and compassion that gushes out of 'Progressives' they would naturally despise war. When being anti-war becomes fashionable again the 'Progressives' will be storming the op shops for retro hippy dresses, kaftans and jesus sandals. Must keep up with the trends and what is 'correct'. :)
Isn't 'Black lives matter' unPC? I would have thought it should be 'Persons-of-colour lives matter'.

Skip
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip » Wed Aug 23, 2017 12:47 pm

Deflecting the subject to other topics does not clarify the current issue under consideration. Any of those issues can be discussed under their own topic heading, with their own lines of chronology, logic and relationship. I can't imagine how one would go about constructing a table of comparisons of world events under a finite set of specified criteria - though there is a pretty good reference for facts https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/127 ... of-history, it's far too big a project for a discussion forum. It might be possible to make an objective comparison chart for a sampling of war monuments, their origin, intention and significance, but I doubt it would shed much light on the the particular confrontation on this particular issue at this particular time in that particular place.

I do not explain anyone, nor analyze anyone, nor categorize anyone personally.
I do sometimes attempt to give solicited advice.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:29 pm

"Their removal, like their location, is the decision of a duly elected city council or state legislature"

These statues and momuments are not an infrastructure matter, not a fiscal matter, but purely a cultural issue. As such, the last folks you want involved are elected and appointed folks. No, the voters of the relevant communities, and no one else, should decide what will or will not appear in their public spaces.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:43 pm

Me: Yeah, I thought it was sumthin'' like that.

You: Something like what?

Me: Not from the South, probably not inclined to view the South favorably based on nuthin' but hearsay.

#

Me: I suspect he bought into the bad press...colored his perceptions, made him self-conscious.

You: I suspect not as she was reporting it as well.

Me: Oh yes, cuz those folks never mix bias and business.

Skip
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re:

Post by Skip » Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:58 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Wed Aug 23, 2017 2:29 pm
"Their removal, like their location, is the decision of a duly elected city council or state legislature"

These statues and momuments are not an infrastructure matter, not a fiscal matter, but purely a cultural issue.
Who donates and designates the space?
Who designs, makes, erects, maintains and removes big marble and bronze statues as a community service, without payment?
It's hard to imagine a public issue in America not being a fiscal matter.
As such, the last folks you want involved are elected and appointed folks. No, the voters of the relevant communities, and no one else, should decide what will or will not appear in their public spaces.
By what method do the voters arrive at a common decision, while bypassing their legislature?

Ah, I know! Just keep hitting the dissenters with cars until you reach a consensus.
Boon to the local economy, too - all that bodywork and no medical insurance.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:47 pm

"It's hard to imagine a public issue in America not being a fiscal matter."

Fine, then let the taxpayers (of the relevant communities) decide (they just happen to be the voters).

#

"By what method do the voters arrive at a common decision, while bypassing their legislature?"

Use the same method used to pick the folks who get to serve in the legislature: let the voters vote.

Skip
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Statue removal

Post by Skip » Wed Aug 23, 2017 3:58 pm

Good idea.
Plebiscite on each and every controversial public display, from flags to creches to sculpture.
That way, there would be nothing more to argue about.
Now, who holds the referendum, how do you insure their neutrality and do they get paid?
You could set aside a special contingency fund for the purpose, that can't be touched by changing administrations.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4733
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Wed Aug 23, 2017 4:36 pm

"who holds the referendum"

Who oversees the vote?

The designated elected and appointed folks who oversee the process in any vote. In Acadia parish, in Lousiana (where I am), that would be the Clerk of Courts and Registrar of Voters.


#

"how do you insure their neutrality(?)

How do you ensure neutrality of the voting process, in any vote?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest