Discussion and Debate Community Thread

[Prodromos]

Yeah, only God is perfect, MIB. That's kind of the point of Christianity. But we don't throw out the good with the bad: when someone is wrong, they're wrong, but when they're right, they're right.

[Himster]

Would it be OK to keep statues of Hitler because of his contribution to developments in rocket technology?

If it's a good statue: yes.
Also there should be recognition for the incomparable hero who literally killed Hitler, who was also the same man who directly and indirectly caused the deaths of millions of Nazis. He was the greatest Nazi killer of all time. He probably did some bad stuff too, but, nobody is perfect, the bad does not was away the good and the good does not wash away the bad.

Martin Luther King jr. was a raging homophobe, Gandhi was a probable paedophile and an unapologetic racist, JFK was a drug addled war-mongering narcissist, Nelson Mandela was involved in terrorism that killed innocent people including women and children, Mother Theresa was a sociopathic sadist who basically tortured people who came to her for help, drawn by false pretences...
If this zealous neo-iconoclasm, we are seeing today, were to be applied with even a modicum of consistency or sincerity then not a single statue, painting, photograph or piece of art depicting the human form should be allowed to exist.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.

[Muizer]

Statues. They're kind of schizophrenic things. They get erected as signs of worship or admiration, yet they have the potential to become valuable reminders of times long gone. And so, tearing down a statue paradoxically is both a gesture saying "we do not admire this figure anymore" and an act enabling us to forget people once did. IMHO it would be better to attach an info panel or something to mark the statue transitioning from an object of worship to a historical record.

[Himster]

Statues. They're kind of schizophrenic things. They get erected as signs of worship or admiration,

Worship or admiration???? What????
They get erected because people pay artists, no other reason is required.
My grandfather was an , nobody liked him, not even his wife. Yet, in his will he demanded that we use a section of his estate to commission a statue of him and his wife sitting on a bench together on their grave. We don't worship him or admire him. An artist was paid and the statue is there (it's a pretty good statue). End of story.

yet they have the potential to become valuable reminders of times long gone. And so, tearing down a statue paradoxically is both a gesture saying "we do not admire this figure anymore" and an act enabling us to forget people once did. IMHO it would be better to attach an info panel or something to mark the statue transitioning from an object of worship to a historical record.

Does anyone honestly believe that statues are objects of worship or even admiration?
That seems to be a kind of collective mental illness far more noteworthy than anything the subjects of these statues might have done.

[Muizer]

Context man! I'm of course talking about statues erected in public places honouring 'notable people', not works of art in museums, your garden or on your mantelpiece.

[Vanoi]

If it's a good statue: yes.
Also there should be recognition for the incomparable hero who literally killed Hitler, who was also the same man who directly and indirectly caused the deaths of millions of Nazis. He was the greatest Nazi killer of all time. He probably did some bad stuff too, but, nobody is perfect, the bad does not was away the good and the good does not wash away the bad.

Martin Luther King jr. was a raging homophobe, Gandhi was a probable paedophile and an unapologetic racist, JFK was a drug addled war-mongering narcissist, Nelson Mandela was involved in terrorism that killed innocent people including women and children, Mother Theresa was a sociopathic sadist who basically tortured people who came to her for help, drawn by false pretences...
If this zealous neo-iconoclasm, we are seeing today, were to be applied with even a modicum of consistency or sincerity then not a single statue, painting, photograph or piece of art depicting the human form should be allowed to exist.
You can't eat your cake and have it too.

Oh you can. No one is perfect but that doesn't make them above criticism. In the case of Robert E. Lee he never wanted statues of himself made honoring him as a Confederate general so taking those statues down only honors his memory.

[Cope]

Oh you can. No one is perfect but that doesn't make them above criticism. In the case of Robert E. Lee he never wanted statues of himself made honoring him as a Confederate general so taking those statues down only honors his memory.

Himster's point is broadly correct: were this newfangled puritanism to be applied with a modicum of consistency, we'd have no icons left. George Floyd himself - who is now being memorialized as a hero - had an extensive criminal history which included an armed home invasion of a pregnant woman's household. Yet most people can understand that his elevation as a martyr is not intended to be a commentary on his entire life.

[Vanoi]

Himster's point is broadly correct: were this newfangled puritanism to be applied with a modicum of consistency, we'd have no icons left. George Floyd himself - who is now being memorialized as a hero - had an extensive criminal history which included an armed home invasion of a pregnant woman's household. Yet most people can understand that his elevation as a martyr is not intended to be a commentary on his entire life.

George Floyd is remembered because of what happened to him and how it shined a light on police brutality. Not because of who he was.

What you and Himster fail to realize is that people are judged for more than just their beliefs. Actions define a person's legacy far more than their beliefs.

Ghandhi may have been racist. MLK Jr. may have been a homophobe. Yet neither of those men are defined by their beliefs but by their actions. Thats the key difference between people like Robert E. Lee and MLK Jr.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I think it’s a mistake to characterize the wave of vandalism of public art or memorials as ideologically or logically consistent.

“This monument is considered one of the nation's greatest pieces of public art and the greatest piece to come out of the Civil War,” said Liz Vizza, executive director of the Friends of the Public Garden, “It was, amazingly enough, dedicated 123 years ago on May 31st – the day it was defaced.”

The Shaw Memorial captures the likenesses of the first African American volunteer infantry unit – the 54th Massachusetts Regiment – that fought after Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Their colonel, Robert Gould Shaw, advocated for the men to join the war because they desperately wanted to fight for freedom. If the soldiers had been captured in battle they could have been enslaved or killed. Their heroic story was recounted in the 1989 Hollywood film “Glory.”

It was painful for Vizza to wake up Monday morning and find her office's windows near the corner or Charles and Beacon streets shattered and the monuments she loves covered in graffiti.

But Vizza said the Friends and the city rallied quickly to carefully clean all 16 damaged works including the 9/11 Memorial in the Public Garden and the statue of Abigail Adams on the Commonwealth Avenue Mall. They finished on Tuesday.

http://www.wbur.org/artery/2020/06/0...orials-damaged

To the extent the violence is ideological I would suspect garden variety anarchists, socialists or marxists for this sort of thing, if any. The sheer level of ignorance required for someone protesting racism to vandalize monuments that have nothing to do with white supremacy, the confederacy, or “Lost Cause” cope seems unlikely to say the least.

I am biased of course by my theory this is all part of the broader pattern of global unrest and societal upheaval.

[Cope]

Legio is correct. The whole community making a decision to remove and/or replace an icon is not the same as liberal leaders panicking to appease the mob or cultural Marxists tearing down or vandalizing statues they disapprove of.

[Vanoi]

Legio is correct. The whole community making a decision to remove and/or replace an icon is not the same as liberal leaders panicking to appease the mob or cultural Marxists tearing down or vandalizing statues they disapprove of.

Of course they aren't the same. But your last example doesn't even exist. Just a made up narrative by conservatives to turn the statue issue into a Left/Right issue when the only people who care about Confederate statues are Lost Causers.

[Abdülmecid I]

The expression "Cultural Marxism" itself doesn't exist beyond the scope of far-right conspiracy sides and social media platforms. The irony is that those who traditionally excel at iconoclasm and vandalism of cultural monuments usually belong to the extreme right of the political spectrum, ranging from intolerant bigots in the Middle East to reactionary nationalists in Eastern Europe. Anyway, this particular subject is usually very susceptible to partisanship and hypocrisy: You can juxtapose the uproar with the transfer of Spanish dictator's skeleton from its illustrious mausoleum to a public cemetery with the congratulations on the demolishing of the liberation statues in Bulgaria, Ukraine and elsewhere.

[Cope]

Of course they aren't the same. But your last example doesn't even exist. Just a made up narrative by conservatives to turn the statue issue into a Left/Right issue when the only people who care about Confederate statues are Lost Causers.

I'm amazed that you paid so little attention to the GF thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...edward-colston

[Vanoi]

I'm amazed that you paid so little attention to the GF thread:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...edward-colston

Funny enough i don't see Cultural Marxists toppling a statue. Do you need time to find the evidence that they are Cultural Marxists or do you wanna just go ahead and admit you were wrong?

[Cope]

The expression "Cultural Marxism" itself doesn't exist beyond the scope of far-right conspiracy sides and social media platforms. The irony is that those who traditionally excel at iconoclasm and vandalism of cultural monuments usually belong to the extreme right of the political spectrum, ranging from intolerant bigots in the Middle East to reactionary nationalists in Eastern Europe. Anyway, this particular subject is usually very susceptible to partisanship and hypocrisy: You can juxtapose the uproar with the transfer of Spanish dictator's skeleton from its illustrious mausoleum to a public cemetery with the congratulations on the demolishing of the liberation statues in Bulgaria, Ukraine and elsewhere.

We're discussing iconoclasm in the context of current events in the US/UK. Quibbling about terminology and/or trying to turn this into a contest between which side of the political aisle has the most puritanical extremists globally is a red herring.

[Aexodus]

What label then, should we apply to the political persuasions of the people who vandalises a Bristol landmark?

[Kritias]

To the extent the violence is ideological I would suspect garden variety anarchists, socialists or marxists for this sort of thing, if any. The sheer level of ignorance required for someone protesting racism to vandalize monuments that have nothing to do with white supremacy, the confederacy, or “Lost Cause” cope seems unlikely to say the least.

Legio is correct. The whole community making a decision to remove and/or replace an icon is not the same as liberal leaders panicking to appease the mob or cultural Marxists tearing down or vandalizing statues they disapprove of.

What label then, should we apply to the political persuasions of the people who vandalises a Bristol landmark?

There's an inherent contradiction here. According to conservative talk points, cultural marxists promote white guilt as a ploy to power grab western democracies, yes? If so, the last thing cultural marxists would want is to take away the evidence of white guilt. Having the statue of a slave owner towering above your skyline is too good of an example of your moral cause to take down.

So, either these people are not cultural marxists or you calling these protesters that is your dirty buzzword thrust against any opposition to conservatives.

[Cope]

OR your circular proposition that the public denigration and/or destruction of certain icons damages the "white guilt" narrative (when the exact opposite is the intention) is sophistic nonsense.

[Kritias]

OR your circular proposition that the public denigration and/or destruction of certain icons damages the "white guilt" narrative (when the exact opposite is the intention) is sophistic nonsense.

OR in the faces of protesters of all political creeds uniting under the cause of anti-racism you see the "enemy" that media pundits and commentators have trained you to see. In the mean time, check what the mayor of Bristol is saying.

[Cope]

We weren't discussing all "protesters". Your attempt to characterize criticism of vandals, political radicals and iconoclasts as arguments against peaceful demonstrators is, as ever, sophistic nonsense.