Heroes

[jknowgood]

Which Americans do you think could have statues without being divisive ?

Any of them who didn't openly stand for oppression of their fellow US of A countrymen and who weren't leaders of and collaborators in an insurrection against the US of A. I'd be willing to give most -- maybe all, though I'm not yet committing to that -- former presidents a "pass" simply on account of their holding the office of president.

I realize that none or few of America's long dead leaders is/are without stain as goes matters of race. Of them, putting up statues to the best of them is acceptable. Erecting statues to any of them is also somewhat acceptable for one and only one reason: for whatever despicable jackasses they may have been, they were the U.S.' jackasses, much the same as John Lackland was at least England's jackass. The leaders of the Confederate States of America were a different nation's jackasses, a nation that fought against the United States of America, and they don't, as such, deserve honors in and on the property of the U.S. government and its component/subordinate governments, other than museums, battlefields and other explicit designated/purposed Civil War historical sites and venues.

There simply is no way I'm ever going to cotton to the notion and act of exalting men who brazenly embraced and ideas that reflect the very worst of what Americans have ever been.

Monuments can be a bugger to get right. If you get the chance to visit Rome you will see spectacular marble busts of people who were psychopaths.
In my country this year we had the unfortunate incident of the ring of steel. A statue that celebrated our conquest. It has now been shelved.

‘Ring of steel’ sculpture is insulting to Wales

The UK as a whole has a problem in finding people who have clean hands. Which is why I think we need to look outside the political sphere to celebrate the best of us.

Better have a monument to miners than some General with blood on his hands.

Monuments can be a bugger to get right.

Well, yes. LOL That's part of why I refrained from naming specific individuals.

If you get the chance to visit Rome you will see spectacular marble busts of people who were psychopaths.

I have. They sure do. However, as I noted before, those pricks are among Romes pantheon of pricks and not, for the most part, the psychopaths who wrought the fall of the Western Empire.

Note:

The Roman example is probably not one I'd use as emblematic of anything re: statues and this line of discussion. Rome was a city, but Rome was also an empire of two halves. Then there's the Roman Catholic Church aspect playing into things. The point being that no nation, other than perhaps Greece and Egypt, has quite the type of history Rome does.

China might be a better analogue for the U.S. in that it's seen its share of revolts and insurrections, but it's essentially "always" been the same culture that's merely evolved over time for as long as it has existed. For instance, China had the An Shi Rebellion that spanned the rule of multiple emperors; however, there probably aren't any currently open wounds remaining from that rebellion. The same cannot be said of the Confederate revolt against the U.S. So perhaps 1000 years from now, or maybe even 500, we can re-erect a Confederate statue here or there, but now is not the right time for them.​

I think we need to look outside the political sphere to celebrate the best of us.

Well, that's a good idea. After all, I can't recall any of the nations best ideas, the ones that reflect the best that we are and can do and be, as having come from political leaders. Sure, some politicians have had some good ideas, but I think the majority of the best ones have come from poets, artists, scientists, inventors, doctors, authors, and so on.

The UK is not much different to the US in that some dusty old general will get a statue for slaughtering a load of unarmed "darkies". It was "of the time" but is no longer relevant. A pub in my town is named after Elihu Yale who was a slave owner but born in our town. It will be renamed in the next few years.

Since liberals want to be fair. Tear all statues down. Even mlks.

 

[jknowgood]

It's not a divisive issue. The vast majority of Americans have no issues with statues, only fringe left snowflakes do.

The evidence suggests that it is a divisive issue.

By paid protesters? Lol, you're an idiot.

Well the statues are coming down by the order of elected officials. Perhaps you need to consider that.

View attachment 145677

Is that an anti Jewish stance ?

No, just a moral stance.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Which Americans do you think could have statues without being divisive ?

Any of them who didn't openly stand for oppression of their fellow US of A countrymen and who weren't leaders of and collaborators in an insurrection against the US of A. I'd be willing to give most -- maybe all, though I'm not yet committing to that -- former presidents a "pass" simply on account of their holding the office of president.

I realize that none or few of America's long dead leaders is/are without stain as goes matters of race. Of them, putting up statues to the best of them is acceptable. Erecting statues to any of them is also somewhat acceptable for one and only one reason: for whatever despicable jackasses they may have been, they were the U.S.' jackasses, much the same as John Lackland was at least England's jackass. The leaders of the Confederate States of America were a different nation's jackasses, a nation that fought against the United States of America, and they don't, as such, deserve honors in and on the property of the U.S. government and its component/subordinate governments, other than museums, battlefields and other explicit designated/purposed Civil War historical sites and venues.

There simply is no way I'm ever going to cotton to the notion and act of exalting men who brazenly embraced and ideas that reflect the very worst of what Americans have ever been.

Monuments can be a bugger to get right. If you get the chance to visit Rome you will see spectacular marble busts of people who were psychopaths.
In my country this year we had the unfortunate incident of the ring of steel. A statue that celebrated our conquest. It has now been shelved.

‘Ring of steel’ sculpture is insulting to Wales

The UK as a whole has a problem in finding people who have clean hands. Which is why I think we need to look outside the political sphere to celebrate the best of us.

Better have a monument to miners than some General with blood on his hands.

Monuments can be a bugger to get right.

Well, yes. LOL That's part of why I refrained from naming specific individuals.

If you get the chance to visit Rome you will see spectacular marble busts of people who were psychopaths.

I have. They sure do. However, as I noted before, those pricks are among Romes pantheon of pricks and not, for the most part, the psychopaths who wrought the fall of the Western Empire.

Note:

The Roman example is probably not one I'd use as emblematic of anything re: statues and this line of discussion. Rome was a city, but Rome was also an empire of two halves. Then there's the Roman Catholic Church aspect playing into things. The point being that no nation, other than perhaps Greece and Egypt, has quite the type of history Rome does.

China might be a better analogue for the U.S. in that it's seen its share of revolts and insurrections, but it's essentially "always" been the same culture that's merely evolved over time for as long as it has existed. For instance, China had the An Shi Rebellion that spanned the rule of multiple emperors; however, there probably aren't any currently open wounds remaining from that rebellion. The same cannot be said of the Confederate revolt against the U.S. So perhaps 1000 years from now, or maybe even 500, we can re-erect a Confederate statue here or there, but now is not the right time for them.​

I think we need to look outside the political sphere to celebrate the best of us.

Well, that's a good idea. After all, I can't recall any of the nations best ideas, the ones that reflect the best that we are and can do and be, as having come from political leaders. Sure, some politicians have had some good ideas, but I think the majority of the best ones have come from poets, artists, scientists, inventors, doctors, authors, and so on.

The UK is not much different to the US in that some dusty old general will get a statue for slaughtering a load of unarmed "darkies". It was "of the time" but is no longer relevant. A pub in my town is named after Elihu Yale who was a slave owner but born in our town. It will be renamed in the next few years.

Does the UK have quite the same societally fanatical exaltation of people who, but for their role as oppressors and secessionists, might not even be names whom people recognize? That's exactly the kind of thing R.E. Lee advised against. And yet what did Southerners do? "Heed his advice" wasn't it.

Are there "all over the place" multiple statues of the worst of the English? In Texas alone there are some 180 honoraria to the Confederacy....God only knows how many there are to Robert E. Lee. That despite the fact the man was well aware that honoring Confederates would do no good in healing the wounds of the Civil War and its antecedents.

In London, I'm aware of one statue of George Washington and it only somewhat recently got there, some 200+ years after the colonists' revolt against King George III. It's here:

I know I seem very inflexible on this issue -- I've remarked on in it several threads. I am inflexible on this issue. There is no ground -- beyond that of publicly held explicit historic preservation locales like museums, books and battlefields and private individuals'/organizations' lands and spaces -- I will literally or figuratively give on the matter of Confederate statues being wrong for the U.S., at least at this point in our history.

I realize I to some may not seem to be the most flexible person in general, but it's not that I'm inflexible, but rather that I am demanding. When people offer very strong and very sound cases, better ones than I can muster (believe it or not, I'm willing to admit someone has a better -- stronger in all dimensions -- argument than I) I can be swayed, on nearly anything. The matter of white supremacy, racism (but not necessarily every form of discrimination, which is not the same thing as racism) and the animus related to Confederate accolades are ones on which I won't now be swayed. Several hundred year from now, however, I could conceivably entertain the statues being restored.


The thing in the U.S. is that, IMO, had Trump not come off as a racist and had he not emboldened the racists and white supremacists, this statue thing wouldn't be a thing. Trump did both things, so here we are. Why, because most people don't want that crap regaining a foothold in the core of American life and they are, not unreasonably, fearful that Trump's presidency is giving the "more numerous than one may have imagined" haters the foothold they need to resurge.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Which Americans do you think could have statues without being divisive ?

Any of them who didn't openly stand for oppression of their fellow US of A countrymen and who weren't leaders of and collaborators in an insurrection against the US of A. I'd be willing to give most -- maybe all, though I'm not yet committing to that -- former presidents a "pass" simply on account of their holding the office of president.

I realize that none or few of America's long dead leaders is/are without stain as goes matters of race. Of them, putting up statues to the best of them is acceptable. Erecting statues to any of them is also somewhat acceptable for one and only one reason: for whatever despicable jackasses they may have been, they were the U.S.' jackasses, much the same as John Lackland was at least England's jackass. The leaders of the Confederate States of America were a different nation's jackasses, a nation that fought against the United States of America, and they don't, as such, deserve honors in and on the property of the U.S. government and its component/subordinate governments, other than museums, battlefields and other explicit designated/purposed Civil War historical sites and venues.

There simply is no way I'm ever going to cotton to the notion and act of exalting men who brazenly embraced and ideas that reflect the very worst of what Americans have ever been.

Monuments can be a bugger to get right. If you get the chance to visit Rome you will see spectacular marble busts of people who were psychopaths.
In my country this year we had the unfortunate incident of the ring of steel. A statue that celebrated our conquest. It has now been shelved.

‘Ring of steel’ sculpture is insulting to Wales

The UK as a whole has a problem in finding people who have clean hands. Which is why I think we need to look outside the political sphere to celebrate the best of us.

Better have a monument to miners than some General with blood on his hands.

Monuments can be a bugger to get right.

Well, yes. LOL That's part of why I refrained from naming specific individuals.

If you get the chance to visit Rome you will see spectacular marble busts of people who were psychopaths.

I have. They sure do. However, as I noted before, those pricks are among Romes pantheon of pricks and not, for the most part, the psychopaths who wrought the fall of the Western Empire.

Note:

The Roman example is probably not one I'd use as emblematic of anything re: statues and this line of discussion. Rome was a city, but Rome was also an empire of two halves. Then there's the Roman Catholic Church aspect playing into things. The point being that no nation, other than perhaps Greece and Egypt, has quite the type of history Rome does.

China might be a better analogue for the U.S. in that it's seen its share of revolts and insurrections, but it's essentially "always" been the same culture that's merely evolved over time for as long as it has existed. For instance, China had the An Shi Rebellion that spanned the rule of multiple emperors; however, there probably aren't any currently open wounds remaining from that rebellion. The same cannot be said of the Confederate revolt against the U.S. So perhaps 1000 years from now, or maybe even 500, we can re-erect a Confederate statue here or there, but now is not the right time for them.​

I think we need to look outside the political sphere to celebrate the best of us.

Well, that's a good idea. After all, I can't recall any of the nations best ideas, the ones that reflect the best that we are and can do and be, as having come from political leaders. Sure, some politicians have had some good ideas, but I think the majority of the best ones have come from poets, artists, scientists, inventors, doctors, authors, and so on.

The UK is not much different to the US in that some dusty old general will get a statue for slaughtering a load of unarmed "darkies". It was "of the time" but is no longer relevant. A pub in my town is named after Elihu Yale who was a slave owner but born in our town. It will be renamed in the next few years.

Does the UK have quite the same societally fanatical exaltation of people who, but for their role as oppressors and secessionists, might not even be names whom people recognize? That's exactly the kind of thing R.E. Lee advised against. And yet what did Southerners do? "Heed his advice" wasn't it.

Are there "all over the place" multiple statues of the worst of the English? In Texas alone there are some 180 honoraria to the Confederacy....God only knows how many there are to Robert E. Lee. That despite the fact the man was well aware that honoring Confederates would do no good in healing the wounds of the Civil War and its antecedents.

In London, I'm aware of one statue of George Washington and it only somewhat recently got there, some 200+ years after the colonists' revolt against King George III. It's here:

I know I seem very inflexible on this issue -- I've remarked on in it several threads. I am inflexible on this issue. There is no ground -- beyond that of publicly held explicit historic preservation locales like museums, books and battlefields and private individuals'/organizations' lands and spaces -- I will literally or figuratively give on the matter of Confederate statues being wrong for the U.S., at least at this point in our history.

I realize I to some may not seem to be the most flexible person in general, but it's not that I'm inflexible, but rather that I am demanding. When people offer very strong and very sound cases, better ones than I can muster (believe it or not, I'm willing to admit someone has a better -- stronger in all dimensions -- argument than I) I can be swayed, on nearly anything. The matter of white supremacy, racism (but not necessarily every form of discrimination, which is not the same thing as racism) and the animus related to Confederate accolades are ones on which I won't now be swayed. Several hundred year from now, however, I could conceivably entertain the statues being restored.


The thing in the U.S. is that, IMO, had Trump not come off as a racist and had he not emboldened the racists and white supremacists, this statue thing wouldn't be a thing. Trump did both things, so here we are. Why, because most people don't want that crap regaining a foothold in the core of American life and they are, not unreasonably, fearful that Trump's presidency is giving the "more numerous than one may have imagined" haters the foothold they need to resurge.

It flares up now and then.
Cecil Rhodes statue to remain at Oxford after 'overwhelming support'

Otherwise its just the usual monarchy types. Thats good for the tourists apparently.

Statues that are more popular recognise national heroes like the Beatles and Eric Morecambe.

This one recognises the contribution of miners in our local story.

This one is in Walsall. I think its awesome.