'Rioters in California Tear Down Statue of Ulysses S Grant...)

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,803
25,694
LA
✟551,661.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This much we can say for certain - being a white male is enough to eliminate anybody from being "statue-worthy".
Why does any mortal man need a statue erected in their honor? Isn’t this a bit like idolatry?
 
Upvote 0

cow451

Standing with Ukraine.
Supporter
May 29, 2012
41,108
24,128
Hot and Humid
✟1,120,276.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I don't see this as a "slippery slope". I see it as being consistent. I've even run into neo-Confederate apologists using the argument themselves, "well if you're going to tear down statues of slave owners, why not Yankee slave owners too??".

To which, after some time thinking on it, I have to say...yeah, why not? What do we actually lose, in doing so, in removing these idealized versions of people from the past? I have a visceral and emotional reaction to the idea, but as yet, I can't find a real reason in me to oppose it. Maybe I will, though. I remain open.
Yes, let us know the when you find the Yankee free pass. I'm not an apologists, I just don't like self-righteous Yankees.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would argue that marrying into a slave-owning family and thereby taking part in the ownership is zero degrees of separation, not one or two.

I don't see this as a "slippery slope". I see it as being consistent. I've even run into neo-Confederate apologists using the argument themselves, "well if you're going to tear down statues of slave owners, why not Yankee slave owners too??".

To which, after some time thinking on it, I have to say...yeah, why not? What do we actually lose, in doing so, in removing these idealized versions of people from the past? I have a visceral and emotional reaction to the idea, but as yet, I can't find a real reason in me to oppose it. Maybe I will, though. I remain open.

So if I married a woman who's family partook of an unethical activity (even though she may not have endorsed it...people have very little control over what their parents or grandparents do...I can't even get my dad to quit smoking), and even rallied against the particular type of behavior in question, I'd be disqualified by that logic.

...and it does become a bit of a slippery slope when they start attacking a Lincoln statue (that happen to be paid for by freed slaves who wanted to honor him) because "it depicts 'a white savior' and therefore diminishes the effort that Black people made in the fight for their own freedom", and then onto someone like Mathias Baldwin, who was a prominent abolitionist, because Baldwin's great great grandfather was a "colonizer", it does start to look like more of a slippery slope.

It started with confederate monuments
Then monuments of union generals because they married into a family that owned slaves
Then monuments of full blown abolitionists, because their ancestry can be traced back to people who took land from Native Americans

There's really not too many more stops on that route before you get to "any statue of of a white guy that looks old"
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
So if I married a woman who's family partook of an unethical activity (even though she may not have endorsed it...people have very little control over what their parents or grandparents do...I can't even get my dad to quit smoking), and even rallied against the particular type of behavior in question, I'd be disqualified by that logic.

Yeah, pretty much. You won't get erased from history, but you also might not get a statue of yourself, made for public display. And that's to do as much with what you did, as to what statues are.

We're kind of having the same conversation in two different threads now, so I'd rather keep it to one at this point. Maybe this one.
 
Upvote 0

SoldierOfTheKing

Christian Spenglerian
Jan 6, 2006
9,223
3,039
Kenmore, WA
✟276,939.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
We've controlled the "monument" business for nearly 250 years. That's a pretty good run, don't you think?

Much longer than that...

064L16260_92BFG_2.jpg
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Yeah, pretty much. You won't get erased from history, but you also might not get a statue of yourself, made for public display. And that's to do as much with what you did, as to what statues are.

We're kind of having the same conversation in two different threads now, so I'd rather keep it to one at this point. Maybe this one.

I think judging people by the actions of parents is wrong, much less the parents of their spouse.

It starts to turn into the "degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon game" at that point.
Which is actually a fun game by the way: The Oracle of Bacon...good luck finding even 4 degrees of separation.

...but I digress.

That's pretty much setting up anyone for failure. A person could cure cancer, but if their great uncle was a bigot, they're now disqualified from being honored for that accomplishment.

Going after "associations" instead of the person themselves is a symptom attacking history/"the system" as a whole, not of going after bad ideas.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Ana the Ist
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yeah, pretty much. You won't get erased from history, but you also might not get a statue of yourself, made for public display. And that's to do as much with what you did, as to what statues are.

We're kind of having the same conversation in two different threads now, so I'd rather keep it to one at this point. Maybe this one.

Should we tear out Ice Cube's star on the walk of fame for his previous associations with the Nation of Islam and their virulently racist and anti-Semitic ideas?
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think judging people by the actions of parents is wrong, much less the parents of their spouse.

That depends. You might not have been the one to buy the slaves, but if you marry into the institution, you’re still taking part in their subjugation. That’s zero degrees, Baconly speaking.

I would say that’s different than just having had a relative in the past who did a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Should we tear out Ice Cube's star on the walk of fame for his previous associations with the Nation of Islam and their virulently racist and anti-Semitic ideas?

I’d say that’s up to the residents of West Hollywood.

.......sort of. The walk of fame isn’t publicly funded, and only partially publicly maintained. The people who are in charge have said rather adamantly that they don’t remove stars. If Bill Cosby’s is still there, I wouldn’t expect Mr. Cube’s to go anywhere.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I’d say that’s up to the residents of West Hollywood.

I'm not sure what you mean by this....

They should take a vote? Or if 100 assorted West Hollywood residents show up to destroy or deface it....that's ok?

.......sort of. The walk of fame isn’t publicly funded, and only partially publicly maintained. The people who are in charge have said rather adamantly that they don’t remove stars. If Bill Cosby’s is still there, I wouldn’t expect Mr. Cube’s to go anywhere.

Publicly funded? None of these statues or monuments being defaced are on private property?
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure what you mean by this....

They should take a vote?

That seems the most fair course of action. But again, in this particular case, I don’t know that you could have a public vote. I don’t know what the legal precedent is for public voting to remove a privately funded monument.

If a mob of residents showed up to destroy Ice Cube’s star, specifically as an act of protest to call attention to his history of associating with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan, I’d be mostly indifferent.

Publicly funded? None of these statues or monuments being defaced are on private property?

No, a lot of them are. Which is part of the reason why I would prefer whatever institution they’re associated with remove them instead.

That gets into another complex issue - if a piece of art is privately funded, but publicly consumed or experienced, who really “owns” it?

I don’t have easy answers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Another note:

I think there’s a difference worth considering between monuments for dead people, and people like Ice Cube, who are still alive. Which is, a living person still has the ability to acknowledge their problematic behavior, change, and make right what they’ve done.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
If a mob of residents showed up to destroy Ice Cube’s star, specifically as an act of protest to call attention to his history of associating with anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan, I’d be mostly indifferent.

Associating with? He propagandized for them. From "Potential Victims" when he was in the group "Westside Connection"....

"You might as well keep it gangsta
They've got a small under surveillance
."

Small is a term popularized by the neo nazis and NOI in reference to the Jewish people. It's a reference to the yarmulke.


No, a lot of them are. Which is part of the reason why I would prefer whatever institution they’re associated with remove them instead.

That gets into another complex issue - if a piece of art is privately funded, but publicly consumed or experienced, who really “owns” it?

I don’t have easy answers.

I suppose we could accept that no one is perfect and just leave statues and monuments alone.

The dead aren't hurting anyone.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,642
14,524
Here
✟1,196,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Another note:

I think there’s a difference worth considering between monuments for dead people, and people like Ice Cube, who are still alive. Which is, a living person still has the ability to acknowledge their problematic behavior, change, and make right what they’ve done.

...the problem is that there is no demand for consistency with regards to "acknowledging a past wrong". The rules are seemingly applied based on where a person ranks on the "intersectionality hierarchy"

Ice Cube's name was brought up, so I'll use him as a prime example.

He went on Bill Maher's show, and basically demanded an apology for Bill Maher telling a joke that had the N word in it. And the expectation was that in order to be a "good liberal" Bill had to apologize.

Yet, the irony there is that Ice Cube was there, in part, to promote the 25 year anniversary re-release of the infamous "N.W.A" album (the one that had the song about police, everyone knows what I'm talking about)

...and on that album, Ice Cube, himself, used a derogatory term for gay people (the one that starts with F) numerous times. Something that Eminem was badgered into apologizing for, and doing a duet with Elton John to show that he was "cool" and "wasn't using that word seriously"

Ice Cube also had a song, Post-N.W.A called "no Vaseline", in which he made derogatory remarks that could be taken as both homophobic, and antisemitic. "How dare you let a Jew, break up the crew" (followed by some other stuff accusing former band members of doing a certain thing with each other, casting it in a negative tone)...something tells me those lyrics would resulted in a demanded apology and immediate cancellation had they been from a country singer.

If the rules were being applied equally, that'd be one thing, but it's clearly not. Ice Cube is proof of that.

With the intersectionality hierarchy, you can basically punch down (full-force) on anyone below you on the hierarchy, but even you even make a mere criticism upward, prepare to be cancelled and have your actions described as "what's wrong with society"

Thus the reason Dave Rubin (a reasonable, left-leaning, libertarian'ish, Jewish gay man) can be labelled as "alt right" for saying "there's a culture issue happening in certain communities", but Ice Cube can say things that should rightfully be taken as offensive toward gays and Jews, and say it with impunity and nobody is demanding an apology from him
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Associating with? He propagandized for them.

I would call that a form of association, yes.

You're not telling me anything I don't know. I've been a hip hop fan for a long time.

The dead aren't hurting anyone.

Taking down a statue doesn't hurt anyone, except their pride...unless it falls on you. And leaving it up still begs a lot of questions.

We're having a big cultural reckoning right now, concerning the very nature of idolization. We're having to ask, what are we saying about ourselves when we idolize - and idealize - someone in the form of a statue or other monument? Who do we allow to be idolized, and in what contexts? How much weight do we give intent vs outcome, in assessing which existing monuments should come down?

We're going to continue to struggle with these questions, and probably make lots of poor judgements. I think the most we can hope for at this time is that we end up converging on some generally applicable criteria on what kind of behaviors disqualify someone from this kind of idolization, regardless of their other life's work.

My own personal criteria are slavery, genocide, and the sexual exploitation of children. For what it's worth. Yes, that would mean a lot of statues come down. Yes, I have searched my soul, and found that I don't really care that much. I'm ready for a big shift in our collective understanding of what it means to idolize and idealize someone. I think it's a sign of growth as human beings, and ultimately a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I would call that a form of association, yes.

You're not telling me anything I don't know. I've been a hip hop fan for a long time.

Why the indifference to perpetrators of anti-Semitism then?


Taking down a statue doesn't hurt anyone, except their pride...unless it falls on you. And leaving it up still leaves a lot of questions.

We're having a big cultural reckoning right now, concerning the very nature of idolization.

Idolization? It's a statue...

People are paying tribute to the emperor here. They aren't kissing it's feet when they walk by.

You make it sound as if merely having a statue somehow changes everything about a person.


We're having to ask, what are we saying about ourselves when we idolize - and idealize - someone in the form of a statue or other monument? Who do we allow to be idolized, and in what contexts? How much weight do we give intent vs outcome, in assessing which existing monuments should come down?

Who has been idealized?

I'm ready for a big shift in our collective understanding of what it means to idolize and idealize someone. I think it's a sign of growth as human beings, and ultimately a good thing.

I don't think there is such a thing as collective understanding. People are impaired by the general assumption that because they have a perspective....others must share the same perspective.

The reality is though, that all perspectives are unique and on matters of opinion, there is no "right".
 
Upvote 0

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Why the indifference to perpetrators of anti-Semitism then?

I'm not indifferent, in general. Just with regard to that specific instance you gave. As a gesture of protest, destroying Ice Cube's star on the walk of fame would not be particularly meaningful to me, and I don't think it would do much good for the intended outcome.

Idolization? It's a statue...

Yeah. That's what these statues are. Reverent representations of individuals, or groups, and their actions. Idols. "Idol" does not necessarily connote worship...though I dare say, some of the attitudes people have about these statues, literally vowing to kill and die for their protection, is as close as makes no difference.

You make it sound as if merely having a statue somehow changes everything about a person.

No, it doesn't change anything about the person. But it does inform the general perception of the person. Speaking of which...

Who has been idealized?

The subjects of the statues we're talking about. Whether intended or not, that's the effect. It's why people, including myself, feel an unpleasant gut reaction when we see a statue of Washington, for example, coming down. We've had this adoring mythology of the founding fathers built up in our minds for so long. Statues are only a part of the American civil religion, though.

I don't think there is such a thing as collective understanding.

There kinda is, though. There is never a perfect consensus of course, but prevailing attitudes do shift over the years.

Heck, it's happened in my own lifetime. When I was young, it was extremely common among my friends and acquaintances to sling gay slurs at each other. Representations of gay people in media were rare, and often played for laughs. The concept of gay marriage was a sitcom punchline.

Nowadays, gay acceptance is mainstream. The kids I know now would be mortified to call each other the F word. Gay representation in media is not only common, but expected. Gay marriage is the law of the land.

The reality is though, that all perspectives are unique and on matters of opinion, there is no "right".

That's true. But individual opinions can still converge toward a prevailing attitude.

So, maybe we will see that happen, with this current reckoning we're going through. Or maybe the pendulum will swing the other way, before we get there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I'm not indifferent, in general. Just with regard to that specific instance you gave. As a gesture of protest, destroying Ice Cube's star on the walk of fame would not be particularly meaningful to me, and I don't think it would do much good for the intended outcome.

There's an intended outcome??

I honestly thought this was all just vain moralizing and virtue signaling.

When one goes about destroying the statue of Grant, for example, what's the intended outcome?

Yeah. That's what these statues are. Reverent representations of individuals, or groups, and their actions. Idols.

Never saw it that way....still don't. Sculpture has long been a mainstay of art, some people are sculpted into statues and others aren't.

It lacks the veneration of an idol.

No, it doesn't change anything about the person. But it does inform the general perception of the person. Speaking of which...



The subjects of the statues we're talking about. Whether intended or not, that's the effect. It's why people, including myself, feel an unpleasant gut reaction when we see a statue of Washington, for example, coming down. We've had this adoring mythology of the founding fathers built up in our minds for so long. Statues are only a part of that, though.

I don't get an unpleasant feeling because it's Washington or Grant....

I get an unpleasant feeling because of the needless destruction of the work of others....the ignorant celebration of that destruction....the lack of any meaning behind the act apart from self indulgence.

There kinda is, though. There is never a perfect consensus, but prevailing attitudes do shift over the years.

That's not really a collective understanding though.

Even when you look at attitudes towards slavery, for example, you can make a generalization like "more people increasingly believed slavery to be wrong".

What you can't say is why. Some would say because the practice was too awful...or ungodly. Others because they recognized humanity in slaves. Others because they believed slaves should be returned to Africa.

Heck, it's happened in my own lifetime. When I was young, it was extremely common among my friends and acquaintances to sling gay slurs at each other. Representations of gay people in media were rare, and often played for laughs. The concept of gay marriage was a sitcom punchline.

Nowadays, gay acceptance is mainstream. The kids I know now would be mortified to call each other the F word. Gay representation in media is not only common, but expected. Gay marriage is the law of the land.

So, maybe the same thing is happening again, with this current reckoning we're going through.

To me...it looks more like Neo Confederalism. Bare with me...

After the Confederacy was defeated and the war won....you had a fair sized group of people who wanted to dignify their defeat by reframing the nature and cause of the war. This sentiment prevailed to some extent....failed in other ways.

Once it trickled into academia in the south however, it found its home. It presented itself as the "unvarnished truth" but it was mostly about subjective opinion and perception and denial of any evidence to the contrary.

Well now you have a similar movement these days....but instead of just speaking the truth, anyone who is white and a part of the building of the US is viewed from the cynical and pessimistic lens of being a racist or white supremacist. It's utter garbage...and it's coming from the academic left this time. I mean, Grant himself literally refused the surrender of Confederate soldiers unless they gave up their slaves. He let them keep all their property....but not their slaves.

Is he a perfect man? Far from it. I think we can make a strong argument that he did more for black people in his day than any person alive today. Why tear down his statue?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Eight Foot Manchild

His Supreme Holy Correctfulness
Sep 9, 2010
2,389
1,605
Somerville, MA, USA
✟147,994.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There's an intended outcome??

In this hypothetical example, I assume the intended outcome would be to draw attention to Mr. Cube's history of anti-Semitism, and perhaps get him to sincerely apologize for it, and show signs of having changed as a person. As such things go, I think a boycott campaign would probably be more effective.

As I've said before though...he's still alive. I think the considerations are different than when you're talking about someone who is long dead.

When one goes about destroying the statue of Grant, for example, what's the intended outcome?

In that example, to not have statues of slave owners.

Never saw it that way....still don't. Sculpture has long been a mainstay of art, some people are sculpted into statues and others aren't.

Yup. But we're not talking about sculpture in general, are we? We're talking about a particular kind of statue, with a particular intent behind it. And that's what this reckoning is about - who should really get to have this kind of statue, and in what context.

It lacks the veneration of an idol.

Hard disagree. That's the point of putting them up in the first place. You and I might not engage much in the practice of American civil religion (I don't even stand for the anthem, personally), but that is the intent. To venerate these men, and their life's work. That's how you get people willing to kill and die over them.

I don't get an unpleasant feeling because it's Washington or Grant....

I get an unpleasant feeling because of the needless destruction of the work of others....the ignorant celebration of that destruction....the lack of any meaning behind the act apart from self indulgence.

I think the meaning is quite clear - don't venerate slave owners, or perpetrators of genocide.

That's not really a collective understanding though.

Sure it is. It's a whole bunch of individual opinions converging toward a prevailing attitude. Not sure what you mean by "collective understanding", but that's all I mean.

And I don't know why it happens, either. Just that it happens.

To me...it looks more like Neo Confederalism. Bare with me...

After the Confederacy was defeated and the war won....you had a fair sized group of people who wanted to dignify their defeat by reframing the nature and cause of the war. This sentiment prevailed to some extent....failed in other ways.

Once it trickled into academia in the south however, it found its home. It presented itself as the "unvarnished truth" but it was mostly about subjective opinion and perception and denial of any evidence to the contrary.

Well now you have a similar movement these days....but instead of just speaking the truth, anyone who is white and a part of the building of the US is viewed from the cynical and pessimistic lens of being a racist or white supremacist. It's utter garbage...and it's coming from the academic left this time. I mean, Grant himself literally refused the surrender of Confederate soldiers unless they gave up their slaves. He let them keep all their property....but not their slaves.

Is he a perfect man? Far from it. I think we can make a strong argument that he did more for black people in his day than any person alive today. Why tear down his statue?

His example is an easy one to figure out. For me, anyway:

Because he married into a slave owning family.

It doesn't erase any of his accomplishments. It doesn't impede us from taking inspiration from his good deeds. All it means is, he doesn't get a particular kind of statue. He doesn't get to have that particular kind of reverent representation, in public display.

And after some soul-searching, I'm OK with that. The world keeps turning.
 
Upvote 0