Open Bar: Subpoenaed by Congress, but still refusing to testify

[altered]

That's fucking awful.

If I put out a sculpture of a big terrifying dude beating on a child with a stick, IT MAKES IT LOOK LIKE I AGREE WITH THE DUDE BEATING A CHILD. It makes it look like the SOCIETY that accepts this piece being on display agrees with that dude. It makes it look like a land of fucking baby killers.

You literally can't avoid this. The entire point of a statue of a person is that you can mistake them for a person, and that they are a representation of how things should be or how things are. They are visions of the past intended to be carried on into the future.

Putting a statue like you describe up is fucking reprehensible.

[altered]

Last aimed at Iptuous, not Nyborj. I love that thing, ahahaha.

[Elder Iptuous]

That is an understandable concern.
It is not possible to make a statue express disdain?
How are we to represent historical figures that were important and influential in all their flawed reality?
I have seen it put forward that all historical statues are unnacceptable... is this true?

[Bruno]

I think we should just add "Pissing Calvin" Statues to all the Confederate statues.

[Elder Iptuous]

I guess the more general question for me, is how do we handle historical figures that did both great and horrible things?
Of course we would hope that great people not do horrible things, but the characteristics that make someone likely to achieve the one, often select for both.
It feels like we should be able to have a nuanced memorialization of our past.

But...Maybe humans are incapable of that.

[altered]

Personally, I almost agree with that. There are two exceptions, I feel.

When it's a non-specific person, like some sort of anonymous person wearing an Apollo era NASA EVA suit, it's clearly about the moon landings... or whatever historical event the nonspecific person represents. You celebrate the event, not a person, and that is a historical statue that's okay I think.

And a bust or a small statue at the gravesite of an important historical figure I think is about the only value neutral depiction of important people possible. "This person did something of importance, and now they are dead". Giant monuments and statues at four times life size are always going to be idolizing someone, and statues anywhere that isn't their gravesite will as well. But at the grave, they are physically there, you're just revealing them.

[Doktor Howl]

Is it the prevailing view on the board that there is no valid arguments against the statue destructions?

It doesn't seem simple to me.

Hmm... Perhaps it would be more effective to erect statues of these historical figures showcasing their flaws.  The opposition could rail against the ideas conveyed, but they would not have the righteous indignation that is lent by witnessing the destruction of historical public property.

I don't see any need to negotiate, though.  There are no statues to Adolf Hitler, and everyone remembers who he was.  The statues were put up decades after the civil war as an intimidation tactic.

Tear 'em down.

[Nibor the Priest]

I guess the more general question for me, is how do we handle historical figures that did both great and horrible things?
Of course we would hope that great people not do horrible things, but the characteristics that make someone likely to achieve the one, often select for both.
It feels like we should be able to have a nuanced memorialization of our past.

I don't know what that is, but it isn't a plain statue.

And many of the subjects did awful things and not great things. I'll admit Churchill is probably in the "it's complicated" category, but most Confederate generals probably aren't.

[Doktor Howl]

I guess the more general question for me, is how do we handle historical figures that did both great and horrible things?
Of course we would hope that great people not do horrible things, but the characteristics that make someone likely to achieve the one, often select for both.
It feels like we should be able to have a nuanced memorialization of our past.

I don't know what that is, but it isn't a plain statue.

And many of the subjects did awful things and not great things. I'll admit Churchill is probably in the "it's complicated" category, but most Confederate generals probably aren't.

There isn't much complicated about Churchill.  He was a bloody bastard, but he was the bloody bastard that was needed at that time, on account of the opposition was so much worse.

There is a reason he was voted out immediately after the war.

[Cramulus]

Native American communities have objected to Columbus statues for decades

to them, it's not just a statue, it's an active poison, a symbol of their role in American history as non-people & as property. It's a reminder that american culture accepts natives as the "bad guys". It's a genocide we're still in denial about.

same with black communities and confederate generals

those generals literally fought against the freedoms they enjoy today, why should any of us tolerate their image in public spaces?

sure, those are complicated figures -- but the question isn't about their merit, it's about why the voices of the marginalized are so deprioritized they're not even part of the discussion.

Right now, we're in a rare political moment where we are able to look at our racist society and go "ew". Recalibrate. This is a rare and precious occurrence. We're lucky if we get one per century. Right now, people have to run with that energy, because it'll vanish shortly. Nobody remembers the Trayvon Martin protests in 2013 -- there were protests in over 100 cities! And nothing changed!

and every bit of progress we make towards an inclusive society is bitterly resisted, tooth and nail.


personally, I don't think any statue has inherent value.. people are lionized during certain points of history, for certain political purposes -- like how Columbus Day really came from the Knights of Columbus trying to get Italians integrated into "white people".

I feel that the political causes of yesteryear should always take a back seat to the political causes of the day.


demolish every single statue if it means we are no longer celebrating slavers and white supremacy

[chaotic neutral observer]

Columbus was a bona fide asshole.  You wanna knock down his statue, I'll lend you my sledgehammer.

How do we feel about statues of Abraham Lincoln?

[Elder Iptuous]

Is it the prevailing view on the board that there is no valid arguments against the statue destructions?

It doesn't seem simple to me.

Hmm... Perhaps it would be more effective to erect statues of these historical figures showcasing their flaws.  The opposition could rail against the ideas conveyed, but they would not have the righteous indignation that is lent by witnessing the destruction of historical public property.

I don't see any need to negotiate, though.  There are no statues to Adolf Hitler, and everyone remembers who he was.  The statues were put up decades after the civil war as an intimidation tactic.

Tear 'em down.

This is a good point.  The Confederate statues I would not argue for.  They are not considered a touchstone of our national identity, contributing to who we aspire to be.  You could argue that they showed bravery in combat, or strategic genius, or loyalty to a cause.... but it wasn't the cause of who we want to be.
So fuck em.

But when we are considering the flawed characters that did layout the framework of what we want to be, I can understand some of the talking points coming out of the red team, as well as those of the blue team.

[Elder Iptuous]

Cram, I totally agree that this is a precious moment in history right now, and I hope we can use it well.
I've had some of the best conversations lately, and can feel some sweet sweet brain plasticity in myself, and see it in those I talk with.

[Cramulus]

They took down the statue of Columbus in New Haven CT this morning.
Here are some videos from the conflict that happened before it was torn down. It's hard to watch.

https://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/colmbus/


You've got two groups here, BLM and Italian Boomers.

The Italian Boomers are shouting shit like "Go steal another TV". They throw the first punch. And when the cops get involved, one boomer keeps yelling at the black people "Oh so NOW you LIKE cops?"

The cops yell at the black guy and say "you're causing all of this". Which is absurd, he's basically been standing still and trying to explain himself while people shout him down. Then the cops refuse to take down the information of the white guys who punched him in the back of the head.

This old white guy is explaining to the black guy how Italians used to have it just as bad as blacks 

Black guy says that America was built on slavery, all the white people groan in unison, somebody yells "what's next, you wanna tear down the pyramids?"

another guy tells a BLM protestor that he should really be angry at Spain, since they financed Columbus     

Then a nonstop train of white people walk up to this black guy, aggressively demand an explanation while pointing in his face, and then talk over him as he tries to explain his position.




if there are some nuanced arguments here, I'm missing it

it's pretty much 100% white people telling black people that their concerns don't count and they don't get a say

[Nibor the Priest]

And when the cops get involved, one boomer keeps yelling at the black people "Oh so NOW you LIKE cops?"

"oh so you SAY you hate cops when they're summarily executing you for driving infractions, but when they actually do their job you're HAPPY about it? Curious!"