I was explaining it as I can best explain it to myself, which is, it’s all over the place and seriously conflicted and confusing.
If I missed relaying that idea, I missed.
I was using that as an example of what I consider the slippery slope, and how this could be extended to all kinds of people nobody really considers horrible, who when really looked at, are horrible.
Is that the goal? To reexamine those immortalize a statues, put on monuments, money, art, etc… and get rid of those that are today seen as socially unacceptable, bad people?
I mean that seriously.
And I mean this seriously too - why do you think we make monuments, statues, etc?
If you are having trouble telling the difference between someone who did great things for this country and also held slaves, and someone who was a failed adventurer, a mass murderer and a slaverunner, then that is your problem.
We know the factual reason behind the the statues of those that founded this country, so once again: can you tell us why there should be statues in this country dedicated to Columbus?
Really? Honestly? You see no way to draw a line between Lee and Jefferson? Can you try harder?
How about this—We commemorate Jefferson for some amazing accomplishments, such as making statements of value that we hold dear today, even if he individually failed to live up to all of them. He, personally, had flaws, but we don’t celebrate him for those flaws. When we put up a memorial to Jefferson, we are celebrating the ideals that he represented that we still are proud of.
In contrast, Lee is primarily known for taking up arms against his country to support a rebellion whose cause was to create a nation that would indefinitely perpetuate slavery. And when people put up statues of him, they did it to celebrate exactly that. And they did it to show their defiance against values that we hold dear, like equality. And they did it to show the triumph of white supremacist politics and policy and to intimidate the minorities in their midst. None of those things are ideals that we are proud of or want to hold up as admirable.
How does that strike you as a pretty good set of major differences between a monument to Jefferson and a monument to Lee?
In what way is Columbus worthy of having a great numbers of statues in this country? If by “slippery slope” you mean going from something that might initially be determine to be something good to eventually doing something bad, and you claim that tearing down statues of Columbus would be on the “doing something bad” end of the scale, the it behooves you to tell us why it would be bad to tear down his statues.
Again, is crappy because only a fringe of a fringe is asking for that. And again, an argument coming from fascist lovers.
With the only exception of Columbus (that had for decades been pointed out as being problematic for a nation that was founded by rebelling against an empire) even the Confederates appreciated the founding fathers. We only have to point out about the slavery flaw and continue to remember their fight to develop a nation that adopted a very very revolutionary constitution that only put a lot of those revolutionary ideas on the back burner. Still, a lot of those revolutionary ideas are still being adopted.
How many people did George Washington kill, or those under his command kill, or were killed on his word, orders, and actions?
How many slaves did he buy and sell? How many of them died under his… (nice?) care?
You may think he did great things for this country, but plenty of African Americans, Native Americans, French, Indian and others think he was scum of the earth and wouldn’t mind him not being anywhere near admired let alone immortalized on monuments, statues, money.
That’s what I’m arguing. That’s what I wonder about in all this. The slippery slope. YOU may think Washington’s a great and awesome leader, someone to be admired. Plenty of others can and probably do think it’s the exact opposite. Why are their criticisms any worse than your criticisms of Columbus?
As far as I’m concerned there doesn’t need to be any.
I have no idea what you’re talking about in that snippet above. I thought we were talking about (or at least I was talking about) the slippery slope of who’s considered a ‘good’ person then versus now and how that delineation and difference is determined. And with such apparent precision. That seemed to be where you were going with this, that it was obvious and easy.
Ok then, if it stops at Lee, the Confederate flag, Columbus, a few others I’m sure I’m missing but have been issues for a while then fine, you’ll get no argument from me on that.
What I wonder, and think will happen though is it the removal of such things, the renaming of other things, on and on, will continue pretty much unabated since the lines between what’s considered ‘good or acceptable’ and ‘bad and unacceptable’ aren’t all that clear at all, or explained in a way that makes that line clear.
Judging by his reply to my post, I’m not sure he’s read all of the thread; he missed the point of my post so badly, it’s like he didn’t even know it was there.
Let’s fight this bit of ignorance: yes I’m right, Pat Buchanan, the paleo fascist did make that argument back in May, And it is clear that it has been copy pasted to death by the right wing echo chamber removing the most likely makers of the argument. Anyone that knew the history could expect that it was going to be the fascists themselves the ones that reminded all about how similar the ideologies of the slavers and Nazis were/are. Undermining the efforts of the makers of that sorry argument you are following.
So we’re clear, after the Lee statues, assorted Lee paraphernalia (by the way, will Arlington be renamed? It probably should) and the Confederate flag is gone, Columbus things gone as well (all fine as I’m concerned, really… well minus some of the things like Arlington that will be fun to watch debated and slung around) after all that, this thing will die down and things will get back to ‘normal’?
Fantastic. Really. I don’t believe it for a second, but you’re all so sure about it I’ll just sit back and watch.
Not that Lee’s statue, etc etc shouldn’t be taken down, don’t get me wrong, they should be. That’s not my position. I just don’t have the faith others do this will be contained to just that. Things are (IMO) going to get nutty and taken to crazy extremes.
Like this -
ESPN Pulls Announcer Robert Lee From Virginia Game Because of His Name
I presume you mean a cite for the speech (which didn’t actually quote), you can search for “Silent Sam dedication speech”. Here’s one link with the full text, the whole speech is obviously longer than what I quoted: http://hgreen.people.ua.edu/transcription-carr-speech.html I was wrong about the statue coming down, the Governor told the college they could take it down earlier this week, but the college doesn’t think that is enough under the law.
HeweyLogan, I honestly don’t understand what point you think you are making. Are you suggesting that right now we should all decide to freeze our culture and never have another discussion about who we do and do not honor with statues? If that is not your point, what is it?
It sure seems like a lot of people using the ‘slippery slope’ argument are really saying that they are uncomfortable that non-whites are starting to have a say in our culture and that bothers them.
And I think it bears repeating that these statues were initially put up as part of a conscious wave of revisionist history to change the narrative of the civil war. They were never about historical accuracy.
I don’t know about the “paleo fascist” part but alright, Pat Buchanon’s making arguments against removing confederate statues and the like. Can’t say I agree with him on that.
Meaning… Pat Buchanon’s leading the narrative on this issue and anyone who argues similarly, or even ancillary to the topic, are just patsies regurgitating Buchanons stance and argument?
I think myself and others out there who wonder/caution/contemplate the slippery slope aspect of this issue, and matters around it, are simply stating the obvious, Pat Buchanon (and his dissimilar) argument, notwithstanding.
That without a clear line on how we’re going about this, and what kind of standards we are setting and adhering to, I don’t see where it stops until a preponderance of our history is either removed or deleted.
Kind of a hu-hum mild drone of an argument, but one I think is more of an issue than which particular statues/etc are being removed. That is where are the brakes on this thing. Or are any needed.
That it can go too far? Have you even read anything I’ve written? Removing a guy from broadcasting a game because his name is Robert Lee?
Come on now. I’ve said all I can say on it and made it as clear as I can. I have no interest going page after page of what the definition of ‘is’, is now.
So, because a broadcaster made the somewhat silly decision to not use an announcer for one game we’ve gone too far and must then keep these statues up? How is that not a slippery slope?
Also, you do understand that removing a statue isn’t the same thing as deleting history, right? Many former Soviet bloc countries took down statues of Lenin, but we are still aware that Lenin existed.