Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I tend to agree that Robert E Lee doesnt need to watch over a traffic circle. And there doesnt need to be a auction block on a street corner (which was removed this week). But museums should be a safe way to teach and learn about painful parts of history. These 11 statues are in the Hall Of Statues in DC which could be considered a museum and you can 100% avoid coming in contact with them if what they represent is offensive.
It seems a dangerous precedent to set to hold historical figures to the morals and ethics we decide. Human rights establishment and the abolishment of slavery were the correct moral choice but these men lived in the world that had not established this as the moral majority and its dangerous to start reevaluating every name on a building and a street and statue to determine who does or does not adhere to our current moral standings. By removing all trace of someone who does not meet the standard you erase all historical significance that person represented. And none of the people who are being attacked were immortalized simply for being racist. They contributed something people considered historically significant, even if that was military prowess on the losing side.
History is written by the victors. But in the US, there is a lot of history also written by the losers. History becomes very one sided and incomplete when only the winning side gets to contribute to the conversation. By destroying the history the losers contributed you lose half of a very short history. We are very young in the world and we are already trying to eliminate the bad things weve done because they hurt us to be reminded of them, but reminded is what we need to be. If you look closely enough everyone does something or participated in something that is now considered morally reprehensible. and Im very concerned that slowly we are going to erode what has historically birthed our country in favor of only things that are easy to digest.
Since this is the History forum - and not Current Events or Politics - I'll limit myself to comments thusly relevant.
Statues are not about history. In no history course that I've ever taken has there been a field trip to view statues. Rarely does one of the countless history books I've read feature a photo of a statue. On the rare occasion that one does, it is included not to teach history but to illustrate the memorialization of the subject. The one I'm reading now, a biography of Leni Reifenstahl, certainly doesn't, for the rather obvious reason that there is no significant degree of support for honoring her in such a way.
That's what statues do. They honor. There's a Lincoln Memorial featuring a large statue of the 16th President, but you'll notice there's no Harding Memorial. I would imagine somewhere, a Harding statue might exist, perhaps in his hometown. You'll notice that there are no statues of Benedict Arnold, yet every American from an early age knows that name. Clearly, the lack of statues of Arnold has not impacted our collective ability to learn of the betrayal that was the pinnacle of his dubious career. In fact, there are monuments commemorating the American side of the War of Independence that honor generals in such a manner that one could expect Arnold - a general who did fight, albeit not to the conclusion of the conflict, for American independence - to be honored, yet those monuments leave Arnold out, pointedly refusing to bestow such an honor upon him.
It's really not that hard for adults with any cognitive ability at all to assess historical figures and decide which should be honored in such a monumental [pun fully intended] way. Despite the fact that it is often falsely framed as such, it's not an issue of decrying history's figures if they had any faults at all. Rather, we look at the broad scope of their lives and their times. Yes, Washington (for example) owned slaves, and he did so at a time when many people in his countries (first the UK, then the U.S.) were opposed to slavery. Yet Washington fought for American independence and the concept of liberty that has ultimately been extended beyond the narrow scope of people who came to enjoy it as a result of American independence. Washington nurtured the fragile young republic and took actions and set examples which set it upon firmer foundation, when it might otherwise have foundered. Commemorating such a man is a far cry from commemorating those whose crowning career achievements was to reject the oaths they took to defend the United States constitution and to make warfare against their nation, in the overriding cause of perpetuating human bondage. Like I said, it's pretty simple to distinguish between the two. Understandably, there will be disagreements. In civic life, the best we can do is strive for public consensus. A lot of people like to overlook the fact that many of these memorials were put in place with no input from a wide swath of the public, which had been disenfranchised, and for whom those statues were largely erect as a middle finger to remind them not to get too ... well, 'uppity'.
Times change and historical assessments change. I don't think many of us take issue with Iraqis toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein, or the widespread tearing down of statues of Lenin and Dzherzhinsky and the like in 1991 across the former USSR. No, no, I am not stating that Lee = Lenin. Yes, I understand that those men represented tyranny imposed upon a people (though anyone paying any attention at all will understand that many statues here in the United States very intentionally represented the same). The point is that those who agree that said statues needed to go thereby concede that they accept that changing times and changing conditions naturally result in changing acceptance of who gets memorialized, and that revising the public consensus on who gets memorialized is normal.
Yeah but I am kind of "over" the discussion as it was a trend for the last decade or so and only even more focused today, now I've read that Uncle Sam posters are racist. Founding father statues will be next. Just political correctness gone crazy.
Topic is too divisive perhaps for this forum.
So I just shake my head at the craziness and go on with life.
Around the year 170, a horde of Germanic tribes raided through northern Italy, wreaking havoc on farmland, villages and towns, almost reaching Rome until a local military leader drove them back on a certain day.
For the next hundred years or so, every year on that date the people celebrated the event, vowing to never forget.
Fast-forward a hundred years later, they forgot.
And now memory of the event is accessible only to obscure scholars who read obscure texts in obscure languages.
Since this is the History forum - and not Current Events or Politics - I'll limit myself to comments thusly relevant.
Statues are not about history. In no history course that I've ever taken has there been a field trip to view statues. Rarely does one of the countless history books I've read feature a photo of a statue. On the rare occasion that one does, it is included not to teach history but to illustrate the memorialization of the subject. The one I'm reading now, a biography of Leni Reifenstahl, certainly doesn't, for the rather obvious reason that there is no significant degree of support for honoring her in such a way.
That's what statues do. They honor. There's a Lincoln Memorial featuring a large statue of the 16th President, but you'll notice there's no Harding Memorial. I would imagine somewhere, a Harding statue might exist, perhaps in his hometown. You'll notice that there are no statues of Benedict Arnold, yet every American from an early age knows that name. Clearly, the lack of statues of Arnold has not impacted our collective ability to learn of the betrayal that was the pinnacle of his dubious career. In fact, there are monuments commemorating the American side of the War of Independence that honor generals in such a manner that one could expect Arnold - a general who did fight, albeit not to the conclusion of the conflict, for American independence - to be honored, yet those monuments leave Arnold out, pointedly refusing to bestow such an honor upon him.
It's really not that hard for adults with any cognitive ability at all to assess historical figures and decide which should be honored in such a monumental [pun fully intended] way. Despite the fact that it is often falsely framed as such, it's not an issue of decrying history's figures if they had any faults at all. Rather, we look at the broad scope of their lives and their times. Yes, Washington (for example) owned slaves, and he did so at a time when many people in his countries (first the UK, then the U.S.) were opposed to slavery. Yet Washington fought for American independence and the concept of liberty that has ultimately been extended beyond the narrow scope of people who came to enjoy it as a result of American independence. Washington nurtured the fragile young republic and took actions and set examples which set it upon firmer foundation, when it might otherwise have foundered. Commemorating such a man is a far cry from commemorating those whose crowning career achievements was to reject the oaths they took to defend the United States constitution and to make warfare against their nation, in the overriding cause of perpetuating human bondage. Like I said, it's pretty simple to distinguish between the two. Understandably, there will be disagreements. In civic life, the best we can do is strive for public consensus. A lot of people like to overlook the fact that many of these memorials were put in place with no input from a wide swath of the public, which had been disenfranchised, and for whom those statues were largely erect as a middle finger to remind them not to get too ... well, 'uppity'.
Times change and historical assessments change. I don't think many of us take issue with Iraqis toppling the statue of Saddam Hussein, or the widespread tearing down of statues of Lenin and Dzherzhinsky and the like in 1991 across the former USSR. No, no, I am not stating that Lee = Lenin. Yes, I understand that those men represented tyranny imposed upon a people (though anyone paying any attention at all will understand that many statues here in the United States very intentionally represented the same). The point is that those who agree that said statues needed to go thereby concede that they accept that changing times and changing conditions naturally result in changing acceptance of who gets memorialized, and that revising the public consensus on who gets memorialized is normal.
This isn't as hard as some people insist it is.
I understand exactly what youre saying. But I believe that they shouldnt be destroyed, but rather relocated. Statues that are in the public and represent things we no longer agree with should be put away and used for teaching, at the very least for preserving history. Not only the history in which they lived but also the history in which they were memorialized and the history in which they were removed. All of those are not insignificant to history and create a very linear path to what we now consider appropriate and moral. But beyond the statues themselves is the issue of holding historical figures to contemporary ideals. Imposing our belief systems on historical people is not a fair metric to use. Yes we now know that slavery is wrong. It has been collectively outlawed for ~200 years. But for the preceding ~2000 years it was not only acceptable it was standard behavior. So we pull down statues of Columbus, Lee, Davis but do not remove all the statues and busts of Caesar and Cleopatra. Those statues/busts/artwork are in museums all over the world in their Egyptian and roman rooms but they built their cities and economies on slavery just as we did. I am also certain that they fought wars with and about slavery.
Sidenote, all children are taught about Benedict Arnold as the great traitor. I grew up in NC and was not once taught a single word about Robert E. Lee. So disappearing any mention of him will undoubtedly make him disappear from history and its a history we are better served to not forget
Only that it's taken a CENTURY to accomplish.
(They should have never gone up in the first place)
Okay. Relocate them to a rubble fill.
I do think any statues of confederate figures should be in a museum.
Lee may have been a great general. Doesn't change the fact that the secession, or purported secession, of the states from the union was nothing less than treason. So, why are the people who were behind that memorialized?
I think its high time to remove any statue of figures like Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and put them in a special museum. They should not be celebrated publicly.
Its amazing to me that this has gone for as long as it has. And, while we are at it, lets change the names of all those military bases named after confederate generals as well.
I do think any statues of confederate figures should be in a museum.
Nope. There are already more than enough in the several museums.
We don't need to add to any "collections".
While they're at it take a good hard look at those in museums to be removed from there.
Most of the 'statuary' already in place is junk in any case. LINK
Drop them all to the bottom of the ocean.
Last edited by MrRational; 06-11-2020 at 07:34 AM..
I am concerned when they are removed my a mob of rioters. Heck, any destructive actions taken by a mob are concerning to me.
If a statue is to be removed it should be done by the proper authorities after debate and discussion. One side states its case for removal and the other side states its case to leave them up.
When the statue of Joe Paterno was removed at Penn State a few years ago, it was the university that did it, not a rioting mob. That's the way it should be done.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
