3 ms·

Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make

Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make his capital city. Seems like a cause du jour, right? The problem with iconoclasm is when to stop. The article deals with this as well — people want the Cecil Rhodes statue gone, but not renaming the building or the scholarship. But the argument for tearing all of something down ends in a bonfire of the vanities, followed by some years of sheepish disavowal of the fire.

roenxi 2y ago
> Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make his capital city. Seems like a cause du jour, right? Yes. For the reasons you outline.
eesmith 2y ago
Your example distracts from the issue by broadening the topic from Cecil Rhodes, who we know was a real person, with plenty of historical evidence about what he did, to a Biblical figure with precious little other supporting evidence. Take your assertion that he was "a king". That's certainly the general cultural interpretation. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity > Biblical evidence indicates that David's Judah was something less than a full-fledged monarchy: it often calls him negid, meaning "prince" or "chief", rather than melek, meaning "king"; the biblical David sets up none of the complex bureaucracy that a kingdom needs (even his army is made up of volunteers), and his followers are largely related to him and from his small home-area around Hebron. It then lists some of "the full range of possible interpretations" for the Biblical account: "a heroic tale similar to King Arthur's legend or Homer's epics", "a political apology—an answer to contemporary charges against him, of his involvement in murders and regicide", "a brutal tyrant, a murderer and a lifelong vassal of Achish", and "the creation of those who lived generations after him". If the real David didn't do what the Bible says he did, then your question does not need to be answered. Did Goliath exist, and was he "six cubits and a span" - nearly 3 meters - tall?
- labster 2y ago
  I understand your argument and it’s a good one, but I just disagree. A statue is a nothing but a giant symbol, and the symbolic actions matter far more than any real actions of a person in deciding to maintain that symbol. Most objectionable statues are of people that have passed out of living memory, and aren’t about the person per se; the statue symbolizes something, and people object to that something. In this case, colonialism. What you said about David and how historical he was is interesting and I love secondary analysis. But I’m terms of the argument I was making it’s neither here nor there, because the historical record is only important in how people interpret its meaning in current day. David’s actual role during his life does not change that he’s been a royalist symbol for the past two millennia.
  - eesmith 2y ago
    Are you suggesting we take down statues of Darth Vader? It's a giant symbol of someone who ordered the genocide of the population of an entire planet. That's the sort of question you invite when you broaden the topic. When it's just a distraction from the actual issue, which is about one specific person rather than a general framework of rules which can be applied to a broader range of statues.
    - labster 2y ago
      > There is an interesting argument for tearing down all statues of powerful people. This is the argument I was replying to, and I was suggesting that it not be done.
      - eesmith 2y ago
        Truly you are correct. Darth Vader Must Fall.

roenxi 2y ago

> Shall we destroy or take down Michelangelo’s David, then? A statue of a king who waged religious wars against the natives of Palestine, conquering Zion to make his capital city. Seems like a cause du jour, right? Yes. For the reasons you outline.

eesmith 2y ago

Your example distracts from the issue by broadening the topic from Cecil Rhodes, who we know was a real person, with plenty of historical evidence about what he did, to a Biblical figure with precious little other supporting evidence. Take your assertion that he was "a king". That's certainly the general cultural interpretation. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David#Historicity > Biblical evidence indicates that David's Judah was something less than a full-fledged monarchy: it often calls him negid, meaning "prince" or "chief", rather than melek, meaning "king"; the biblical David sets up none of the complex bureaucracy that a kingdom needs (even his army is made up of volunteers), and his followers are largely related to him and from his small home-area around Hebron. It then lists some of "the full range of possible interpretations" for the Biblical account: "a heroic tale similar to King Arthur's legend or Homer's epics", "a political apology—an answer to contemporary charges against him, of his involvement in murders and regicide", "a brutal tyrant, a murderer and a lifelong vassal of Achish", and "the creation of those who lived generations after him". If the real David didn't do what the Bible says he did, then your question does not need to be answered. Did Goliath exist, and was he "six cubits and a span" - nearly 3 meters - tall?

labster 2y ago
I understand your argument and it’s a good one, but I just disagree. A statue is a nothing but a giant symbol, and the symbolic actions matter far more than any real actions of a person in deciding to maintain that symbol. Most objectionable statues are of people that have passed out of living memory, and aren’t about the person per se; the statue symbolizes something, and people object to that something. In this case, colonialism. What you said about David and how historical he was is interesting and I love secondary analysis. But I’m terms of the argument I was making it’s neither here nor there, because the historical record is only important in how people interpret its meaning in current day. David’s actual role during his life does not change that he’s been a royalist symbol for the past two millennia.
- eesmith 2y ago
  Are you suggesting we take down statues of Darth Vader? It's a giant symbol of someone who ordered the genocide of the population of an entire planet. That's the sort of question you invite when you broaden the topic. When it's just a distraction from the actual issue, which is about one specific person rather than a general framework of rules which can be applied to a broader range of statues.
  - labster 2y ago
    > There is an interesting argument for tearing down all statues of powerful people. This is the argument I was replying to, and I was suggesting that it not be done.
    - eesmith 2y ago
      Truly you are correct. Darth Vader Must Fall.