Why does any mortal man need a statue erected in their honor? Isn’t this a bit like idolatry?This much we can say for certain - being a white male is enough to eliminate anybody from being "statue-worthy".
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.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.
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.
We've controlled the "monument" business for nearly 250 years. That's a pretty good run, don't you think?
Well, I was thinking of the US specifically since White American males have been in charge.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not sure what you mean by this....
They should take a vote?
Publicly funded? None of these statues or monuments being defaced are on private property?
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.
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.
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.
Associating with? He propagandized for them.
The dead aren't hurting anyone.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why the indifference to perpetrators of anti-Semitism then?
Idolization? It's a statue...
You make it sound as if merely having a statue somehow changes everything about a person.
Who has been idealized?
I don't think there is such a thing as collective understanding.
The reality is though, that all perspectives are unique and on matters of opinion, there is no "right".
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.
Yeah. That's what these statues are. Reverent representations of individuals, or groups, and their actions. Idols.
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.
There kinda is, though. There is never a perfect consensus, 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.
So, maybe the same thing is happening again, with this current reckoning we're going through.
There's an intended outcome??
When one goes about destroying the statue of Grant, for example, what's the intended outcome?
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.
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.
That's not really a collective understanding though.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?