Regarding The Flap Over Confederate Statues

[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.