Regarding The Flap Over Confederate Statues

[bennyboy]

I'm 55. The damn things should have been taken down many decades ago.

---

I live in Columbia, SC. If you don't think removing an in-your-face symbol of oppression from the public square has enough impact on the people it's intended to intimidate to justify removing it, all I have to say is that my impression from close up is very, very different. No victim of horrendous oppression should have to waste the mental bandwidth it takes to deal with that kind of shit.

Benny apparently denies symbolisms

Dude, I literally just mentioned dream catchers, and pointed out that almost all of the American heroes, including Custer, Jackson, Columbus, and even Lincoln are symbols of abuse and oppression of the native population.

I mean look, there are plenty of good reasons you might put forth for removing those statues.  But I'd say if the reason is cultural sensitivity, there's a huge double standard here-- one culture seems to matter, another continues to be disregarded and blatantly so.

---

Well, perhaps not the hood wearing ones...but you seem to support the sentiments of the ones in ties who seem normal.  Mission accomplished, from their POV.

Not really, because if it were a statue of Martin Luther King, or even Jesus, I'd hold the same position. Your campaign of guilt by association is noted and I reject it completely. If white supremacists want those statues to remain because they are an act of ongoing insult and aggression, then they are dicks. That they and I both think it's better to keep statues of confederate leaders is not even nearly a good enough reason to draw an association, and you're a dick for thinking it is.

---

Nobody is saying that you* can't have statues of murderers, rapists, slavers, terrorists, whatever else you want, in a park. You just don't get to use tax payer money to keep that park running. 


*Generic "you".

And "wingnuts" aren't usually lynching people.

Did the wingnuts in Charlottesville lynch someone, or do they in fact usually lynch people these days?  If so, the guilty parties should be arrested and tried for murder.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Are you sure there's really such a deep concern about negative symbolism?  Might want to ask the natives, my own ancestors included, how they feel about the statues of Custer, Columbus, and Andrew Jackson all over the place.  Fuck it, might even want to look into Lincoln's stance on the natives, and tear that guy's statues down too.

Well, I've got a pretty good bead on how blacks feel about the statues in question. Being part-native myself, I can tell you about how I feel about the other statues you've mentioned too. However, if they feel strongly about those statues you've mentioned, maybe they should do something too? "I'm complacent, therefore you should be too" is not terribly convincing.

See, here's the way I see it: if someone is in a position of power or leadership, he's probably fucked somebody.  Our social network is so deeply intertwined that even peaceful, law-abiding folk are complicit in horrible crimes.

But I'm okay with that.  If I was nearby a park with a General Lee statue (or Lincoln or Tecumsah), I'd love to go over and see what those fuckers looked like.  It's interesting.  I'd read the little plaque, learn a little something, and then spread my picnic blanket on the grass.

Yes, but the problem is that those statues aren't really accompanied by plaques reading "This is R.E. Lee, whose main accomplishment in life is defending the Confederacy which seceded in order to perpetuate slavery."

Now, if you want to know if I think black people should be treated equally-- fuck yes.  My western teaching staff here in Korea are currently 80% black (not counting my white self in the metric)-- not because I'm trying to fight the good battle, because I was sensible enough to realize they were the best people I had access to at the time of hire.  You want symbols?  Check out the long list of zeroes on the teachers' paychecks.  Those are symbols worth really fighting for.

No one is accusing you of racism.

I'm a little uncomfortable because it's looking like I'm a KKK guy or something.  But that's not it-- I value cultural diversity, and that means including all the main players in history as visible icons.  It means letting even Southern racists have their voice, and some avenue for their cultural expression.  Put up a goddamned statue of Hitler in Berlin so the Jews have something to piss on.  Put up one of Charlie Manson.  Put up Trump or Justin Bieber.  Then pass me a beer and throw me a frisbee.

Yes -- because your grandparents weren't in Auschwitz, your parents weren't murdered in Malibu, and you hopefully have the good taste to dislike Justin Beiber.

I value diversity myself, but I do not and will not value voices which actively work to reduce diversity, as the Charlottesville marchers under swastika banners did. If the best argument they can muster is cottoning to a genocidal regime, fuck 'em. Me, I'd rather dress up as a clown and mock them -- because I think that is a great response to them. I have and will stand up for their rights to march and express their support for keeping those statues in place.

However, I'm against maintaining those statues. Just because I hear their voices doesn't require me to agree, and I don't.

The idea that park statues are history resources is silly, though. As you yourself said, it would have all the significance of a frisbee-sling, to you. But it has all the significance of hurt to the blacks who are reminded of their ongoing struggle, and all the significance of white supremacists flying across the country to keep a statue up they've never viewed before in their lives -- and those are the feelings in play here, not your picnic apathy.

---

Remember when Tizheruk was talking about dream catchers as important symbols to his people, and the majority rule here was that he and his racial background should go fuck themselves, 'cuz who the fuck is he to tell us what we should / shouldn't consider important symbols?  I do, and I bet he does, too.

Let me know when a dream-catcher is mounted on a pedestal in a park as a sign of warning. Until then, this comparison is bunk.

When did you become such a sloppy thinker? Surely you can perceive the difference between a private home decoration and a public monument, right?

Right?

---

Do you think that it's possible that advocates of racism have managed to steer some narratives to a point of advantage for their ideologies?  Do you think that it;s possible that one, or some, of these narratives have influenced your appraisal of the situation regarding statue enthusiasm?

Of course not. He's a philosopher.

[bennyboy]

Are you sure there's really such a deep concern about negative symbolism?  Might want to ask the natives, my own ancestors included, how they feel about the statues of Custer, Columbus, and Andrew Jackson all over the place.  Fuck it, might even want to look into Lincoln's stance on the natives, and tear that guy's statues down too.

Well, I've got a pretty good bead on how blacks feel about the statues in question.  Being part-native myself, I can tell you about how I feel about the other statues you've mentioned too. However, if they feel strongly about those statues you've mentioned, maybe they should do something too? "I'm complacent, therefore you should be too" is not terribly convincing.

I see two pretty simple ways to completely eliminate the problem of the double standard:
1) Tear down ALL statues meant to commemorate people, with the knowledge that no matter who they represent, someone somewhere will find them offensive.
2) Allow ALL statues to stand: Lee, Hitler, Jesus, Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Yes, but the problem is that those statues aren't really accompanied by plaques reading "This is R.E. Lee, whose main accomplishment in life is defending the Confederacy which seceded in order to perpetuate slavery."

lol I'd be pretty surprised if that's what the plaque of Lee said. Is it?

I value diversity myself, but I do not and will not value voices which actively work to reduce diversity, as the Charlottesville marchers under swastika banners did. If the best argument they can muster is cottoning to a genocidal regime, fuck 'em. Me, I'd rather dress up as a clown and mock them -- because I think that is a great response to them. I have and will stand up for their rights to march and express their support for keeping those statues in place.

Yeah, fuck those guys. But their free speech is an inalienable right.

When did you become such a sloppy thinker? Surely you can perceive the difference between a private home decoration and a public monument, right?
Right?

Sure I do. I'm also aware that the Lee statue was privately funded and the surrounding land donated as park land by a private individual, Paul Goodloe McIntire, who purchased it. He's actually a similar case, because on one hand he was probably a blatant racist; on the other hand, he was a super-generous patron and philanthropist. Should he be remembered for the racism, for the philanthropy, or just considered a historical person of interest and consider in whole?

Anyway, what do we do with the statue and the land if the government is no longer willing to abide by the terms of the donation? Just re-purpose it, "It's ours now, and you have no claim over its use"? Sell both the statue and the land and return all monies to McIntire's families? Does a 3-2 vote by a city council really get to determine how land is/isn't used?

It seems to me that this is an issue of sufficient import to be put to a general vote in the community, that the legal issues should be more thoroughly considered in the courts of the land, and so on.

---

Let me know when a dream-catcher is mounted on a pedestal in a park as a sign of warning.

This seems like special pleading to me: an insulting symbol in ONE form is fine, but an insulting symbol in another must be removed. Are we talking about objects, or about oppressed populations' feelings about them?

But let's stick to statues. Should the statues of every American president who either instituted or allowed mistreatment of the native population be removed? You and I both know that the number of statues that will remain if native feelings are taken into the calculus will rapidly approach zero. We might have to nuke Mount Rushmore.

There's also a conflict: Lincoln is generally taken as a heroic figure due to his actions against slavery. However, great harm was done to the native population under his presidency. Should we officially announce at this point that when it comes to statues, "Black Lives Matter" but fuck those fuckin' Injuns? OR, and this is my position, should we leave the statues up because he was an important player, and make available as much information as possible so that people can see him, and America, as the complex and multi-faceted creature that it is?

[Amarok]

1. As a native yup those statues are a problem . Once again pushing the slippery slope fallacy .And your apathy helps no one benny .

2. Thumb is on the button the statue of Lee is not about education it's a glossed over verenation monument . And once again  your apathy helps no one.

3. No ones I know of has called you a racist . And you draw the absurd notion that we can't fight both. This is almost as silly as people who argue that we should focus more on helping natives to helping foreigners . When we can do both.

4. I don't remember anyone telling my minority to fuck off or anything of the kind. And thumbs right it's dumb comparison .

5. You confuse diversity . With counter diversity

[bennyboy]

1. As a native yup those statues are a problem . Once again pushing the slippery slope fallacy .And your apathy helps no one benny .

I'm not apathetic at all. Given the double standard that will ALWAYS be implicit in memorializing warriors or political leaders, I strongly support the existence and open display of statuary. You can put up whatever plaques you want to mitigate the sense that Charlottesville supports white supremacist ideas. How about:

"General Robert E. Lee was a brilliant tactician, considered by many in the Confederate States to be among their best. However, criticism over his ownership of black slaves has led to the suggestion that he cannot be said to represent the ideals of the modern United States of America."

[Thumpalumpacus]

I see two pretty simple ways to completely eliminate the problem of the double standard:
1)  Tear down ALL statues meant to commemorate people, with the knowledge that no matter who they represent, someone somewhere will find them offensive.
2)  Allow ALL statues to stand: Lee, Hitler, Jesus, Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I see a third way, to wit, considering the feelings of the public and letting that discussion determine the outcome. A little messier than your Manichaean outlook, but hey, we're blue-skying opinions, right?

Yes, but the problem is that those statues aren't really accompanied by plaques reading "This is R.E. Lee, whose main accomplishment in life is defending the Confederacy which seceded in order to perpetuate slavery."

lol I'd be pretty surprised if that's what the plaque of Lee said.  Is it?

Generally speaking, "aren't", a contraction of "are not", is the negative present tense of the verb "to be".

That should answer your question.

I value diversity myself, but I do not and will not value voices which actively work to reduce diversity, as the Charlottesville marchers under swastika banners did. If the best argument they can muster is cottoning to a genocidal regime, fuck 'em. Me, I'd rather dress up as a clown and mock them -- because I think that is a great response to them. I have and will stand up for their rights to march and express their support for keeping those statues in place.

Yeah, fuck those guys.  But their free speech is an inalienable right.

"Free speech" doesn't mean "I agree with you". It means "you have the right to speak your views in public but you do not have the right to be free of critique or counterprotest."

I'm not sure how you seem to think I advocate their censorship. Might you please explain that? I'm fine with them marching. I'm fine with their protests. But those statues aren't their speech.

When did you become such a sloppy thinker? Surely you can perceive the difference between a private home decoration and a public monument, right?
Right?

Sure I do.  I'm also aware that the Lee statue was privately funded and the surrounding land donated as park land by a private individual, Paul Goodloe McIntire, who purchased it.  He's actually a similar case, because on one hand he was probably a blatant racist; on the other hand, he was a super-generous patron and philanthropist.  Should he be remembered for the racism, for the philanthropy, or just considered a historical person of interest and consider in whole?

Or should the public polity to which he donated the land be beholden to his view of things forever and anon?

Anyway, what do we do with the statue and the land if the government is no longer willing to abide by the terms of the donation?  Just re-purpose it, "It's ours now, and you have no claim over its use"?  Sell both the statue and the land and return all monies to McIntire's families?  Does a 3-2 vote by a city council really get to determine how land is/isn't used?

Who cares? This is red-herring shit. You're avoiding the issue because you cannot carry your point. Give it back to them so far as I'm concerned. It was given, not sold.

And yes, a majority vote in a township can actually decide how government land is used. Shocking, eh?

It seems to me that this is an issue of sufficient import to be put to a general vote in the community, that the legal issues should be more thoroughly considered in the courts of the land, and so on.

Great. Donate to those legal funds. Let them see what is the worth of your points.

Let me know when a dream-catcher is mounted on a pedestal in a park as a sign of warning.

This seems like special pleading to me: an insulting symbol in ONE form is fine, but an insulting symbol in another must be removed.  Are we talking about objects, or about oppressed populations' feelings about them?

No. You're ignoring the fact that on one hand we have a statue on public ground for public viewing maintained by public funds by taxpayers who may not wish their taxes to support that symbol; and on the other hand a decoration I have in the privacy of my home where no one who sees it is not there by invitation and has not contributed a penny to its upkeep. They are not equal. You didn't buy my dreamcatcher, and probably will never see it. You'll probably never visit my home even if we live in the same town. However, if I live in a town with one of these statues and wish to go to, say, the public library, I needs must pass this statue, whether I'm white, black, Asian, African, or Martian.

Are you being deliberately dense? We are obviously talking about public sentiment -- in other words, neither fork of your false dichotomy. We are not talking about ay sort of private display, at all, and only an idiot would confuse the two.

But let's stick to statues.  Should the statues of every American president who either instituted or allowed mistreatment of the native population be removed?  You and I both know that the number of statues that will remain if native feelings are taken into the calculus will rapidly approach zero.  We might have to nuke Mount Rushmore.

I've already answered this in depth earlier in this thread. If you're too lazy to read those responses, that's not my problem. Scroll back a few pages, and get to reading, kid.

You're behaving as if these points have not already been addressed, and at this point, I'm doubting your sincerity; I believe you're abiding by your contrarian nature in defiance of simply thinking, which hasn't struck me as your strong point anyway.

There's also a conflict: Lincoln is generally taken as a heroic figure due to his actions against slavery.  However, great harm was done to the native population under his presidency.  Should we officially announce at this point that when it comes to statues, "Black Lives Matter" but fuck those fuckin' Injuns?  OR, and this is my position, should we leave the statues up because he was an important player, and make available as much information as possible so that people can see him, and America, as the complex and multi-faceted creature that it is?

Who in the Hell mentioned BLM? Your position would be well satisfied by placements in a museum, yet you protest vigorously against that. Those museums, already extant, already visited by American history classes, wouldn't have to suffer your errant frisbee-throws as you sup on your picnic under the shadows of those statues, apathetic to the feelings of others who don't share your views.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but just because you think he was important for Reasons™ doesn't mean he merits honor. This has been hashed over already in this thread. You should perhaps give it a read, Benny-boy.

[bennyboy]

I see a third way, to wit, considering the feelings of the public and letting that discussion determine the outcome. A little messier than your Manichaean outlook, but hey, we're blue-skying opinions, right?

Oh, absolutely. I'm not sure a 3-2 city council vote sufficiently encapsulates the will of the people of Charlottesville overall, but that's fine.

I'm not arguing against the right of removal of the statue-- I'm arguing that I'm pro-statue, especially where important historical figures are involved. I don't think the statue should be removed, because I think there are better ways to use it for the purposes of education than hiding it in a museum, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the rights of the people of Charlottesville to decide what they do / don't want in their town.

"Free speech" doesn't mean "I agree with you".  It means "you have the right to speak your views in public but you do not have the right to be free of critique or counterprotest."

I'm not sure how you seem to think I advocate their censorship. Might you please explain that? I'm fine with them marching. I'm fine with their protests. But those statues aren't their speech.

No, they are the expression of the man who purchased and donated both the statue and the park.

Or should the public polity to which he donated the land be beholden to his view of things forever and anon?

I don't know. We're still less than a century out on that, I believe.

No.  You're ignoring the fact that on one hand we have a statue on public ground for public viewing maintained by public funds by taxpayers who may not wish their taxes to support that symbol; and on the other hand a decoration I have in the privacy of my home where no one who sees it is not there by invitation and has not contributed a penny to its upkeep.

They may not wish to spend a much greater fee removing and locating it. Maybe the citizens of Charlottesville should be allowed to vote on the issue of statue removal.

They are not equal. You didn't buy my dreamcatcher, and probably will never see it. You'll probably never visit my home even if we live in the same town. However, if I live in a town with one of these statues and wish to go to, say, the public library, I needs must pass this statue, whether I'm white, black, Asian, African, or Martian.

Okay,

Who in the Hell mentioned BLM? Your position would be well satisfied by placements in a museum, yet you protest vigorously against that. Those museums, already extant, already visited by American history classes, wouldn't have to suffer your errant frisbee-throws as you sup on your picnic under the shadows of those statues, apathetic to the feelings of others who don't share your views.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious, but just because you think he was important for Reasons™ doesn't mean he merits honor. This has been hashed over already in this thread. You should perhaps give it a read, Benny-boy.

[Amarok]

I see a third way, to wit, considering the feelings of the public and letting that discussion determine the outcome. A little messier than your Manichaean outlook, but hey, we're blue-skying opinions, right?

This 

[bennyboy]

I see a third way, to wit, considering the feelings of the public and letting that discussion determine the outcome. A little messier than your Manichaean outlook, but hey, we're blue-skying opinions, right?

This 

Okay, I'll support this, too.  What percent of Charlottesville citizens are in favor of removal of the statue?  That seems like a number that should probably be known and considered.  The following shows that at least nationally, there are more who agree with my view than with you guys'. I'm very curious how 40% of black people hold no opinion. I'm also curious about how the Republicans' numbers don't add up to 100%. Were the other ones just people who hung up? How does that even work?

[Minimalist]

Oh, absolutely. I'm not sure a 3-2 city council vote sufficiently encapsulates the will of the people of Charlottesville overall, but that's fine.

Are you espousing Trump Math?  Where 60,000,000 voters outweigh 63,000,000 voters.  Will you throw back all the 5-4 supreme court decisions which allow rich corporations to fuck over the whole country?

3 is more than 2.  Deal with it.