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

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
In that example, to not have statues of slave owners.

Why? Who are you or anyone else to say who a sculptor can sculpt a statue of?

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.

No offense....but the statue destroying side lost all credibility on that argument . I had this discussion just a few years ago when they were tearing down statues of Lee and various other Confederate figures. I was told it was all about the intent of whomever put up the statue.

That's clearly either an argument from ignorance or a plain lie at this point. Grant doesn't symbolize slavery, the confederacy, or any legacy of racism. Those things certainly aren't the reason why the statue was created.

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.

Did someone kill or die over the statue?

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

I don't see sculpture in itself as an act of veneration. If you do....tell me who the statue of David venerates.


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.

What prevailing attitude?

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

In this case....blatantly false historical revisionism and the ignorant masses.

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.

Why should you get to decide who gets a statue? Shouldn't the sculptor decide?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
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? Who are you or anyone else to say who a sculptor can sculpt a statue of?
---------------------------
Why should you get to decide who gets a statue? Shouldn't the sculptor decide?
---------------------------
I don't see sculpture in itself as an act of veneration.

Me neither. Again, we're talking about a particular kind of sculpture, in a particular context. Not the concept of sculpting, in general.

No offense....but the statue destroying side lost all credibility on that argument . I had this discussion just a few years ago when they were tearing down statues of Lee and various other Confederate figures. I was told it was all about the intent of whomever put up the statue.

That's clearly either an argument from ignorance or a plain lie at this point. Grant doesn't symbolize slavery, the confederacy, or any legacy of racism. Those things certainly aren't the reason why the statue was created.

You will not hear me argue that it's all about intent. Intent is very important, but it's not the whole picture.

You can play an R. Kelly song at a wedding, with the sincere intention of just wanting to play a hot jam for people to dance to. But you're not actually in control of the meaning people take away from your doing it.

If people see a statue of Grant, and see an idolized portrait of a man who married into a slave owning family - regardless of what the intent of the sculptor and patron was - I can't tell them they're "wrong". The experience of art is necessarily subjective.

That's a difficult thing to weigh though. Intent vs Outcome. I'm not sure which side I favor more often.

But I'm gonna keep coming back to consequences. If the end result of this reckoning we're having means that we no longer have statues of slave owners, what do we actually lose? I'm at a loss to come up with much. I remain open, though.

Did someone kill or die over the statue?

People have said they'd do as much. And when they bring guns to counter demonstrations, I tend to believe them.

If you want a specific example, it could be argued that Heather Heyer died over it, since the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue was the impetus for the Unite the Right rally.

What prevailing attitude?

That "gay is OK", to borrow a phrase from Pat Robertson.

In this case....blatantly false historical revisionism and the ignorant masses.

What revisionism is taking place? Grant is still in the history books. His deeds remain recorded and unchanged.

He just might not get to have a particular kind of statue, placed in a particular context, because in addition to everything else he did, he also married into a slave owning family.

That's all. And the more I think about it, the less of a problem I have with the idea.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,388
11,317
✟433,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Me neither. Again, we're talking about a particular kind of sculpture, in a particular context. Not the concept of sculpting, in general.

Right...the type being "statues of people" the context being "in public view".


You will not hear me argue that it's all about intent. Intent is very important, but it's not the whole picture.

Then it just sounds like you're shifting excuses.

You can play an R. Kelly song at a wedding, with the sincere intention of just wanting to play a hot jam for people to dance to. But you're not actually in control of the meaning people take away from your doing it.

This isn't really comparable.

If people see a statue of Grant, and see an idolized portrait of a man who married into a slave owning family - regardless of what the intent of the sculptor and patron was - I can't tell them they're "wrong". The experience of art is necessarily subjective.

Agreed.

That's a difficult thing to weigh though. Intent vs Outcome. I'm not sure which side I favor more often.

What outcome?

But I'm gonna keep coming back to consequences. If the end result of this reckoning we're having means that we no longer have statues of slave owners, what do we actually lose? I'm at a loss to come up with much. I remain open, though.

What reckoning? Someone could easily run for office, proposing a brand new 30ft statue of Grant, win....and have it built.

Donald Trump Orders the Creation of a "National Garden of American Heroes"

Taking statues down.....putting them back up. I don't see Grant on the list, but it's not hard to imagine.


People have said they'd do as much.

So it hasn't happened.

If you want a specific example, it could be argued that Heather Heyer died over it, since the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue was the impetus for the Unite the Right rally.

I doubt she was prepared or even considering dying for it.

What revisionism is taking place? Grant is still in the history books. His deeds remain recorded and unchanged.

If people believe that his tangential relationship to a slave owner is part of what makes him historically significant....they are wrong.
 
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
Right...the type being "statues of people" the context being "in public view".

There is more than one type of “statues of people”. We are specifically talking about depictions made in commemorative reverence of the person and their deeds.

Then it just sounds like you're shifting excuses.

You have never heard me argue that it’s “all about intent”, so no, no shifting.

This isn't really comparable.

It’s just an illustration of how intent isn’t the whole picture.

What outcome?

In this case, the unintended outcome would be people seeing your sculpture of Grant as a reverent portrait of a slave owner. You can intend only to commemorate his good deeds, but you’re not actually in control of how people see it.

What reckoning? Someone could easily run for office, proposing a brand new 30ft statue of Grant, win....and have it built.

The reckoning of what it means to idolize someone, and who ought to be idolized in public displays.

And yes, people disagree about things, that’s true.

So it hasn't happened.

It has, arguably. Heather Heyer was killed.

But suppose she wasn't. The point was that the statues are revered, as part of American civil religion.

If people believe that his tangential relationship to a slave owner

Marriage to a slave owner, and being a slave owner yourself, is not a tangential relationship. It’s zero degrees of separation.

is part of what makes him historically significant....they are wrong.

Firstly, you are wrong about his relationship to slavery. It was not tangential. He married into a slave owning family, became a manager of slave labor, and outright owned a slave himself.

Secondly, who is arguing that this fact is related to his historical significance? He’s not being removed from history books. His deeds remain on the record. Statues aren’t history.

All that it means is that he is disqualified as a subject from a certain kind of public art display. And that is OK.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
The more that this sort of thing happens (USGrant statue, Frederick Douglass statue, and others similar to those), the more than we know for certain that the cause of ending police brutality or of making sure that the races are treated equally is not driving the movement anymore, if it ever did.

Either BLM was infiltrated and absorbed by Antifa and/or others committed to the destruction of the USA early in the going, or else the leadership of BLM had more than one objective in the first place and the media, etc. were too complicit or too naive to report on it.
 
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
The more that this sort of thing happens (USGrant statue, Frederick Douglass statue, and others similar to those), the more than we know for certain that the cause of ending police brutality or of making sure that the races are treated equally is not driving the movement anymore, if it ever did.

Grant's statue was taken down because he was a slave owner.

No one knows who took down the statue of Douglass, or for what reason. Including you.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Grant's statue was taken down because he was a slave owner.
--a slave owner who was the Union general who defeated the Confederacy which was supposed to be the focus of the outrage by the same protestors.

First it was police brutality, then police in general, then the Confederacy, then slave owners in history, then white people in general, then the country in which they live. The big picture is what I was calling your attention to.
 
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
--a slave owner...

You can stop right there. You've already hit on the primary reason why Confederate monuments are being removed - the institution of slavery. Removing a statue of Grant is just being consistent, along those lines.

It doesn't do anything to erase his other life's work. His deeds remains in the historical record. Statues aren't history.

First it was police brutality, then police in general, then the Confederacy, then slave owners in history,

"It" has always been all of those things. "It" looks like an unfolding narrative to you, but in fact, this struggle has been going on for much longer than just the last few years. "It" only feels new because it's part of mainstream discourse now.

then white people in general

Nope.

The big picture is what I was calling your attention to.

I already know what the big picture is.

Wrong. Do some investigation into that event.

By "do some investigation", do you mean "read a bunch of trashy conspiracy theory websites until you come to the same conclusion I did"?

No one knows who did it, or why. Including you.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
...do you mean "read a bunch of trashy conspiracy theory websites until you come to the same conclusion I did"?
No, I was referring to the same mainstream media that you trust instead of whatever "trashy conspiracy theory websites" you had in mind.
 
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
No, I was referring to the same mainstream media that you trust instead of whatever "trashy conspiracy theory websites" you had in mind.

Ok. Done.

No one knows who did it, or why. Including you.
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
If Grant was in favor of slavery at one time, he sure had a change of heart. He freed the one slave he owned, he fought against the Confederacy and helped free all the slaves, and as president he led efforts to improve civil rights for blacks.

BLM should be honoring his statues, not trying to tear them down.
 
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
If Grant was in favor of slavery at one time, he sure had a change of heart.

He said in 1863, during the war, that he was not an abolitionist, nor anti-slavery, but that he was willing to give up the institution if it meant reuniting the country. So, it seems more likely that the freeing of his own slave was more of an act of political expedience. We don't know for sure, though, because he never wrote about it specifically. This is a good accounting of his relationship with slavery - https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-grant-slaveholder/

His feelings did apparently evolve over time. But that doesn't mean he needs to be the subject of this particular kind of veneration. That does nothing to diminish his historical significance, or demean his good deeds. They're still there in the record, for anyone to study and admire.

BLM should be honoring his statues

He was a slave owner, so no. That would be hypocritical.
 
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
That's just nonsense.

It’s true, is what it is. He was a slave owner. If we’re going to use that as a criteria for who gets to have a reverent work of public art made of them, why not be consistent?

This does nothing to diminish his life’s work. Statues aren’t history.

And there are plenty of civil rights figures who never owned a person, so we’re not at a loss for models to look to.
 
Last edited:
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

jgarden

Senior Veteran
Jan 1, 2004
10,695
3,181
✟106,405.00
Faith
Methodist
images

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

THE BAD NEWS: Ulysses S Grant has had his statute taken down!

THE GOOD NEWS: Ulysses Grant, James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Warren Harding can now all rest more peacefully in their graves, secure in the knowledge that none of them will any longer be considered to be America's worst President!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
It’s true, is what it is. He was a slave owner. If we’re going to use that as a criteria for who gets to have a reverent work of public art made of them, why not be consistent?

It's too broad a brush. Being "consistent" ignores that fact that people can change, and redeem their past behavior. It ignores the fact that people can make great contributions while being a product of their times.

Plus, such a consistency must fail, because you're not going to get rid of George Washington.
 
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
It's too broad a brush.

No, it’s a pretty specific criterion, in this case.

And it doesn’t mean that we don’t acknowledge that people can change their behavior. It just means, if you engage in this behavior - slave owning - you don’t get to be the subject of this particular kind of reverent public art display. No, not even if you felt bad about it later in life.

I still fail to see any real loss in this.

Plus, such a consistency must fail, because you're not going to get rid of George Washington.

Oh? Why “must” it fail?

Why wouldn’t you apply the standard consistently, and remove reverent statues of Washington?
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,854
4,268
Pacific NW
✟242,397.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
Oh? Why “must” it fail?

Why wouldn’t you apply the standard consistently, and remove reverent statues of Washington?

Because Washington is the most important figure in the formation of this country. Take down Washington statues, and you've clearly gone way too far.
 
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
Because Washington is the most important figure in the formation of this country.

"Most important" is relative. I happen to think he's overrated. But let us grant that he was unquestionably an important figure.

To that I say, so what?

Removing statues of him won't change that fact. Statues aren't history.

Take down Washington statues, and you've clearly gone way too far.

No, it would be perfectly consistent with the criterion of slavery being a disqualifier for this particular type of reverent public art display. And I'm ok with that. Life goes on.
 
Upvote 0