The Statues

[Belsnickel]

As for the OP, I have mixed feelings. I'm a lawful person and I like rules and order. That's my nature. That side of me wants things to happen through the process it should be happening in. On the other hand, as someone who loves history, I know that riots and vandalism are as American as baseball and apple pie. We love a good riot in this country, and have even before the big riots that turned into our war for independence. So I'm a conflicted person on this front. I'd like to see things come down in an appropriate manner, but I can't begrudge people who are expressing their distrust in the process through these actions because they have valid feelings on that and its something we have a long history of in this country.

This is that political doublespeak, though.

[*Nately120*]

(07-13-2020, 10:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: 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"?

Yes.  This is why I used the last of my meager savings to erect a statue of my wife leaving me for her divorce attorney...I must never forget.

As for the statues, we as a country seem to have a love/hate feeling about the populace rising up and revolting against a government that refuses to listen to what they deem to be the will of the people.  

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 10:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote:  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 took 2 seconds to look at it and i did not see the slave "rising up" at all. How can you tell he is "rising up" when the statue does not move?

You first sentence is correct.  It is a naked slave KNEELING at the feet of Lincoln.

I will admit that this statue is not as bad as the ones honoring heroes of the Confederacy erected during the Jim Crow era.  But I also see why it is objectionable to many African Americans.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2020, 10:42 AM)michaelsean Wrote: 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.

I get it and I think most folks who realize the cover is not the most important part of a book get it as well. WTS, I can see how it may appear idk "disrespectful?" to some. I try to live by what the 20204 US President said:

"Try hard not to offend, try harder not to be offended"

[Millhouse]

What Pelosi said was wrong, no two ways about it, as she is a top lawmaker in this country.

And is it just me, but are a lot of these statues that were torn down or vandalized done mainly by younger white folks?

Anyways, the thread I started before 2.0 started up was about statues coming down by mobs. I said it was just wrong to, and it needs to be done by legal means.

Also if Democrats start going down the road some day of bending their knees to removing other monuments, lets say like Jefferson or Washington (which I disagree with), they should be careful because there are others like FDR for example that could also be in line to come down for their racist history.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2020, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I took 2 seconds to look at it and i did not see the slave "rising up" at all. How can you tell he is "rising up" when the statue does not move?

You first sentence is correct.  It is a naked slave KNEELING at the feet of Lincoln.

I will admit that this statue is not as bad as the ones honoring heroes of the Confederacy erected during the Jim Crow era.  But I also see why it is objectionable to many African Americans.

Look where he's looking.  He's looking forward.  He's not facing Lincoln.  His chains are broken.  Look at his legs and his back.  He's rising.  

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 02:12 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Look at his legs and his back.  He's rising.  

I looked.  It is impossible to say he is rising because the statue does not move.  if you see that then it is because that is what you want to see.

Here is what Frederick Douglass said about the statue when it was unveiled in 1876

"What I want to see before I die is a monument representing the negro, not couchant on his knees like a four-footed animal, but erect on his feet like a man.”

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2020, 02:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I looked.  It is impossible to say he is rising because the statue does not move.  if you see that then it is because that is what you want to see.

Here is what Frederick Douglass said about the statue when it was unveiled in 1876

"What I want to see before I die is a monument representing the negro, not couchant on his knees like a four-footed animal, but erect on his feet like a man.”

I mean I think it's pretty much acknowledged that that is what it is.  He's certainly not kneeling to Lincoln.   But just look at it.   Look where he is looking.  Up and out toward the future.  His chains are broken.  He's rising out of bondage.

And there was a sentence before your quote you left off or wasn't included where you saw it.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 04:40 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I mean I think it's pretty much acknowledged that that is what it is. 

No.  It is acknowledged that that is what the white people who made it said he was doing, but there is no way you can tell that by looking at it.

It is a naked black man kneeling on the ground.  Doesn't matter which way he is looking.  It looks like Lincoln is setting free a dog he just patted on the head, not another human being.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2020, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It is acknowledged that that is what the white people who made it said he was doing, but there is no way you can tell that by looking at it.

It is a naked black man kneeling on the ground.  Doesn't matter which way he is looking.  It looks like Lincoln is setting free a dog he just patted on the head, not another human being.

So you’re arguing with the people who made it? Did you find that sentence from Douglas yet? The guy you quoted said he was rising. And yes you can tell.

Now you’re seeing what you want to see.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2020, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It is acknowledged that that is what the white people who made it said he was doing, but there is no way you can tell that by looking at it.

It is a naked black man kneeling on the ground.  Doesn't matter which way he is looking.  It looks like Lincoln is setting free a dog he just patted on the head, not another human being.

Man, if only they would have clarified the meaning. Maybe like putting the word EMANCIPATION on it somewhere. 

Some folks just look for something to be offended about and I clearly acknowledge that's easy for me to say as a straight, white, well-endowed, handsome, extremely intelligent, wealthy, male with a decorated history of Military Service.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 07:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote:  The guy you quoted said he was rising. And yes you can tell.

There is no way possible to tell he is rising.

If I show you a picture of my leg bent at the knee it is impossible for you to tell if I am bending it more or straightening it out.

If you can tell the difference then please tell me how.  And don't say "Just look at it."  Give me exact details

The only reason anyone thinks he is rising up is because that is what the people who made it said.  If you had never heard that when you saw the statue it would be impossible for you to know.

Are you calling Frederick Douglass stupid for not wanting a statue of a slave on all fours like an animal?

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2020, 07:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way possible to tell he is rising.

If I show you a picture of my leg bent at the knee it is impossible for you to tell if I am bending it more or straightening it out.

If you can tell the difference then please tell me how.  And don't say "Just look at it."  Give me exact details

The only reason anyone thinks he is rising up is because that is what the people who made it said.  If you had never heard that when you saw the statue it would be impossible for you to know.

Are you calling Frederick Douglass stupid for not wanting a statue of a slave on all fours like an animal?

What does Fredrick Douglas know, hell they vandalized a statue of him.

WTS, I suppose the only evidence that he is rising is that his eyes are wide open, looking forward, and up and he's in a position one would assume when standing from a kneeling position. Now if he had his head bowed and on both knees or all fours as you stated then.....

[*michaelsean*]

(07-13-2020, 07:28 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no way possible to tell he is rising.

If I show you a picture of my leg bent at the knee it is impossible for you to tell if I am bending it more or straightening it out.

If you can tell the difference then please tell me how.  And don't say "Just look at it."  Give me exact details

The only reason anyone thinks he is rising up is because that is what the people who made it said.  If you had never heard that when you saw the statue it would be impossible for you to know.

Are you calling Frederick Douglass stupid for not wanting a statue of a slave on all fours like an animal?

Why would I say he’s stupid? This one is called the Emancipation Memorial so it’s showing the figurative moment of emancipation where the slave has broken his shackles, rising up and looking to the future.

It is not impossible to tell. Take the name of the memorial, look at the positioning of the left hand, the legs and the foot, the way he is looking, the broken shackles and the fist and you can figure out he’s rising, and not working out a cramp.

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 07:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now if he had his head bowed and on both knees or all fours as you stated then.....

I was just quoting Frederick Douglass.

Too bad you white guys weren't wround back then to educate him on what is offensive to a former slave like himself.

What would a person who actually lived as a slave know about those things, right?  Instead he should just defer to the white people who designed the monument.  

Tell him that nothing about the design means anything as long as the word "emacipation" appears somewhere on the monument.

[*bfine32*]

(07-13-2020, 10:26 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I was just quoting Frederick Douglass.

Too bad you white guys weren't wround back then to educate him on what is offensive to a former slave like himself.

What would a person who actually lived as a slave know about those things, right?  Instead he should just defer to the white people who designed the monument.  

Tell him that nothing about the design means anything as long as the word "emacipation" appears somewhere on the monument.

Too bad Fredrick couldn't count to 4. 

Anything on my indicators to suggest he was rising (as you said we have no proof) or just more heaping of white guilt? 

[Dill]

(07-13-2020, 05:15 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  It is acknowledged that that is what the white people who made it said he was doing, but there is no way you can tell that by looking at it.

It is a naked black man kneeling on the ground.  Doesn't matter which way he is looking.  It looks like Lincoln is setting free a dog he just patted on the head, not another human being.

Actually, I think the "couchant" figure is made to look like he is rising, and can "look like" that even if the statue is not moving. Part of the sculptor's art is to create that illusion, the uncoiling of muscles in the first moment of release. (Point to Mike and Bfine)

But your interpretation of Lincoln's position is also confirmed by Douglas. The weight of the message is that good whites freed chained and enslaved blacks, freedom was "given" like a gift. 

Of course, whites did die freeing blacks (as hundreds of thousands died to keep them enslaved); but if EQUALITY were really the goal of emancipation, then Ball could have composed a less paternal presentation of it. (Point to the Freds--Douglas and Toast)

[fredtoast]

(07-13-2020, 10:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Too bad Fredrick couldn't count to 4. 

yeah, right.  That makes all the difference in the world.  If that ex slave could just count to four he would be thrilled with that statue

(07-13-2020, 10:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Anything on my indicators to suggest he was rising (as you said we have no proof) or just more heaping of white guilt? 

The direction of his gaze does not change the factc that he is kneeling.  And I was not commenting on "white guilt".  I was commenting on your ignorance of how and ex-slave would feel about this stautue.  I would say the exact same thing if you were to claim that a statue to honor sexual assault survivors was not offensive because it portrayed the rape vitim bent over a stool with blood running from his anus but he was pulling up his underwear because the rape was over.  You can't speak for sexual assault victims any more than you can tell ex-slaves what is offensive to them.  It is not about "race" it is about "ignorance".

Kneeling on the ground is NOT a symbol of freedom.  This is a symbol of freedom



Or This



Or this



or this




Or this




Why in the world would anyone think that a symbol of freedom should be kneeling on the ground?

[CJD]

I think statues of people are just a bad idea.

I don't think there's a single person who ever lived that is faultless, especially historical figures who lived during times when the accepted viewpoints are wildly out of date and controversial (or outright morally wrong) when viewed in retrospect. Especially political figures, since politics are fundamentally about shifting national (and in some cases, international) goals further away from some group's goals.

Basically, all political statues age like milk.

The confederate statues are super easy. Remove them. It's not difficult.

As for the Ulysses S Grants, Thomas Jeffersons etc, I think there's some gray area, but should ultimately also be removed from public areas as well. Slave owners are part of history, but statues generally aren't meant for history, they are meant for mythology. And I don't really like the American mythology that has been written and taught in this country for so long (It makes nationalism and patriotism really blend and combine in a very unsavory way).

I don't think mobs should take statues (either confederate or non-confederate) down or vandalize them. But I think politicians need to actually get off their asses and perform their job and remove them more quickly.

Of course, this opinion leads me to not really be outraged when they are removed or vandalized. It's just a thing that happened that day.

[Dill]

I think bad statues are bad and good statues are good.

Good statues can help social cohesion, reminding us of common identities, formative events and ideals, and they cannot do that very well if shunted off to museums.

We are only having this discussion because the national definition of "good" is being contested.