• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I just changed my mind on statues..... Well, sort of

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,257
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It is important to listen to others, now matter where you stand politically. I have always believed that, and as a result, I have changed my mind on the issue of the Christopher Columbus Statue, thanks to one of my right wing friends. Before I talked to him, I believed the Columbus statue needed to come down. Today, I believe the opposite.

Yes, Columbus was responsible for the complete extermination of the Arawak Indians, and yes, the Vikings discovered America first. However, Europe did not have that knowledge, and it was Columbus who make it possible for Europeans to settle here. in addition, this is not the same issue as the removal of Confederate statues, which were not put up to celebrate a war or a culture, but erected during the times of Jim Crow to celebrate the fact that, in their eyes, some people were sub-humans and not deserving of equality.

Yes, Columbus had huge flaws, and was a monster, which is why we should not celebrate Columbus Day. But his statue represents history, as fractured as it is, and as ignorant as the knowledge of that history is, while Confederate monuments represent hatred, along with a desire to return to an era in which some people were more equal than others. There is a difference, and I now see that.

That doesn't stop him and I from bashing each other over Confederate statues, though. He wants them. I don't. My posting about the need for taking down Confederate statues here doesn't come from him. Maybe I will convince him. Maybe I won't. But at least I learned something about a similar issue, which is why it is important that I always keep an open mind, and never shut out people who disagree. Now, if the person I disagree with happens to be carrying a Nazi flag, then that is a completely different story.
 

Protestors sometimes go overboard. Also, sometimes people who protest for one are doing it for another reason.
 
Do people realize that statues are not alive?
 
you gotta love how America loves to celebrate the culture of violence & death we have given ourselves

we just never seem to grow past the whole concept of continually repeating one bad move after another

somewhere out in the great cosmos there must be some beings of higher intelligence just laughing their asses off at what we do here on this small rock ........
 
justabubba said:
View attachment 67221618
Click to expand...
Which Confederate State leaders kidnapped Africans and sold them into slavery? And since that is your question and your standard...when can we plan on the Washington Monument coming down? Or Mt Rushmore? Jefferson Memorial?

Damn...get some rest dood. You are going to have a busy few years tearing down statues and monuments and destroying the art that hurts your feelings. Maybe you can call in some reinforcements?

 

Nothing wrong with doing that. It's good to talk things out. I'm pretty indifferent on statues, I get why some people went them down and I certainly won't be joining any fights to keep them up. We'll stick to the current subject, civil war statues. If a statue is at a location that actually means something like a famous battle and it represents both sides that seems pretty legit. If it's a random statue in a random location that seems silly. But again I'm pretty indifferent. Protesting against its removal definitely doesn't make sense to me, seems extremely stupid actually but people have that right.
 
Fletch said:
I think it would be impossible to find a historical figure who could withstand the purity standards of the modern left.
Click to expand...

The modern Left is as impure as everyone else.
 
Fletch said:
I think it would be impossible to find a historical figure who could withstand the purity standards of the modern left.
Click to expand...

Given that that standard is constantly changing, yeah. Even 2008 Obama is a homophobic / transphobic bigot by their standards now.
 

The removal of art is nothing new. The fertility statues and statuettes from across the world and down through history with phalluses the size of the effigies legs were hidden from view for literally centuries. There was no other reason than that they were offensive to the sensibilities of the the Victorian Viewers. At the time of their original display, the shock value was understood differently.

I heard a commentator laughing saying that he had heard that the proper placement of the Robert E. Lee equestrian statues was to have him facing South with the smelly end of his horse facing North. That in itself was another comment unrelated to the actual artistry.

Throughout history, societies have been erasing things they didn't like from their recent past.

I do worry about where it's going to stop, though. There is talk about demolishing the Jefferson Memorial and exposing Washington for the scoundrel he was.

At what point is the zeitgeist of the times incorporated into the thinking on the censorship? Should Jefferson be condemned and thrown on the scrap heap of history along with the likes of Aristotle?

How many pivotal actors on the world stage need to be converted from angels to demons?
 

Now, there is a distinct difference. First of all the vast majority of the Southern Confederate statues were put up in a very short period of time during the Jim Crow law period, or during the Civil Rights periods. They were put up partly to intimidate the black population.. and are mass produced and cheaply made. Many were not even GOOD art, and were crudely done.

The picture you made was someone's sacred symbols , centuries year old, and high quality art as well as having religious significance.

So, no, the two are not equivalent at all.
 

At this point, I'm against the removal of historic monuments and statutes.

I guess that would put me at odds even with previous instances of "The removal of art is nothing new." as well, although I would draw a distinction between a monument or statue of a historically significant event or person as being different than art, especially these days (recalling crucifix in urine being called 'art'). I think that historic monuments and statutes fall into a different category than merely 'art'.

Whether the historic monuments and statutes are 'good' art or not, isn't really the point. The point, at least from my view, is their historical significance. Some are positing that these historic monuments and statutes were placed to intimidate. I'd like to see someone actually prove that, as the intent of another is very often very hard to prove, if even possible at all.

I'm left far more with the impression that the left wants to tear down these historic monuments and statutes for the same reason that ISIS has done the same, i.e. to squash any narrative or visage of anything other than their own, SJW and excessive PC orgy.

No one has yet to answer the question as to if this was so God awful important, so God awful imperative to do, why wasn't it address in the previous 8 years? Why now for Christ's sake? Which leads me to believe that this is little more than politically motivated; exactly the wrong reasons to do something like this.
 




If the statue was created say 75 years after the death of the person, and that person was never in that location during their lifetime, is it a historically significant statue? Or is it a statue meant to celebrate the person depicted by the statue. (in general as very very few statues are meant as a means of heaping scorn on the person depicted by the statue)
 

How do you gain an accurate view into the intent behind erecting the statue?

Are historic monuments and statutes always erected at the historical site of the event? I hardly think so.
 
eohrnberger said:
How do you gain an accurate view into the intent behind erecting the statue?

Are historic monuments and statutes always erected at the historical site of the event? I hardly think so.
Click to expand...

In general yes historical monuments are placed near or at the sites of the events.

The birth place of people, the place of their death, the place of something significant that happened. The plaque then explains why it is significant. Hard to do when the event was 500 miles away. Exceptions of course for things like the Vietnam War memorial being in the US instead of Vietnam.

A statue of Chief Seattle being placed in Dallas would have no historical significance.
 

In general, yes, and, as you point out, sometimes not the case. Would you call Mount Rushmore a historical monument?
 
eohrnberger said:
In general, yes, and, as you point out, sometimes not the case. Would you call Mount Rushmore a historical monument?
Click to expand...

It is now, not because of who is on it, but because it is impressive by itself
 

Well, there would have been no kidnappers if not for a market in slaves. The South fought to keep slavery alive, although the kidnappings ended in early 19th century. That was the whole purpose of seceding and then starting a war. To keep slavery alive.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
It is now, not because of who is on it, but because it is impressive by itself
Click to expand...
So historical monuments and statutes are such, not necessarily due to proximity.

Sent from my HTC6515LVW using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…