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

[Yttrium]

No, it would be perfectly consistent with the criterion of slavery being a disqualifier for this particular type of reverent public art display.

Yes, it would be perfectly consistent with your criterion. It's the criterion that's the problem. Change the criterion to be more reasonable and flexible. Something not quite so mindlessly absolute.

Personally, I'm fine with removing statues of members of the Confederacy. That seems quite reasonable to me. No need to go overboard.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Yes, it would be perfectly consistent with your criterion. It's the criterion that's the problem. Change the criterion to be more reasonable and flexible.

Why is it a "problem" to remove reverent, public works of art with slave owners as their subject? What do we actually lose?

Your opposition seems to be "well, if we applied that standard consistently, we wouldn't have any statues of slave owners!".

To that, once again, I have to ask,

So what?

Personally, I'm fine with removing statues of members of the Confederacy. That seems quite reasonable to me. No need to go overboard.

Statues of Confederate figures are being removed because of their relationship to the institution of slavery.

Applying that criterion as a standard to U.S. Grant, Washington, Jefferson, etc., is not going "overboard". It's being consistent.

I have yet to see anyone articulate a good answer as to why it shouldn't be applied consistently.

 

[Yttrium]

I have yet to see anyone articulate a good answer as to why it shouldn't be applied consistently.

Fortunately your standards on what is a "good answer" do not apply to the real world. We put up statues to honor those individuals who made great contributions to their society, be it local or national. Those individuals may very well have flaws, but those flaws do not negate their accomplishments. There may come a time when the community decides that the flaws of a certain individual outweigh the accomplishments, and the statue should be removed. We do not, as a nation, remove all statues that don't pass a certain litmus test just for the sake of consistency.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Fortunately your standards on what is a "good answer" do not apply to the real world.

They're not "my" standards. But I do agree with them, and see no good reason not to adopt them. Slavery disqualifies one as a subject for reverent works of public art. I have yet to hear anything like a convincing argument against the idea.

We put up statues to honor those individuals who made great contributions to their society, be it local or national. Those individuals may very well have flaws, but those flaws do not negate their accomplishments.

Correct. Being slave owners does not negate their accomplishments. But that goes both ways - having accomplishments does not negate the fact that they were slave owners.

So, I have a proposal:

Because they were slave owners, and therefor unworthy of reverence, let's remove these reverent idols of American civil religion. Take down their statues. And at the same time, if you want to honor them, you can still do so by learning about their accomplishments in history books.

It's win-win. No more reverent works of public art for slave owners, but we can still honor their important deeds by actually learning about them.

There may come a time when the community decides that the flaws of a certain individual outweigh the accomplishments, and the statue should be removed.

You are living in that time, right now.

In fact, it's nothing new. To pick one example of many, Penn State removed their Joe Paterno statue in 2012. This kind of reckoning happens all the time, just never on quite a scale as we're seeing today.

 

[Yttrium]

I have yet to hear anything like a convincing argument against the idea.

Personally, I'm never convinced of anything. (Note what's listed for my "faith".) So I have absolutely no interest in trying to convince you of anything.

So, I have a proposal:

Because they were slave owners, and therefor unworthy of reverence, let's remove these reverent idols of American civil religion. Take down their statues.

I think I can safely speak for most Americans when I say: No. Because, at the very least, George Washington. You're also going to have a hard time getting rid of Thomas Jefferson in most places.

You are living in that time, right now.

When I said "There may come a time..." I meant with any individual statue. Obviously such times have occurred and will continue to occur now and then.