5 ms·

Statues were about, and have always been about, celebrating individuals, groups, and values. That's how they functioned in the greco-roman world. That's how the

Statues were about, and have always been about, celebrating individuals, groups, and values. That's how they functioned in the greco-roman world. That's how they function today. In this context, it totally makes sense to remove statues that don't reflect current values. That's why people toppled statues of Stalin, or Saddam Hussein. This whole talking point about 'history erasure' is just really strange, because monuments have never been about history. That's why you can have a statue of liberty, a fourth plinth, the kryptos, etc.

Swenrekcah 5y ago
That is true, and I generally don’t mind the removal of those kinds of statues of political or military figures celebrated by one society at one time and looked upon in horror by a new society at another time. What I do mind is the removal of monuments of persons celebrated for specific civilian accomplishments because of some political ideologies, typical of their times, that they may have held (and even, depending perhaps on circumstances untypical of their times).
- scoopertrooper 5y ago
  I think that'd have to be something decided on a case by case basis. A brilliant physicist who also happened to write a letter to a journal in support of phrenology? I can let that pass. A prolific philanthropist who made his fortune on the backs of the enslaved? Yeah, that can go.
  - Swenrekcah 5y ago
    Sounds reasonable. Just note that in the portfolio of any moderately wealthy person today you will find examples of atrocities. So reason and level-headedness should also be applied when determining if someone made their fortune on exploiting people. I do applaud every effort to do green or ethical investing and such, I am by no means apathetic to these issues. I just think they need to be addressed systematically and productively.
    - scoopertrooper 5y ago
      I think there is a simple set of criteria to base that on. * To what extent is their wealth attributable to the unethical practice? * The degree that were they aware of the unethical practice * What level of control did they exercise in relation to the unethical practice? * Even if unaware, were they negligent in relation to the unethical practice? * What practical steps did they take to mitigate the damage they did upon becoming aware of the unethical nature of their venture? I agree a systematic approach is the only way to actually solve problems. However, I think the debate around icons isn't about solving problems, but rather one of justice. Is it just for a person who imparted misery upon others to be commemorated, whilst their victims are forgotten? It's also about making a statement about our values as a society. These things matter because they help set societal expectations about acceptable behaviour. Nobody complains about the the destruction of history when Nazi iconography is destroyed despite Nazism being one of the most influential ideologies in world history. There's an interesting debate going on in the post-Soviet-Union countries right now about removing soviet iconography from the public square. Some Russians see it as destroying history, whilst many Ukrainians see it as breaking with a past that brought colonisation, starvation, servitude, and general misery.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  In general, I think the conversation is sort of warped by the fact that the really problematic statues (all those confederate generals in the american south) are basically explicit attempts by white supremacists to ensure that the street furniture makes black people feel small. That's their history - that's why a lot of them were erected. As for the more nuanced cases, I think I'd probably go for an explanatory plaque. People are complex. One example that comes to mind is Josiah Wedgewood. On the one hand, he was an prominent slavery abolitionist. On the other hand, he employed child labourers to work with poisonous glazes, many of whom died before reaching adulthood. The problem is, many statues are more or less obnoxious attempts by dominant groups to impose their ideology on public spaces, then the present-day sympathists tend to try and muddy the water by talking about heritage and history, when it's really nothing to do with the monuments in question.

Swenrekcah 5y ago

That is true, and I generally don’t mind the removal of those kinds of statues of political or military figures celebrated by one society at one time and looked upon in horror by a new society at another time. What I do mind is the removal of monuments of persons celebrated for specific civilian accomplishments because of some political ideologies, typical of their times, that they may have held (and even, depending perhaps on circumstances untypical of their times).

scoopertrooper 5y ago
I think that'd have to be something decided on a case by case basis. A brilliant physicist who also happened to write a letter to a journal in support of phrenology? I can let that pass. A prolific philanthropist who made his fortune on the backs of the enslaved? Yeah, that can go.
- Swenrekcah 5y ago
  Sounds reasonable. Just note that in the portfolio of any moderately wealthy person today you will find examples of atrocities. So reason and level-headedness should also be applied when determining if someone made their fortune on exploiting people. I do applaud every effort to do green or ethical investing and such, I am by no means apathetic to these issues. I just think they need to be addressed systematically and productively.
  - scoopertrooper 5y ago
    I think there is a simple set of criteria to base that on. * To what extent is their wealth attributable to the unethical practice? * The degree that were they aware of the unethical practice * What level of control did they exercise in relation to the unethical practice? * Even if unaware, were they negligent in relation to the unethical practice? * What practical steps did they take to mitigate the damage they did upon becoming aware of the unethical nature of their venture? I agree a systematic approach is the only way to actually solve problems. However, I think the debate around icons isn't about solving problems, but rather one of justice. Is it just for a person who imparted misery upon others to be commemorated, whilst their victims are forgotten? It's also about making a statement about our values as a society. These things matter because they help set societal expectations about acceptable behaviour. Nobody complains about the the destruction of history when Nazi iconography is destroyed despite Nazism being one of the most influential ideologies in world history. There's an interesting debate going on in the post-Soviet-Union countries right now about removing soviet iconography from the public square. Some Russians see it as destroying history, whilst many Ukrainians see it as breaking with a past that brought colonisation, starvation, servitude, and general misery.
pasabagi 5y ago
In general, I think the conversation is sort of warped by the fact that the really problematic statues (all those confederate generals in the american south) are basically explicit attempts by white supremacists to ensure that the street furniture makes black people feel small. That's their history - that's why a lot of them were erected. As for the more nuanced cases, I think I'd probably go for an explanatory plaque. People are complex. One example that comes to mind is Josiah Wedgewood. On the one hand, he was an prominent slavery abolitionist. On the other hand, he employed child labourers to work with poisonous glazes, many of whom died before reaching adulthood. The problem is, many statues are more or less obnoxious attempts by dominant groups to impose their ideology on public spaces, then the present-day sympathists tend to try and muddy the water by talking about heritage and history, when it's really nothing to do with the monuments in question.