6 ms·

Reminds me of when Trump a while ago (before the recent George Floyd stuff) was commenting on statues being torn down, and commented something like, "next they'

by beaner 6y ago

Reminds me of when Trump a while ago (before the recent George Floyd stuff) was commenting on statues being torn down, and commented something like, "next they'll go for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, where does it end?" John Oliver did a bit on it answering "Somewhere. It ends somewhere," implying that he was an idiot, that it was a stupid comment, and everybody laughed. Now we're here and it has actually happened in reality. It's even gone further. Roosevelt. Lincoln?? We even have prominent BLM figures saying the western portrayal of Christ is systemic racism and must be erased. Since then I've come to see the answer "it ends somewhere" as completely void of any value or meaning, and mostly just a justification for mindless erasure. It's not a smart zinger, it's empty.

mikepurvis 6y ago
The Lincoln statue is kind of a special case, and it's obvious why from looking at it: https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-art-commission-unanimously-votes-to-remove-controversial-abraham-lincoln-statue-in-park-square/33017211 https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-art-commission-unanimous... As far as the others, clearly there is an Overton shift happening here, and that will embolden some advocates to make more extreme demands. Is that bad? Probably not, but I think most statues of Washington are likely safe for at least another generation or two, and if they get moved from the public square into museums at that later point, well, that's something the future will have decided on.
ebg13 6y ago
> figures saying the western portrayal of Christ is systemic racism You mean the ones where he's shown as west-european white? I suppose we could bother thinking about why he looks like that in those portrayals when he definitely wouldn't have in real life.
- beaner 6y ago
  One reason is that people might feel closer to something that they think superficially resembles themselves. This is part of the reason why diversity is important, according to so many people right now. Not just because groups have more perspectives, but because the people in the minority feel more comfortable when the minority is not so small. I remember some years ago about a situation regarding a movie. I forget the exact details, but it was something like a Filipino movie about an American disaster, like 9/11. The movie was based on a historically inaccurate story of a Filipino man or family involved in the circumstances, when in reality there had been none. I don't know whether or not the Filipino person was a replacement for a white person's real story. But as someone much closer to the original circumstances, my perspective is not that I or my community's history has been replaced or been removed due to "racism." It is rather very touching that this foreign community felt close enough and impacted enough by the story to envision themselves inside it, taking part in it. To me, it was an expression of closeness and understanding, not appropriation or racism. Plus it seems strange to me that in a story where people walk on water and talk to burning bushes and kill gays, that the most offensive or historically inaccurate thing is that some people have envisioned the main character as being similar to them.
  - ebg13 6y ago
    > One reason is that people might feel closer to something that they think superficially resembles themselves. I agree! And then they proceeded to spread that image throughout the world (commonly via imperial colonialism) as "god looks like me, not you". That closely aligns with the concept of systemic racism. > Plus it seems strange to me that ...the most offensive or historically inaccurate thing is... "Most" is a strawman. We don't need to start assigning gold/silver/bronze medals to badness in order to recognize that it's bad and work to change it.
    - beaner 6y ago
      If imperial colonialism is responsible for bringing the idea of Jesus to new areas to begin with, then it's not replacing something. I don't understand what's "systemic racism" about that? You skipped the meat of my comment, which is about closeness and understanding.
the_gastropod 6y ago
Criticism of celebrating deeply flawed men with deeply flawed ideals is not, in any way, erasure. We all know about Nazism and the Holocaust despite the lack of statues of Hitler. Christians somehow know about Satan even though he’s got no statues celebrating his greatness.
- beaner 6y ago
  I dunno, people pretend that they know about what these historical figures were thinking but I feel like nobody's read a book about it, they're all just learning from their assumptive misinformed peers and that there isn't necessarily an interest in the history. Thomas Sowell, a black man, had some interesting historical perspectives on these figures in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, which is worth a read. This is just a small excerpt from a google search, and in itself can't directly address everything people are trying to erase, but it's a starter for listening to more and broadening your perspective: https://www.aei.org/*/thomas-sowell-on-slavery-and-this-fact-there-are-more-slaves-today-than-were-seized-from-africa-in-four-centuries/comment-page-1/ https://www.aei.org/*/thomas-sowell-on-slavery-and-this-fact...
  - rickbutton 6y ago
    It's important to remember that the majority of these statues were not created after the civil war in order to remember them, but during the Jim Crow era in order to intimidate black people. The intent was never to teach history.
    - beaner 6y ago
      I don't know the history of that so I can't argue it. If you could link to some education on it, I'd like to read about it. I would imagine that it's possible in some circumstances for this to be true for some, mostly confederate figures. I'm really skeptical that that's true for figures like Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.
      - rickbutton 6y ago
klmadfejno 6y ago
FWIW the founding fathers did not want to be idolized and probably would not like the idea of Rushmore. I'm not sure I see why its outrageous to think that people want to remove statues honoring pieces of history they think ought not be honored. On the face of it, nothing is owed to the past and society does evolve. I don't feel particularly strong on preserving or removing imagery of George Washington from public art. But the gut wrenching feeling of those who feel its spitting on their heritage, well, they're gonna have to learn to cope with the awareness that a country is defined by its people, not its history. For ages 18 and under, whites are no longer the majority in the US (or very very close last time I checked). The aspects of heritage that the country chooses to celebrate are going to change over time. This is the gist of democracy. You don't get bonus points for historical relevance. You may not agree with the angry mobs of protestors, but the same change is happening in formal government, albeit slower.
- beaner 6y ago
  History is important because it lets us see ourselves in the arc of time and be more cognizant of how and why we arrived at the present moment. When we idolize figures who we believe did good things, we project a guide line from the past into the future for ourselves to follow. When we erase history, we lose this guidance and direction. It's no mistake that the mob is responsible for the destruction, because a lack of guidance leads to mob-like behavior. Just as fatherless children are more likely to find guidance from their peers and in the streets, with a statistically worse fate as a result. You could say then that these specific idols are not good idols because of the realities of their actions in the past. But there are other perspectives [0] that should be considered before taking that as a foregone conclusion - a conclusion mostly adopted from peers and not study. [0] https://bit.ly/2NN8Wbv https://bit.ly/2NN8Wbv
  - mikepurvis 6y ago
    So the statues belong in museums and history textbooks, not the public square: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/19/destroying-confederate-monuments-isnt-erasing-history-its-learning-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/19/destroying... It feels tired to still be repeating this when so many others have said it, but Germany is capable of learning about Hitler and Nazism without the monuments glorifying it; Americans can learn about Robert E. Lee without the whitewashed monuments everywhere. And anyway, there was none of this clutching of pearls about history-erasure when the Saddam Hussein statue was toppled in Baghdad in 2003.
baddox 6y ago
If the absolute worst case scenario you can imagine is that we no longer have any huge chunks of metal in the shape of people displayed on public property, then your slippery slope argument isn't very compelling.
- beaner 6y ago
  It isn't, see my comment on history below.

by beaner 6y ago

mikepurvis 6y ago

The Lincoln statue is kind of a special case, and it's obvious why from looking at it: https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-art-commission-unanimously-votes-to-remove-controversial-abraham-lincoln-statue-in-park-square/33017211 https://www.wcvb.com/article/boston-art-commission-unanimous... As far as the others, clearly there is an Overton shift happening here, and that will embolden some advocates to make more extreme demands. Is that bad? Probably not, but I think most statues of Washington are likely safe for at least another generation or two, and if they get moved from the public square into museums at that later point, well, that's something the future will have decided on.

ebg13 6y ago

> figures saying the western portrayal of Christ is systemic racism You mean the ones where he's shown as west-european white? I suppose we could bother thinking about why he looks like that in those portrayals when he definitely wouldn't have in real life.

beaner 6y ago
One reason is that people might feel closer to something that they think superficially resembles themselves. This is part of the reason why diversity is important, according to so many people right now. Not just because groups have more perspectives, but because the people in the minority feel more comfortable when the minority is not so small. I remember some years ago about a situation regarding a movie. I forget the exact details, but it was something like a Filipino movie about an American disaster, like 9/11. The movie was based on a historically inaccurate story of a Filipino man or family involved in the circumstances, when in reality there had been none. I don't know whether or not the Filipino person was a replacement for a white person's real story. But as someone much closer to the original circumstances, my perspective is not that I or my community's history has been replaced or been removed due to "racism." It is rather very touching that this foreign community felt close enough and impacted enough by the story to envision themselves inside it, taking part in it. To me, it was an expression of closeness and understanding, not appropriation or racism. Plus it seems strange to me that in a story where people walk on water and talk to burning bushes and kill gays, that the most offensive or historically inaccurate thing is that some people have envisioned the main character as being similar to them.
- ebg13 6y ago
  > One reason is that people might feel closer to something that they think superficially resembles themselves. I agree! And then they proceeded to spread that image throughout the world (commonly via imperial colonialism) as "god looks like me, not you". That closely aligns with the concept of systemic racism. > Plus it seems strange to me that ...the most offensive or historically inaccurate thing is... "Most" is a strawman. We don't need to start assigning gold/silver/bronze medals to badness in order to recognize that it's bad and work to change it.
  - beaner 6y ago
    If imperial colonialism is responsible for bringing the idea of Jesus to new areas to begin with, then it's not replacing something. I don't understand what's "systemic racism" about that? You skipped the meat of my comment, which is about closeness and understanding.

the_gastropod 6y ago

Criticism of celebrating deeply flawed men with deeply flawed ideals is not, in any way, erasure. We all know about Nazism and the Holocaust despite the lack of statues of Hitler. Christians somehow know about Satan even though he’s got no statues celebrating his greatness.

beaner 6y ago
I dunno, people pretend that they know about what these historical figures were thinking but I feel like nobody's read a book about it, they're all just learning from their assumptive misinformed peers and that there isn't necessarily an interest in the history. Thomas Sowell, a black man, had some interesting historical perspectives on these figures in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, which is worth a read. This is just a small excerpt from a google search, and in itself can't directly address everything people are trying to erase, but it's a starter for listening to more and broadening your perspective: https://www.aei.org/*/thomas-sowell-on-slavery-and-this-fact-there-are-more-slaves-today-than-were-seized-from-africa-in-four-centuries/comment-page-1/ https://www.aei.org/*/thomas-sowell-on-slavery-and-this-fact...
- rickbutton 6y ago
  It's important to remember that the majority of these statues were not created after the civil war in order to remember them, but during the Jim Crow era in order to intimidate black people. The intent was never to teach history.
  - beaner 6y ago
    I don't know the history of that so I can't argue it. If you could link to some education on it, I'd like to read about it. I would imagine that it's possible in some circumstances for this to be true for some, mostly confederate figures. I'm really skeptical that that's true for figures like Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln.
    - rickbutton 6y ago

klmadfejno 6y ago

FWIW the founding fathers did not want to be idolized and probably would not like the idea of Rushmore. I'm not sure I see why its outrageous to think that people want to remove statues honoring pieces of history they think ought not be honored. On the face of it, nothing is owed to the past and society does evolve. I don't feel particularly strong on preserving or removing imagery of George Washington from public art. But the gut wrenching feeling of those who feel its spitting on their heritage, well, they're gonna have to learn to cope with the awareness that a country is defined by its people, not its history. For ages 18 and under, whites are no longer the majority in the US (or very very close last time I checked). The aspects of heritage that the country chooses to celebrate are going to change over time. This is the gist of democracy. You don't get bonus points for historical relevance. You may not agree with the angry mobs of protestors, but the same change is happening in formal government, albeit slower.

beaner 6y ago
History is important because it lets us see ourselves in the arc of time and be more cognizant of how and why we arrived at the present moment. When we idolize figures who we believe did good things, we project a guide line from the past into the future for ourselves to follow. When we erase history, we lose this guidance and direction. It's no mistake that the mob is responsible for the destruction, because a lack of guidance leads to mob-like behavior. Just as fatherless children are more likely to find guidance from their peers and in the streets, with a statistically worse fate as a result. You could say then that these specific idols are not good idols because of the realities of their actions in the past. But there are other perspectives [0] that should be considered before taking that as a foregone conclusion - a conclusion mostly adopted from peers and not study. [0] https://bit.ly/2NN8Wbv https://bit.ly/2NN8Wbv
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  So the statues belong in museums and history textbooks, not the public square: https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/19/destroying-confederate-monuments-isnt-erasing-history-its-learning-it/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/19/destroying... It feels tired to still be repeating this when so many others have said it, but Germany is capable of learning about Hitler and Nazism without the monuments glorifying it; Americans can learn about Robert E. Lee without the whitewashed monuments everywhere. And anyway, there was none of this clutching of pearls about history-erasure when the Saddam Hussein statue was toppled in Baghdad in 2003.

baddox 6y ago

If the absolute worst case scenario you can imagine is that we no longer have any huge chunks of metal in the shape of people displayed on public property, then your slippery slope argument isn't very compelling.

beaner 6y ago
It isn't, see my comment on history below.