@Cassiodorus How 'bout we change the curricula and change how those Great Men's lives are taught. If we did that, and changed the story, we wouldn't have to take down the statues. The problem is the uncritical belief that they are Great Men. And taking down the statue won't mean diddly squat if the curricula don't change anyway.

As for the other part of what you said, I've been thinking from the beginning that, if we're going to talk about statues, I'd rather see the building of statues of Trayvon Martin, Sandra Bland, and Tamir Rice than taking down the statues already there.

Tearing down the statues, blowing up the monuments, and editing the history books won't change anything, other than preventing us from learning from those mistakes.

How 'bout if we edit the history books to include the stories of those who didn't make it into the "Great Men" version of history, the one promoted by the monuments and statues?

@Strife Delivery

The local city council voted to sell the statue, so their plan was that it would be moved - to wherever the buyer chose to put it. Horrors!

Unfortunately, what happened next was, instead of respecting their local decision, a bunch of people who don't live there decided it was a national emergency and that cities cannot be allowed to decide what to do regarding art and displays in their city parks.

Next thing you know, it's the same as blowing up mt Rushmore and removing all references to George Washington from history books, and, and ... where will it end!?

This line of argument is reminding me of those who oppose weed legalization with cries of "where will it end!? What's next? meth at Starbucks? heroine in infant formula?! My God, this is madness. One change of any kind will inevitably lead to complete disaster!"

The overblown overreacting is what tells me this is not actually about anyone caring about history. Which, obviously, isn't erased if a statue is moved or sold to a museum.

I would like to see a new opinion poll and ask Americans "do you think people who don't live in your town or city or state should get to decide what statues you are allowed to put up or take down in your local parks?"

Any guesses how that would go?

I mean this really shouldn't be this hard:

1) Local vote to decide if statues should be taken down or not.

2A) If people decide to leave them up, OK then.

2B) If people decide to take them down, then various options open up.

3A) Move statues to a museum
3B) If no museum has space or won't take them, place them in storage or sell them to private collector.

@on the cusp
ask the local First Nations how they feel about that monstrosity on their sacred lands.

But that's another story.

1. These are works of art intended to glorify the persons depicted as if they were Great and Larger Than Life.
2. The art work is often placed near seats of government, such as State Capitol buildings, or County Courthouses.
3. The blacks answering the poll are correct. Taking them down will inflame racists and may hurt more than it helps to take them down.
Solutions: Move the statues to art or history museums. Educate every man, woman, and child that visits Mt. Rushmore that our historical figures who founded and shaped our democracy were slave owners, only wanted democracy to extend to white male landowners.
Over time, blacks were freed, women and non-land owners were eventually allowed to vote.
As long as we have civil war battlefields, history is damn well not being erased.
When TPTB decide to subdivide Gettysburg Battlefield, or Yorktown, I will object.
Battlefields preserved are true and accurate history.

@Mark from Queens Thank you!

I've been ruminating about "statues" for a long time, with respect to their role in Propaganda. In this and most cases, I believe they are explicitly designed to call allegiance to Militarism and Imperialism. The exaltation of certain individuals to hero status, when in reality there wouldn't be enough room to venerate all who were truly heroes even in their definition, is another aspect that I think we need to do away with: hero worship.

We could use a lot more We, and not Me. When Frederick Olmsted created Central Park in NYC he fought bitter battles with legislators who wanted to appease their benefactor donors who saw an opportunity to erect yet more statues. He stood firm. Central Park opened with just one, of an angel with spread wings, making sure the park was the park of the people, an ode to the oppressed and an oasis for the kept city dweller to experience some rustic peace the way their bettors could freely escape to when/where-ever they pleased. As another example of doing the right thing in terms of reverberating modesty, Thomas Jefferson's tombstone makes no mention of his being the 3rd President. Instead he took credit for writing the Declaration of Independence and creating a university, UVA.

In most every single town square across the country you'll be able to find some kind of monument exalting some war "hero" or heroes or battle. It's so ingrained in our culture, along with the insane, fervent flag-waving display tics Americans are given to, that no country in the world rivals our sick fealty to nationalism and xenophobia. I'm sick of walking by another plaque, monument, or statue whose very presence is designed to calibrate in me a feeling of allegiance to War, that the only way to be "protected" is by having lots of guns and bombs and using them on "bad" people, that which in turn represent our power, which then crystallizes one major element of the pernicious Propaganda assaulting us from childhood on, that America is the Greatest Country In the World. Very dangerous.

Why then don't we also find plaques and monuments to the Everyman, the farmer who tills the soil of which without we perish, the poet/artist/singer/ whose creativity inspires us to live more fully, the scientists who lean upon the great discoveries before them to introduce new and better tools into our world, etc?

I'm tired of personal veneration, especially when it becomes a plaything of vanity for the well-connected and wealthy. Scumbag vainglorious oligarchs do enough to make the landscape of this country an eyesore of moneymen and corporate vanity, or to be used as advertising in the quest for evermore profit. How many more 3M Stadium, Citifield, David Koch Theater, Langone Medical do we have to tolerate?
Fuck these people...

All over Europe their town squares are named after poets, scientists, inventors, musicians, authors.

Personally, I'd be in favor of starting a campaign to venerate what in my view is our biggest and best cultural export to the rest of the world. And it's not Disneyland, McDonald's or Tommy Hilfiger.

How about a statue of Little Richard in every town square? How about statues to the great activists and organizers who brought us the 5 day work week/the 8 hour work day/ended child labor? How about Jonas Salk, who cured polio and never asked for any money for it by accepting no patent on what he said he culled from all the work done before him? How about Howard Zinn, who dedicated his life's work to telling the untold history of social change beginning at the grass roots with solidarity of working people? How about statues erected wherever there had been a lynching? How about the birthplaces and/or homes of all the great literary greats? How about statues honoring the multitude of unknown/little know jazz and blues greats?

What a different feel the landscape of America would have...

I could go on and on and on. But you get the point, don't you?

Stonewall Jackson's great, great grandson's wrote an eloquent, wide-ranging statement regarding the effect of Confederate statues and the effects of that representation of a racist and oppressive American world. They felt those statues can no longer be abided. I'm with them.

More We. Less Me.

More unity, less division.

More common man, less "hero."

@dkmich How many of the early leaders of the suffragist movement still held the beliefs of white superiority.

In Washington D.C., a sculpture of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger is displayed at the Smithsonian and a group of African American pastors from nine states are calling for it to be removed. However, reports today indicate the Smithsonian refuses to remove the statue.

The museum has the Sanger bust in their “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which is supposed to honor those of the past who were “champions of justice.” The pastors wrote the Smithsonian a letter explaining that Sanger was far from a champion for their race because of her strong ties to the eugenics movement.

A sign beneath the bust says that Sanger was “profoundly affected by the physical and mental toll exacted on women by frequent childbirth, miscarriage and self-induced abortion.”

It also mentions the controversial nature of her work. It reads, “During her campaign, Sanger became associated with the eugenics movement – which promoted, among other practices, the forced sterilization of those deemed mentally unfit and for a time was endorsed by many of the era’s prominent thinkers.”

Now, CNS News reports the Smithsonain is denying the request to remove the statue:

@dkmich @dkmich I'm with the Smithsonian on this one; the only thing I'd say is that perhaps they don't want to organize the exhibition around the idea "champions of justice."

In Washington D.C., a sculpture of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger is displayed at the Smithsonian and a group of African American pastors from nine states are calling for it to be removed. However, reports today indicate the Smithsonian refuses to remove the statue.

The museum has the Sanger bust in their “Struggle for Justice” exhibit, which is supposed to honor those of the past who were “champions of justice.” The pastors wrote the Smithsonian a letter explaining that Sanger was far from a champion for their race because of her strong ties to the eugenics movement.

A sign beneath the bust says that Sanger was “profoundly affected by the physical and mental toll exacted on women by frequent childbirth, miscarriage and self-induced abortion.”

It also mentions the controversial nature of her work. It reads, “During her campaign, Sanger became associated with the eugenics movement – which promoted, among other practices, the forced sterilization of those deemed mentally unfit and for a time was endorsed by many of the era’s prominent thinkers.”

Now, CNS News reports the Smithsonain is denying the request to remove the statue:

@vtcc73

thousands of years the people in the Middle East and elsewhere hold murderous rage over old grudges and hatreds.

Here is an example of just the opposite. Right now, the Lebanese Army is attacking Da'sh Along the Lebanese/Syrian border from the West. This is in press called a 'Lebanese Army Only' event. Meanwhile, supposedly totally unrelated, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah are attacking the same pocket of Da'sh from eastern side.

Christians, Sunnis, 'Alawites, Shi'ites all attacking Da'sh in one combined battle but they can't say they are because the dumbass U.S. thinks along simplistic lines and thinks the Lebanese are fighting Hezbollah. If anyone dares say otherwise it will anger the U.S. and blow the minds of all the Washington Think Tanks.

Another interesting reading subject is the Jews from Aleppo. Of course you must read numerous sources. Did you know that until Zionism and economic collapse of northern Syria that Aleppo was the base for Judiasm for hundreds of years?

Our current knowledge of the Middle East is just that. Current. And based on current prejudices. Jews and Arabs fought together against Western Christians. 'Alawites were only considered Shi'ites recently. Tribes were far more important than sects in many of the regions.

The West has done a wonderful job of separating the peoples and getting them to fight one another based on what they want. England was quite good at it. The U.S. has excelled! Bush funded both Shi'ite and Kurdish rebellions against Saddam based on sects. The regime responded and it inflamed a sectarian war. We blame Saddam. We blame 'those Arabs'. We ignore that we should be that shining nation that builds bridges, not burn them.

of learning from it. History is normally written by the victors/survivors carrying with it their biases and version of "truth". So sure, blow up statues and monuments. The Taliban will be proud that were're turning into them. Osama has won.

My mother's family came to the New World in the 1620s settling in what was called New Amsterdam. Some of them fought in the Revolution against the British. The single family unit from whose branch I came moved to northern Virginia, bought land, and established a farm on the Potomac. My grandmother's grandfather was that farmer. My grandmother was born in 1891 to his son on the farm adjoining the Custis Estate. (Her barn sat where Clarendon Circle now stands in the late '20's and was sold in the Great Depression. No sons were available to farm the land and they needed the money.) One of her uncles was a lieutenant in the Army of Northern Virginia, Lee's command. I went to Va. Tech called VPI then becoming VPISU during my attendance. (Pronounced "V piss U" by those of us unhappy with the change.) Our fight song was Dixie and it was played by VTCC (Va. Tech Corps of Cadets) band the Highty Tighties at every football game. Dixie was a frequent target for charges of racism that were defended by counterclaims of heritage. I remember all of the heated arguments that were not finally settled until well after I graduated. My heritage and almost everything that I learned when my family and friends idolized and idealized the South and their heroic stand made by the Southern armies against the oppression and aggression of the North. I, like most of us, took this as gospel.

I was unerringly wrong. They were all wrong. Are wrong now if they haven't reconsidered. The people of the South were the oppressors of an entire race of people forced into slavery on land first stolen by the Europeans, my family included, from the native peoples already in the Americas and, second, by the citizens of the US. They were thieves, murders, and people who thought little of the evils they inflicted on innocents to maintain an evil system designed to benefit a very few wealthy land owners. Then, not unlike today, the average free white man, of course man, supported then later fought and many died for a system that didn't do much of anything for them. None of them were heroes. They were traitors.

I did not come to this realization until much later in my life. I may never have come to it had I not followed through on an uneasy feeling that something was terribly wrong with what I'd been taught. None of it leveled with my base values as a human. I asked the question and followed the evidence to the conclusion that the South was based on incredible inhumanity that can easily be termed evil. Many of the attitudes here, I currently live in Tennessee but not much longer, follow from accepted teachings without the benefit of rigorously honest examination. This after more than 150 years is sort of amazing until I consider the thousands of years the people in the Middle East and elsewhere hold murderous rage over old grudges and hatreds. I would think the most exceptional people ever to have lived could say they are wrong to claim freedom for themselves while denying it to everyone else. What a silly thought.

The town I live in has a vibrant active downtown area. It's named for one of our most famous Founding Fathers and was called the nation of that same Founder for a time. There's a roundabout in front of the old courthouse with a well kept monument to the Confederate heroes of the Civil War. I recently had a younger couple, friends from Rome - the original, visit for a few days during their August holiday road trip from Chicago to New Orleans. Both nights we had dinner near the town square (round?). They asked about the monument so we went out there to look at it. Their English has become very good and they quickly read the flowery inscriptions tog the heroism of the Southern soldiers. Both were puzzled by a monument to the losers of a revolt against their government. I told them about the big Civil War battle and national battlefield park a few miles away. That's how it is in the South and this one is actually pretty tame. I also said that it is definitely strange that a country whose people proudly boast of their exceptionalism and worship of freedom would permit the spawn of traitors and oppressors to maintain such a thing.

I also said that I'd not have it any other way. How else could there be such a stark reminder of how wrong people can be? How do you ever learn to avoid doing stupid shit like that again? Removing that monument does several bad things. It hides the history of monumental flusterclucks we Americans have enthusiastically engaged in. Hell, we hide/deny or history well enough by refusing to treat these topics honestly in our teachings to our children and in the official histories. We do it time and time again. Not removing them won't change that. Not "probably" won't, won't. I mean, 150+ years hasn't done it so why now? However, removal will enable a self righteous claim of grievance, reinforce feelings of repression and victimization, and provide reasons for embracing that old cause.

I'd much rather go to these monuments to traitors and tell others that they are exactly that.

@Blueslide I have to point out that the Emancipation Proclamation did not outlaw slavery nor free very many slaves. It was a transparent attempt to get slaves to rebel. Slaves were key to Confederate supply lines, and if they had rebelled in significant numbers the war would have mercifully ended much earlier with a tiny fraction of the deaths that later ensued. It did not apply to the Union slave states (Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia [which was in the process of being split off from Virginia], Kentucky and Missouri) nor to certain regions of the Confederacy controlled by Union Soldiers. In fairness to Lincoln, he perceived that if the Emancipation Proclamation applied to the Union slave states, they would likely secede and the Union would collapse. The slaves were actually freed by the 13th amendment, which Lincoln did not support until 1864, probably again because he did not want to antagonize the Union slave states. By 1864 the war was looking much better for the Union and it was unlikely that any of the Union slave states would secede. Interestingly, although Lincoln was an abolitionist, he made it very clear in his first inaugural address that he did not intend to outlaw slavery in the states in which it existed. He also supported the Fugitive Slave Act and agreed with the Dred Scott decision. The Confederate States forced his hand, and did not leave him with peaceful options to preserve the Union. His preferred solution to slavery was to buy the slaves from their owners as had been done in some other countries.

...as a big fat thumb in the eye of the emancipation proclamation. Many of these monuments were installed as a giant middle finger to the union long after the war was over and the honoree dead. The greatest number of confederate school naming and statue making happened in 1909 and 1910.

These were put up, not by history buffs, but as a reminder that lotsa crackers out there are ready to protect their race and "heritage". I've got an idea, in the spirit of maintaining historical reference, let's put up a statue of Gen Tecumseh Sherman in every city and town touched during his southern tour. It's the exact same line of thinking that places Lee, Jackson et al in such reverence.

Make America Great Again - *hurl*

@Roy Blakeley Yeah. A person has the option to take those long lists of the killed in war as a warning. The names represent people with lives exactly as real as our own. It matters to feel that when looking at them.

I wouldn't mind stipulating that such displays have a simple bronze sign attached "War is not glorious; it's painful" or such.

1) The emphasis on this subject and the way it is portrayed in the news seems like an attempt to further divide the races or perpetuate racial divisions. The identity politics practiced by both parties is a form of racism and playing poor whites and poor blacks off against each other has long been a staple of US capitalism.

2)Slavery, although heinous, is hardly the worst atrocity committed by the Europeans that settled the continent. That distinction would go to the genocide committed against Native Americans. Somehow, the two atrocities that we are encouraged to have angst over are slavery and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in WWII. Perhaps this is because these stories have a sort of happy ending. Both slaves and Japanese Americans were freed. There was not any semblance of a happy ending for Native Americans. The deaths due to US imperialism seem also to be beyond the acceptable boundaries of Angst.

3) I have mixed feelings about the destruction or removal of Confederate Statues. I would not care if all of the statues of R. E. Lee or Jefferson Davis were to disappear. However, I don't like the erasure of history, even phony history. What I would object to is the removal of monuments to the Confederate War Dead, just like I would object to the bulldozing of the Vietnam memorial, even though the war was imperialist and resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 3,000,000 people.

@Roy Blakeley The emphasis on this subject and the way it is portrayed in the news seems like an attempt to further divide the races or perpetuate racial divisions. The identity politics practiced by both parties is a form of racism and playing poor whites and poor blacks off against each other has long been a staple of US capitalism.

Now, now, you conspiracy theorist! Have you been talking to Vladimir again?

1) The emphasis on this subject and the way it is portrayed in the news seems like an attempt to further divide the races or perpetuate racial divisions. The identity politics practiced by both parties is a form of racism and playing poor whites and poor blacks off against each other has long been a staple of US capitalism.

2)Slavery, although heinous, is hardly the worst atrocity committed by the Europeans that settled the continent. That distinction would go to the genocide committed against Native Americans. Somehow, the two atrocities that we are encouraged to have angst over are slavery and the imprisonment of Japanese Americans in WWII. Perhaps this is because these stories have a sort of happy ending. Both slaves and Japanese Americans were freed. There was not any semblance of a happy ending for Native Americans. The deaths due to US imperialism seem also to be beyond the acceptable boundaries of Angst.

3) I have mixed feelings about the destruction or removal of Confederate Statues. I would not care if all of the statues of R. E. Lee or Jefferson Davis were to disappear. However, I don't like the erasure of history, even phony history. What I would object to is the removal of monuments to the Confederate War Dead, just like I would object to the bulldozing of the Vietnam memorial, even though the war was imperialist and resulted in the unnecessary deaths of 3,000,000 people.

@LaFeminista
Exactly that happened with the Old Frederick County Courthouse in Winchester, VA, and its lawn statue of the idealized Confederate soldier. The city built a spanking new modern courthouse a few blocks away, and turned the old one into a Civil War Museum.

yes or no.
Personally I object to destruction more why the statue was placed in a certain position. Many were placed where they are for specific reasons often to intimidate [specifically the more modern post 1900 Confederate ones].
They can be moved to a more appropriate site, say a museum.

Yes no polls are inadequate.

@Fishtroller 02 This is one of the problems I have with the whole thing, though not the main one:

statue removal may also remove awareness of the history they suffered in that area during the civil war.

That's why a historical museum would be better than demolition.

with Meteor Blades about this topic when he wrote a quite strong anti-statue diary. I sent him a link to an article which demonstrated that the local community in Charlottesville, which had held 17 public meetings on the question, was ambivalent about statue removal. This included local black citizens and civil rights leaders. many of whom stated at the meetings and in writings that statue removal may also remove awareness of the history they suffered in that area during the civil war. Meteor Blades told me that every black person he had talked to since the 60's want those statues down, and therefore I didn't know what I was talking about. I shared more evidence that blacks were split on this question to no avail.
This is the Party who thinks they represent all black citizens in this country? In fact, they do it so well, they don't need to pay any attention to actual POVs from that community! Isn't that wonderful?

@divineorder https://crazyhorsememorial.org/

Sadly I doubt I will live to see it completed.

war and American Exceptionalism as well.

I am with these guys. Fuck this 'history.'

He Sapa, before the vandalism. Before Mount Rushmore was carved into our beautiful hills. pic.twitter.com/36GFUVr0Q5

— Wahwala Un Win (@iamlakotak) August 21, 2017

Mount Rushmore — the largest, ugliest monument to white domination. pic.twitter.com/BHhodTg9Hu

— Simon Moya-Smith (@SimonMoyaSmith) August 15, 2017

@divineorder Are they snarking? Because obviously, Saddam Hussein wasn't removed from history.

That's why "erasing history" isn't my main problem with any of this. I'm ambivalent about that, but I also know that there's a lot more to erasing history than taking down some statues. If you want to erase or rewrite history, you have to tackle the school curricula, and possibly also make some movies (since you can't necessarily control how Hollywood portrays U.S. history, and you will want to counter their versions with your own.) Nobody's talking about doing that, which is one reason why the whole thing looks poorly thought out to me. Even if what you want to do is revise history from a crappy racist version to a better version, this strategy isn't going to accomplish it. If successful, it's going to rile a lot of people, and make a lot of other people feel a little bit better because they don't have to see Jefferson Davis' ugly mug every day.

That seems like a pretty paltry success to offer Black people, given the circumstances.

It either represents organizers casting about for a win, any win, they can offer to their rank-and-file (i.e. we can't fix the police, so let's aim for a winnable goal and take down statues), or it was designed to do exactly what it is doing: getting people angrier and providing the media and politicians an opportunity to make the biggest, loudest circus out of this conflict that they can, while giving the people who actually need real change a token change that won't change their lives very much.

For me this came up after reading this part

Look, most of history is full of some pretty f'd up sh*t.
Tearing down the statues, blowing up the monuments, and editing the history books won't change anything, other than preventing us from learning from those mistakes. The past cannot be undone.
Eliminating the bad stuff also eliminates the significance of those heroes who fought against the bad stuff.
What's more, people in history, both good and bad, sometimes get "revised".
Even the present situation might not be what you think it is.

then thinking of this event:

The left doesnt want you to know this:
A man named Sadam Hussein was leader of Iraq. He was erased from history after his statue was removed pic.twitter.com/Afu9TYinwC

— benjy (@benjyhimmel) August 16, 2017