Taking down monuments?


#1

We have similar questions a lot on this forum, But I want to try and shape it in a different way.

King’s College London is in the news recently, as they will be replacing some of their portraits and busts of its “founding fathers” and to replace them with more ethnic minority people.

Some people fear that teaching is too intimidating.

Is it so ridiculous to replace people 1920s who have been there for many years, and to replace them with some new updated people?

They aren’t throwing anything into the bin, but trying to make the place feel less intimidating.

2 years ago they took down a painting of Lord Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, for his comments on gay marriage?

Is there anything necessarily wrong with modernising the place?


#2

They’re always free to attend a different college if they’re too immature to cope with intimidating portraits and busts.


#3

For racist and genocidal icons, they should take them down, but if it is just because people are white, they should be able somehow to make more room for minority portraits.


#4

Do you mean people who are icons because of their racist views should be taken down, or do you mean people who are icons in other areas but happened to be racists should be taken down too?


#5

Yes, but only because of their principles behind it.


#6

I mean people who were more racist than was standard for the time (Southern Leaders during Civil War for example), but not people like Ernest Hemingway, who was as racist as his time.


#7

If the people in question were racist for their own time, and antagonizing other races was a large part of their life’s endeavors, then I can empathize, but if they were simply normal for their own time period, then attacking figures whom otherwise performed great works is ridiculous and insulting to the Western legacy.


#8

@Reckonz2 thanks for the meme bro


#9

false equivalence
almost all confederate statues were made after the civil war
they have no historical significance, the sole reason they were raised was to push ‘lost cause’ bullshit
if you want to preserve the statues, thats what museums are for
keeping up statues of literal traitors because of some misguided sense of preservation is retarded


#10

lol what are you on about nobody commissions a statue to celebrate an event in a conflict before the conflict ends

selective history[quote=“Chucklenuts, post:9, topic:112344”]
keeping up statues of literal traitors because of some misguided sense of preservation is retarded
[/quote]

as are you


#11

im glad you agree it has no historical significance
typically nobody commissions statues of a conflicts losers either

>i dont understand the difference between a monument and a memorial
no, your boner for the confederacy does not make them historically significant

so not only do you have no argument but you also have no decent comeback
if you’re going to resort to personal attacks at least have something to back it up :ok_hand:


#12

>side of war in American history with 2nd largest number of American casualties
>completely changed the political course of the United States
>war cemented the States from a loose federation into a concrete union
>not historically significant

bruh what the fuck are you talking about


#13

oh boo hoo somebody is mad

That’s literally my direct ancestors who died so…

try again and I’ll see if your condescension mitigates itself


#14

Not to come off as nit picky, but;

If you include the Confederacy as “American”, which most do in hindsight, it’s actually the most casualties.


#15

What are the numbers?


#16

Total conflict deaths;

Civil war; 750k

WW2; 405k

WW1; 63k

If you are going for total casualties it gets tricky because the numbers weren’t recorded that well on the confed side, but it’s widely assumed to be higher than the 1.1 million total American casualties in WW2.


#17

yeah, mine too

in your own words

They quite literally were traitors, the ‘lost cause of the confederacy’ is very much agreed upon to be baseless apologism, and trying to prop up confederate monuments as ‘historical’ when they were made for the sole purpose of celebrating a culture that is constitutionally outlawed is either misguided or downright dishonest

try reading

i would agree with you if we were discussing memorials, but we’re discussing monuments
and even still, why should we have statues of actual traitors? the one ‘statue’ we have of Benedict Arnold for example is literally just his boot, does not mention him by name, and acts as a damnatio memoriae more than celebratory monument


#18

What does something being Constitutionally outlawed have to do with its historical importance?


#19

monuments don’t serve as a reminder or warning, they serve as a celebration of the person, event, and/or culture
admitted traitors who tore a nation in half over owning people should not have public monuments erected in their honor, but i hope this goes without saying
its not that depictions of these historical figures shouldn’t exist, Berlin has a wax Hitler for pete’s sake, but they should not exist as celebrations


#20

this seems really nitpicky and pedantic. There are plenty of WW2 memorials features statues, and plenty of monuments that are just large plaques.

Because the civil war wasn’t fought against a foreign threat- it was a civil war, and generations of Americans have regarded it as a “brother’s war” instead of a “war against traitors”. Northerners after the war- those who actually fought- had far more grace, clemency, and good regard for Southerners than you. Calling their ancestors as such does more to undo the decades of deliberate and painstaking work it took to reintegrate the south than simply taking down the monuments themselves. And over what? A couple of statues? Really?

I mean to quote you on a similar issue:

The way you handle this is precisely why people get so upset. It doesn’t stop at “taking down monuments of racists”. You turn it into “your ancestors were evil traitors and you should feel ashamed of them”. And you then wonder why they hate you.