Christopher Columbus statues

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A quote regarding monuments for victims of lynching, so slightly different from this situation, but a quote that pertains nonetheless: “The public narrative a nation creates about what is important is reflected in memorials and monuments. Who is honored, what is remembered, what is memorialized tells a story about a society that can’t be reflected in other ways.

–Bryan Stevenson, EJI Executive Director”

https://eji.org/projects/community-historical-marker-project/

So I’m essence what Native descendants have been saying for decades, and what some people refuse to recognize, is that celebrating the man who murdered thousands and opened up the Americas on the note of theft and genocide, is telling Native Americans that they don’t matter, that violence against them didn’t matter then and doesn’t matter now so long as is serves someone else’s material gain.

All of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a standard for memorialization. It can’t be perfection (unless it’s a statue of Jesus/Allah/etc.)—maybe the standard is being on the right side of history?

Who determines what the right side of history is? Hitler believed he was on the right side of history until the day he died.

Society does. The point of getting a statue isn't that a person was Good Enough according to some objective standard. The point of the society decides, collectively, that this person and their contributions are the kind we want to hold up as positive and worthy of emulation. The problem we have now is a combination of changing standards for a large portion of the population and the fact that the original decision to put up the statues was made without the input of people impacted by the people being commemorated. Indeed, in the case of Confederate statues they were put up by regimes that were violently oppressive of a major segment of society with the purpose of commemirating that oppression. You don't need to establish an objective standard of "progress" to justify removing those.

Oh but you do. Many of those statues were paid for by public funds. To simply tear them down without a vote because a small segment of the population “doesn’t like them” disenfranchises the voters who do. Put it to a vote and let the community decide. But don’t arbitrarily tear them down because they were confederates, or owned slaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a standard for memorialization. It can’t be perfection (unless it’s a statue of Jesus/Allah/etc.)—maybe the standard is being on the right side of history?

Who determines what the right side of history is? Hitler believed he was on the right side of history until the day he died.

Society does. The point of getting a statue isn't that a person was Good Enough according to some objective standard. The point of the society decides, collectively, that this person and their contributions are the kind we want to hold up as positive and worthy of emulation. The problem we have now is a combination of changing standards for a large portion of the population and the fact that the original decision to put up the statues was made without the input of people impacted by the people being commemorated. Indeed, in the case of Confederate statues they were put up by regimes that were violently oppressive of a major segment of society with the purpose of commemirating that oppression. You don't need to establish an objective standard of "progress" to justify removing those.

Oh but you do. Many of those statues were paid for by public funds. To simply tear them down without a vote because a small segment of the population “doesn’t like them” disenfranchises the voters who do. Put it to a vote and let the community decide. But don’t arbitrarily tear them down because they were confederates, or owned slaves.

Was a vote taken when they decided to put them up?

And do you know what “disenfranchised” even means? Here’s a little hint: Native Americans couldn’t vote in every state until 1962 (and they weren’t considered full US citizens until 1924!). https://www.history.com/news/native-american-voting-rights-citizenship

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a standard for memorialization. It can’t be perfection (unless it’s a statue of Jesus/Allah/etc.)—maybe the standard is being on the right side of history?

Who determines what the right side of history is? Hitler believed he was on the right side of history until the day he died.

Society does. The point of getting a statue isn't that a person was Good Enough according to some objective standard. The point of the society decides, collectively, that this person and their contributions are the kind we want to hold up as positive and worthy of emulation. The problem we have now is a combination of changing standards for a large portion of the population and the fact that the original decision to put up the statues was made without the input of people impacted by the people being commemorated. Indeed, in the case of Confederate statues they were put up by regimes that were violently oppressive of a major segment of society with the purpose of commemirating that oppression. You don't need to establish an objective standard of "progress" to justify removing those.

Oh but you do. Many of those statues were paid for by public funds. To simply tear them down without a vote because a small segment of the population “doesn’t like them” disenfranchises the voters who do. Put it to a vote and let the community decide. But don’t arbitrarily tear them down because they were confederates, or owned slaves.

Was a vote taken when they decided to put them up?

And do you know what “disenfranchised” even means? Here’s a little hint: Native Americans couldn’t vote in every state until 1962 (and they weren’t considered full US citizens until 1924!). https://www.history.com/news/native-american-voting-rights-citizenship

Yes, they weren't considered US citizens... they were considered to be part of their own tribal nations instead. That still exists today.

The interesting thing is that the 14th amendment apparently didn't make them citizens, until congress decided it did in 1924.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a person teaching our youth........

so cool! I love activist teachers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a standard for memorialization. It can’t be perfection (unless it’s a statue of Jesus/Allah/etc.)—maybe the standard is being on the right side of history?

Who determines what the right side of history is? Hitler believed he was on the right side of history until the day he died.

Society does. The point of getting a statue isn't that a person was Good Enough according to some objective standard. The point of the society decides, collectively, that this person and their contributions are the kind we want to hold up as positive and worthy of emulation. The problem we have now is a combination of changing standards for a large portion of the population and the fact that the original decision to put up the statues was made without the input of people impacted by the people being commemorated. Indeed, in the case of Confederate statues they were put up by regimes that were violently oppressive of a major segment of society with the purpose of commemirating that oppression. You don't need to establish an objective standard of "progress" to justify removing those.

Oh but you do. Many of those statues were paid for by public funds. To simply tear them down without a vote because a small segment of the population “doesn’t like them” disenfranchises the voters who do. Put it to a vote and let the community decide. But don’t arbitrarily tear them down because they were confederates, or owned slaves.

Was a vote taken when they decided to put them up?

And do you know what “disenfranchised” even means? Here’s a little hint: Native Americans couldn’t vote in every state until 1962 (and they weren’t considered full US citizens until 1924!). https://www.history.com/news/native-american-voting-rights-citizenship

Yes, they weren't considered US citizens... they were considered to be part of their own tribal nations instead. That still exists today.

The interesting thing is that the 14th amendment apparently didn't make them citizens, until congress decided it did in 1924.

Yes almost entirely subject to the laws of the country that contained their nations.

[Anonymous]

A nice long list of people who stood for something good, not greed.

[Anonymous]

The next statutes to go should be MLK who was huge womanizer and treated women poorly!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How did that teacher get by vetting?

Are you suggesting we screen teachers for incorrect political opinions.

Actually Libs Do! If you are not left-leaning socialist/revolutionary you won't get any teaching job in most colleges.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a standard for memorialization. It can’t be perfection (unless it’s a statue of Jesus/Allah/etc.)—maybe the standard is being on the right side of history?

Who determines what the right side of history is? Hitler believed he was on the right side of history until the day he died.

Society does. The point of getting a statue isn't that a person was Good Enough according to some objective standard. The point of the society decides, collectively, that this person and their contributions are the kind we want to hold up as positive and worthy of emulation. The problem we have now is a combination of changing standards for a large portion of the population and the fact that the original decision to put up the statues was made without the input of people impacted by the people being commemorated. Indeed, in the case of Confederate statues they were put up by regimes that were violently oppressive of a major segment of society with the purpose of commemirating that oppression. You don't need to establish an objective standard of "progress" to justify removing those.

Oh but you do. Many of those statues were paid for by public funds. To simply tear them down without a vote because a small segment of the population “doesn’t like them” disenfranchises the voters who do. Put it to a vote and let the community decide. But don’t arbitrarily tear them down because they were confederates, or owned slaves.

Was a vote taken when they decided to put them up?

And do you know what “disenfranchised” even means? Here’s a little hint: Native Americans couldn’t vote in every state until 1962 (and they weren’t considered full US citizens until 1924!). https://www.history.com/news/native-american-voting-rights-citizenship

The difficulty with the legal aspects of Native Americans is simple: If Native American tribes have their own sovereignty, then Native Americans are not US citizens but are citizens of their own tribes. In theory, Native Americans have their own legal basis based on blood lines, which, of course, runs contrary to our notions of individual rights and equal treatment, not that we always uphold those latter ideas.

[Anonymous]

Columbus was a colonizer, and America was not a landmass completely barren without human beings. He did not open the new world, well, maybe for himself and for the country that paid for his trip. The land was taken by force from Native Americans through genocide. This country became rich on the backs of Native Americans and black people so let's celebrate them not people who exploited them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need a standard for memorialization. It can’t be perfection (unless it’s a statue of Jesus/Allah/etc.)—maybe the standard is being on the right side of history?

Who determines what the right side of history is? Hitler believed he was on the right side of history until the day he died.

Society does. The point of getting a statue isn't that a person was Good Enough according to some objective standard. The point of the society decides, collectively, that this person and their contributions are the kind we want to hold up as positive and worthy of emulation. The problem we have now is a combination of changing standards for a large portion of the population and the fact that the original decision to put up the statues was made without the input of people impacted by the people being commemorated. Indeed, in the case of Confederate statues they were put up by regimes that were violently oppressive of a major segment of society with the purpose of commemirating that oppression. You don't need to establish an objective standard of "progress" to justify removing those.

Oh but you do. Many of those statues were paid for by public funds. To simply tear them down without a vote because a small segment of the population “doesn’t like them” disenfranchises the voters who do. Put it to a vote and let the community decide. But don’t arbitrarily tear them down because they were confederates, or owned slaves.

Was a vote taken when they decided to put them up?

And do you know what “disenfranchised” even means? Here’s a little hint: Native Americans couldn’t vote in every state until 1962 (and they weren’t considered full US citizens until 1924!). https://www.history.com/news/native-american-voting-rights-citizenship

Exactly. If you actually think statues should be decided with a community vote (and I agree) they you should acknowledge almost no statues in place now were done so though voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The next statutes to go should be MLK who was huge womanizer and treated women poorly!!!

You guys are bad at analogies. Statues that honor people BECAUSE they were brutal colonizers or Confederate generals fighting for slavery should come down.

Statues that honor people for great accomplishments or leadership in great causes stay up even if they had personal flaws.

The point is WHY they are honored. This is not hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next statutes to go should be MLK who was huge womanizer and treated women poorly!!!

You guys are bad at analogies. Statues that honor people BECAUSE they were brutal colonizers or Confederate generals fighting for slavery should come down.

Statues that honor people for great accomplishments or leadership in great causes stay up even if they had personal flaws.

The point is WHY they are honored. This is not hard.

+1. OMG. An actual logical and wise poster on this forum! Wonders never cease.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next statutes to go should be MLK who was huge womanizer and treated women poorly!!!

You guys are bad at analogies. Statues that honor people BECAUSE they were brutal colonizers or Confederate generals fighting for slavery should come down.

Statues that honor people for great accomplishments or leadership in great causes stay up even if they had personal flaws.

The point is WHY they are honored. This is not hard.

Which is why Washington and Jefferson's statues are being assualted, even abolitionists, as well as the first black civil war regiment?