patrick.net

socal2 says

Are we really comparing 20th Century mass murders and genocidal maniacs to this song writer?

I don't believe we are. Folks are saying that removing a statue erases history and dooms people to repeat dark times again.

I'm asking if this is the case w.r.t. Saddam and Iraq? Or Russia and Stalin?

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

So the massacred Polish Officers at Katyn, who voluntarily surrendered to the Soviets in 1939 and thought they were going to be armed to fight the Nazis, are the same as Saddam and Stalin.

Got it.

No, you clearly don't have it.

Like I said above--if removing a statue erases history, like you theorize, aren't Iraqis and Russians doomed then?

LeonDurham says

If you're asking my opinion, no.

Should the Iraqis have left the statues of Saddam? Or Russians left up Stalin?

Are they doomed to repeat history now?

Russians are doomed to repeat history and they are doing it as we speak.

Also, it is quite interesting that you equate Katyn massacre victims to Saddam and Stalin.

drB6 says

Also, it is quite interesting that you equate Katyn massacre victims to Saddam and Stalin.

No equality here. As I've illustrated twice.

Just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

LeonDurham says

My opinion is that the good of those folks outweighs the bad. But, I don't think it's an outrage if a population decides that they don't want to honor a historical figure and therefore want to take a statue down. It's happened since the dawn of time.

By "population" you mean a tiny vocal minority of left-wing radicals that will threaten violence and boycotts if they don't tear down a statue they don't like?

I am pretty sure that most of the statues that have already been torn down in the past year by the Taliban Left - the person the statue was honoring had more good deeds in their lives to outweigh the bad.

LeonDurham says

I don't believe we are. Folks are saying that removing a statue erases history and dooms people to repeat dark times again.

I think it is fair to say that the current generation of H.S. and College Students are more ignorant of US and World history than any of our ancestors over the last 3 generations.

The same radicals that are inspiring snowflakes to lose their shit and rip down statues are teaching them their Marxist view of history.

socal2 says

By "population" you mean a tiny vocal minority of left-wing radicals that will threaten violence and boycotts if they don't tear down a statue they don't like?

I am pretty sure that most of the statues that have already been torn down in the past year by the Taliban Left - the person the statue was honoring had more good deeds in their lives to outweigh the bad.

No, I don't think so. Pretty sure you need elected representatives to make that decision. None of them were removed under duress.

LeonDurham says

Like I said above--if removing a statue erases history, like you theorize, aren't Iraqis and Russians doomed then?

Why bother removing them, then? Still don't understand why a songwriter and a monument to Polish victims of Red Terror are the equivalents of Stalin and Hitler Statues - please explain.

socal2 says

I think it is fair to say that the current generation of H.S. and College Students are more ignorant of US and World history than any of our ancestors over the last 3 generations.

The same radicals that are inspiring snowflakes to lose their shit and rip down statues are teaching them their Marxist view of history.

I very highly doubt it. Each generation tends to be smarter than the one before it.

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

Why bother removing them, then? Still don't understand why a songwriter and a monument to Polish victims of Red Terror are the equivalents of Stalin and Hitler Statues - please explain.

They're not equivalent. Not sure why you think I implied such a thing after I've definitely stated the opposite multiple times.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would imagine people don't want to honor them any longer. Like I said--this has happened routinely throughout history. It's nothing new.

socal2 says

I think it is fair to say that the current generation of H.S. and College Students are more ignorant of US and World history than any of our ancestors over the last 3 generations.

Example:

Throughout history violence and war only creates more of itself for example WWI->WWII->Cold War ->Korean War->Vietnam and up to today. While nonviolent moments like Gandhi’s, the suffrage movement or Civil Rights movement lead to peace and long lasting change. Ours will too.

— David Hogg (@davidhogg111) April 30, 2018

LeonDurham says

But, I don't think it's an outrage if a population decides that they don't want to honor a historical figure and therefore want to take a statue down. It's happened since the dawn of time.

I understand the point here, and it is logical. Having said that, it is not how this is done now. there are attempts to take down statues in a city where I live. No one asks me. If this would be done via a city-wide referendum, and most people would vote for taking down statues, then I would be OK for it. As it stands now, a minuscule yet very vocal minority (ca. 200 demonstrators out of 4 M people in city) wants to take them down, and they may succeed.

drB6 says

I understand the point here, and it is logical. Having said that, it is not how this is done now. there are attempts to take down statues in a city where I live. No one asks me. If this would be done via a city-wide referendum, and most people would vote for taking down statues, then I would be OK for it. As it stands now, a minuscule yet very vocal minority (ca. 200 demonstrators out of 4 M people in city) wants to take them down, and they may succeed.

Fair enough--the problem isn't with the people who want the statue down then--t's with the elected representatives. And the way that special interests can influence them.

I agree with that sentiment.

LeonDurham says

No equality here. As I've illustrated twice.

Just pointing out the flaw in your logic.

So why take down the statue and in same thread ask if Stalin statues should have been taken down? This sounds like implying that Katyn victims are somewhat similar to person who ordered their execution.

And why not take down MLK statue? And, finally, who should determine which statues are taken down and which are not?

LeonDurham says

They are removed to avoid the perception that one is idolizing the subject.

MLK should be idolized, while Katyn massacre victims not, according to your logic.

LeonDurham says

Trumpkins

Please feel free to find posts where I idolize or support Trump.

LeonDurham says

I can't speak for anyone else, but I would imagine people don't want to honor them any longer. Like I said--this has happened routinely throughout history. It's nothing new.

People want to honor them. But the mayor and some handpicked, unelected officials want to move it because "it's gruesome" "Mothers shouldn't have to explain it".
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2018/04/critics_slam_plan_to_move_statue_dedicated_to_vict.html

I suspect the real reason is that Jersey city went from 100,000 Polish 1972 to 21,000 Polish 2010. The Katyn Monument also has a memorial plaque mentioning 9/11 that was added to the base in 2004.

Who is arriving in big numbers into Jersey city to replace the Poles?

They partied at several locations on 9/11, proven fact.

LeonDurham says

It's with the elected representatives then.

Sadly, as you say, they are beholden to special interests and next election, and donor money, and not beholden to their electorate...too much.

I could agree with a general viewpoint that we should not put up statues to avoid idolizing people, but then that should apply universally. As it is done now, Confederate statues are removed even from cemeteries where, I think, any statues are OK.

The Madison City Council on Tuesday approved removing a monument for Confederate soldiers buried in Forest Hill Cemetery.

Nearly eight months after Mayor Paul Soglin ordered a plaque at the Confederate Rest section to be taken out of the publicly owned cemetery, council members, on a voice vote, unanimously approved taking down a second stone monument, known as a cenotaph, that names the 140 soldiers buried in the northern-most cemetery for Confederate soldiers.

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/madison-city-council-votes-to-remove-confederate-monument-at-forest/article_23bb9ab1-eb46-526d-8bbc-88a25f8a9c00.html

This last thing is beyond reprehensible.

drB6 says

So why take down the statue and in same thread ask if Stalin statues should have been taken down? This sounds like implying that Katyn victims are somewhat similar to person who ordered their execution.

Because I was attempting to point out the illogical nature of the argument. Remember, folks were saying statues are history and removing them erases that history and dooms people to repeat it. Asking if removal of Saddam or Stalin dooms people to repeat those dark times pokes holes at that theory.

If, instead, the argument was that Stephen Foster, while flawed, was still worth honoring, then the equivalency point would be appropriate.

drB6 says

And why not take down MLK statue? And, finally, who should determine which statues are taken down and which are not?

Like I said earlier--it's up to the population to decide who they want to honor and who they don't.

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

People want to honor them. But the mayor and some handpicked, unelected officials want to move it because "it's gruesome" "Mothers shouldn't have to explain it".

Not sure if that's true or not, but elections have consequences. If the reps don't represent you, vote in different officials.

LeonDurham says

Like I said earlier--it's up to the population to decide who they want to honor and who they don't.

Not happening. In the case of NJ, and other cases, it's clear that boards of "City Improvement Council" types picked from Social Justice or just plain controversy-dodging Suits, are removing them, on unannounced voice votes and/or without consultation of any kind.

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

Not happening. In the case of NJ, and other cases, it's clear that boards of "City Improvement Council" types picked from Social Justice or just plain controversy-dodging Suits, are removing them, on unannounced voice votes and/or without consultation of any kind.

No offense, but your opinion doesn't necessarily equal the population's view.

LeonDurham says

Anyone who thinks a statue is history is a moron.

So every historian and archeologist is a moron, nice...

I guess we can throw out everything before written language as well, because according to you, it's not history. And what if the language isn't readable, like how many people know hieroglyphs? Not history either apparently.

Do you ever actually think through anything you say, or do the words just spill out of your mouth like so much vomit? If you did, you'd realize that moronic statement just wiped out half of history.

FYI for the board, this is the kind of reduced mental capacity you can expect from anyone who sees politics as anything more than entertainment(think WWF), or subscribes to the false left/right paradigm.

LeonDurham says

Because I was attempting to point out the illogical nature of the argument.

Good on you for doing it. The rightwing population on this board has been repeating this illogical argument so much that they probably don't even see the fallacy of the argument. By equating 'statue removal' with 'erasing history,' the argument shifts away from the particular statue and into the meaning of words. By trying too hard to make the left seem like truth deniers, they make themselves seem like illogical fools.

LeonDurham says

No offense, but your opinion doesn't necessarily equal the population's view.

None taken, but removing the Katyn statue was no subject to any public opinion, it's removal was attempted by stealth, as many statues and memorials are being removed that aren't "100% PC"

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Good on you for doing it. The rightwing population on this board has been repeating this illogical argument so much that they probably don't even see the fallacy of the argument. By equating 'statue removal' with 'erasing history,' the argument shifts away from the particular statue and into the meaning of words. By trying too hard to make the left seem like truth deniers, they make themselves seem like illogical fools.

It can be both undemocratic while erasing history. Many acts of erasing history are undemocratic.

Statues that remind blacks of slavery belong in museums, not out in public.
They should not be destroyed, but moved to a place where people can expect to see what it was like in the past.
I can see where having that type of statue out in public would be hurtful to a race that had to endure slavery.

NuttBoxer says

So every historian and archeologist is a moron, nice...

lol--clearly every historian doesn't believe that a statue is history. I doubt hardly any do. Statues are art and are used to understand the culture of ancient people. I'm honestly surprised that anyone doesn't understand this.

NuttBoxer says

I guess we can throw out everything before written language as well, because according to you, it's not history. And what if the language isn't readable, like how many people know hieroglyphs? Not history either apparently.

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. If you would like to know what I think, just ask me.

NuttBoxer says

Do you ever actually think through anything you say, or do the words just spill out of your mouth like so much vomit? If you did, you'd realize that moronic statement just wiped out half of history.

FYI for the board, this is the kind of reduced mental capacity you can expect from anyone who sees politics as anything more than entertainment(think WWF), or subscribes to the false left/right paradigm.

I'll let the board decide who the idiot is. So far all you've contributed is insults while I've taken the time to explain my position and the logic behind it.

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says

Removing a statue is not destroying history.

You are quite correct, Sir! History may not be destroyed unless one has access to a time machine which Eisteinian physics predicts is impossible.

However, the remembrance of history is another matter entirely. Have you ever been to the holocaust museum? Ever seen the statue of the flag raising at Iwo Jima? Ever been to the National Mall and marveled at Lincoln’s sad expression from that giant throne? Statues help us remember history, and are a semi-permanent reminder of that history. Do they also honor historical figures? Possibly, but such figures are rarely alive to appreciate the honor. Their primary purpose is to remind people of historical figures and occurances!

LeonDurham says

Pretty sure that history is more properly written in books or essays. Or recorded in video form and pictures.

Do you mean college courses? Yeah the same people are attacking history education, as well as literature and anything else written by white men.

Let's not pretend this progressive idiocy is anything but pure tyranny.

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

None taken, but removing the Katyn statue was no subject to any public opinion, it's removal was attempted by stealth, as many statues and memorials are being removed that aren't "100% PC"

Like I said--elect different people then. It was public officials that decided to remove them--not SJWs.

Quigley says

You are quite correct, Sir! History may not be destroyed unless one has access to a time machine which Eisteinian physics predicts is impossible.

However, the remembrance of history is another matter entirely. Have you ever been to the holocaust museum? Ever seen the statue of the flag raising at Iwo Jima? Ever been to the National Mall and marveled at Lincoln’s sad expression from that giant throne? Statues help us remember history, and are a semi-permanent reminder of that history. Do they also honor historical figures? Possibly, but such figures are rarely alive to appreciate the honor. Their primary purpose is to remind people of historical figures and occurances!

Sure--I've been to the holocaust museum. As I recall, it's got newspapers, videos, essays, etc. Statues comprise very little of the exhibits.

Again-a statue is art. Sometimes it commemorates a historical act of idolizes a historical figure, but it's never history. At best, it might spur one to learn the history surrounding the art. I'd argue that statues of historical figures are done to honor those people. And if, for whatever reason, people later decide that the historical figure is no longer worthy of such an honor, then they take down the statue. It's not erasing history, it's a decision not to honor that person.

LeonDurham says

it might spur one to learn the history surrounding the art.

I see that we agree. Before (near) universal literacy, statues and other works of art were the primary method of keeping historical acts alive in the minds of the common people.
Given the clear preference internet users show for pictures over text, I’d say we still prefer visual art as remembrance queues rather than dry textbooks.

LeonDurham says

It was public officials that decided to remove them--not SJWs.

Sadly, for elected officials it is easier to remove statue than to deal with SJW's clogging up traffic and defacing property.

LeonDurham says

Again-a statue is art. Sometimes it commemorates a historical act of idolizes a historical figure, but it's never history

Due to the actions of these SJW politicians, those particular statues ARE now history!

LeonDurham says

It's not erasing history, it's a decision not to honor that person.

And this is where we are today.

"'RACIST + RAPIST' SPRAY PAINTED ON THOMAS JEFFERSON STATUE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA"
http://www.newsweek.com/thomas-jefferson-statue-vandalism-university-virginia-886233

Washington, Adams and Lincoln will be next.

Then again, I believe you made the claim that each generation is smarter than the last.

"History is racist and sexist and homophobic. Let's pretend nothing came before us so no one's feelings are hurt" - Millennials

Not completely relevant, but when my grandmother died in New Orleans, a pair of 4 foot blackamoor statues that were always in her parlor came up for inheritance, and out of family nostalgia and just because these statues were kinda way cool (if a bit gaudy), I seriously thought about taking them before they liquidated her estate. I ended up not, because these days, my friends in CA would be horrified if they walked into our foyer and saw blackamoor statues looking back at them.

My uncle and aunt have a collection of Aunt Jemima stuff from the '30s-'60s, like cookie jars, wall art, kitchen items, etc. that would send SJW's for the hills.

LeonDurham says

Like I said--elect different people then. It was public officials that decided to remove them--not SJWs.

Really, the removal of the Oh Sussana guy wasn't initiated by SJWs?

Quigley says

see that we agree. Before (near) universal literacy, statues and other works of art were the primary method of keeping historical acts alive in the minds of the common people.
Given the clear preference internet users show for pictures over text, I’d say we still prefer visual art as remembrance queues rather than dry textbooks.

No, that's not really true at all. Songs/poems/stories were used much, much more than art to keep history alive.

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says

Really, the removal of the Oh Sussana guy wasn't initiated by SJWs?

I don't know. But I do know that they didn't MAKE THE DECISION to remove it. That was elected officials.

socal2 says

And this is where we are today.

"'RACIST + RAPIST' SPRAY PAINTED ON THOMAS JEFFERSON STATUE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA"
http://www.newsweek.com/thomas-jefferson-statue-vandalism-university-virginia-886233

Washington, Adams and Lincoln will be next.

Then again, I believe you made the claim that each generation is smarter than the last.

Yep. And a couple idiots certainly doesn't disprove that statement.