The Statues

[*bfine32*]

I was going to bring this up in another thread but I thought we could start a separate discussion instead of possibly hijacking.

What are folk's views on these statues being vandalized. IMO one of the top law makers in our Nation give a dangerous viewpoint on the matter:
https://www.newsweek.com/nancy-pelosi-christopher-columbus-1516832

Here was her comments on the lawlessness:

Quote:"If the community doesn't want the statue there, the statue shouldn't be there," she said, at a press conference on Thursday. "It doesn't diminish my pride in my Italian American heritage and the fact that it was a country discovered by an Italian and named for an Italian, Amerigo Vespucci. So I have that pride but I don't care that much about statues."

When pressed harder she said "People will do what they do".

[*jason*]

I'm not a big statue guy... Translation; it's gotta be a pretty damn impressive statue for me to even notice it. Having said that... It's not up to woke mobs of people to decide what stays, and what goes. According to them literally no one is worthy of having a statue erected.

[fredtoast]

Classic political double speak from Pelosi.

When asked if it should be done by a commission instead of a mob She had to agree that it should not be done by a mob, but at the same time she avoided criticizing the mob.


QUESTION: Should not be done by--respectfully, shouldn't be done by a Commission or the City Council, not a mob in the middle of the night throwing it into the harbor?

PELOSI: People will do what they do. It's a--it is--I do think that from a safety standpoint it would be a good idea to have it taken down at the community doesn't want it. I don't know that it has to be a Commission, but it just could be a community view. And sometimes, it's something that's been there--that view has been there for a while.

[fredtoast]

I think almost everyone will agree that if the community wants a statue removed then it should be removed. I also think almost everyone will agree that it should be done through proper channels instead of by a mob. The problem is in the areas where minorities are such a small minority that they have no political influence.

The biggest issue right now are the 12 statues honoring members of the Confederacy currently in the U.S. Capitol.

Do we all agree that people who committed treason against the United States should not be honmored in the U.S. Capitol?

[HarleyDog]

PLM

[SunsetBengal]

What do the General Statutes both Federal and State, have to say about the statues? Are they protected historical monuments, or simply local decor?

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 03:30 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think almost everyone will agree that if the community wants a statue removed then it should be removed.  I also think almost everyone will agree that it should be done through proper channels instead of by a mob.  The problem is in the areas where minorities are such a small minority that they have no political influence.

The biggest issue right now are the 12 statues honoring members of the Confederacy currently in the U.S. Capitol.

Do we all agree that people who committed treason against the United States should not be honmored in the U.S. Capitol?

They should be on display in museums only. 

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They should be on display in museums only. 

The statues were not even around at the time of the Civil War.

I think the stuff in museums should either be from that time period or recreations of actual objects from that time period (uniforms, weapons, important documents, etc).  These large statues are more about being an honorific than teaching history.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 05:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The statues were not even around at the time of the Civil War.

I think the stuff in museums should either be from that time period or recreations of actual objects from that time period (uniforms, weapons, important documents, etc).  These large statues are more about being an honorific than teaching history.

Well they do represent a part of our history; regardless of personal opinion. More of the attitude of those that created it than the person they are honoring. 

[samhain]

I'm opposed to mob rule in general. I understand why the government both federal and local might be inclined to let protestors blow off steam as opposed to sending in troops to protect statues, but ideally there should be a line at some point. I think that it's still a tough call to use force to protect inanimate objects that serve almost no purpose.

I'd prefer them to be in museums, which seems like a reasonable compromise. I'm not sure museums ar entirely safe either. There was a dumb article somewhere last week asking if museums are now obsolete and whether or not we should even have them. Insane stuff. I'm all for society removing certain things if they come to represent something deemed unacceptable, but that's a slippery slope. The bottom of the slope is flat-out erasing history, ie no bueno.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 05:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well they do represent a part of our history; regardless of personal opinion. More of the attitude of those that created it than the person they are honoring. 

The part of our history they represent is the Jim Crow era of segregation when they were all erected.

That is the real history lesson of these statues.  The whites continued to oppress the blacks in the south for decades after they were "freed".

So if they ever open a "Museum of Racism in America" I would be fine with putting these stautues in there as part of the Jim Crow Exhibit.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 05:28 PM)samhain Wrote: I'm opposed to mob rule in general.  I understand why the government both federal and local might be inclined to let protestors blow off steam as opposed to sending in troops to protect statues, but ideally  there should be a line at some point.  I think that it's still a tough call to use force  to protect inanimate objects that serve almost no purpose.

I'd prefer them to be in museums, which seems like a reasonable compromise.  I'm not sure museums ar entirely safe either.  There was a dumb article somewhere last week asking if museums are now obsolete and whether or not we should even have them.  Insane stuff.  I'm all for society removing certain things if they come to represent something deemed unacceptable, but that's a slippery slope.  The bottom of the slope is flat-out erasing history, ie no bueno.

People really don't learn a lot of history at Museums.

Museums are more about the "interesting details" than the actual basic history Museum.  I am pretty sure that everyone who ever went to any Civil War museum already knew what the war was about.

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 10:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The part of our history they represent is the Jim Crow era of segregation when they were all erected.

That is the real history lesson of these statues.  The whites continued to oppress the blacks in the south for decades after they were "freed".

So if they ever open a "Museum of Racism in America" I would be fine with putting these stautues in there as part of the Jim Crow Exhibit.

So folks shouldn't know about Jim Crowe unless they go to a "Museum of Racism in America"? 

But as to the point: The Emancipation Statue that folks want destroyed was paid for by freed slaves. Should we erase that or just put in in a "Museum of Racism in America"

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So folks shouldn't know about Jim Crowe unless they go to a "Museum of Racism in America"? 

No.  That is the exact opposit of what I said.

People who would go to a "Museum of Racism in America" would probably already know a lot about Jim Crow.

To me museums are not about teaching lessons.  Instead they are about "making history come alive".   The things you learn about in books suddenly become more "real" when you can see an actual artifact from that era, and hopefully that will make history more interesting and fascinating to more people.

[fredtoast]

(07-12-2020, 10:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But as to the point: The Emancipation Statue that folks want destroyed was paid for by freed slaves. Should we erase that or just put in in a "Museum of Racism in America"

The fact that black people had no say in the design of the statue even though they paid for it is an excellent example of the racism and exclusion that still existed in the United States after the Civil War.

So it would be a prominent exhibit in the "Museum of Racism in America".

[*bfine32*]

(07-12-2020, 11:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that black people had no say in the design of the statue even though they paid for it is an excellent example of the racism and exclusion that still existed in the United States after the Civil War.

So it would be a prominent exhibit in the "Museum of Racism in America".

Meh, I guess we just have differing opinions where Americans could learn about things such as the Emancipation Memorial. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-12-2020, 10:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So folks shouldn't know about Jim Crowe unless they go to a "Museum of Racism in America"? 

But as to the point: The Emancipation Statue that folks want destroyed was paid for by freed slaves. Should we erase that or just put in in a "Museum of Racism in America"

People think it's a slave in chains kneeling at Abe's feet.  If somebody would actually take two seconds to look at it, it's a former slave who has broken his bonds and is rising up.  I've always gotten chills whn I looked at pictures of it (never seen it in real life), and think about what it represents.  It's incredible.

[GMDino]

My son just graduated from high school so unless I've been misled all of this is covered in school.  Do we *need* statues to "remember"?

[NATI BENGALS]

I seem to remember that last time racial tensions were getting high there was talk about the statues. Maybe a few came down. Many stayed. Local governments had ample opportunity to take them down, it didn’t happen.

People living amongst racism being idolized finally had enough. Can’t say I blame them. Tear the confederacy bullshit down. But be educated about it and don’t pull down the wrong stuff.

[Belsnickel]

(07-12-2020, 04:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They should be on display in museums only. 

(07-12-2020, 05:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The statues were not even around at the time of the Civil War.

I think the stuff in museums should either be from that time period or recreations of actual objects from that time period (uniforms, weapons, important documents, etc).  These large statues are more about being an honorific than teaching history.

(07-12-2020, 05:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Well they do represent a part of our history; regardless of personal opinion. More of the attitude of those that created it than the person they are honoring. 

So, being a Virginian I am surrounded by Civil War battlefields and cemeteries and half of the buildings in my city that date back to the time were used by some officer as a headquarters or a makeshift hospital. Welcome to the Breadbasket of the Confederacy. Anyway, I am also one that thinks museums are a more appropriate place for these monuments, but would also expand that to include battlefields and cemeteries. I have no objection to the monument in our largest cemetery paying homage to the many Confederate soldiers that died in this city or nearby during the fighting. I don't think we need to put up all the little flags each year, though. Even though it has been targeted, recently, there is a monument to a fallen general nearby that marks the spot he was killed. It's on private land, anyway, but I have no objection to that.

My problem rests in the monuments erected during the Jim Crow Era or the Civil Rights Movement that were put in place in reaction to black people seeking equal rights. The monuments erected by the Lost Cause movement are the ones I am talking about. Those belong in museums and we need to put that context with them. The reason those monuments were put there. Those are the ones like we saw the protests about in Charlottesville almost three years ago. Those are the ones that need to go.