RugbyRebels

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote: When one side is made up of people literally brandishing firearms while waving Nazis and chanting "the Jews will not replace us," and trying to defend a statue of a racist icon, then no, that's not fine.

Lets not confuse the valid point about airbrushing history we don't like with the means of protest. I completely agree that the manner of this protest was obscene, both from the anti-semitism on display and the threatening nature of groups of people armed with automatic weapons protesting against a decision by a legitimate authority.

But one of the statues in question was that of Robert E Lee. As one of the the prominent Confederate generals of the civil war, I understand why he is seen as a racist symbol, but does that make him any different from other key figures of that period? Was Lee any more of a racist (as we understand it today) than other public figures of the day? Do we tear down all statues of prominent people from history just because they are a symbol to a racist today?

On one level, particularly initially, the American Civil War wasn't about the plight of the slaves. Plenty of Southerners fought for the Confederacy who didn't own slaves. Were they racist, by today's standard white probably, but any more so than many of those who fought for the Union. Its a bit like suggesting that all Italians who fought in World War 2 were Fascists to the core, other than people who volunteered to defend, or were conscripted, their country. Lee was a loyal Virginian who only resigned rom the US Army when Virginia voted to secede from the Union, which was post Fort Sumter whereas originally the state was opposed to secession. Lee saw himself as a loyal Virginian, less so a Confederate. To have a statue for a man who fought for his country is no bad thing; surely the better solution is to focus on the nature of slavery via education and not airbrush the bits of the past we don't like?

Mussolini was shot and his corpse strung up in Milan. Again, the Lee statue is a beacon for racism if it is placed in a prominent public space in a confederate state, it's a piss take. Up until a little over a year ago, Columbia South Carolina had a confederate flag outside City Hall. A massive one. I've seen it in person. That is one in your face institutionalised "fuck you". It's not there for historical reasons. Forget your academic treatment of the causes of the civil war and your sliding scale of time Vs. racism. This issue is about the period 1965-now, which some people in some places are very upset about. There are two excellent historical museums in Philadelphia, The National Independence Center, with all constitutional and independence history, and an African American History Museum, which deals with the ugly shit following. If you suggested putting a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere in Philly but one of these museums, I can assure you the reaction would be overwhelmingly..."negative", and even then good luck getting it through the doors of the other two places.

No doubt it's has some dark themes, but then so does a lot of art. And simply put I struggle to consider in a sensible society that pulling down a statue that's going to be around a hundred years old and was a significant piece of art commissioned at the time is an especially positive way to move forward. And really if you take down a statue you're not going to move a debate forward, you're just going to start a discussion about the next piece of art, and as above at some point you're just signing off on the destruction of Palmyra, or for a new example you'd be supporting the burning of books that people don't like.

I mayn't know much about Robert Lee, not really much more than he's not the one who played for Newcastle, but just as I mayn't admire him based on the little I know I'm wary in advance of accepting that which some people mayn't like can simply be taken down and removed, it's part of the history, our history is all our experiences, and if they take this down at what point do they land on a piece of art I do care about?

I can't say Trumps stance on art sounds laudable though, he protests this one after how many sites has he had trashed putting up his various business ventures?

J Dory wrote:There was something of a storm in a teacup recently in Toronto when a replica of the General Lee Dodge Charger from the Dukes of Hazard TV show turned up to a car show. Watching that TV show as a kid and being a fan of Dodge Chargers, my initial reaction was , wait, it's the general lee from the Dukes of Hazard man, what can you possibly be upset about?

Not sure what my point is really.

It means that you had no idea of the history of the whole thing.....me neither as we both watched it in NZ in the '80s. I'm not in NZ in the '80s anymore.

I'm out.

morepork wrote:

J Dory wrote:There was something of a storm in a teacup recently in Toronto when a replica of the General Lee Dodge Charger from the Dukes of Hazard TV show turned up to a car show. Watching that TV show as a kid and being a fan of Dodge Chargers, my initial reaction was , wait, it's the general lee from the Dukes of Hazard man, what can you possibly be upset about?

Not sure what my point is really.

It means that you had no idea of the history of the whole thing.....me neither as we both watched it in NZ in the '80s. I'm not in NZ in the '80s anymore.

I'm out.

You're right of course, it was ignorance on my part, and I guess that's what people are fighting here by removing monuments/flags etc. Still, the General Lee from Dukes of Hazard ....

"I'm not in NZ in the '80s anymore."

Says the man walking the streets of Philly barefoot.

Bannon the latest Trump casualty it seems.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

I'd still happily enough attend a Dukes of Hazard themed party, especially if the girls all looked like Daisy. But then I don't think a confederate flag has of itself to be an absolute bad, I'd allow a little context and common sense into the picture. And further if it's taken to be a racist symbol then having it subverted as a piece of fun on the back of an 80s TV show, whether subverted intentionally or not, seems to me a much better approach than insisting such a flag never be used/seen.

The history of the South is linked with racism and subjugation no doubt, but those aren't the only parts of the history of the South, and if many Southerners want to to use it as an illustration of pride in where they're from close, in close local communities, in their churches and for a mainly conservative lifestyle then that to me seems every bit as fair as those who find the flag upsetting. And I don't think we can equate the confederate flag to the Nazi flag, there simply being much more scope to the history of the South, frankly it's a lazy example to drag up as a equivalent. A much better flag to compare the confederate flag to might be the Union Flag, or the French flag, and maybe even the US flag which hardy enjoys worldwide popularity.

There are groups who use the Confederate flag in a way that's insulting and pathetic, but the problem of those people and how they behave isn't going to go away if all Confederate flags vanised, and tbh rather than having them vanish I'd much prefer to see those people angry that the image has been adopted by as a for instance by gay rights groups, or for by groups who're pro evolution, take a hugely well known image and do something positive with it.

WaspInWales wrote:Bannon the latest Trump casualty it seems.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

That could see a shift in Trump coverage if Bannon had any say at a well know right wing media company. And with Fox News perhaps getting annoyed too that'll leave Trump with Twitter, and with his Real News TV show

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote: When one side is made up of people literally brandishing firearms while waving Nazis and chanting "the Jews will not replace us," and trying to defend a statue of a racist icon, then no, that's not fine.

Lets not confuse the valid point about airbrushing history we don't like with the means of protest. I completely agree that the manner of this protest was obscene, both from the anti-semitism on display and the threatening nature of groups of people armed with automatic weapons protesting against a decision by a legitimate authority.

But one of the statues in question was that of Robert E Lee. As one of the the prominent Confederate generals of the civil war, I understand why he is seen as a racist symbol, but does that make him any different from other key figures of that period? Was Lee any more of a racist (as we understand it today) than other public figures of the day? Do we tear down all statues of prominent people from history just because they are a symbol to a racist today?

On one level, particularly initially, the American Civil War wasn't about the plight of the slaves. Plenty of Southerners fought for the Confederacy who didn't own slaves. Were they racist, by today's standard white probably, but any more so than many of those who fought for the Union. Its a bit like suggesting that all Italians who fought in World War 2 were Fascists to the core, other than people who volunteered to defend, or were conscripted, their country. Lee was a loyal Virginian who only resigned rom the US Army when Virginia voted to secede from the Union, which was post Fort Sumter whereas originally the state was opposed to secession. Lee saw himself as a loyal Virginian, less so a Confederate. To have a statue for a man who fought for his country is no bad thing; surely the better solution is to focus on the nature of slavery via education and not airbrush the bits of the past we don't like?

Mussolini was shot and his corpse strung up in Milan. Again, the Lee statue is a beacon for racism if it is placed in a prominent public space in a confederate state, it's a piss take. Up until a little over a year ago, Columbia South Carolina had a confederate flag outside City Hall. A massive one. I've seen it in person. That is one in your face institutionalised "fuck you". It's not there for historical reasons. Forget your academic treatment of the causes of the civil war and your sliding scale of time Vs. racism. This issue is about the period 1965-now, which some people in some places are very upset about. There are two excellent historical museums in Philadelphia, The National Independence Center, with all constitutional and independence history, and an African American History Museum, which deals with the ugly shit following. If you suggested putting a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere in Philly but one of these museums, I can assure you the reaction would be overwhelmingly..."negative", and even then good luck getting it through the doors of the other two places.

A period which saw a nadir in race relations, and which haven't been sorted out today. If you think pulling down a statue is the answer, you are mistaken.

Digby wrote:I'd still happily enough attend a Dukes of Hazard themed party, especially if the girls all looked like Daisy. But then I don't think a confederate flag has of itself to be an absolute bad, I'd allow a little context and common sense into the picture. And further if it's taken to be a racist symbol then having it subverted as a piece of fun on the back of an 80s TV show, whether subverted intentionally or not, seems to me a much better approach than insisting such a flag never be used/seen.

The history of the South is linked with racism and subjugation no doubt, but those aren't the only parts of the history of the South, and if many Southerners want to to use it as an illustration of pride in where they're from close, in close local communities, in their churches and for a mainly conservative lifestyle then that to me seems every bit as fair as those who find the flag upsetting. And I don't think we can equate the confederate flag to the Nazi flag, there simply being much more scope to the history of the South, frankly it's a lazy example to drag up as a equivalent. A much better flag to compare the confederate flag to might be the Union Flag, or the French flag, and maybe even the US flag which hardy enjoys worldwide popularity.

There are groups who use the Confederate flag in a way that's insulting and pathetic, but the problem of those people and how they behave isn't going to go away if all Confederate flags vanised, and tbh rather than having them vanish I'd much prefer to see those people angry that the image has been adopted by as a for instance by gay rights groups, or for by groups who're pro evolution, take a hugely well known image and do something positive with it.

A good comparison is th use of the St George cross by English nationalists. Do we consider banning that? Even as a non Englishman I'd consider that to be a step way too far.

Sandydragon wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Lets not confuse the valid point about airbrushing history we don't like with the means of protest. I completely agree that the manner of this protest was obscene, both from the anti-semitism on display and the threatening nature of groups of people armed with automatic weapons protesting against a decision by a legitimate authority.

But one of the statues in question was that of Robert E Lee. As one of the the prominent Confederate generals of the civil war, I understand why he is seen as a racist symbol, but does that make him any different from other key figures of that period? Was Lee any more of a racist (as we understand it today) than other public figures of the day? Do we tear down all statues of prominent people from history just because they are a symbol to a racist today?

On one level, particularly initially, the American Civil War wasn't about the plight of the slaves. Plenty of Southerners fought for the Confederacy who didn't own slaves. Were they racist, by today's standard white probably, but any more so than many of those who fought for the Union. Its a bit like suggesting that all Italians who fought in World War 2 were Fascists to the core, other than people who volunteered to defend, or were conscripted, their country. Lee was a loyal Virginian who only resigned rom the US Army when Virginia voted to secede from the Union, which was post Fort Sumter whereas originally the state was opposed to secession. Lee saw himself as a loyal Virginian, less so a Confederate. To have a statue for a man who fought for his country is no bad thing; surely the better solution is to focus on the nature of slavery via education and not airbrush the bits of the past we don't like?

Mussolini was shot and his corpse strung up in Milan. Again, the Lee statue is a beacon for racism if it is placed in a prominent public space in a confederate state, it's a piss take. Up until a little over a year ago, Columbia South Carolina had a confederate flag outside City Hall. A massive one. I've seen it in person. That is one in your face institutionalised "fuck you". It's not there for historical reasons. Forget your academic treatment of the causes of the civil war and your sliding scale of time Vs. racism. This issue is about the period 1965-now, which some people in some places are very upset about. There are two excellent historical museums in Philadelphia, The National Independence Center, with all constitutional and independence history, and an African American History Museum, which deals with the ugly shit following. If you suggested putting a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere in Philly but one of these museums, I can assure you the reaction would be overwhelmingly..."negative", and even then good luck getting it through the doors of the other two places.

A period which saw a nadir in race relations, and which haven't been sorted out today. If you think pulling down a statue is the answer, you are mistaken.

Sandy, I don't want to get stuck in the mud with you here, but slavery was the lowest point in race relations in the USA and the civil rights period to which you refer actually a high point for progress upwards from that deep low. For a young republic, which period do you think it most appropriate to draw attention to in a public space?

Sandydragon wrote:
Lets not confuse the valid point about airbrushing history we don't like with the means of protest. I completely agree that the manner of this protest was obscene, both from the anti-semitism on display and the threatening nature of groups of people armed with automatic weapons protesting against a decision by a legitimate authority.

But one of the statues in question was that of Robert E Lee. As one of the the prominent Confederate generals of the civil war, I understand why he is seen as a racist symbol, but does that make him any different from other key figures of that period? Was Lee any more of a racist (as we understand it today) than other public figures of the day? Do we tear down all statues of prominent people from history just because they are a symbol to a racist today?

On one level, particularly initially, the American Civil War wasn't about the plight of the slaves. Plenty of Southerners fought for the Confederacy who didn't own slaves. Were they racist, by today's standard white probably, but any more so than many of those who fought for the Union. Its a bit like suggesting that all Italians who fought in World War 2 were Fascists to the core, other than people who volunteered to defend, or were conscripted, their country. Lee was a loyal Virginian who only resigned rom the US Army when Virginia voted to secede from the Union, which was post Fort Sumter whereas originally the state was opposed to secession. Lee saw himself as a loyal Virginian, less so a Confederate. To have a statue for a man who fought for his country is no bad thing; surely the better solution is to focus on the nature of slavery via education and not airbrush the bits of the past we don't like?

+1

If the "liberal" eejits whining about Lee's "offensive" statue actually knew something about history, they'd be clamouring to remove the monuments of Sheridan, and Lincoln in Washington DC, never mind the various other equestrian dedications that honour what was one of the most violent periods in human history. They might also consider banning the American flag, the UJ, and the nip's rising sun.



I see the same set of retards lobbied hard to have a monument of the decalogue removed from a courthouse in Alabama some time ago.

Also, I see you failed to moderate the racist Morepork's use of the racial slur "cracker" on another thread. In fairness there's more reason to ban him for being a dullard.

Do you live here VG? Your google searches let you live vicariously in this debate, at best.

What are nips cracker? Neither the UJ nor rising sun are foci for the civil rights movement in public places here in the US, so I'm wondering what your point is? By way of clarity, the violent periods under discussion came after the civil war. One of them happened last week.


Why would you promote that black face if not to provoke offense, you tedious cunt?

kk67 wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I agree. There are plenty of monuments in this country which are morally iffy. There's a monument in Lincoln to a small child butchered by Jews in the 12th century which is basically highlighting the blood libel. It's complete Shute, but rather than remove it, there is some information highlighting why people believed this stuff and how wrong they were. To me, that's the way to go, not removing statues that we dint like.

Fair point SD. The problem associated with some of the controversial statues in America and elsewhere, is that some idolise the subjects for what they were and try to live their lives under previous values rather than looking at them with contempt.

The lesbian knitting circle

One of my favourite ever pornos.

The problemwith your nalysis Sandy is that qite a lot of these statues wrre put up in the 60s as a deliberate fuck you to people who were just getting their rights. Having been erected with that intent there isn't an earthly reason for it. And even if it's an older statue, so fucking what? There's no airbrushing of history going on. The black communities of the USA are all too aware of the history of slavery and the war that half the country fought to keep it and live every day with the fact that they are still not equal citizens to their white counterparts. How far do you want to take this airbrushing argument? Do you think that Germany should have kept all its buildings laden with swastikas for fear of airbrushing history? Or were they right to erase symbols which every day spoke of oppression and caused offence?

Take a look at @DavidRutz's Tweet:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Lets not confuse the valid point about airbrushing history we don't like with the means of protest. I completely agree that the manner of this protest was obscene, both from the anti-semitism on display and the threatening nature of groups of people armed with automatic weapons protesting against a decision by a legitimate authority.

But one of the statues in question was that of Robert E Lee. As one of the the prominent Confederate generals of the civil war, I understand why he is seen as a racist symbol, but does that make him any different from other key figures of that period? Was Lee any more of a racist (as we understand it today) than other public figures of the day? Do we tear down all statues of prominent people from history just because they are a symbol to a racist today?

On one level, particularly initially, the American Civil War wasn't about the plight of the slaves. Plenty of Southerners fought for the Confederacy who didn't own slaves. Were they racist, by today's standard white probably, but any more so than many of those who fought for the Union. Its a bit like suggesting that all Italians who fought in World War 2 were Fascists to the core, other than people who volunteered to defend, or were conscripted, their country. Lee was a loyal Virginian who only resigned rom the US Army when Virginia voted to secede from the Union, which was post Fort Sumter whereas originally the state was opposed to secession. Lee saw himself as a loyal Virginian, less so a Confederate. To have a statue for a man who fought for his country is no bad thing; surely the better solution is to focus on the nature of slavery via education and not airbrush the bits of the past we don't like?

Mussolini was shot and his corpse strung up in Milan. Again, the Lee statue is a beacon for racism if it is placed in a prominent public space in a confederate state, it's a piss take. Up until a little over a year ago, Columbia South Carolina had a confederate flag outside City Hall. A massive one. I've seen it in person. That is one in your face institutionalised "fuck you". It's not there for historical reasons. Forget your academic treatment of the causes of the civil war and your sliding scale of time Vs. racism. This issue is about the period 1965-now, which some people in some places are very upset about. There are two excellent historical museums in Philadelphia, The National Independence Center, with all constitutional and independence history, and an African American History Museum, which deals with the ugly shit following. If you suggested putting a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere in Philly but one of these museums, I can assure you the reaction would be overwhelmingly..."negative", and even then good luck getting it through the doors of the other two places.

No doubt it's has some dark themes, but then so does a lot of art. And simply put I struggle to consider in a sensible society that pulling down a statue that's going to be around a hundred years old and was a significant piece of art commissioned at the time is an especially positive way to move forward. And really if you take down a statue you're not going to move a debate forward, you're just going to start a discussion about the next piece of art, and as above at some point you're just signing off on the destruction of Palmyra, or for a new example you'd be supporting the burning of books that people don't like.

I mayn't know much about Robert Lee, not really much more than he's not the one who played for Newcastle, but just as I mayn't admire him based on the little I know I'm wary in advance of accepting that which some people mayn't like can simply be taken down and removed, it's part of the history, our history is all our experiences, and if they take this down at what point do they land on a piece of art I do care about?

I can't say Trumps stance on art sounds laudable though, he protests this one after how many sites has he had trashed putting up his various business ventures?

I think that post is comfortably the stupidest thing you've ever written.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problemwith your nalysis Sandy is that qite a lot of these statues wrre put up in the 60s as a deliberate fuck you to people who were just getting their rights. Having been erected with that intent there isn't an earthly reason for it. And even if it's an older statue, so fucking what? There's no airbrushing of history going on. The black communities of the USA are all too aware of the history of slavery and the war that half the country fought to keep it and live every day with the fact that they are still not equal citizens to their white counterparts. How far do you want to take this airbrushing argument? Do you think that Germany should have kept all its buildings laden with swastikas for fear of airbrushing history? Or were they right to erase symbols which every day spoke of oppression and caused offence?

Ah yes, Godwin's law invoked; tacit admission that you don't have a rebuttal.

Tell me this, why aren't you demanding that this be removed?



Or this:



Or even this!



Let's see, what did Unky Abe have to say about the negro:

“I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

Here's what ol' Abe had to say in his inaugural speech:

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

https://www.loc.gov/teachers/newsevents ... nFirst.pdf

"Now, let's see what Robert E Lee had to say about slavery:

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

"......Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"


— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm

BTW, why aren't you demanding that this fella's be removed lest he offend some thin skinned SJW?



Here's a few more racists for you to add to the SJW/Libtard/White privilege hall of infamy:

Winston Churchill
Charles Darwin
Richard Wagner
Karl Marx
Henry Ford
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson

While we're discussing it, let's get rid of this too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yasukuni_Shrine

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:
Mussolini was shot and his corpse strung up in Milan. Again, the Lee statue is a beacon for racism if it is placed in a prominent public space in a confederate state, it's a piss take. Up until a little over a year ago, Columbia South Carolina had a confederate flag outside City Hall. A massive one. I've seen it in person. That is one in your face institutionalised "fuck you". It's not there for historical reasons. Forget your academic treatment of the causes of the civil war and your sliding scale of time Vs. racism. This issue is about the period 1965-now, which some people in some places are very upset about. There are two excellent historical museums in Philadelphia, The National Independence Center, with all constitutional and independence history, and an African American History Museum, which deals with the ugly shit following. If you suggested putting a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere in Philly but one of these museums, I can assure you the reaction would be overwhelmingly..."negative", and even then good luck getting it through the doors of the other two places.

No doubt it's has some dark themes, but then so does a lot of art. And simply put I struggle to consider in a sensible society that pulling down a statue that's going to be around a hundred years old and was a significant piece of art commissioned at the time is an especially positive way to move forward. And really if you take down a statue you're not going to move a debate forward, you're just going to start a discussion about the next piece of art, and as above at some point you're just signing off on the destruction of Palmyra, or for a new example you'd be supporting the burning of books that people don't like.

I mayn't know much about Robert Lee, not really much more than he's not the one who played for Newcastle, but just as I mayn't admire him based on the little I know I'm wary in advance of accepting that which some people mayn't like can simply be taken down and removed, it's part of the history, our history is all our experiences, and if they take this down at what point do they land on a piece of art I do care about?

I can't say Trumps stance on art sounds laudable though, he protests this one after how many sites has he had trashed putting up his various business ventures?

I think that post is comfortably the stupidest thing you've ever written.

You can't then have read many of my posts. However I'm not actually saying it shouldn't be pulled down, demanding that would be attempting to dictate to others what they should do and rather overlooks a more democratic process. Rather I do accept there's a concern around tearing down long standing monuments on the basis of applying values present in the current society.

If we're going to start taking down pieces of art that involve folks who by current accepted norms fail a certain standard then an awful lot of installations will fail a test of racism, slavery, war crimes, misogyny, homophobia.... Okay we can remove Jimmy Saville statues (if there are anyy), but what of someone like Pope John Paul II as a major defender of paedophiles by dint of not wanting the church to be embarrassed? What of the CS Lewis statue in Belfast, which I happen to think could be removed on the grounds it's ugly, do we take that down 'cause an awful lot of people would find Lewis to be an awful misogynist. Also there does seem some support for the idea that our history is our history, in that rarely is there widespread support for the removal of such statues, normally at most it skews 33% or so in favour of removal, so should that a certain % of that 33% are extremely vocal drive an agenda for everyone?

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:
No doubt it's has some dark themes, but then so does a lot of art. And simply put I struggle to consider in a sensible society that pulling down a statue that's going to be around a hundred years old and was a significant piece of art commissioned at the time is an especially positive way to move forward. And really if you take down a statue you're not going to move a debate forward, you're just going to start a discussion about the next piece of art, and as above at some point you're just signing off on the destruction of Palmyra, or for a new example you'd be supporting the burning of books that people don't like.

I mayn't know much about Robert Lee, not really much more than he's not the one who played for Newcastle, but just as I mayn't admire him based on the little I know I'm wary in advance of accepting that which some people mayn't like can simply be taken down and removed, it's part of the history, our history is all our experiences, and if they take this down at what point do they land on a piece of art I do care about?

I can't say Trumps stance on art sounds laudable though, he protests this one after how many sites has he had trashed putting up his various business ventures?

I think that post is comfortably the stupidest thing you've ever written.

You can't then have read many of my posts. However I'm not actually saying it shouldn't be pulled down, demanding that would be attempting to dictate to others what they should do and rather overlooks a more democratic process. Rather I do accept there's a concern around tearing down long standing monuments on the basis of applying values present in the current society.

If we're going to start taking down pieces of art that involve folks who by current accepted norms fail a certain standard then an awful lot of installations will fail a test of racism, slavery, war crimes, misogyny, homophobia.... Okay we can remove Jimmy Saville statues (if there are anyy), but what of someone like Pope John Paul II as a major defender of paedophiles by dint of not wanting the church to be embarrassed? What of the CS Lewis statue in Belfast, which I happen to think could be removed on the grounds it's ugly, do we take that down 'cause an awful lot of people would find Lewis to be an awful misogynist. Also there does seem some support for the idea that our history is our history, in that rarely is there widespread support for the removal of such statues, normally at most it skews 33% or so in favour of removal, so should that a certain % of that 33% are extremely vocal drive an agenda for everyone?

I've read probably the vastmajority and that is way way stupider than anything else you've ever written. I may disagree with others, but I wouldn't have thought of accusing them as stupid. The idea that you can't pull down one statue because you inevitably end at palmyra is just daft. You obviously accept that some memorials can and should be rightly removed - hence the reference to Saville - so the "history is history" argument obviously isn't a blanket answer. Furthermore the idea that holding repellant views can be equated to taking up arms to protect slavery is just silly.

In summary, just because it isn't always easy to draw the line, and there can be discussion about where one does draw it, doesn't mean that no line can ever be drawn.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problemwith your nalysis Sandy is that qite a lot of these statues wrre put up in the 60s as a deliberate fuck you to people who were just getting their rights. Having been erected with that intent there isn't an earthly reason for it. And even if it's an older statue, so fucking what? There's no airbrushing of history going on. The black communities of the USA are all too aware of the history of slavery and the war that half the country fought to keep it and live every day with the fact that they are still not equal citizens to their white counterparts. How far do you want to take this airbrushing argument? Do you think that Germany should have kept all its buildings laden with swastikas for fear of airbrushing history? Or were they right to erase symbols which every day spoke of oppression and caused offence?

I can take your argument to the other extreme. Plenty of people get offended by historical monuments, should we tear down Nelsons column over a possible upset to the French or anyone upset by British imperialism? Of course not. I'd rather build some statues to slaves in the south to balance things out. But unlike someone like Hitler (apologies) , lee doesn't have a huge ethical burden to overcome and would have been s hero to those defending their states, who didn't own slaves.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I think that post is comfortably the stupidest thing you've ever written.

You can't then have read many of my posts. However I'm not actually saying it shouldn't be pulled down, demanding that would be attempting to dictate to others what they should do and rather overlooks a more democratic process. Rather I do accept there's a concern around tearing down long standing monuments on the basis of applying values present in the current society.

If we're going to start taking down pieces of art that involve folks who by current accepted norms fail a certain standard then an awful lot of installations will fail a test of racism, slavery, war crimes, misogyny, homophobia.... Okay we can remove Jimmy Saville statues (if there are anyy), but what of someone like Pope John Paul II as a major defender of paedophiles by dint of not wanting the church to be embarrassed? What of the CS Lewis statue in Belfast, which I happen to think could be removed on the grounds it's ugly, do we take that down 'cause an awful lot of people would find Lewis to be an awful misogynist. Also there does seem some support for the idea that our history is our history, in that rarely is there widespread support for the removal of such statues, normally at most it skews 33% or so in favour of removal, so should that a certain % of that 33% are extremely vocal drive an agenda for everyone?

I've read probably the vastmajority and that is way way stupider than anything else you've ever written. I may disagree with others, but I wouldn't have thought of accusing them as stupid. The idea that you can't pull down one statue because you inevitably end at palmyra is just daft. You obviously accept that some memorials can and should be rightly removed - hence the reference to Saville - so the "history is history" argument obviously isn't a blanket answer. Furthermore the idea that holding repellant views can be equated to taking up arms to protect slavery is just silly.

In summary, just because it isn't always easy to draw the line, and there can be discussion about where one does draw it, doesn't mean that no line can ever be drawn.

Having a discussion about a removal is perfectly reasonable, and I'm not refusing to the drawing of lines/absolutes in saying I don't favour removal. I'm merely concerned that in pulling down works of art we're on the road to book burning (not that we're there in one instance, but we're on a slope) and that such actions will not actually address the problems but will more likely just move onto the next piece of art to decry and then insist must be withdrawn. So in advance of anything happening I can understand and even share some of the concerns Trump raised about the destruction of various monuments albeit I may have slightly different concerns to Trump, and I can share the concerns he raised about what next.

Some people are going to disagree with me, that's fine. But if you have a group who think a statue should be removed and a group who think it shouldn't then how you move forward in a plural society has to be up for debate. I'd tend towards putting the a statue such as the Robert E Lee one into some sort of context, so there's other information and displays by the statue which expand on some of the history of the South and how that's looked back on now. And I'd think similar for many other big names from history who have monuments.

I don't think I'd maybe commission that Lee statue now, just as I wouldn't do one for Dyer and the Amritsar massacre, nor for Hitler or Pol Pot, not unless the idea was to speak to the atrocity rather than grandeur anyway, but when something has been up so long, and both the depiction and person are such a part of the history I'm loathe in advance to agree it should be removed. I could be convinced, but I'd much rather people sought a more positive approach.

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problemwith your nalysis Sandy is that qite a lot of these statues wrre put up in the 60s as a deliberate fuck you to people who were just getting their rights. Having been erected with that intent there isn't an earthly reason for it. And even if it's an older statue, so fucking what? There's no airbrushing of history going on. The black communities of the USA are all too aware of the history of slavery and the war that half the country fought to keep it and live every day with the fact that they are still not equal citizens to their white counterparts. How far do you want to take this airbrushing argument? Do you think that Germany should have kept all its buildings laden with swastikas for fear of airbrushing history? Or were they right to erase symbols which every day spoke of oppression and caused offence?

I can take your argument to the other extreme. Plenty of people get offended by historical monuments, should we tear down Nelsons column over a possible upset to the French or anyone upset by British imperialism? Of course not. I'd rather build some statues to slaves in the south to balance things out. But unlike someone like Hitler (apologies) , lee doesn't have a huge ethical burden to overcome and would have been s hero to those defending their states, who didn't own slaves.

Seriously, if you don't get that Lee and others fighting for the right to keep slaves are in exactly the same moral pit as Hitler in characterising certain races as sub-human, then there's bugger all point in continuing. I'm out.

Lol, some bloke calling himself Rambo is getting trolled big time after the Boston protests.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:The problemwith your nalysis Sandy is that qite a lot of these statues wrre put up in the 60s as a deliberate fuck you to people who were just getting their rights. Having been erected with that intent there isn't an earthly reason for it. And even if it's an older statue, so fucking what? There's no airbrushing of history going on. The black communities of the USA are all too aware of the history of slavery and the war that half the country fought to keep it and live every day with the fact that they are still not equal citizens to their white counterparts. How far do you want to take this airbrushing argument? Do you think that Germany should have kept all its buildings laden with swastikas for fear of airbrushing history? Or were they right to erase symbols which every day spoke of oppression and caused offence?

I can take your argument to the other extreme. Plenty of people get offended by historical monuments, should we tear down Nelsons column over a possible upset to the French or anyone upset by British imperialism? Of course not. I'd rather build some statues to slaves in the south to balance things out. But unlike someone like Hitler (apologies) , lee doesn't have a huge ethical burden to overcome and would have been s hero to those defending their states, who didn't own slaves.

Seriously, if you don't get that Lee and others fighting for the right to keep slaves are in exactly the same moral pit as Hitler in characterising certain races as sub-human, then there's bugger all point in continuing. I'm out.

Huge numbers of people have sadly been involved in slavery, and for many as per the culture of the time there was nothing wrong with it. Also I don't know to what degree I'd say the war was simply a fight about slavery, yes the South wanted to keep slaves whereas the North wanted people to work in its factories who they'd could get away with paying only a fraction of their worth, but whilst slavery was a huge factor it wasn't the only one, and I've no idea where individuals involved would have come down on a variety of factors.

One question though, what distinction to we draw between those who presented with a question slavery such as Lee made a poor choice Vs those who it would never have occurred to even question the right to keep slaves? There'd be some well known figures we see depicted as statues who one could easily argue were pro slavery, from great leaders such as Alexander or Julius Caesar through to religious figures such as Jesus (and I guarantee there'll be complaints if all statues of Jesus have to be taken down owing to his pro slavery position)

And if the deciding factor is whether a statue causes offence then I'd imagine in a random country such as Ireland groups of various religious/social factions could easily advise other groups on which offensive statues they need to take down

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: I can take your argument to the other extreme. Plenty of people get offended by historical monuments, should we tear down Nelsons column over a possible upset to the French or anyone upset by British imperialism? Of course not. I'd rather build some statues to slaves in the south to balance things out. But unlike someone like Hitler (apologies) , lee doesn't have a huge ethical burden to overcome and would have been s hero to those defending their states, who didn't own slaves.

Seriously, if you don't get that Lee and others fighting for the right to keep slaves are in exactly the same moral pit as Hitler in characterising certain races as sub-human, then there's bugger all point in continuing. I'm out.

Huge numbers of people have sadly been involved in slavery, and for many as per the culture of the time there was nothing wrong with it. Also I don't know to what degree I'd say the war was simply a fight about slavery, yes the South wanted to keep slaves whereas the North wanted people to work in its factories who they'd could get away with paying only a fraction of their worth, but whilst slavery was a huge factor it wasn't the only one, and I've no idea where individuals involved would have come down on a variety of factors.

One question though, what distinction to we draw between those who presented with a question slavery such as Lee made a poor choice Vs those who it would never have occurred to even question the right to keep slaves? There'd be some well known figures we see depicted as statues who one could easily argue were pro slavery, from great leaders such as Alexander or Julius Caesar through to religious figures such as Jesus (and I guarantee there'll be complaints if all statues of Jesus have to be taken down owing to his pro slavery position)

And if the deciding factor is whether a statue causes offence then I'd imagine in a random country such as Ireland groups of various religious/social factions could easily advise other groups on which offensive statues they need to take down

Jesus supported slavery now?