Regarding The Flap Over Confederate Statues

[TheBeardedDude]

This: "...gung-ho anti-statue movement..." is a straw man. We aren't "anti-statue," we are against statues of traitors being erected and we are especially against the reasons why they were erected in the 50's and 60's in the Southern US. It isn't the person per se, but the persons who erected them, when they erected, and why they chose to memorialize the people they did when they did. Robert E. Lee statues (and engravings like that of Stone Mountain Georgia) weren't erected to teach people about Lee and the Civil War, they were erected to remind the "uppity blacks" that they lived in a world of racism and bigotry where they still didn't have the power or influence that they should have in an equal society

Fair enough on the "anti-statue movment" line. I just wanted to put a name to the issue and think it's possible to recontextualise the statues as not only a commemoration of a historical general, but also a reminder of the darker chapters of our history now that we're at least trying to give black people the power and influence they deserve so we don't end up too complacent about our complicity in it, which I think is a legitimately dangerous consequence of this whole controversy (and on both sides, too).

We can remember and discuss our darker past without having to memorialize it. Especially when those memorials were erected for clearly bigoted reasons.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

People don't get their history from statuary.

Put simply: the point of a physical representation of a person is to remember that person.  When did it come to pass that only people we are fond of should be remembered?

Let a statue of Lee have this effect: those who despise him can ponder why they despise him.  Those who love him can ponder why they love him.  The rest of us can simply look and say, "Oh I know that name.  So that's what he looked like. . . "

There's something very insidious about the millennial generation who are so sure that they are right about everything that they are willing to squash free speech or expression in their effort to commit genocide on memes with which they do not agree.  There is NO idea so abhorrent to me that I would give up my own right to hold unpopular ideas in order to make sure someone else can no longer express theirs.

The most common reply to "who is that" while pointing at a statue is "some guy".

[Rev. Rye]

We certainly can remember and discuss the darker aspects of our past, but, if we don't have to, do we? And even then, we're prone to simply going the opposite route and just swapping the roles of the traditional "good guys" and "bad guys" and not dealing with the more complicated stuff.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This: "...gung-ho anti-statue movement..." is a straw man. We aren't "anti-statue," we are against statues of traitors being erected and we are especially against the reasons why they were erected in the 50's and 60's in the Southern US. It isn't the person per se, but the persons who erected them, when they erected, and why they chose to memorialize the people they did when they did. Robert E. Lee statues (and engravings like that of Stone Mountain Georgia) weren't erected to teach people about Lee and the Civil War, they were erected to remind the "uppity blacks" that they lived in a world of racism and bigotry where they still didn't have the power or influence that they should have in an equal society

Fair enough on the "anti-statue movment" line. I just wanted to put a name to the issue and think it's possible to recontextualise the statues as not only a commemoration of a historical general, but also a reminder of the darker chapters of our history now that we're at least trying to give black people the power and influence they deserve so we don't end up too complacent about our complicity in it, which I think is a legitimately dangerous consequence of this whole controversy (and on both sides, too).

Fine, lovely, just don't do it with taxpayer dollars. A portion of the salary of a person those statues were meant to oppress would go to keeping them maintained. That's just fucked up.

[TheBeardedDude]

We certainly can remember and discuss the darker aspects of our past, but, if we don't have to, do we?

Yeah, we do. This is why we have history classes. Are they perfect? No, but that is why people should extend their education beyond K-12. People can, do, and have written a plethora on the subject.

[FatAndFaithless]

We certainly can remember and discuss the darker aspects of our past, but, if we don't have to, do we?

Honestly, in your experience, has a statue of a civil war general caused you, or your kids (if applicable), or your spouse or your neighbors to "discuss the darker aspects of our past"?  I can't say I've seen statues encourage that kind of discussion, apart from field trips to monuments that kids/highschoolers already do as part of history classes. Museums also have a plethora of exhibits dedicated to horrible parts in both the US' and the world's past, that do a fantastic job of confronting visitors with darker parts of our history without needing memorialized statues of individuals on a pedestal on public land.

[Rev. Rye]

We certainly can remember and discuss the darker aspects of our past, but, if we don't have to, do we?

Yeah, we do. This is why we have history classes. Are they perfect? No, but that is why people should extend their education beyond K-12. People can, do, and have written a plethora on the subject.

The problem is the people's discussion doesn't often go beyond simply switching who's considered a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in the narrative. I mentioned the example with Andrew Jackson in Zinn's book, and I suspect that if people tried to look at it with more nuance, we  might actually be able to have this discussion more civilly, and we wouldn't have people using it as an excuse to run people over in their Dodges.

[TheBeardedDude]

We certainly can remember and discuss the darker aspects of our past, but, if we don't have to, do we?

Honestly, in your experience, has a statue of a civil war general caused you, or your kids (if applicable), or your spouse or your neighbors to "discuss the darker aspects of our past"?  I can't say I've seen statues encourage that kind of discussion, apart from field trips to monuments that kids/highschoolers already do as part of history classes.

"...apart from field trips to monuments that kids/highschoolers already do as part of history classes." And it is the fact that they are in the class that has sparked the conversation, not the statue. 

I think there is this perception that a statue is like a fossil in a museum. You go and you look at it and then you go read and discuss information about it. But that is not what these statues commemorate and memorialize and is clearly not what their purpose was. They weren't erected to bring communities together to discuss how wrong it was for the Confederate states to secede from the Union or how it was wrong for humans to own other humans, they were erected as monuments to racism and bigotry. They were erected to remind a proportion of the population that they are not seen as equals and (as far as the people who erected them are concerned) never will be.

---

Yeah, we do. This is why we have history classes. Are they perfect? No, but that is why people should extend their education beyond K-12. People can, do, and have written a plethora on the subject.

The problem is the people's discussion doesn't often go beyond simply switching who's considered a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in the narrative. I mentioned the example with Andrew Jackson in Zinn's book, and I suspect that if people tried to look at it with more nuance, we  might actually be able to have this discussion more civilly, and we wouldn't have people using it as an excuse to run people over in their Dodges.

And you think a statue somehow would make the discussion more accurate?

[Rev. Rye]

We certainly can remember and discuss the darker aspects of our past, but, if we don't have to, do we?

Honestly, in your experience, has a statue of a civil war general caused you, or your kids (if applicable), or your spouse or your neighbors to "discuss the darker aspects of our past"?  I can't say I've seen statues encourage that kind of discussion, apart from field trips to monuments that kids/highschoolers already do as part of history classes.  Museums also have a plethora of exhibits dedicated to horrible parts in both the US' and the world's past, that do a fantastic job of confronting visitors with darker parts of our history without needing memorialized statues of individuals on a pedestal on public land.

Like I said, a museum is an interesting idea, but is it really feasible?

---

---

The problem is the people's discussion doesn't often go beyond simply switching who's considered a "good guy" and a "bad guy" in the narrative. I mentioned the example with Andrew Jackson in Zinn's book, and I suspect that if people tried to look at it with more nuance, we  might actually be able to have this discussion more civilly, and we wouldn't have people using it as an excuse to run people over in their Dodges.

And you think a statue somehow would make the discussion more accurate?

If you put up plaques on the pedestals that put their actions into context, they might.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Honestly, in your experience, has a statue of a civil war general caused you, or your kids (if applicable), or your spouse or your neighbors to "discuss the darker aspects of our past"?  I can't say I've seen statues encourage that kind of discussion, apart from field trips to monuments that kids/highschoolers already do as part of history classes.  Museums also have a plethora of exhibits dedicated to horrible parts in both the US' and the world's past, that do a fantastic job of confronting visitors with darker parts of our history without needing memorialized statues of individuals on a pedestal on public land.

Like I said, a museum is an interesting idea, but is it really feasible?

---

---

And you think a statue somehow would make the discussion more accurate?

If you put up plaques on the pedestals that put their actions into context, they might.

People don't get their history from statues.