Why Statues In The First Place?

[no one]

Egos! Are you new to this planet?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's really not about egos. Monuments are state propaganda. That's what they are, that's why we need them, for certain values of need.

To return to Lee as my example, the statues are used to project an impression of victory and power. To show anyone looking who is in charge, and to lionize those subjects as heroes and exemplars. Lee, though, was known for saying shit like this;

You must endeavour to enjoy the pleasure of doing good. That is all that makes life valuable. When I measure my own by that standard I am filled with confusion and despair.

That would be a great quote for a plaque, if it were about Lee or his ego.

I suppose that we could say that they're about a national ego - kind of tortured. Statues of Lee as a hero exist, and presidents have since extolled his virtues in the way that making your enemy grand makes his defeat even grander. In the case of a civil war that's worth twice as much, a battle between heroes where the biggest hero won, and where..ultimately, all are americanized as peers in the present.

Teddy Roosevelt, on Lee, on the 100th anniv of his birth-

-extraordinary skill as a General, his dauntless courage and high leadership-

-He stood that hardest of all strains, the strain of bearing himself well through the gray evening of failure; and therefore out of what seemed failure he helped to build the wonderful and mighty triumph of our national life, in which all his countrymen, north and south, share.

For Lee, though, neither national nor personal ego explains his monuments. These are monuments to inequality enforced by the social order. Not the social order of the south, though that was it's social order...but the social order of the victorious union. The people who defend them might object to that as stridently as people who identify with the union would. Hit dogs holler, and mention that Lee had said this - in a letter to his wife.

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.

Which he did.....but he continued....

I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.

Or, perhaps, we can imagine that these monuments are eulogies to a committed confederate hero, who thought as they did and believed in and fought for what they believe in and wish had triumphed....Lee himself strikes again.

If Virginia stands by the old Union so will I. But if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.

He declined the initial offer to lead forces.

I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home.

Then, ofc, theres his famous ride through the remains of his defeated forces, assuring his men

It's all my fault.

He was right. He was a very poor general, particularly when it mattered, no matter what Teddy decided to say about him to soothe the national psyche.
...................

All of that, however, is too complicated, it doesn't serve the purpose of the monuments to consider the man. The message in a monument is simpler, condensed, wordless, and can best be understood by looking at who those monuments loom over.

(I had to play Lee more than a few times during during our february productions. Lee, and GW Carver - they knew we grew peanuts, lol)

[brewer]

I need an army of clay ones to protect me in the afterlife.

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't we all? Here's one of my favorite ideas for monument revision in recent times, as all monuments are revisionist efforts. It appeals to me as A Southern Person.

---

---

[tackattack]

That’s like asking why someone raging punches a wall instead of a person. It’s cathartic. But I’d rather topple every statue than full fledged pillaging and death, IMO.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, monument destruction is one of the least objectionable uses of our violent tendencies. It's not like they can feel the pick. We can always put them back up.

[Anomalocaris]

With all the current tsuris over the removal of statues, it occurred to me to ask, ‘Why do we need statues of any famous people at all?

I mean ok, some of them are quite pretty works of art, but they don’t really tell you anything about history or about the person who is the subject of the statue. Sure, the plaques associated with the statues give you a few lines of text, but that’s not the whole picture.

People are flawed, that’s the nature of being human. Even the greats of human history almost always have some rather unsavory aspects to their character. A statue of Winston Churchill, for example, might cite his accomplishments as an author and statesman, but it’s unlikely to bring up that he was a eugenicist and seriously considered a genocide in Ireland as a solution. Or Boudicca (who, bizarrely, is ‘honoured’ with a statue in the city she burned to the ground) and her phony chariot with scythe blades on the wheels.

Statues - of anyone - aren’t history. They are history mythologized. Why do we need them?

Boru

Because the romans thought they needed it, and down deep, when not besotted with the christianity baloney, we still think they Really knew something We still only pretend to know.

---

Statues of big wigs have been popular for years and years.

Pharaonic head cloth is not a wig.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

With all the current tsuris over the removal of statues, it occurred to me to ask, ‘Why do we need statues of any famous people at all?

I mean ok, some of them are quite pretty works of art, but they don’t really tell you anything about history or about the person who is the subject of the statue. Sure, the plaques associated with the statues give you a few lines of text, but that’s not the whole picture.

People are flawed, that’s the nature of being human. Even the greats of human history almost always have some rather unsavory aspects to their character. A statue of Winston Churchill, for example, might cite his accomplishments as an author and statesman, but it’s unlikely to bring up that he was a eugenicist and seriously considered a genocide in Ireland as a solution. Or Boudicca (who, bizarrely, is ‘honoured’ with a statue in the city she burned to the ground) and her phony chariot with scythe blades on the wheels.

Statues - of anyone - aren’t history. They are history mythologized. Why do we need them?

Boru

Because the romans thought they needed it, and down deep, when not besotted with the christianity baloney, we still think they Really knew something We still only pretend to know.

So...we think need statues because other humans thought they needed statues. Thanks for the non-answer.

Boru

[Anomalocaris]

It is arguable self-mythologization strengthens a society and state, and increases its durability in the face of competition.   Monumental statues is an integral part of self mythologizaion.    The reason is mythology always has a heavy element of anthropomorphism to it.    We relate to the myth better if there are characters in upon whom we can project personal qualities.   So it is not so much we need it, rather It resonates with our wiring and societies that dispense with it tend not to persist in its habits as well as societies that doesn’t.     So through Darwinian elimination, most states and large societies end up Embracing Self-mythologization and it’s trappings, of which statues usually form a handy, Relatively cheap and effective part.

---

Because the romans thought they needed it, and down deep, when not besotted with the christianity baloney, we still think they Really knew something We still only pretend to know.

So...we think need statues because other humans thought they needed statues. Thanks for the non-answer.

Boru

Many are such that they would find real answers wanting and fake answers more appealing.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

With all the current tsuris over the removal of statues, it occurred to me to ask, ‘Why do we need statues of any famous people at all?

I mean ok, some of them are quite pretty works of art, but they don’t really tell you anything about history or about the person who is the subject of the statue. Sure, the plaques associated with the statues give you a few lines of text, but that’s not the whole picture.

People are flawed, that’s the nature of being human. Even the greats of human history almost always have some rather unsavory aspects to their character. A statue of Winston Churchill, for example, might cite his accomplishments as an author and statesman, but it’s unlikely to bring up that he was a eugenicist and seriously considered a genocide in Ireland as a solution. Or Boudicca (who, bizarrely, is ‘honoured’ with a statue in the city she burned to the ground) and her phony chariot with scythe blades on the wheels.

Statues - of anyone - aren’t history. They are history mythologized. Why do we need them?

Boru

Because the romans thought they needed it, and down deep, when not besotted with the christianity baloney, we still think they Really knew something We still only pretend to know.

---

Statues of big wigs have been popular for years and years.

Pharaonic head cloth is not a wig.

Close enough for government work. They used to shave their heads to avoid lice.