2 ms·

The modern, progressive fetish of anything but The Perfect Man(tm) being unacceptable is a case of No True Scotsman, and I feel that it greatly harms properly u

The modern, progressive fetish of anything but The Perfect Man(tm) being unacceptable is a case of No True Scotsman, and I feel that it greatly harms properly understanding and appreciating history. All people are imperfect, whether they are famous or not. If someone achieved something truly remarkable in their life I don't see why we shouldn't appreciate and respect the fact they existed, imperfections included, with symbols such as statues and other imagery. Not to mention that any imperfections an individual has should be seen and considered with the context of their time. It certainly won't excuse their imperfections (nor is that the intent anyway), but doing so furthers understanding history properly so we can strive to be better today. This is all tangential, though, since we're talking about imagery of landmarks and cultures. I find it sad that the EU has to rely on not including anyone/anything to avoid stepping on toes. I understand and appreciate why those toes must not be stepped on at any cost, but that doesn't change my opinion that it's all very sad.

tialaramex 3y ago
Statues aren't history, statues are symbols of aspiration. Liberty and Justice are the most common two ideas we build statues of, but I used to spend a few hours per month at one of London's terminus railway stations, from which coincidentally trains leave for Paris. It has a large metal statue of two humans embracing. "The Lovers" is about why we'd build all this anyway - to bring people together. And there's a big difference between history and aspiration. Poland's holocaust museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau is about history. Find out about what exactly did happen here, the circumstances in which it happened, and the consequences. Its existence isn't - and hasn't been claimed in some "modern, progressive fetish" to be - unacceptable just because nobody should ever do that again, it's kind of the whole point of the site. On the other hand a statue of a Confederate General erected in your town square in 1964, the year MLK Jr won the Nobel Peace Prize, isn't there because of "history" it's there to remind black people that your town is actively proud of enslaving their ancestors and given a chance would do it all again.

tialaramex 3y ago

Statues aren't history, statues are symbols of aspiration. Liberty and Justice are the most common two ideas we build statues of, but I used to spend a few hours per month at one of London's terminus railway stations, from which coincidentally trains leave for Paris. It has a large metal statue of two humans embracing. "The Lovers" is about why we'd build all this anyway - to bring people together. And there's a big difference between history and aspiration. Poland's holocaust museum at Auschwitz-Birkenau is about history. Find out about what exactly did happen here, the circumstances in which it happened, and the consequences. Its existence isn't - and hasn't been claimed in some "modern, progressive fetish" to be - unacceptable just because nobody should ever do that again, it's kind of the whole point of the site. On the other hand a statue of a Confederate General erected in your town square in 1964, the year MLK Jr won the Nobel Peace Prize, isn't there because of "history" it's there to remind black people that your town is actively proud of enslaving their ancestors and given a chance would do it all again.