Robert E. Lee was unusually bad as a slaveowner too. He had a bunch of slaves run away, when he caught them he ordered a constable to whip them. The constable refused to beat the woman slaves so Robert handled that task personally (that’s to say, he had more taste for cruelty than a standard Virginia police officer under slavery).
We should also go door to door collecting books and other material we disagree with as well.
No fuss is necessary – let’s just get rid of monuments that celebrate and honor monstrous moral crimes. No big deal. It’s happened many times in history and is continuing to happen.
The city council of Charlottesville, VA voted for this statue to be removed and sold to private owners.
Alt-righters gathered to oppose the will of the people three times: 13 May 2017, 8 July 2017, and most recently 12 August 2017.
These are the people freaking out about locals deciding which statues should exist in their home town.
I say leave them for the historical context. They have been there all our lives and are an important part of history. Native Americans fought against the USA too (and with good reason) but no one wants to take down their statues.
I know. Destruction of most of Akhenaten’s legacy for example. Oh, he was a slave owner too.
I saw let each community decide. These protests were people from lots of other states and communities.
That cuts both ways, doesn’t it? To the extent that you’re right, what good is making a huge fuss out of getting rid of 'em?
And the Nazi monuments too. Was it wrong for the Germans to get rid of them?
If not, then we’re just arguing about which particular monuments should be removed, not about the concept of removing monuments altogether.
Who do other nations honor with statues? In St Martin, there are statues at or near most roundabouts.
A few notable honorees:
Jean Frederique Brooks aka “Tata the Bus driver" (he drove a school bus)
Alexander Lionald Richardson aka “Alec the Butcher” (he cut meat)
Florian Eulalie Duzanson aka “Lalie" (a baker and humanitarian)
Mr. Osborne Kruythoff aka “the traffic man” (an old dude who loved directing traffic)
I don’t know much about Henry VIII or Charles Stuart statues, but I do recall that some MPs wanted to get rid of the Cromwell statue in Westminster. So you can’t pretend that his statue isn’t controversial. (ETA: I thought it was Tony Blair but my memory was wrong)
Why was the statue of George Washington erected? Perhaps to celebrate the special relationship between the UK and the US that had long since gotten back on track in the post-Great War era?
Since both arguments hold some weight of why should the status quo change, the only fair solution is to return to status quo ante. All Confederate statues pre-1865 can stay. The others go.
But do they call me “MacPherson the Fence Builder”? Nay!
Because the people of the state may actually like having them? Of course they will fuss back when a fuss is made over the statues.
And furthermore, you will never please the radicals who want remove anything associated with something not congruent with their interpretation of 21st century morality. President Wilson was a deplorable and had to go. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2016/04/27/princeton-to-remove-overly-celebratory-mural-of-woodrow-wilson/?utm_term=.40caacb57e48
It’s not just Confederate statues in the cross hairs of the radical left.
Josh Marshall responded to this line of thought yesterday as follows:
Washington, of course, is in a pretty similar place to Jefferson. A mix of great and honorable accomplishments, and, in Marshall’s words, “an integral involvement with our greatest national shame.” But with Lee, it’s all bad.
My thought: save a handful of Confederate statues for museums (a few dozen would likely suffice). Auction the rest off (conditioned on removal within a reasonably short time), and demolish any Confederate statues that aren’t bought.
I’m perfectly OK with private ownership of Confederate statues. That’s freedom of speech, choosing what you as a private citizen want to honor on your own property, with your own money. But statues on public land are speech by and on behalf of the general public. I’m sure that some of the more retrograde parts of the country will choose to continue to honor those who are notable largely for having fought to preserve the right of white people to buy, sell, work, and fuck Negroes as property.
But I’m confident that most of us will choose to cease giving honor to such people.
Well, they may, sure. And community after community may instead reach the opposite conclusion. So are we, then, to agree with a mere shrug that the locals should be the arbiters of whether to fuss over a given statue’s location?
Melt them down and make commemorative pennies out of them. This is the only solution that makes sense.
If it’s state property then the state decides. If it’s county property the county decides. If it’s city property the city decides. If it’s your property you decide. I don’t see the trouble with that concept.
isn’t self rule fun?
I think that’s a self-correcting problem, though. See, back in the day, folks venerated Lincoln, even when they were thinking he was a guy who held the Union together against challenges posed by Lee and Davis and Jackson and other CSA types who some said deserved statues despite being on the wrong side – right?
So fast forward to a point where people are rethinking Lincoln: maybe he’s got some flaws that only now make some people a little uncomfortable with celebrating him. But that’s where the magic comes in: to the extent that Lee and Davis and Jackson and so on now look even worse, figure Lincoln rises in esteem proportionately!
No. It doesn’t work that way. When round 1 of historical purging is complete it won’t be around to compare to the targets of round 2.
Henry dissolved the monasteries; Charles provoked the Civil War.