Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 98: Riyadh It and Weep

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

"All" of his friends?

That's...so sad

Suck it Bannon!
---

Also, I just checked and Robert E. Lee's house in Virginia is an official US federal memorial run by the National Parks Service. Ironic, eh?
---

Are they putting his house in the middle of the town square
---

red sox 777 posted...

Also, I just checked and Robert E. Lee's house in Virginia is an official US federal memorial run by the National Parks Service. Ironic, eh?

There's generally no way to move a house, houses do not convey the same reverence as statues, houses were not erected to honor the person who lived in them, and houses are not in the likeness of the person who owned them.

I'm not sure what point you're even trying to make here, other than to prove you're not paying attention to anything anyone's been saying and also don't really know what a statue is.
---

The US Congress deemed Robert E. Lee important enough to honor him by making his house a federal park. There's no pretense here, the house has minimal historical value other than being his. The NPS website today states that the park was created to honor Lee's public leadership in pre and post Civil War America, and to recognize that his desire for peace and unity in America had come to pass.

I'm saying the characterization of any monument to Lee as being primarily a monument to slavery is myopic.
---

it's all still in history books though, so it's not like it's actually being destroyed

personal story time. i really don't think any of my family actually was from the south (farthest back i've asked about lived in the wisconsin/minnesota area), but even we have some mythology built around robert e. lee. a now deceased grandma claimed he was her great uncle in law or something which i don't necessarily believe.

the mythology tended to focus on how he was the best general ever, wanted the united states to remain united, wasn't a fan of slavery but was tacitly complicit, and only defended the confederacy because his loyalty was to his local community (virginia) above all else. The land where there was supposedly only "light" slavery, which was (also supposedly) intended to be phased out sooner rather than later

it's scary to give up control of your own family's mythology, and it sucks to have someone else tell you what your heritage means, even if theirs might be closer to the truth. one of the most painful feelings, ironically, is being written off because of where you came from or who you are

i'm absolutely fine with the statues being removed from public display. they belong in museums more so than as icons of ideal humanity in the modern age, which is what public statues are usually interpreted as. at least they were sensitive enough to wait until everyone alive during the war was dead to take them down.

i sometimes make people mad by pointing out that in 300 years everyone alive today will look like evil bastards for being complicit in one way or another, whether it be the disparity between the rich and the poor, the endless wars in forgotten regions or the treatment of livestock

so i can sort of empathize with not wanting to be judged by my era. but i'll be dead, so i suppose who cares.
---

And the difference between his statue in New Orleans and the others - note Lee was in civilian, not military dress - was not lost on Mitch Landrieu, who took it down last.

Again, if the message you're trying to convey is all conferderates were bad, this is an unhelpful, surface-level message that fails to understand people well. The questions you want people to think about are why and how.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Again, if the message you're trying to convey is all conferderates were bad, this is an unhelpful, surface-level message that fails to understand people well. The questions you want people to think about are why and how.

Questions which will never be asked as long as the statues are in public view.
---

Questions that will never be asked if people are not allowed to see what past generations saw fit to say about the subject. It's fine for Mitch Landrieu to cite Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech about slavery, but it really misses the mark to claim that he was the mouthpiece for all confederates. Especially when he voted to stay in the Union!

I'm sure people here don't want to be judged by their posterity based on Donald Trump quotes, but that's exactly he's doing with Alexander Stephens. If people in 200 years are taught that the American people elected Trump because they wanted to build a wall, that would be a grave oversimplification of the history that adds almost zero insight for posterity to learn from.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Questions that will never be asked if people are not allowed to see what past generations saw fit to say about the subject. It's fine for Mitch Landrieu to cite Alexander Stephens' cornerstone speech about slavery, but it really misses the mark to claim that he was the mouthpiece for all confederates. Especially when he voted to stay in the Union!

I'm sure people here don't want to be judged by their posterity based on Donald Trump quotes, but that's exactly he's doing with Alexander Stephens. If people in 200 years are taught that the American people elected Trump because they wanted to build a wall, that would be a grave oversimplification of the history that adds almost zero insight for posterity to learn from.

Seriously, do you not have history books where you live? Or Museums? You need to look at random statues to learn history?

Hell, the statues don't even really HAVE history. The only statues with any history whatsoever are statues depicting events, rather than just random statues of people. The history involved in a statue begins and ends with "It exists". Statues are absolutely fucking useless in teaching people about the past, particularly compared to Museums and Books.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Questions that will never be asked if people are not allowed to see what past generations saw fit to say about the subject.

They are allowed to see them. We just don't want them celebrated in public places.

You think it would be ok if a town erected a statue of Hitler?
---

fuck statues
---

Statues are original sources that tell you a great deal about what the people who built them thought. Where do you think history books come from? An original source in its original setting adds value that cannot be perfectly replicated by any second hand or curated source.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Questions that will never be asked if people are not allowed to see what past generations saw fit to say about the subject.

There's this thing.

It's called a history book.

And another thing.

Called a museum.

Try them sometime.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Statues are original sources that tell you a great deal about what the people who built them thought. Where do you think history books come from? An original source in its original setting adds value that cannot be perfectly replicated by any second hand or curated source.

What, is everyone Sherlock Holmes?

"Yes, I can see the feelings the sculptor felt for the person when making this statue... he had a hard on..."

It's a STATUE. It is literally a 3d picture of the dude in giant stone form. Use a damn painting.
---

TheRock1525 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Questions that will never be asked if people are not allowed to see what past generations saw fit to say about the subject.

They are allowed to see them. We just don't want them celebrated in public places.

You think it would be ok if a town erected a statue of Hitler?

If they did, I would stay away from that town. I am unaware of Hitler statues existing, probably because no one with power to build statues has thought he had enough good qualities to build or keep a statue of him since 1945.

The difference with Lee is that many people (including the Congress of the country he fought against) have thought that, which means his legacy is not only slavery, even if it is entangled with it.
---

Regaro posted...

You are literally not reading what anybody else in this topic is saying.

he's learned from ulti
---

red sox 777 posted...

because no one with power to build statues has thought he had enough good qualities to build or keep a statue of him since 1945.

Wow, it's almost like these statues don't have enough good qualities to keep them around, either, outside of a bunch of people that fantasize about being slave owners on ranches again.
---

I see everyone is discovering why ignored this guy months ago.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Statues are original sources that tell you a great deal about what the people who built them thought. Where do you think history books come from? An original source in its original setting adds value that cannot be perfectly replicated by any second hand or curated source.

This is true of plenty of stuff we destroy outright every day. What makes statues so special they can't even be moved?
---

red sox 777 posted...

Where do you think history books come from?

I'm pretty sure no history book has gotten its information from statues
---

HashtagSEP posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Where do you think history books come from?

I'm pretty sure no history book has gotten its information from statues

Try reading a book about ancient Egypt or Rome then.
---

red sox 777 posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Where do you think history books come from?

I'm pretty sure no history book has gotten its information from statues

Try reading a book about ancient Egypt or Rome then.

Speaking of statues =/= basing all information on statues
---

Remember: The American revolutionaries tore down the statue of King George III in New York.

Eddv posted...

I see everyone is discovering why ignored this guy months ago.

I said this the other day and people on both sides were all "nah he's a good guy"
---

red sox 777 posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Where do you think history books come from?

I'm pretty sure no history book has gotten its information from statues

Try reading a book about ancient Egypt or Rome then.

The statues they talk about are 99% of the time in a museum somewhere, not their original place of erection or even country of origin

not helping your point!
---

ElizeLutus posted...

Remember: The American revolutionaries tore down the statue of King George III in New York.

Never heard of him. History was erased
---

It was erased (though maybe more the fault of the US school system). I don't think most Americans know King George III was largely a constitutional monarch, not an autocrat.
---

Kenri posted...

red sox 777 posted...

HashtagSEP posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Where do you think history books come from?

I'm pretty sure no history book has gotten its information from statues

Try reading a book about ancient Egypt or Rome then.

erection

^5
---

red sox 777 posted...

It was erased (though maybe more the fault of the US school system). I don't think most Americans know King George III was largely a constitutional monarch, not an autocrat.

...

And these statues would have conveyed this fact?
---

perhaps it's ok to prioritize different facts in different time periods
---

SupremeZero posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It was erased (though maybe more the fault of the US school system). I don't think most Americans know King George III was largely a constitutional monarch, not an autocrat.

...

And these statues would have conveyed this fact?

Yeah, people would wonder why we had a statue of the old king. Then they would read about him to find out.
---

what

no one's reading anything unless they're some lame nerd
---

red sox 777 posted...

SupremeZero posted...

red sox 777 posted...

It was erased (though maybe more the fault of the US school system). I don't think most Americans know King George III was largely a constitutional monarch, not an autocrat.

...

And these statues would have conveyed this fact?

Yeah, people would wonder why we had a statue of the old king. Then they would read about him to find out.

"Who is this guy. Oh, he's the king of england from way back when.

WOW HE WAS A CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH, THAT'S AMAZING, WHODATHUNK!"

Totally how that would've played out.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, people would wonder why we had a statue of the old king. Then they would read about him to find out.

wait, so statues can never be taken down because "because of the statue someone may be curious about the old king and read up on him"? why is this so important?
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, people would wonder why we had a statue of the old king. Then they would read about him to find out.

wait, so statues can never be taken down because "because of the statue someone may be curious about the old king and read up on him"? why is this so important?

That's what history is. If you don't think it's important, you would be in agreement with the majority of Americans, who don't read history very much. And I find that quite sad.
---

The argument that confederate statues accurately memorialize the confederacy falls flat when you realize the only knes memorialized besides lee were the violently anti-reconstruction ones.

Anyone who collaborated with the Grant Administration was scrubbed from history or scapegoated.

General Longstreet was probably the single most important person in the confederacy after Lee and possibly Jefferson Davis and yet according to southern memory he was the guy who lost the war or just didnt exist.

He has like 3 statues total - both erectrd in the 90s after Tom Berengers depiction of the guy was so wildly popular that people began wondering why there were statues of people like Porter Alexander and not Longstreet.

His cardinal sin - he was a Republican after the war.
---

Well pretty soon we will all be equipped with AR glasses and can see statues that aren't there
---

I've seen some Greek statues but never felt compelled to read up on them. The only bit of information I've learned about ancient Greece based exclusively on statues and information acquired as a result of seeing said statues... is that the perception of dick size wasn't necessarily the same in ancient Greece as it is today.
---

red sox 777 posted...

That's what history is.

coming from someone who's quite interested in both history and statues, statues are only a part of what history is. i could also get the idea of reading up on king george because we're discussing him now in this topic, for instance. i think the idea that we get a significant amount of history knowledge by checking out random statues is pretty ridiculous.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, people would wonder why we had a statue of the old king. Then they would read about him to find out.

wait, so statues can never be taken down because "because of the statue someone may be curious about the old king and read up on him"? why is this so important?

That's what history is. If you don't think it's important, you would be in agreement with the majority of Americans, who don't read history very much. And I find that quite sad.

Spoilers: Most people don't think "I should look this guy up" from a statue
---

HashtagSEP posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Yeah, people would wonder why we had a statue of the old king. Then they would read about him to find out.

wait, so statues can never be taken down because "because of the statue someone may be curious about the old king and read up on him"? why is this so important?

That's what history is. If you don't think it's important, you would be in agreement with the majority of Americans, who don't read history very much. And I find that quite sad.

Spoilers: Most people don't think "I should look this guy up" from a statue

And the people who would wouldn't need the statue to look him up.
---

Let's be clear here - statues are not a great insight into what happened so much as into what the people who built the statues thought. Observations like the dearth of Longstreet statues are interesting and offer insight into what was going on during the period of statue construction. Anyone who's read a book about the Civil War has probably heard of Longstreet, so they'll note his absence in statue form.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Let's be clear here - statues are not a great insight into what happened so much as into what the people who built the statues thought. Observations like the dearth of Longstreet statues are interesting and offer insight into what was going on during the period of statue construction. Anyone who's read a book about the Civil War has probably heard of Longstreet, so they'll note his absence in statue form.

Actually, if they've actually read of Longstreet in a history book, they'll probably understand why there's no statues simply by what they already read.

And in fact, the thing that they would infer based on his lack of statues would already be covered, being the reason mentioned above.
---

Maybe we should just build a huge statue of a Native American squatting to take a dump on the Andrew Jackson statue

Then it can stay and everyone is happy
---

for the record, i actually am one of the people red sox described; i'm always interested in what statues represent. i know that at the central station in haarlem there's a statue of two people who defended the city during the eighty years' war, for instance.

...but i also know several people who actually live in haarlem and none of them have a clue what the statue represents. so my approach to statues is hardly common, clearly.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Eddv posted...

I see everyone is discovering why ignored this guy months ago.

I said this the other day and people on both sides were all "nah he's a good guy"

I'll repeat again that redsox is totally fine. Again, what irritates me is not a disagreement of opinions, but someone arguing in bad faith. He doesn't peddle weird conspiracy theories, doesn't spend the topic trolling us or repeating arguments he stole from the front page or r/the_donald, and he never spends entire topics insulting us for little to no reason.

I certainly think he has bad opinions on some things and that he isn't the best at arguing his point (like how he sort of just skims over the best arguments against what he's saying and addresses other straw men many times of his own creation).

I don't think that makes him worthy of an ignore. He simply has some bad opinions on certain things and is entrenched in his way of thinking. That describes most people. I don't think it is good for political discourse to just ignore someone because their opinions annoy you. I think most people in here have done a really good job arguing against his points, which is great because that means your beliefs were challenged and reaffirmed.

Again, feel free to ignore whoever you want. But pretty soon we won't have anyone to debate with, which I always thought was half the fun of these topics.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

like how he sort of just skims over the best arguments against what he's saying and addresses other straw men many times of his own creation

So when does this cross the line from bad at arguing his point to not actually debating you at all?
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

Eddv posted...

I see everyone is discovering why ignored this guy months ago.

I said this the other day and people on both sides were all "nah he's a good guy"

I'll repeat again that redsox is totally fine. Again, what irritates me is not a disagreement of opinions, but someone arguing in bad faith. He doesn't peddle weird conspiracy theories, doesn't spend the topic trolling us or repeating arguments he stole from the front page or r/the_donald, and he never spends entire topics insulting us for little to no reason.

I certainly think he has bad opinions on some things and that he isn't the best at arguing his point (like how he sort of just skims over the best arguments against what he's saying and addresses other straw men many times of his own creation).

I don't think that makes him worthy of an ignore. He simply has some bad opinions on certain things and is entrenched in his way of thinking. That describes most people. I don't think it is good for political discourse to just ignore someone because their opinions annoy you. I think most people in here have done a really good job arguing against his points, which is great because that means your beliefs were challenged and reaffirmed.

Again, feel free to ignore whoever you want. But pretty soon we won't have anyone to debate with, which I always thought was half the fun of these topics.

He kind of is arguing in bad faith. Not to the extent of Ulti, but he still does the thing where he just ignores counter-arguments when he doesn't have anything to answer them.

Like, if you're proven wrong and want to stop talking, fine. I can understand that people don't like going "Well, I was wrong, sorry". But just ignoring arguments and continuing on with your own and ones compatible with your own is absolutely arguing in bad faith.
---

SupremeZero posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Let's be clear here - statues are not a great insight into what happened so much as into what the people who built the statues thought. Observations like the dearth of Longstreet statues are interesting and offer insight into what was going on during the period of statue construction. Anyone who's read a book about the Civil War has probably heard of Longstreet, so they'll note his absence in statue form.

Actually, if they've actually read of Longstreet in a history book, they'll probably understand why there's no statues simply by what they already read.

And in fact, the thing that they would infer based on his lack of statues would already be covered, being the reason mentioned above.

Not if the book they read was about the Civil War only, and thus ended in 1865.
---