Removing Civil War Monuments

[StringJunky]

21 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Then I assume you have nothing against tearing most or at least many down? I will also note that with time monuments lose their power. Kids in Germany now experience a visit to Auschwitz quite a bit different than even my generation did. Especially now with very few survivors still a round's to tell their stories.

Life goes on and new history has to be made but we are not exactly inundated with slave era relics now. 

[Strange]

7 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Removing symbols of injustices is a good thing? "Lest We Forget". 

An appropriate symbol of injustice in a public space like this would be a monument to the slaves who were traded and murdered by Colston and others. 

An appropriate place for an image of Colston is in a museum where it can be put in the correct historical context.

One positive side-effect of actions like this is that many people have learned more about the slave trade in the last few hours than they did in the rest of their lives.

Note, this was criminal damage and the police have a duty to investigate and try to find those responsible. And then it is up to the CPS to decide whether to persecute. That might decide that is not in the public interest, and I would not disagree with that.

Also, heard an interview with the Mayor of Bristol who said that he wanted to get rid of the statue but felt that as the first black mayor it would cause too many political problems if he just walked into the job and ordered it removed. Another very ironic example of how the power and privilege structures work.

[Strange]

Just saw this, as an excellent response the idiotic "erasing history" trope:

Quote

'Erasing history' is done by defunding humanities depts, by causalizing academic staff, by launching campaigns against critical thinking. 'Erasing history' is done by putting up monuments celebrating violent men and systems and then forgetting why those monuments are there..

Pulling down monuments of slave traders and looters is not 'erasing history' - it is remembering that history, engaging with it, and it is *making history*. Hopefully now many more people will remember the history of the bastard Colston and how today's Britain was made.

https://twitter.com/malorynye/status/1269659045096501248

 

[StringJunky]

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

Just saw this, as an excellent response the idiotic "erasing history" trope:

https://twitter.com/malorynye/status/1269659045096501248

 

It's so easy these days of the  internet to find stuff that agrees with one. Love your dismissive tone...nicely objective and dispassionate <sarcasm>

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's so easy these days of the  internet to find stuff that agrees with one. Love your dismissive tone...nicely objective and dispassionate <sarcasm>

It is not simply a matter of "finding stuff that agrees"; it is a very succinct and reasoned summary of the flaws in the "erasing history" argument. 

Those accused of "erasing history" are the ones who want the history exposed and discussed.

Those making the accusations wish they would just keep quiet about it; "Why can't they just remember the nice things that Mr Hitler did."

So it is easy to be dismissive of a cliche that has no basis in reality (if one wants to be objective).

And I don't think there is any reason to be dispassionate about this. Quite the reverse.

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Life goes on and new history has to be made but we are not exactly inundated with slave era relics now. 

You might be surprised.

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

It is not simply a matter of "finding stuff that agrees"; it is a very succinct and reasoned summary of the flaws in the "erasing history" argument. 

Those accused of "erasing history" are the ones who want the history exposed and discussed.

Those making the accusations wish they would just keep quiet about it; "Why can't they just remember the nice things that Mr Hitler did."

So it is easy to be dismissive of a cliche that has no basis in reality (if one wants to be objective).

And I don't think there is any reason to be dispassionate about this. Quite the reverse.

You might be surprised.

This is your opinion. Stop talking like it's fact. This is a discussion forum not a bleeding hearts forum, so quit with the "passion". When the heart gets involved, cleared eyed discussion goes out of the window.

[dimreepr]

56 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

This is your opinion. Stop talking like it's fact. This is a discussion forum not a bleeding hearts forum, so quit with the "passion". When the heart gets involved, cleared eyed discussion goes out of the window.

The mayor of Bristol, this morning, was clearly passionate about the subject even through the "politic speak" filter. 

Your clear eyed discussion depends on no subjective interest, and then one has to question the motive of the dissenting opinions.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

This is your opinion. Stop talking like it's fact. This is a discussion forum not a bleeding hearts forum, so quit with the "passion". When the heart gets involved, cleared eyed discussion goes out of the window.

I don't understand what you think is an opinion. The people who object to monuments to slavery and repression explicitly say that they want people to know more about this history. So that is a fact, not just my opinion. 

I suppose it is possible that those who want to keep them have different motives than the ones they obviously do. But I would need to see some pretty compelling evidence of that. Do you have any?

If you think it is wrong to be passionate about social injustice (especially when decades of effort have failed to change things) then I'm not sure what to say. Well, as I was told "if you don't have anything nice to say then say nothing" I will say nothing.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

This is your opinion. Stop talking like it's fact. This is a discussion forum not a bleeding hearts forum, so quit with the "passion". When the heart gets involved, cleared eyed discussion goes out of the window.

I'm rather disappointed by this. I often use the phrases "I think" and "I suppose" in order to signal that I'm expressing my opinion and not facts. It would be a shame if that was no longer effective.

I really take offense to the term "bleeding heart" in  this context.  I  also don't see what's wrong with passion when it's there to back up a reasoned stance. The "heart" can engage those who've stopped using their brains. I think it's dangerous to dismiss someone in a discussion based on how passionate you think they are rather than addressing their arguments.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Love your dismissive tone

Interesting phrase in a post where you dismiss someone's view without offering any reason to say that the view is incorrect

 

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

This is your opinion. Stop talking like it's fact.

Would you like to borrow a mirror?.

[swansont]

13 hours ago, StringJunky said:

 Removing symbols of injustices is a good thing? "Lest We Forget".   A short-sighted and naive action worthy of an authoritarian government 'cleansing' its past. But that's another discussion...                

To paraphrase an argument from elsewhere: I don’t have to explain who Hitler was, despite the dearth of Hitler statues.

These symbols can exist in museums and books. They don’t have to be front-and-center in a town/city display 

12 hours ago, geordief said:

Why not leave the statues   in place and give them a new or additional  plaque that reflects the present view of the person  being commemorated? (eg "Notorious  and wealthy Slave owner of the 18th century")

Because too many people only read the headline and not the article

 

 

[MigL]

Wow, this topic came vigorously back to life...

My opinion on the matter is not fully formed, and I could go either way.
But the question that needs to be asked is, if these are symbols of an unjust society, and need to be removed because of the harm they cause by bringing back memories of those oppressive times, where does it stop ?

Do we, for example, remove all references to Jim and Joe, in Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer ?
Do we rewrite the book and call him 'colored' Jim, or 'black' Jim, and native Indian Joe ?
How is this done without changing the history that Mark Twain's works reflect ?
What about paintings/illustrations in books, that show slaves in chains; do we burn them ?

I do agree that slave traders should not be glorified, no matter what other good they did.

S

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, MigL said:

My opinion on the matter is not fully formed, and I could go either way.
But the question that needs to be asked is, if these are symbols of an unjust society, and need to be removed because of the harm they cause by bringing back memories of those oppressive times, where does it stop ?

Do we, for example, remove all references to Jim and Joe, in Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer ?
Do we rewrite the book and call him 'colored' Jim, or 'black' Jim, and native Indian Joe ?
How is this done without changing the history that Mark Twain's works reflect ?

What about paintings/illustrations in books, that show slaves in chains; do we burn them ?

Are you asking if we should burn the book's? Or rewrite them?

In my experience, books aren't displayed as statues...

[swansont]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

Wow, this topic came vigorously back to life...

My opinion on the matter is not fully formed, and I could go either way.
But the question that needs to be asked is, if these are symbols of an unjust society, and need to be removed because of the harm they cause by bringing back memories of those oppressive times, where does it stop ?

Do we, for example, remove all references to Jim and Joe, in Mark Twain's Adventures of Tom Sawyer ?
Do we rewrite the book and call him 'colored' Jim, or 'black' Jim, and native Indian Joe ?
How is this done without changing the history that Mark Twain's works reflect ?
What about paintings/illustrations in books, that show slaves in chains; do we burn them ?

I do agree that slave traders should not be glorified, no matter what other good they did.

S

That’s a poor analogy. This is not book removal or rewriting.

This is saying maybe we stop amplifying certain works on a government equivalent of Oprah’s book club

 

[iNow]

34 minutes ago, MigL said:

where does it stop ?

That's the discussion and meat on the bone of democracy. This isn't a one-sized fits all discussion. We can't just force round pegs through square holes. We talk. We argue the merits of each.

In this case, the merits seem overwhelming. Remove these symbols celebrating injustice and oppression. If you fear forgetting our history, fund museums and work with schools to improve their curricula and offer field trips to those aforementioned museums so the discussion continues... but stop using state funded mascots to that oppression and stop fighting their removal when it's obvious they're causing more pain than quality conversations or educational opportunities. 

[Prometheus]

8 minutes ago, iNow said:

We talk. We argue the merits of each.

That should be the model - and though i'm not following the case, i'm aware discussions about removing the Colston statue were in progress. 

However, the protestors have precluded any dialogue but forcibly removing it. I have no love for such statues and i'm happy to see them removed if a process is followed - but not by an act of violence. It legitimises vandalism and further polarises the population.

The complicating factor in this is that statues represent different things to different people. Colston didn't have statues erected for his slave trading business but for his philanthropy. Presumably to the people who erected the statue it was this aspect they were celebrating. Now no one really cares about Colston today, but what happens when people want to rip down Mahatma Gandhi statues from Parliament square for his racist attitudes to Africans? He was both racist and a great liberator. I'm happy to have the discussion of whether his statue should remain and hope vandals will not force a singular narrative on what should be a dialogue.

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Colston didn't have statues erected for his slave trading business but for his philanthropy

Pure philanthropy, doesn't require one makes money first...

[MigL]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

In my experience, books aren't displayed as statues...

I'm not from the UK so Colston means nothing to me. And I would be willing to bet his memory means as little to impressionable young people of the UK.
IOW, it only offends people who already know the history, and are certainly not going to be influenced by it.
However Mark Twain's books are read in schools, by very impressionable young people, at least in North America.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

That’s a poor analogy. This is not book removal or rewriting.

So, I would argue it is a reasonable analogy, and, as INow says, that's a discussion that need to take place.
And the reason I asked "Where does it stop ?".

Edited June 8, 2020 by MigL

[Strange]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'm not from the UK so Colston means nothing to me. And I would be willing to bet his memory means as little to impressionable young people of the UK

I'm sure even a lot of people in Bristol didn't know much about him before this (despite a lot of places being named after him).

So that is one positive to come out of this: increased awareness of Bristol and the UK's history.

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, MigL said:

I'm not from the UK so Colston means nothing to me. And I would be willing to bet his memory means as little to impressionable young people of the UK.
IOW, it only offends people who already know the history, and are certainly not going to be influenced by it.
However Mark Twain's books are read in schools, by very impressionable young people, at least in North America.

And I can only imagine they learned that from a book, not a statue with a plaque (unless it got thrown in a river).

I watched huck fin when I was in single figures, and read them 20 years later; and all I can pull from a fuzzy memory, is that Mark Twain didn't advocate for slavery.

17 hours ago, MigL said:

So, I would argue it is a reasonable analogy, and, as INow says, that's a discussion that need to take place.
And the reason I asked "Where does it stop ?".

Why would you want it to stop? 

Don't you want a better world?

[swansont]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

So, I would argue it is a reasonable analogy, and, as INow says, that's a discussion that need to take place.
And the reason I asked "Where does it stop ?".

Are you going to support your argument that it’s a reasonable analogy? 

[MigL]

48 minutes ago, swansont said:

Are you going to support your argument that it’s a reasonable analogy? 

I thought I had...
They are both 'reminders of past events/way of life. And I stated ( opined ? ) that

20 hours ago, MigL said:

IOW, it only offends people who already know the history, and are certainly not going to be influenced by it.
However Mark Twain's books are read in schools, by very impressionable young people, at least in North America.

In my opinion they both provide information about past events, but books even more so than monuments ( which are largely forgotten ).

 

 

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

20 hours ago, MigL said:

So, I would argue it is a reasonable analogy, and, as INow says, that's a discussion that need to take place.
And the reason I asked "Where does it stop ?".

Why would you want it to stop? 

Don't you want a better world?

I'm not sure I understand you...
Are you advocating for banning/re-writing books which present uncomfortable reminders of our sordid past, as well as monuments/statues ?
I don't have a problem with removing monuments/statues. But I do have a problem with banning books.
So, I asked, where does it stop ?
 

[zapatos]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

So, I asked, where does it stop ?

Do we have to solve all problems at once? Can't we just deal with the monuments in this thread and figure out what else should be done later? 

I don't think you intend to do it, but "whataboutism" is a classic red herring technique to draw people off the trail of the topic at hand.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MigL said:

I thought I had...
They are both 'reminders of past events/way of life. And I stated ( opined ? ) that

In my opinion they both provide information about past events, but books even more so than monuments ( which are largely forgotten ).

They potentially do far more than that. Did Twain write his books to celebrate slavery? Portray slavery defenders as heroes? Do his books have the semi-exclusive endorsement of the government, regarding slavery?

 

 

[MigL]

And did the statue of Colston ever mention the slave trade he participated in ? Did it glorify or defend it ?
Most people don't even know who he is, or what he did/didn't do.

I couldn't care less if his statue is removed. Nor Confederate monuments.
But there was talk, in Canada of removing monuments of J A MacDonald, and renaming schools/buildings.
And don't there aren't already people discussing the banning/modification of certain books, because, although they portray the times accurately, they offend today's sensibilities.

I don't know if you've ever seen the movie Blazing Saddles, which, although a comedy, did have a 'message'.
Do you seriously think that movie could be made today ?