At Last Someone Says What Ought To Be Said About Statues
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Statements such as this make it impossible to have a civil conversation. What specifically do you find so dumb?
Most statues are erected for some sort of historical event / memorial. Removing them is just one group of people trying to impose their beliefs on another.
Next we'll be taking down the statue of liberty, sand blasting Mt Rushmore, and removing the World Trade center memorials along with the OKC bombing memorials.
Where does it stop?
It stops when the people stand up and say No this has meaning to me.
I imagine a lot if the Confederate statues have special meaning to the people of the south.
Next we'll be taking down the statue of liberty, sand blasting Mt Rushmore, and removing the World Trade center memorials along with the OKC bombing memorials.
Where does it stop?
It stops when the people stand up and say No this has meaning to me.
I imagine a lot if the Confederate statues have special meaning to the people of the south.
The idiot lost me when he mentioned the history channel.
I really don't know where to begin. The author does not demand government statues be destroyed. They should be privatized. If there is a market for them they will be displayed. His final sentence, referencing "thought control," and the government "putting its thumb on the scales" was his most important. About 100 years ago Randolph Bourne wrote an essay that included the phrase "war is the health of the state." In that essay he described how humans are like most other species in that we band together, form into a tight circle when we feel threatened. It is to government's advantage to have the society it controls constantly be told of an outside enemy, an external threat. The herd mentality of the society becomes much easier to control. The greatest threat is during war. We must not lose! We must be united behind our leaders, right or wrong! One way to ensure the patriotic zeal of the citizenry is via things like statues of war heroes. They are what the author said: a gentle pull of thought control.
Last sentence of his paragraph:
Thus governments should take down all statues, regardless of their political implications.
Looks pretty clear to me he is advocating to taking down "all" statues.
Turning statues over to the private sector isn't much better.
I can see it now, The Grand Re-Opening of the re-imagined Mt Rushmore featuring Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk and Barack Obama.
Thus governments should take down all statues, regardless of their political implications.
Looks pretty clear to me he is advocating to taking down "all" statues.
Turning statues over to the private sector isn't much better.
I can see it now, The Grand Re-Opening of the re-imagined Mt Rushmore featuring Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Elon Musk and Barack Obama.
Let's think of an alternative to the way it is now. Instead of a government being responsible for the erection and preservation of historical figures, let's suppose that a private organization is formed, called the Preservation Society, founded by three wonderful chaps, imprimis, Cowboy Phil and osu_orangestreak. The Preservation Society would create parks in which various historical characters would be immortalized. The PS would entertain ideas from people around the country, hire sculptors, architects to design buildings, landscapers to beautify the grounds, etc. The PS would have fundraisers, develop deep pocket donations, charge a fee to those wanting to visit the park. The PS might have parks solely devoted to political figures and war memorabilia. A competitor, say the Social Justice Society, founded by syskatine, Hollywood and davidallen, would follow the same course, except their honorifics might go to socialist types. They, too, would find their funding via private individuals and organizations who share their vision. In this scenario everybody wins, nobody feels neglected, violence is eliminated. In the "government option" that we have now there is turmoil between advocacy groups, everybody scrambling for the government largess. Clearly privatizing is a superior option.
CowboyPhil - "Most statues are erected for some sort of historical event / memorial. Removing them is just one group of people trying to impose their beliefs on another."
Actually, that simply isn't true for the vast majority of the Confederate Statues of "individuals" across the South. For example, the Statue of Lee in Charlottesville is a great example. It was actually built and erected in 1924.
Lee had NO connection whatsoever to Charlottesville as he wasn't born there, never lived there and never even fought in a battle near there.
Every one is talking about preserving "history" but where is the recognition that many of these statues were put up in the period of Jim Crow and many were funded by the klan (or like groups) as a means of threatening the local black populations? It's sort of like how the Confederate flags (all versions) were basically out of sight for 90+ yrs, until the Civil Rights movement began in earnest in the 1950's. Then, all of a sudden it was somehow important for people to start flying them again.
There's a HUGE difference between destroying/forgetting history and not using public places to honor men who were cool with slavery and who fomented open rebellion against the United States. I don't want them destroyed, but I think there could be better places to house them.
I also wonder how many of you have read what Robert E Lee said on the subject of erecting monuments and statues honoring the confederacy? He was completely against it due to the fact it would just be an open wound that would never heal.
Actually, that simply isn't true for the vast majority of the Confederate Statues of "individuals" across the South. For example, the Statue of Lee in Charlottesville is a great example. It was actually built and erected in 1924.
Lee had NO connection whatsoever to Charlottesville as he wasn't born there, never lived there and never even fought in a battle near there.
Every one is talking about preserving "history" but where is the recognition that many of these statues were put up in the period of Jim Crow and many were funded by the klan (or like groups) as a means of threatening the local black populations? It's sort of like how the Confederate flags (all versions) were basically out of sight for 90+ yrs, until the Civil Rights movement began in earnest in the 1950's. Then, all of a sudden it was somehow important for people to start flying them again.
There's a HUGE difference between destroying/forgetting history and not using public places to honor men who were cool with slavery and who fomented open rebellion against the United States. I don't want them destroyed, but I think there could be better places to house them.
I also wonder how many of you have read what Robert E Lee said on the subject of erecting monuments and statues honoring the confederacy? He was completely against it due to the fact it would just be an open wound that would never heal.
Smash the control images — Smash the control machine — Burn the books — Kill the priests
First of a huge number of monuments were built with private funds. If those that were built with public funds are removed, so be it. Does that mean we can stop building over priced public housing with tax payer funds? Cabrini Greens comes to mind...and it has been demolished to boot. Robert Byrd is still plastered on nearly everything there is in WVA, because he was a Klan member I demand his name be removed! LBJ used the n word often, I'm offended by that as well so think all the monuments in his name should be removed.....man this is fun! But where does it end?
The guy who wrote the article doesn't make a compelling argument actually.
The guy who wrote the article doesn't make a compelling argument actually.
All references to Justice Hugo Black should be removed from history since he was a KKK member.
