"I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-08-2017, 01:45 PM
"I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
I'm with the prez on this one. Washington was a slave holder; we should take down his statues, too. Also those of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other 20-30 Founding Fathers who signed a document declaring "all men are created equal" while keeping their fellow men in bondage.

Better still, let's stop putting up statues of dead people and use the money to support food banks and community clinics, eh?

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2017, 02:09 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
@Dr H

Statues of known historical figures aren't dedicated to their person, but to their ideals and accomplishments, the two being impossible seperate. Statues of individuals are the idealisation and objectification of a person. Statues of MLK are dedicated to his ideal of racial equality and peaceful protest of injustice at the risk of one's life not to his awesome pool skills or to him cheating on his wife. Washington is honored as the founder of your nation not as a war criminal who ambushed a diplomatic delegation of French and Native Americans, neither as a slave holders. These are the action of a living person not the idealisation of a person. Monuments aren't dedicated to events, they are dedicated to ideals and accomplishments. The fact that Washington is known to be a notorious slave owner and poor military commander is well documented in history books, but that doesn't mean that his status as one of the founders of a nation which grew much behond his own ideal of freedom is to be erased. Washington, the Founding Father, is honored, not Washington the person. Washington, Jefferson, Adams and so many others are only the face of a much larger thing is being celebrated: the United States of America.

PS: What the prez is doing is called a slippery slope fallacy doubled with a false equivocation between the CSA Founding Fathers and the USA Founding Fathers.

PPS: Yes hero worship has always and will always be problematic.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like epronovost's post
16-08-2017, 02:20 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 01:45 PM)Dr H Wrote:  I'm with the prez on this one. Washington was a slave holder; we should take down his statues, too. Also those of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the other 20-30 Founding Fathers who signed a document declaring "all men are created equal" while keeping their fellow men in bondage.

Better still, let's stop putting up statues of dead people and use the money to support food banks and community clinics, eh?

Stop ripping down statues. I don't care who's on it. It could be a giant dildo for all I care, just quit it.

[Image: 20cad83ad8d757191e2878b0f4bf05a9.png]
"Don't answer that. A rhetorical question."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ELK12695's post
16-08-2017, 02:27 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 02:20 PM)ELK12695 Wrote:  Stop ripping down statues. I don't care who's on it. It could be a giant dildo for all I care, just quit it.

Oh, that one's not a statue! It's the Washington Monument. Smartass

[Image: monument.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rockblossom's post
16-08-2017, 02:50 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
Well, there's a bit of a difference between the statues of confiderate generals and others who faught FOR slavery during the Civil War and Washington. Even though, yes, Washington did own slaves. The statues were erected after the Civil War for those who were specifically and intentionally fighting and doing everything they could to keep slavery going, the statues of Washington were for his contributions to the Revolutionary War of Independence and the Presidency. You may not see the difference but I do.

Had Washington magically lived to fight in the Civil War on the South's side then yup, his statues should be removed and put in a museum.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
16-08-2017, 02:56 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
I have an idea.

Maybe people should just stop worrying about fancily-shaped pieces of stone and actually talk about stuff that matters.

All this statue controversy lately is just distracting from actual, physical problems, people who are actually physically suffering, but people are expending so much energy whining about defending statues, or whining about tearing down statues.

More Min Gee Ziss
[Image: giphy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TSG's post
16-08-2017, 03:09 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 02:09 PM)epronovost Wrote:  @Dr H

Statues of known historical figures aren't dedicated to their person, but to their ideals and accomplishments, the two being impossible seperate.
So put up a plaque listing the accomplishments and dates, and put the rest of the money into a housing fund for the homeless.

Problem with statues is that they're right there, in your face; pretty hard to ignore.
But people walk by plaques every day without reading them.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
16-08-2017, 03:22 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 02:50 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Well, there's a bit of a difference between the statues of confiderate generals and others who faught FOR slavery during the Civil War and Washington. Even though, yes, Washington did own slaves. The statues were erected after the Civil War for those who were specifically and intentionally fighting and doing everything they could to keep slavery going, the statues of Washington were for his contributions to the Revolutionary War of Independence and the Presidency. You may not see the difference but I do.
All you're saying it that it's in the eye of the beholder; I agree.

There are people -- I've met some -- who believe that the Confederacy was primarily a big test of the alleged Constitutional guarantee of states' rights, and that slavery was a subsidiary issue to that. To them those statues commemorate not a stubborn defense of slavery, but people bravely fighting for their right to self-determination in the face of an overwhelmingly obtrusive federal government's attempts to quash it. Even though, yes, some of them did own slaves.

Do you see the difference there?

Quote:Had Washington magically lived to fight in the Civil War on the South's side then yup, his statues should be removed and put in a museum.
It's an interesting question as to which side he might have taken. He was troubled during his life by the moral implications of slavery, although apparently not enough to become an abolitionist like Franklin. On the other hand, he was a Virginian.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2017, 03:47 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
It is, as are many things, not as simple an issue as some would like to make it:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2...59c95cf9eb

"Joseph McGill, founder of the Slave Dwelling Project, spends nights in former slave quarters to draw attention to what they represent. He slept in one in Greensboro, near. He favors saving Confederate statues, but reinterpreting them, because he says they are part of history, too."

"Why should black history and white history be compartmentalized? Isn’t that a source of some of today’s problems?" More to the point, he asked: "Why should sins receive the forgiveness of forgetting? Those folks who support Confederate monuments, they find an ally” in me, he told the museum audience. “Because I say, leave them right there. But if you leave them, you’re going to have to reinterpret them.”

"How many slaves were owned by Confederates represented in statues?" he asked. "Does their DNA turn up in black descendants, possible evidence of nonconsensual relationships? What was their role during the postwar rise of lynching, the Ku Klux Klan and white suppression of black aspirations?"

Moreover, he said, simply taking down a statue, or not putting one back up, conveniently obscures a more collective national guilt. “I want people to know that these Confederate generals, or whatever their rank may have been, they were just defending what was passed down to them,” McGill told me later. “And you’ve got to think about who passed it down to them. Eventually you’re going to get to all those 12 slaveholding presidents” — he was including those who owned slaves while not in office — “and their roles in all this. What are we going to do then? Are we going to take the Washington Monument out of Washington, the Jefferson Memorial out of Washington?”

“This was a system that we as a nation allowed to exist,” he continued. “And to hold those military officers and folks whose monuments were taken down responsible, to put the weight on their shoulders, that’s wrong. We’ve got to accept that we were a nation of people who condoned enslaving others and not lay the burden at the feet of these Confederate officers.”

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Dr H's post
16-08-2017, 04:31 PM
RE: "I wonder, is it George Washington next week?"
(16-08-2017 03:22 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(16-08-2017 02:50 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  Well, there's a bit of a difference between the statues of confiderate generals and others who faught FOR slavery during the Civil War and Washington. Even though, yes, Washington did own slaves. The statues were erected after the Civil War for those who were specifically and intentionally fighting and doing everything they could to keep slavery going, the statues of Washington were for his contributions to the Revolutionary War of Independence and the Presidency. You may not see the difference but I do.
All you're saying it that it's in the eye of the beholder; I agree.

There are people -- I've met some -- who believe that the Confederacy was primarily a big test of the alleged Constitutional guarantee of states' rights, and that slavery was a subsidiary issue to that. To them those statues commemorate not a stubborn defense of slavery, but people bravely fighting for their right to self-determination in the face of an overwhelmingly obtrusive federal government's attempts to quash it. Even though, yes, some of them did own slaves.

Do you see the difference there?

Quote:Had Washington magically lived to fight in the Civil War on the South's side then yup, his statues should be removed and put in a museum.
It's an interesting question as to which side he might have taken. He was troubled during his life by the moral implications of slavery, although apparently not enough to become an abolitionist like Franklin. On the other hand, he was a Virginian.

(16-08-2017 03:22 PM)Dr H Wrote:  who believe that the Confederacy was primarily a big test of the alleged Constitutional guarantee of states' rights

Yes.... states rights to own slaves.

It's important to realize that the majority of statues erected to the Confederate military were erected after 1900, during the Jim Crow and the rise of the KKK.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like dancefortwo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: