6 ms·

I am puzzled by the "oh no, this is erasing history" people. There are many people throughout history that are known and studied without being celebrated. Sta

I am puzzled by the "oh no, this is erasing history" people. There are many people throughout history that are known and studied without being celebrated. Statues, windows, etc. are there to commemorate and celebrate people. If we decide that we shouldn't celebrate an individual (confederate generals for example), removing that statue is not the same as erasing them from history.

Veen 5y ago
> If we decide that we shouldn't celebrate an individual That's precisely what's at issue. Who decides who should be celebrated and who should not? What are the criteria for deciding? And what story are we telling about our history with those decisions.
- akerl_ 5y ago
  I didn’t think I’d have to type this tonight but: Let’s agree not to celebrate racists or other bigots?
  - Veen 5y ago
    That would leave approximately no one from more than a century ago and almost no one from the last century, especially if you're going to exclude anyone who might be considered a bigot by modern progressive standards.
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      Yes, I’m cool with that. We can remember these people existed and the things they did without celebrating them. Removing statues is an example of that.
      - Veen 5y ago
        Are you really cool with that though? It implies no mathematician, scientist, artist, writer, athlete, politician, soldier, or activist should be celebrated or admired unless they exactly conform to the ideological purity standards of modern progressives? If you are cool with that, you and those who think like you are precisely why people get so agitated when statues are pulled down and windows hidden in basements.
        akerl_ 5y ago
        You’ve jumped from “bigoted” to “ideological purity”, which I didn’t say. But just in the interest of going whole hog: let’s assume I become King Of Earth and my new rule is “nobody is allowed to be celebrated”. Does the world stop spinning? It’s a crazy rule, but celebration of dead people isn’t exactly the glue holding society together. Meanwhile, racism is a pretty ongoing issue that is tearing it apart.
        tyre 5y ago
        Celebrating people and history is a core pillar of identity. The “founding fathers” are central to the story of America’s founding. Jesus is certainly a glue of Christianity, Mohammad of Islam, etc. Does that mean we have to accept all of who those people are? Of course not. We can choose to celebrate the Federalist papers and denounce the slaveholding. People have a natural desire to follow leaders, to idolize people. In doing so they are tied more closely to others who value/worship/memorialize the same. That’s (one!) tribal glue.
        akerl_ 5y ago
        > People have a natural desire to follow leaders, to idolize people. In doing so they are tied more closely to others who value/worship/memorialize the same. Yea, this is pretty much the same reason that people want racists’ statues taken down. People celebrating bigots are people who value bigots, and that’s a tribe I’m pretty happy letting go extinct.
        kbelder 5y ago
        > that’s a tribe I’m pretty happy letting go extinct. Funny, saying that sort of thing is what got Fisher condemned.
        Veen 5y ago
        > People celebrating bigots are people who value bigots But, with some exceptions, these people aren’t celebrated for their bigotry. They’re celebrated for their positive achievements. People are complex mixtures of good, bad, and indifferent values. No one is pure of character or thought.
    - geofft 5y ago
      This is certainly not true! Many, many people from more than a century ago opposed racism and bigotry. It's just that many powerful people in recent years supported it and want you to believe that racism and bigotry was (and still is) a normal and defensible thing. Most obviously - there were a lot of people from non-dominant races (in various times and places) in history! We have writings from Olaudah Equiano, for instance, that confirm that he did not believe in the common racism and bigotry of his time, and there were many thousands like him that didn't write anything down either. But even among the races benefiting from racism, we have writings of people opposing it, too. Here, for instance, are excerpts from journal entries of Bp. Thomas Coke, one of the founders of Methodism in the US, written in 1785: > At night I lodged at the house of Captain Dillard, a most hospitable man, and as kind to his negroes as if they were white servants. It was quite pleasing to see them so decently and comfortably clothed. And yet I could not beat into the head of that poor man the evil of keeping them in slavery, although he has read Mr. Wesley's thoughts on slavery, (I think he said) three times over, : but his good wife is strongly on our side.) > I preached the late Colonel Bedford's funeral sermon. But I said nothing good of him, for he was a violent friend of slavery, and his interest being great among the Methodists in these parts, he would have been a dreadful thorn in our sides, if the Lord had not in mercy taken him away. And here is Gouverneur Morris, one of the Founding Father, debating in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention the merits of the Three-Fifths Compromise, as recorded in James Madison's notes: > Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. What you see in these writings is a belief that there is no moral distinction to be made between white and black, that slavery is in fact an outrage, and no defense of it can be made based on race. What you see, simply, is opposition to racism. This is what some successful and powerful and praiseworthy people - bishops and founding fathers - believed in the 1700s. You don't know this, of course, because the people who make statues and stained glass windows aren't excited about sharing that history.
  - mistrial9 5y ago
    if you and ten thousand others, can accurately and repeatedly find and describe the same people with these labels .. then MAYBE?. Your view of that suspect person now, today, will change.. These obviously negative terms become a mud fight, where each accuser "sticks" others with as much mud as possible, since every single person on earth is imperfect.. one way forward from this depressing situation is to instead, celebrate virtue, and the contest is to find and identify virtue.. meaning "someone did or said something positive" with positive evidence.. that takes away the mud fight and gets everyone looking for virtue. I suggest, do not throw insults as a substitute for seeking and honoring virtue, and find the virtue in others, as a way to move the conversation. Real -- Humans are dangerous pack hunters, and the reasoning of the mob is notoriously fickle.. If the activity of the day is to "out bigots" and "get them" .. I guarantee you it will descend further
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - akerl_ 5y ago
      I’m not looking to solve every problem today. But also I’m not interested in engaging with people trying to “find and identify virtue” in bigots. If we can’t agree that celebrating bigots is bad, I’m at a loss as to how to resolve the disconnect. I’m not looking to “get them”; Robert E Lee and Sir Ronald Fisher aren’t around to be annoyed that we aren’t throwing parades for them.
      - isityouyesitsme 5y ago
        celebrating womanizing men is bad too. so, tear out all the pictures of MLK and tear down the statues. does this example help you to understand the danger in your particular brand of ignorance?
        akerl_ 5y ago
        Let’s get the crane out. All the statues come down. We can learn about historical figures in our schools, and in our museums, surrounded in both cases by appropriate context.
- notatoad 5y ago
  >who decides in this case, the leadership at Caius College. in every other case, the same sort of people who made the decision to celebrate the individual in the first place. in a broader sense, history does - the same people who rail against taking down statues seem to like talking about how history will view the leaders of today. "cancelling" historical figures is the literal implementation of "history will judge my actions". history has judged this guy, and decided that eugenics aren't cool.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
andreskytt 5y ago
There are no saints on this earth. All of us have done or said things we are not proud of and most of our deeds will seem monstrous to the sufficiently distant generations. Newton, for example, was apparently quite a horrible person even by the standards of his time. So now what? There does not seem to be a way to celebrate anybody for any length of time, does there? This view of not celebrating humans in art for their inherent sinfulness is actually very well known in history. The reason for islams intricate ornaments in buildings is the ban on depicting humans. The christian church has also been split on the matter. Could we be a wee bit more civilized in the 21st century and celebrate the whole person, warts and all? A human? “The man greatly contributed to the field of statistics but was also involved in eugenics” both should be known, researched, debated and understood. For neither would have been possible without the other.

Veen 5y ago

> If we decide that we shouldn't celebrate an individual That's precisely what's at issue. Who decides who should be celebrated and who should not? What are the criteria for deciding? And what story are we telling about our history with those decisions.

akerl_ 5y ago
I didn’t think I’d have to type this tonight but: Let’s agree not to celebrate racists or other bigots?
- Veen 5y ago
  That would leave approximately no one from more than a century ago and almost no one from the last century, especially if you're going to exclude anyone who might be considered a bigot by modern progressive standards.
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    Yes, I’m cool with that. We can remember these people existed and the things they did without celebrating them. Removing statues is an example of that.
    - Veen 5y ago
      Are you really cool with that though? It implies no mathematician, scientist, artist, writer, athlete, politician, soldier, or activist should be celebrated or admired unless they exactly conform to the ideological purity standards of modern progressives? If you are cool with that, you and those who think like you are precisely why people get so agitated when statues are pulled down and windows hidden in basements.
      - akerl_ 5y ago
        You’ve jumped from “bigoted” to “ideological purity”, which I didn’t say. But just in the interest of going whole hog: let’s assume I become King Of Earth and my new rule is “nobody is allowed to be celebrated”. Does the world stop spinning? It’s a crazy rule, but celebration of dead people isn’t exactly the glue holding society together. Meanwhile, racism is a pretty ongoing issue that is tearing it apart.
        tyre 5y ago
        Celebrating people and history is a core pillar of identity. The “founding fathers” are central to the story of America’s founding. Jesus is certainly a glue of Christianity, Mohammad of Islam, etc. Does that mean we have to accept all of who those people are? Of course not. We can choose to celebrate the Federalist papers and denounce the slaveholding. People have a natural desire to follow leaders, to idolize people. In doing so they are tied more closely to others who value/worship/memorialize the same. That’s (one!) tribal glue.
        akerl_ 5y ago
        > People have a natural desire to follow leaders, to idolize people. In doing so they are tied more closely to others who value/worship/memorialize the same. Yea, this is pretty much the same reason that people want racists’ statues taken down. People celebrating bigots are people who value bigots, and that’s a tribe I’m pretty happy letting go extinct.
        kbelder 5y ago
        > that’s a tribe I’m pretty happy letting go extinct. Funny, saying that sort of thing is what got Fisher condemned.
        Veen 5y ago
        > People celebrating bigots are people who value bigots But, with some exceptions, these people aren’t celebrated for their bigotry. They’re celebrated for their positive achievements. People are complex mixtures of good, bad, and indifferent values. No one is pure of character or thought.
  - geofft 5y ago
    This is certainly not true! Many, many people from more than a century ago opposed racism and bigotry. It's just that many powerful people in recent years supported it and want you to believe that racism and bigotry was (and still is) a normal and defensible thing. Most obviously - there were a lot of people from non-dominant races (in various times and places) in history! We have writings from Olaudah Equiano, for instance, that confirm that he did not believe in the common racism and bigotry of his time, and there were many thousands like him that didn't write anything down either. But even among the races benefiting from racism, we have writings of people opposing it, too. Here, for instance, are excerpts from journal entries of Bp. Thomas Coke, one of the founders of Methodism in the US, written in 1785: > At night I lodged at the house of Captain Dillard, a most hospitable man, and as kind to his negroes as if they were white servants. It was quite pleasing to see them so decently and comfortably clothed. And yet I could not beat into the head of that poor man the evil of keeping them in slavery, although he has read Mr. Wesley's thoughts on slavery, (I think he said) three times over, : but his good wife is strongly on our side.) > I preached the late Colonel Bedford's funeral sermon. But I said nothing good of him, for he was a violent friend of slavery, and his interest being great among the Methodists in these parts, he would have been a dreadful thorn in our sides, if the Lord had not in mercy taken him away. And here is Gouverneur Morris, one of the Founding Father, debating in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention the merits of the Three-Fifths Compromise, as recorded in James Madison's notes: > Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. Are they property? Why then is no other property included? [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections & damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice. What you see in these writings is a belief that there is no moral distinction to be made between white and black, that slavery is in fact an outrage, and no defense of it can be made based on race. What you see, simply, is opposition to racism. This is what some successful and powerful and praiseworthy people - bishops and founding fathers - believed in the 1700s. You don't know this, of course, because the people who make statues and stained glass windows aren't excited about sharing that history.
- mistrial9 5y ago
  if you and ten thousand others, can accurately and repeatedly find and describe the same people with these labels .. then MAYBE?. Your view of that suspect person now, today, will change.. These obviously negative terms become a mud fight, where each accuser "sticks" others with as much mud as possible, since every single person on earth is imperfect.. one way forward from this depressing situation is to instead, celebrate virtue, and the contest is to find and identify virtue.. meaning "someone did or said something positive" with positive evidence.. that takes away the mud fight and gets everyone looking for virtue. I suggest, do not throw insults as a substitute for seeking and honoring virtue, and find the virtue in others, as a way to move the conversation. Real -- Humans are dangerous pack hunters, and the reasoning of the mob is notoriously fickle.. If the activity of the day is to "out bigots" and "get them" .. I guarantee you it will descend further
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - akerl_ 5y ago
    I’m not looking to solve every problem today. But also I’m not interested in engaging with people trying to “find and identify virtue” in bigots. If we can’t agree that celebrating bigots is bad, I’m at a loss as to how to resolve the disconnect. I’m not looking to “get them”; Robert E Lee and Sir Ronald Fisher aren’t around to be annoyed that we aren’t throwing parades for them.
    - isityouyesitsme 5y ago
      celebrating womanizing men is bad too. so, tear out all the pictures of MLK and tear down the statues. does this example help you to understand the danger in your particular brand of ignorance?
      - akerl_ 5y ago
        Let’s get the crane out. All the statues come down. We can learn about historical figures in our schools, and in our museums, surrounded in both cases by appropriate context.
notatoad 5y ago
>who decides in this case, the leadership at Caius College. in every other case, the same sort of people who made the decision to celebrate the individual in the first place. in a broader sense, history does - the same people who rail against taking down statues seem to like talking about how history will view the leaders of today. "cancelling" historical figures is the literal implementation of "history will judge my actions". history has judged this guy, and decided that eugenics aren't cool.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

andreskytt 5y ago

There are no saints on this earth. All of us have done or said things we are not proud of and most of our deeds will seem monstrous to the sufficiently distant generations. Newton, for example, was apparently quite a horrible person even by the standards of his time. So now what? There does not seem to be a way to celebrate anybody for any length of time, does there? This view of not celebrating humans in art for their inherent sinfulness is actually very well known in history. The reason for islams intricate ornaments in buildings is the ban on depicting humans. The christian church has also been split on the matter. Could we be a wee bit more civilized in the 21st century and celebrate the whole person, warts and all? A human? “The man greatly contributed to the field of statistics but was also involved in eugenics” both should be known, researched, debated and understood. For neither would have been possible without the other.