I’m good with any monuments that glorify the rape, torture, and murder of a class of people being torn down, I’m not sure what was unclear in my earlier statement. I’m especially in favor of monuments that glorify treason against the US, as well as the rape, torture, and murder of black people being torn down when they’re on a courthouse, which is supposed to enforce US laws (including those against treason) in a fair manner (which means not raping, torturing, and murdering blacks). I see no issue with removing monuments that glorify treason, rape, torture, and murder. There isn’t a slippery slope - I’m not saying ‘oh, anything I kind of don’t like’, I’m saying specifically slavery, which entails rape, torture, and murder - do you not agree that those things are bad, and that monuments glorifying them should simply not exist?
I think Columbus was a genocidal mass murderer and condoned rape and slavery. So, you’d be good with me tearing down those statues. But surely you can see that other things might set off other people, who may want to tear down other statues for other reason…right?
I think you are talking past me, to be honest (maybe I’m doing the same). I’m not getting into whether the monuments should be taken down. I think they should (as I honestly think the ones to Columbus should be as well). What I have a problem with is a group taking it on themselves to do it by fiat. I think that if a majority of people want them down then, through the system they should be taken down. If the crowd needs a show, maybe get the Mythbusters to blow a few up or shoot some with a cannon or something. But it should be a rational and measured response done through the system, not at the whim of angry people who just want to tear stuff down. Because, even though you condone the actions here I’m betting that if a bunch of angry white supremacist types wanted to tear down a statue of, say, Martin Luther King, you wouldn’t condone that nearly as much.
Well the cemetery issue is a problem since they also have banned confederate flags at confederate cemeteries.
Then we should also bring down the Buffalo soldier monumentsince the Buffalo soldiers did all that to Indians.
Wait, they were black so what they did was justified.
You seem to be forgetting that democracy wasn’t involved when the monuments were erected. The formerly enslaved and their descendents were widely disenfranchised when these things were erected.
To be democratic, we have to start all over. Take the monuments down and then take a vote on whether they should be reinstalled or replaced with monuments to other Americans.
I don’t recall the part where the Buffalo soldiers fought specifically for the cause that black people should be allowed to rape, torture, and murder Indians on a whim, can you provide a cite backing that up? Because otherwise ‘well some soldiers did bad stuff’ is not even remotely near the same league as ‘these soldiers fought for a country that committed treason to preserve the institution of white people raping, torturing, and murdering black people on a whim’.
But that’s true of every single thing that was done in the US prior to, say, the 1960s. Should we blow up Mt Rushmore and re-vote about whether to put it back up again? What about the entire country? Should we dissolve it and re-vote on whether to put it back to gather again?
I’m not saying the monuments should remain-- I’m just saying that is not a good argument for taking them down.
I’m not seeing it, to be honest. You seem to be saying we should take down all the monuments everywhere and then revote to see if they should be put back. That doesn’t seem reasonable. Just because they were mainly put up before folks today voted on it, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t vote now on them to decide their fate. Times and attitudes change, and as they change so does society and the stance on what should or shouldn’t be memorialized. But we, as a society, should collectively decide on this stuff…not some random people acting on their own. Put it to a vote and I’m all for taking the majority down, whether to be destroyed or put in a museum, maybe one that takes a clear eyed view of history with an eye towards education and teaching the real history, instead of the often whitewashed version or collective legend that we usually get.
In the future, it’s possible that memorials we put up today might be taken down by later generations for this or that reason many of which would probably be alien or incomprehensible to society today.
If the government won’t do what’s right, then it’s the duty of the people to take care of it for them. Whether the monuments should be taken down is exactly the point; it is simply wrong that they stand, you’ve even agreed with that. You just object that it’s being done in a way that offends your sensibilities - but that is putting your ‘well it’s disorderly, tsk tsk’ above other people’s ‘well it’s saying I should be raped, tortured, and/or murdered on a whim’, which is a prioritization I don’t agree with.
I’d like a cite for the ‘just want to tear stuff down’ claim; I’m not aware of people advocating for just tearing down ‘stuff’, just the monuments that glorify slavery (ie rape, torture, and murder) and the fight to protect the institution of slavery.
I don’t recall the bit where Martin Luther King, Jr fought for the idea that black people should be allowed to rape, torture, and murder people of another race on a whim, can you provide a cite backing that claim up? Because otherwise statues of MLK are not relevant here.
I think it’s a good argument for why the status quo shouldn’t get a huge amount of deference.
[QUOTE=Pantastic]
If the government won’t do what’s right, then it’s the duty of the people to take care of it for them. Whether the monuments should be taken down is exactly the point; it is simply wrong that they stand, you’ve even agreed with that. You just object that it’s being done in a way that offends your sensibilities - but that is putting your ‘well it’s disorderly, tsk tsk’ above other people’s ‘well it’s saying I should be raped, tortured, and/or murdered on a whim’, which is a prioritization I don’t agree with.
[/QUOTE]
All well and good when you agree with the people tearing stuff down. When you don’t…then what? I like order because order leads to better overall outcomes.
In this case. Again, we are talking past each other. You don’t seem to get that what you are advocating for is a slippery slope since there will be times when the crowd wants to tear stuff down that you don’t agree with. Then what? Well, I’m sure your answer will be that then it’s perfectly ok for the authorities to come down on the folks you don’t agree with like a ton of bricks. Real life is messy though, so what you like today may not be what you get tomorrow.
Again, you don’t seem to be tracking well with what I’m saying. We are having a discussion about white supremacist racist types. Do you get that THEY might not like statues of MLK? Do you get that not everyone is set off by the things that set you off? YOU are set off by statues about folks who ‘rape, torture, and murder people’, but you aren’t everyone in the country. You keep asking for cites for silly things that are either talking past the point or complete strawmen, such as this one.
If you don’t understand the argument, that’s fine…I’m not the best at this writing stuff, so perhaps it’s confusing. Feel free to ask me to discuss further, or to restate the point…or just a WTF kind of thing. But don’t ask me for silly strawmen cites that are not even in left field, but not even in the same game genre.
Who is advocating for the status quo? 
Agan with this slippery slope.
When there’s a big groundswell of people opposing Mt. Rushmore (or monuments to Washington…whatever else ya’ll want to come up with), then we can discuss what to do with them. The conversation today is about Confederate monuments, specifically those on public property.
These are the arguments that make the most sense to me:
- The cost of removing Monument X is prohibitive and potentially damaging to the economy.
- The artistry or context behind Monument X gives it special significance
- The person commemorated by Monument X would have been an important historic figure even if there had been no Confederacy.
These arguments don’t make any sense to me, yet people keep making them:
- We need the monuments to remind us how evil society used to be.
- We will forget history if we remove the monuments.
- If we remove these monuments, then we open the doors to tearing down all monuments.
Let’s say that after we tear down the Confederate monuments, there are grumblings about tearing down other monuments. So what? If we can’t come up with a convincing defense for the objects we choose to display in the public square, maybe we shouldn’t have them. And maybe if we were forced to review our monuments every six or seven generations, we’d do a better job of picking people worthy of glorification.
If people are doing stuff I don’t agree with, then I’ll disagree with them. It’s not that difficult of a concept. And I don’t think that order leads to better outcomes in all cases. Certainly the slaves who were held in orderly slavery that was completely legal would disagree, as would the Jews in Germany who were completely legally sent off to camps by the legitimate government of the country. I’m perfectly fine with disorderly people like underground railroad, or the people who sheltered Jews in Germany.
Sure? I’m not really sure why you act like it’s a surprise that I want the authorities to come down on people who do things that are wrong but not on people who do things that are right. That seems like what most people prefer, I wasn’t aware that it’s a controversial position. Or why you’re telling me that ‘real life is messy’ like it’s news when you’re the one who advocates blind obedience to authority instead of acting in a moral fashion.
I never claimed to be ‘everyone in the country’, or to support the idea of ‘everyone can just tear down any statues they don’t like’. Those are strawman arguments that you’re trying to attribute to me. Just to answer your question: white supremacists do a lot of stuff I don’t approve of, and I’m aware that they do, and I don’t support most of what they do. I’m not just ‘set off’ by said statues, I’m arguing that having them up is wrong, and you earlier agreed with that, but now seem to disagree. I asked you for a cite for MLK being in favor of rape, murder, and torture because it was only statues glorifying those things that I argued in favor of tearing down, and to highlight how absurd the comparison is.
I’m enjoying Baltimore’s process. In the name of avoiding attracting KKK/Nazis, and ensuing street clashes, violence on it’s streets. Acting swiftly and decisively, job done by dawn.
If this catches on it could turn this KKK showing into the exact opposite of their intention. Instigating the swift removal of such statues in numerous cities throughout much of the South.
But your argument was about democracy. Tearing things down because there is a “big groundswell” is mob rule, not democracy. If you are concerned about democracy, the only thing to do is to vote. The fact that people didn’t vote for it originally does not make that thing de facto rubbish.
I wasn’t arguing for a democratic approach. XT was. I am arguing that it is inconsistent to hold people today to the strictures of democracy when the thing they are objecting to was not adopted through a democratic process.
I’m not a fan of wanton destruction of public property. But I don’t think democracy holds the key to this particular problem.
QFT.
And in the ‘good arguments’ column, my WAG is that each of the three will turn out to be true for at most a handful of Confederate monuments.
I’m fine with a vote for removal. And I agree that this would be ideal.
For the specific monuments we are talking about, I’m also fine with them being removed by whomever so chooses, given how divisive and controversial these things are. If the government wants to hold a vote for their reinstallation and the vote comes out in favor of that, then yay democracy.
But I’m not going to weep over a Confederate monument that is toppled by an angry mob. Especially those that were erected by an angry mob.
Sounds ridiculous to be honest.
I don’t want a shrill mob targeting historical art or other artifacts because they need symbol to blame. In this day and age if people aren’t happy with their circumstances they need to start with what’s looking back at them from a mirror not a random chunk of stone or metal that someone told them to be outraged about.