It matters if someone prominent is saying it because that’s the only way it becomes a widespread problem. It matters because it’s possible that the people doing this aren’t even doing it to stop racists, but using it as an excuse.
I don’t see any sign that there is any agreement among black people that these statues are bad. What I’m seeing seems to be some on the fringe, and then the usual dynamics of angry people in groups.
I think talking about how black people seem to find all these statues offensive is premature based on what we currently know.
I currently think it’s just the usual thing that happens. When people start moving towards accepting something, there are always people who move further to the extreme. It’s kinda like the Overton window.
And I think it helps. Most people don’t want to be on the extremes. So, by having the extremes go further, you make it easier for them to accept what previously may have seemed extreme.
Of course, it also helps fearmongering from those opposed–they can make those extremists seem like the inevitable consequence of the lesser action.
All I know to do about that is to do what I did–point out that it’s not actually all that common–and what others did–pointing out that this isn’t a slippery slope by showing there is a dividing line. There is actually room for nuance.
Well, you’re asking for two big important Black leaders to ask people to calm down because their anger and actions are “not a good look” . . . it may not have been what you felt your intent was, but I suggest you look at what you consider to be a reasonable opinion and think about what you’re asking of whom and why.
What do you mean by “It’s not a good look”? What about protests in general? What’s the line between “not a good look” and “causing a disturbance and enacting civil disobedience”? No one is hurt when these statues are defaced. This is a moment in particular when calls to “look good” should be viewed as status-quo-enabling, anti-protest language.
No one was able to do anything about eliminating Confederate-praising statuary for the last hundred years. Now, because some other statues are getting defaced as well, you want Oprah Winfrey (to pick a Black leader that white people feel they can count on to stick up for the establishment) to get on national TV and tell people it doesn’t look good that they’re addressing the issue themselves and maybe going at it too zealously for comfort?
But they don’t. Since they don’t, does that mean that they actually approve of hate crimes?
What would you propose then? You do agree that someone should go to prison for 10 years for kicking a piece of metal? Or what would you propose would be “sufficient”?
Considering that people know that they can go to jail for life for murder, and yet do it anyway, I’m not sure that there is anything that can be considered sufficient to abolish a particular behavior or action.
Making extremely harsh punishments will not prevent people from destroying symbols of hatred. But, it will make sure that the people know their place. Which is, of course, the entire point of the statues in the first place.
Right. My point was that conservatives are just as willing to want statues to be taken down. They didn’t object when statutes of Lenin and Marx were ripped down after the Soviet Union folded after all. In the end, we all believe that objectionable statues and monuments should be taken down. People just disagree on what is objectionable (like I have no idea how someone can consider Confederate monuments as non-objectionable).
No, Rittersport brought up Oprah and Obama. I am not demanding or expecting Oprah or Obama do anything, but I would be interested in what they (as EXAMPLES of “prominent” people on the left, not any particular person) had to say on the subject. I also said that since the topplings did not appear to be coming from a position of leadership, that what they said probably wouldn’t make a difference. I am not expecting someone to do… whatever the hell that impression you came up with… to the “blacks”. (btw a lot of this is being done by whites).
I’m saying tearing down non-confederate statues is not a good look. Feel free to disagree.
Fair enough . . . I missed that you were following up on their original statement. Though, in RitterSport’s post they do name them specifically as black leaders. You’ve conveniently changed the context in your explanation that you think they’re just random examples of “prominent people on the left”, when they were brought up not as leaders of the left, but as spokespeople for Black people in America.
Why? Because it makes people look dumb? Violent? Because you think those statues should not be removed? Because people won’t like the people who topple the statues? Who is it a bad look for? What are the consequences?
It’s hard to disagree with a position so vague and un-committed as “it’s not a good look”. And I’ll ask again, “What’s the line between “not a good look” and “causing a disturbance and enacting civil disobedience”?”
I may be having problems with the search on this new board, but I see you as the first one to mention Oprah in this thread. Does Rittersport have an earlier post about them that I’m not seeing?
I’m not sure what “not a good look” is actually supposed to mean. To me, it just says that you object to it on an emotional, rather than a rational level.
I see it starting a conversation about who we should be honoring, how and why.
There are fine people on both sides, doncha know?
That’s not what we do. We have crimes with punishments attached. I assault someone, I know what kind of sentence I can expect. I murder someone, I can make plans for my jail cell time.
But for toppling a piece of metal or stone, we have to make up the punishments on a case by case basis? How can you use the threat of punishment for a crime to discourage people from committing a crime if they don’t know the punishment?
Now, in some authoritarian places, they do exactly that. Having arbitrary and capricious punishments for any and all petty crimes. That is how you protect one group without binding them, and bind another group without protecting them.
I think that, whatever the punishment for defacing or destroying a statue is, it should be equally applied, rather than applying it unequally based on a case by case basis.
Theft. Destruction of property. Arson, etc. You know, illegal stuff that people normally get their asses thrown in jail for.
Sure, all of those, and more. A lot of people will get behind confederate statues. Once you start in on the founders it’s not going to help whatever your cause is, unless that cause is simply tearing down statues. Again, my opinion.
No, of course not. But people get varying sentences on a case by case basis for the same crime. That’s pretty much the job of a judge and is how we do it around here.
What I want is for historical statues and monuments to be judged by democratically elected leaders, or committees they’ve appointed to make a judgment on the statues’ or memorials’ worth. The message I’m getting from the left is that that’s what they want too, but they’re willing to forgive the mob when it acts against the worst characters such as slave traders or Confederate leaders. The obvious rebuttal is the slippery slope argument – that there’s no obvious demarcation between the worst historical characters and the merely flawed. The counterargument from the left seems to be that the slippery slope argument is a false argument; that statues of mainstream venerated figures aren’t being pulled down, except for the occasional fringe incident, and that no mainstream liberals are advocating pulling down statues of mainstream venerated figures. That counterargument is clearly false as shown by already cited examples.
You may argue that my perception of the leftist position is incorrect, and that my analysis is biased based on my personal political leanings. If you want to do so, that’s fine. But how do you define the actual mainstream position of the left? Is it okay for protestors to pull down statues of Jefferson Davis, or not? Is it okay for protestors to pull down statues of Thomas Jefferson, or not? Is there a clear line between the two historical figures, and if so, is the mob respecting that line? If not, what should the repercussions be for protestors who are crossing that line?
I realise I’m attacking the leftist position with a lot of questions, but frankly I think it deserves scrutiny that for the most part isn’t occurring. Is there a prominent liberal figure who’s made a statement on if it’s wrong to pull down statues of mainstream venerated figures? Has a senior liberal leader made a definitive statement on how historical statues and monuments should be treated? My impression is that the general leftist position is to support Black Lives Matter, blame Trump and the Republican Party, support easily supported principles such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, and try to dodge any difficult questions with platitudes about those rights. Can you provide me with examples of prominent mainstream left-wingers with a different position?
I don’t speak for all “leftists” (can we use “progressives”, please? Leftists seems like something out of the 1950s to me. I promise to call you whatever you want me to call you). I don’t think any statues should be pulled down illegally. I don’t think many progressive leaders think that this is OK either – we all want the Confederate statues down (right? We agree on that?), but it should be done legally and properly.
I’m opposed to statues of the Founders being removed, legally or illegally. That one statue of Teddy Roosevelt (not a founding father, but an all-around amazing person) was problematic for other reasons – so I don’t think TR statues in general need to go, but that one was pretty bad. Again, I think it should be removed properly.
Is it your view that “the mob” is carrying out the wishes of progressives? Because, that would be a strange view to have.
Yeah, but you see- they call it the trail of tears not necessarily due to the moving but due to the death and suffering along the trail- that was caused by the massive incompetence and corruption- both of those were a marked part of Martin Van Buren’s time in office. It happened on Van Buren’s watch and while he was in charge- but he is never blamed, just Jackson.
I have yet to see anyone anywhere make a definitive statement justifying the veneration of “historical statues”. If anyone thinks they deserve more respect and attention than a public park bench (beyond perhaps their monetary value) I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Or any argument, for that matter. Just lots of “it’s wrong, m’kay”, and “crime is bad!”
And to be clear, I am not taking a stand for vandalizing public property. What I keep poking at is the fact that so many seem concerned with these pieces of public property because they are monuments to historical figures, without being able or willing to articulate why that fact is relevant. Or why defacing a monument to George Washington should deserve a stronger punishment than doing the same to a James Buchanan monument, which should deserve a stronger punishment than vandalizing a retaining wall.
The Confederacy was a different country, and the enemy. If they still had a country, they could have all the statues they want, but they don’t. They don’t still get to have their statues just because their descendants happen to inhabit the same land after it became (or reverted back to) a different country.
I don’t want this to be a hijack, but I think it’s worthy of a reply. If it’s worth a fuller discussion, then perhaps you, or someone else with an interest, will start a new thread.
The opposite of leftist is rightist. Leftist means “of the left”. Rightist means “of the right”. I consider myself to be centre-right, but I don’t object if someone calls me rightist. However, if someone calls me anti-progress, then I strongly object. Technological and capitalistic progress has been of immense benefit to billions of people. I’m not sure when “liberal” was supplanted by “progressive”, but I think the supposition that liberal, aka leftist, policies are progressive, while conservative policies are anti-progressive is incorrect. Immense societal benefit has been achieved because most countries have market-based economies, and because market-based economies enable international investment. These are situations that 25 years ago, leftists/liberals/“progressives” objected too because it was exploitation. So sorry for the hijack, but I’m not going to use the term “progressive” unless it’s in an obvious context, and as far as I’m concerned, liberal and leftist are interchangable.
I know what left and right mean, but you should call people by what they want to be called. I’m pro-choice, but I don’t call people who call themselves pro-life “anti-choice”.
And, WTF about “capitalistic progress”? Do you think Obama, for example, is against capitalism? That’s a ridiculous assertion. That’s the problem with using “leftist” – you mix Marxists, Leninists, Castro, Bill Clinton, and Obama all together.
I’m fine with “liberal” or “progressive”, but the US has vanishingly few “leftists” as the term is applied. I’ll call you rightist, conservative, reactionary, traditionalist, neo-conservative, paleo-conservative, whatever you want.
And, I call bullshit that liberals and progressives object to market-based economies, but that would really be a hijack.
I’ll be away for a few days, so I’m not starting the thread. Feel free – I’m sure you’ll have plenty of responses.
That was also the case in Tsarist Russia, until Alexander II abolished serfdom*. There were some differences (his father had made a law forbidding families from being split up), but it was pretty much slavery just under a different name.
*Which he did right on the eve of the U.S Civil War, interestingly enough.
And Obama and Oprah are not the King and Queen of Black People.
I found this video of a protest about the statue on Twitter. It’s only about 10 seconds long but I thought it was worth sharing because it shows that the protest was attended by a fairly respectable crowd. It’s got swearing in it so maybe don’t play it at work.