Should statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Grant be removed?

Great Debates
82

It sounds like you don’t really care what they have to say.

The prominent conservatives that are talking about it are the ones who want to keep their confederate statutes where everyone will see them and be reminded as to their place.

The arbiter is the public. Who else could it be? If the public wants to replace Robert E Lee with a port-o-pottie, I say let them. If the community wants to replace George Washington with a planter, then why should we stop them?

Why does everyone have to have a position on this? It is a very complex situation, with every single statue having a complex history as to the person being honored, and the situation surrounding the commission and dedication of the statues is also complex.

There is no simple answer, and to demand one is not reasonable.

I take that back slightly, there is a simple answer, to keep them all up, and that is the position of most conservatives. It’s not that they don’t count, it’s that you are not demanding a different answer from them.

This is only very slightly true. There were situations where a person could be born a slave, but it was not mandated, and not all that common either.

And if we are going back to biblical law, the bible had a number of things to say about the treatment of slaves that were not practiced in antebellum America.

83

Yeah, you could ask “any native american” but if you asked a historian, they’d say he wasnt. The Trail of Tears wasnt Jackson’s fault, it occured a year after he left office. Jackson is being unfairly attacked for that.

84

I don’t object to the debate - we can have a debate. I’m just saying that I think we should view confederate statues differently than the other memorials, and for that reason, I am much less inclined to agree with tearing down statues of Jefferson, Washington, or others.

But I’m not opposed to people asserting that I’m wrong and that I should reconsider. I’m fine with that. I’m not fine with anarchy, though.

Going off-topic a little, but on another thread, there were those who argued that we should stay away from phrases like “Defund the police” because they’ll scare whites into voting for Trump. I disagreed completely: Diverting funds from the police isn’t going to scare people into voting Trump.

But anarchy, defacing and tearing down statues of Jefferson and Washington…that’s a bridge to nowhere. People will react to that. If we want to have a debate, that’s fine, as long as it’s a debate.

85

Unsubstantiated. I really do want to hear what “they” have to say.

Ok, so I’m not supposed to ignore the leaders, while simultaneously not expecting them to say anything. All right. :thinking:

86

Cool. To be honest, I wasn’t really replying directly to you, or calling you out to answer that . . . I was originally replying to something you wrote specifically, changed my mind and just wrote a general post for the thread, but was still in “reply to you” mode. Still learning the ropes of this new board. :slight_smile:

87

Umm, Jackson had quite a bit to do with setting up the situation of the Trail of Tears. Just because he wasn’t president when they were actually forced off their land doesn’t mean that he didn’t push through the treaty that forced them off their land.

88

And how exactly is that manifested. A mayor is voted in, and since he was voted in, he can summarily remove statues? Or is there a local vote?

By the way, I want to make it clear, I do not give a shit about confederate statues. I am not from the south and have never spent any significant time there. They can all go away as far as I’m concerned, but that’s up to them to deal with, by legal means. They shouldn’t be ripped down willy-nilly. I consider myself conservative in some, but not all areas, and I’m not rah-rah confederate statues.

I do, however, visit Washington DC on a semi-regular basis, and am pretty happy that it stay the way it is. Some people may not give a shit about that, but I think it is sometimes important to consider what other people give a shit about.

89

Okay, when you were dismissive of what Obama or Oprah had to say, I took that as you not really wanting to hear what they say. Still not sure how to put those contradictions together.

I have no idea why you would come to such a nonsensical conclusion.

You want them to make a blanket statement, and I’m saying that any blanket statement is going to be severely lacking. No matter what they would say, it would not cover some situations, and therefore would be used against them in those situations.

If they say, “I don’t think that we should tear down any statues.” Then those who are more interested in diverting the discussion than progressing it would reply with examples of statues of Ghengis Khan or the like.

If they say, “We should tear down some statues.” Then they have an unending supply of “How about this one? Oh, and how about that one?”

Obviously, they are not going to say, “We should tear down all statues.”

So, the comments that they have made have left those decisions up to the communities that those statues are in. That is the only reasonable position to take, as any other position is binding those not consenting to your rule.

Which means that they cannot have a simple answer that you will accept.

As you have said, conservative leaders do have a simple message, to just keep them all up. No matter how reprehensible the person being honored, the conservative position is that it is part of our heritage, and therefore, should not be touched in any way.

If you are looking for a simple answer, look to the conservatives, they excel at giving simple answers to complex problems.

If you want an answer that actually means anything, then you cannot complain that it is too complex to reduce to a soundbite.

90

Fairly similarly to when a town decides if they are going to put in a new road or such. I wouldn’t put it unilaterally on the mayor, but with city council, why not? Not sure what there is to object to if city council passes a measure to remove a statue, and the mayor signs it and carries it out.

Now, there are some states that have made it illegal for a city to remove statues, and I do disagree with that. The people that live in a city should have a right to say what is displayed in their city.

Can you give an example of how you would like to see a decision as to what is displayed in the public sphere of a city, if not by elected officials?

If your only objection is to the unsanctioned removal of statues by unauthorized personnel, then you will find very little pushback on that.

So, you visit DC on a semi-regular basis, does that mean that you feel you have more say in how it is than the people that live there on a full time basis? Is the fact that you are pretty happy how it is reason to not give a shit about those how are not happy with how it is?

91

Because nobody is stepping up to take leadership over the people that are tearing down the statues. And that’s probably by design. In that sense, it really doesn’t matter what Obama or Oprah or whoever says because they are not leading these people. I would love for them to say, “Hey, I’m with you on this confederate stuff, but you probably shouldn’t be doing this to the Founding Fathers and other people renowned by things other than slavery. It’s not a good look”, but I’m not hearing that, and I don’t know that it’d make much of a difference anyway.

There’s gotta be something between that and standing on the sidelines saying nothing. And, imo, it should happen sooner rather than later. Starting with Biden.

92

Well to a point. A bunch of conservatives don’t like that Seattle has a statue of Lenin and feel it should be taken down (it’s on private land)

93

No objection, as long as this is done with full public feedback

Nobody “lives” in the National Mall (that’s what I’m talking about). And yes I do feel like I have as much of a say in what goes on there as the average citizen.

94

[quote=“ISiddiqui, post:92, topic:912321”]Seattle has a statue of Lenin [snip] (it’s on private land)[/quote] That right there is some first-class irony. :thinking: :smile:

95

I don’t understand your point, I guess. When people commit hate crimes and murder people for being different from them, do you call for someone to take up leadership over them?

Just so I know where we stand, do you think that anyone who participated in the illegal removal of a confederate statue should be imprisoned for 10 years?
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2020/06/23/trump-threatens-10-years-in-prison-for-protesters-toppling-statues-citing-veterans-memorial-protections/

Personally, I think that they should get a fine that pays for the damage that they have done, and to pay towards a replacement statue that the community finds reflects its values better. But 10 years in prison is a bit harsh for beating up on a bit of stone or metal.

96

As far as I know, Lincoln isn’t on the list. Grant is on it because he owned a slave for a time, although he freed him before the Civil War.

Regardless of what either of us think, it’s evident that some black people are extremely insulted by the statues. They’re so insulted that they’re willing to commit criminal damage and risk going to prison just to bring them down. You don’t do that unless you really feel strongly. So you can’t say that the statues aren’t insulting to black people, because we know that some black people have majorly taken offense. You can only say that black people shouldn’t feel insulted by them, which is a slightly different claim.

I think the reasons those black protesters have for being offended are strong. If your lived experience in America is one of oppression and fear, and if you can directly trace that back to the slave trade, then any celebration of a slaver for any reason is basically an implicit confirmation that you’re not really an equal member of society. And it doesn’t matter at all what else they did with their lives. If they founded a country or cured cancer, a slaver is a slaver is a slaver. To a black man suffering the lingering effects of slavery, the fact that a man owned slaves will always be the most important thing about him.

That’s their case, and I think it’s pretty hard to argue with. I’m white, so I don’t know what it’s like to live in a world where I can’t throw a stone without hitting a statue of someone who oppressed my people. But I can imagine it must be exhausting.

I agree that America has been a positive force in the world, but I have to face the possibility that I’m only able to think that way because I’m white. If I was black, I might think differently, because America has always been a universally terrible force for black people. From slavery to Jim Crow to the Southern Strategy to George Floyd, the story of black America has always been one of unrelenting trauma and degradation. And America’s dealings with Africa have always been, by turns, violent, overbearing, and imperialist.

Here’s what I think: It’s unfair to judge people of the past by the standards of the present. Washington and Jefferson are more than their worst deeds. However, Washington and Jefferson didn’t enslave any of my ancestors, so it’s easy for me to say that. If some black people are offended by statues to them, I can’t argue, and if enough black people want them gone then they should go. How much is enough? I’ve no idea.

97

Why won’t someone take charge of the Blacks, and tell them to stop tearing down white people stuff, because it doesn’t look good, and, while you’re at it, put on a tie, straighten your hair, and learn to say “yes sir” and “no sir”.

98

I expect them to say something, hell yes.

That’s not just about confederate statues. What I would approve of is a measure that would sufficiently deter people from doing that. Would a fine suffice? Probably not.

99

If that’s what you think I’m saying, then I’m done. You win. Here’s your cake. :cake:

100

Yeah,I hear about that from time to time as a gotcha attempt. But, as said, it’s not on public land, so it is up to the land owner to do something with it, not the community.

If we get to where we can tear down a statue on private property, then that also means that I can rip down my neighbor’s confederate flag.

That is how the vast majority of statue removals have gone. That is what is being advocated by the leaders of the progessive movements.

Some communities are not allowed to remove their statues though, due to state laws that prevent them from doing so legally.

That’s a bit of a grey area to me. If a very strong majority of a city want a statue gone, but the people who do not actually live in that city want it to stay the way that they are happy with, I can see people getting fed up and taking some illegal steps.

As I said, I would be happy levying a fine that pays for replacing what they destroyed.

Nobody lives in any of the other public spaces that these statues are located in, either.

And I suppose we will have to agree to disagree that you should have as much say in how a city is decorated than those who actually live there.

101

I disagree. There may not have been a specific abolitionist movement but slavery had virtually disappeared in Europe during the medieval period. It wasn’t until they began having overseas colonies, that Europeans rediscovered slavery.