Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 8 released June 27th)
Polls: 2010s (Results), 1974 (Results), 2019 awards (Jul 11th)
Challenges: Canada, Low Rated, Director
Film of the Week: Vinyan, August nominations (Jul 31st)
World Cup S4: Round 2 schedule, Match 2E: Georgia vs Ukraine (Jul 16th)

History thread: Discuss the past

CMT
Posts: 1386
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
Contact:

History thread: Discuss the past

#1

Post by CMT » April 6th, 2014, 6:43 am

moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 12:03:54 AM wrote:Ending slavery was right, but, the feeling went, we went too far.
What's wrong with this sentiment?

Jay Mars
Posts: 2014
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#2

Post by Jay Mars » April 6th, 2014, 6:45 am

CMT on Apr 6 2014, 12:43:13 AM wrote:
moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 12:03:54 AM wrote:Ending slavery was right, but, the feeling went, we went too far.
What's wrong with this sentiment?
Sorry I didn't mean we went too far with ending slavery, but we went too far with the war.

User avatar
PeacefulAnarchy
Moderator
Posts: 24713
Joined: May 08, 2011
Contact:

#3

Post by PeacefulAnarchy » April 6th, 2014, 6:45 am

CMT on Apr 6 2014, 12:43:13 AM wrote:
moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 12:03:54 AM wrote:Ending slavery was right, but, the feeling went, we went too far.
What's wrong with this sentiment?
Reconstruction did not actually go too far. The sentiment that the Union went too far is part of what led to reconstruction being cut short and blacks, while nominally free, still segregated as second class citizens in the south under Jim Crow laws for another 90 years.
Last edited by PeacefulAnarchy on April 6th, 2014, 6:55 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#4

Post by Cippenham » April 6th, 2014, 6:55 am

maybe we need a History lounge, on the other hand maybe not... :lol:
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

Jay Mars
Posts: 2014
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#5

Post by Jay Mars » April 6th, 2014, 7:00 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 6 2014, 12:45:36 AM wrote:
CMT on Apr 6 2014, 12:43:13 AM wrote:
moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 12:03:54 AM wrote:Ending slavery was right, but, the feeling went, we went too far.
What's wrong with this sentiment?
Reconstruction did not actually go to far. The sentiment that the Union went too far is part of what led to reconstruction being cut short and blacks, while nominally free, still segregated as second class citizens in the south under Jim Crow laws for another 90 years.
Precisely. Though there were those who felt like anything more than freeing the slaves was too much. The inferiority of blacks was assumed and though slavery was seen as wrong, they weren't perceived as capable of managing themselves. Many bought the white Southern line that they understood blacks and knew how to "handle" them. Reconstruction attempted an unnatural subversion of the natural order. Once Reconstruction was cut short, then the Jim Crow laws could be codified. It wasn't until historians began rewriting the history of the war and Reconstruction in the 1960s (Eric Foner, for instance, relying heavily on W.E.B. Dubois' Black Reconstruction in America which was virtually ignored when it was originally published) that this view began to change. Movies like Gone with the Wind reinforced the anti-Reconstructionists.

Jay Mars
Posts: 2014
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#6

Post by Jay Mars » April 6th, 2014, 7:01 am

Cippenham on Apr 6 2014, 12:55:09 AM wrote:maybe we need a History lounge, on the other hand maybe not... :lol:
I am one of the few who would love that :)

CMT
Posts: 1386
Joined: Jan 26, 2013
Contact:

#7

Post by CMT » April 6th, 2014, 7:16 am

PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 6 2014, 12:45:36 AM wrote:
CMT on Apr 6 2014, 12:43:13 AM wrote:
moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 12:03:54 AM wrote:Ending slavery was right, but, the feeling went, we went too far.
What's wrong with this sentiment?
Reconstruction did not actually go too far. The sentiment that the Union went too far is part of what led to reconstruction being cut short and blacks, while nominally free, still segregated as second class citizens in the south under Jim Crow laws for another 90 years.
I meant the war which generally I thought was agreed to have gone too far.
Last edited by CMT on April 6th, 2014, 7:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jay Mars
Posts: 2014
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#8

Post by Jay Mars » April 6th, 2014, 7:26 am

CMT on Apr 6 2014, 01:16:48 AM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 6 2014, 12:45:36 AM wrote:
CMT on Apr 6 2014, 12:43:13 AM wrote:What's wrong with this sentiment?
Reconstruction did not actually go too far. The sentiment that the Union went too far is part of what led to reconstruction being cut short and blacks, while nominally free, still segregated as second class citizens in the south under Jim Crow laws for another 90 years.
I meant the war which generally I thought was agreed to have gone too far.
Oh I see what you mean.

But I don't think the war's generally agreed to have gone too far. There were atrocities, but there are always atrocities in war. People who argue the war went too far tend to also believe the South should have been allowed to secede. Or there was negotiating that could have been done, which is nonsense really.

mathiasa
Posts: 2533
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#9

Post by mathiasa » April 6th, 2014, 8:03 am

moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 01:26:47 AM wrote:
CMT on Apr 6 2014, 01:16:48 AM wrote:
PeacefulAnarchy on Apr 6 2014, 12:45:36 AM wrote:Reconstruction did not actually go too far. The sentiment that the Union went too far is part of what led to reconstruction being cut short and blacks, while nominally free, still segregated as second class citizens in the south under Jim Crow laws for another 90 years.
I meant the war which generally I thought was agreed to have gone too far.
Oh I see what you mean.

But I don't think the war's generally agreed to have gone too far. There were atrocities, but there are always atrocities in war. People who argue the war went too far tend to also believe the South should have been allowed to secede. Or there was negotiating that could have been done, which is nonsense really.
of course they should have been allowed to secede. only warmongers would try stop people that want to go. the us would now be probably far less imperialistic if it would be cut in half. it would be also less centralized and therefore more economic productive and wealthier.

Jay Mars
Posts: 2014
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#10

Post by Jay Mars » April 6th, 2014, 8:18 am

mathiasa on Apr 6 2014, 02:03:17 AM wrote:
moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 01:26:47 AM wrote:
CMT on Apr 6 2014, 01:16:48 AM wrote:I meant the war which generally I thought was agreed to have gone too far.
Oh I see what you mean.

But I don't think the war's generally agreed to have gone too far. There were atrocities, but there are always atrocities in war. People who argue the war went too far tend to also believe the South should have been allowed to secede. Or there was negotiating that could have been done, which is nonsense really.
of course they should have been allowed to secede. only warmongers would try stop people that want to go. the us would now be probably far less imperialistic if it would be cut in half. it would be also less centralized and therefore more economic productive and wealthier.
Abandoning an entire class and race of people to slavery because rich Southerners wanted their own country doesn't sound like a terribly moral choice either.

And I don't know what makes you think the US would have been less imperialistic if the South seceded. If anything it would probably have been more so, eager to make up lost territory, and it would have been competing with a Confederacy as well. Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Central America and other Caribbean Islands would probably have all been under a more direct threat of annexation from the US or CSA.

Sorry folks. Didn't mean to hijack the conversation.

mathiasa
Posts: 2533
Joined: Aug 18, 2013
Contact:

#11

Post by mathiasa » April 6th, 2014, 9:14 am

moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 02:18:38 AM wrote:
mathiasa on Apr 6 2014, 02:03:17 AM wrote:
moviesovermatter on Apr 6 2014, 01:26:47 AM wrote:Oh I see what you mean.

But I don't think the war's generally agreed to have gone too far. There were atrocities, but there are always atrocities in war. People who argue the war went too far tend to also believe the South should have been allowed to secede. Or there was negotiating that could have been done, which is nonsense really.
of course they should have been allowed to secede. only warmongers would try stop people that want to go. the us would now be probably far less imperialistic if it would be cut in half. it would be also less centralized and therefore more economic productive and wealthier.
Abandoning an entire class and race of people to slavery because rich Southerners wanted their own country doesn't sound like a terribly moral choice either.

And I don't know what makes you think the US would have been less imperialistic if the South seceded. If anything it would probably have been more so, eager to make up lost territory, and it would have been competing with a Confederacy as well. Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Central America and other Caribbean Islands would probably have all been under a more direct threat of annexation from the US or CSA.

Sorry folks. Didn't mean to hijack the conversation.
the civil war brought fiat money on a bigger scale and a nationalized banking system. Jacksonian hard money policies would have severly limited imperialistic ambitions.

lincoln was imo simply a racist without any moral ground:
"I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Last edited by mathiasa on April 6th, 2014, 9:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#12

Post by Cippenham » April 6th, 2014, 9:22 am

ok we do need a History lounge, this has nothing to do with the 1930s s :lol:
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

Jay Mars
Posts: 2014
Joined: Jan 22, 2013
Location: Orange County, California
Contact:

#13

Post by Jay Mars » April 6th, 2014, 11:49 pm

mathiasa on Apr 6 2014, 03:14:05 AM wrote:lincoln was imo simply a racist without any moral ground:
"I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
It's easy to find quotes like this from anyone in the 19th century. It was an essentially racist country. Men like John Brown who believed in racial equality were the rarity. Lincoln wanted to end slavery and he wanted to find a solution to race problems. He felt like relocating former slaves to Africa or Central America would be the most humane solution, not because he hated blacks, but because he felt like whites would never accept former slaves as equal citizens.

And of course he assigns whites the superior race. Again that doesn't make him racist. He was a politician in the 19th century. How could he ever have hoped to be elected to anything by saying anything else? Saying blacks are equal would have relegated him to obscurity and radicalism. Politicians tell people what they want to hear. He also went to church and was most likely an atheist.

Lincoln was no more a racist than the rest of the country was (though I would argue he was less racist). That he was an abolitionist put him on firmer moral ground from a modern perspective than most others in the US who general didn't feel like it was an issue that important.

As for your banking argument, you have no idea what would have happened had the Confederacy become a country. I would venture to guess the same thing would have happened eventually given competition with Europe and the CSA. Centralization would have been the only way to compete.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#14

Post by Cippenham » July 21st, 2014, 8:27 pm

Ok just found this thread, it is in place of a lounge, so may make a contribution some time ..
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

SkilledLunatic
Posts: 2187
Joined: Mar 11, 2014
Location: Fortaleza, Brazil
Contact:

#15

Post by SkilledLunatic » July 22nd, 2014, 12:10 am

I knew it! I mean we have a lounge for beer experts and not for History? C'mon!

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#16

Post by Cippenham » March 21st, 2015, 11:23 am

King Richard III funeral events start tomorrow, just 562 years late, it will be televised in the UK although "technically, this is not a funeral service because Richard had a formal burial, albeit a rudimentary one, when his body was bundled into a shallow grave by the monks of Greyfriars in 1485. So, it’s a ‘service of reinterment’".

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3V0ydjtQu




Richard III to be reburied in Leicester more than five centuries after death
The 562-year-old's remains were found under a car park in the town in 2012
Media from 20 countries are heading to Leicester for the series of events
Tomorrow his coffin will go on a seven hours 30 mile procession
The King's coffin will then lay in state for three days before his burial
Last edited by Cippenham on March 21st, 2015, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#17

Post by Cippenham » March 21st, 2015, 11:39 am

Shakespeare - The Animated Tales -Richard III

https://www.icheckmovies.com/movies/sha ... chard+iii/
Last edited by Cippenham on March 21st, 2015, 11:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
HVM
Posts: 3699
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Republic of Czechia
Contact:

#18

Post by HVM » July 6th, 2015, 10:53 am

600 years ago on this day, Jan Hus, "a Czech priest, philosopher, early Christian reformer and Master at Charles University in Prague" was burned at the stake at the Council of Constance. "After John Wycliffe, the theorist of ecclesiastical Reformation, Hus is considered the first Church reformer, as he lived before Luther, Calvin and Zwingli."

Hus' death would unleash war on the Czech lands, including "five crusades proclaimed against them by the Pope," all of them unsuccessful. :cowboy:
love this part, thoughShow
During a war between Poland and the Teutonic Order, some Hussite troops helped the Poles. In 1433, a Hussite army of 7,000 men marched through Neumark into Prussia and captured Dirschau on the Vistula River. They eventually reached the mouth of the Vistula where it enters the Baltic Sea near Danzig. There, they performed a great victory celebration to show that nothing but the ocean could stop the Hussites. The Prussian historian Heinrich von Treitschke later wrote that they had "greeted the sea with a wild Czech song about God's warriors, and filled their water bottles with brine in token that the Baltic once more obeyed the Slavs."





Can't find a proper sung version.
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
Image
Hus is also believed to be the author of De orthographia bohemica, a seminal work on Czech ortography: "Instead of representing sounds using digraphs and trigraphs, it proposed a diacritic orthography, where one letter indicates only one sound, and different but related sounds (such as those now represented by r and ř) are distinguished by diacritics. "



The weather seems to be taking part in the commemoration. It's been up to 37°C/99°F ...
1918 - 100 - 2018

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#19

Post by Cippenham » September 7th, 2015, 4:40 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34154173


A new bigger Stonehenge has been found near the original , this is amazing
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
HVM
Posts: 3699
Joined: Jul 09, 2012
Location: Republic of Czechia
Contact:

#20

Post by HVM » August 21st, 2016, 7:04 pm

Reading today's articles commemorating the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia I fell in love with these two photos. (l)
Spoiler: click to toggleShow
On a restaurant/pub: "We'll drown you in beer!"

Image

On a ready-to-cook food shop or somesuch: "Today's offer: Russian swines"

Image
1918 - 100 - 2018

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#21

Post by Cippenham » October 30th, 2016, 10:47 pm

Started listening to some podcasts on the Presidents, and Washington didn't really want the job and had to be convinced , he liked nice clothes, married a rich lady, liked to ride on his horse through a town so people could see him, was not as well educated as others but was the most important President as the first perhaps. John Adams, saw that brilliant series on him, no actual monuments to him in Washington, had spent time as diplomat in France, one term President, now he didn't have slaves, Washington did but treated them relatively well , now Jefferson was a genius wrote much of the constitution, all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with inailiable rights but he had hundreds of slaves and did not treat them so well and famously had a relationship with a slave, so he is a bit of a contradictory mix, and he does have a monument, now just coming onto the two James's, Madison and Monroe.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 6977
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#22

Post by 3eyes » October 31st, 2016, 12:09 am

I too just found this thread. Hope this isn't too much of a non-sequitur - I'm thinking plus ça change....
Government by Party! Introduce that great and glorious
element--at once the bulwark and foundation of England's
greatness--and all will be well! No political measures will
endure, because one Party will assuredly undo all that the
other Party has done; and while grouse is to be shot, and
foxes worried to death, the legislative action of the coun-
try will be at a standstill. Then there will be sickness in
plenty, endless lawsuits, crowded jails, interminable confu-
sion in the Army and Navy, and, in short, general and unex-
ampled prosperity!

- Gilbert (and Sullivan), Utopia Limited
-- Gilbert (and Sullivan), Utopia Limited
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#23

Post by Cippenham » December 24th, 2016, 12:07 pm

its the 25th anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union, a Breitbart article has more, some of is as below and is accurate taken from historians and writers

‘A Story of Crushing Tyranny and Oceans of Blood’
Some historians have estimated that as many as 200 million people worldwide may have died as part of the 20th century dream of creating a collectivist “paradise on earth, some estimate that as many as 68 million innocent, unarmed men, women, and children may have been killed in Soviet Russia alone over those nearly 75 years of communist rule in the Soviet Union.

For A purpose. To make a new Soviet man and a new Soviet society.

Near the end of his famous 1922 treatise Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Mises warned:

Socialism is not in the least what is pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means production has created … Each step leading towards Socialism must exhaust itself in the destruction of what already exists.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20258
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#24

Post by Pretentious Hipster » January 26th, 2017, 5:48 am

http://all-that-is-interesting.com/rheinwiesenlager

Number of deaths seems to be all over the place in other sources. I see a few thousand to millions. Either way, very hypocritical of the Americans. Don`t forget about the mass rape when they took over Germany.
Last edited by Pretentious Hipster on January 26th, 2017, 5:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
My father didn’t have the skill of a professional cameraman. The result? Avant-garde cinema.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#25

Post by Cippenham » February 3rd, 2017, 9:08 am

http://www.lifecourse.com/assets/files/ ... ory(1).pdf

Turning points in history note we are now in the Fourth Turning, this is based on book which is a favourite of Steve Bannon Trumps main advisor.

http://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/ ... nings.html

http://blog.saeculumresearch.com/2012/0 ... h-turning/
Last edited by Cippenham on February 3rd, 2017, 9:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

User avatar
brokenface
Donator
Posts: 13543
Joined: Dec 29, 2011
Contact:

#26

Post by brokenface » February 3rd, 2017, 9:39 am

Cippenham on Feb 3 2017, 02:08:52 AM wrote:http://www.lifecourse.com/assets/files/ ... ory(1).pdf

Turning points in history note we are now in the Fourth Turning, this is based on book which is a favourite of Steve Bannon Trumps main advisor.

http://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/ ... nings.html

http://blog.saeculumresearch.com/2012/0 ... h-turning/
Sounds like a slightly modified rip off of the plot of Asimov's Foundation

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#27

Post by Cippenham » February 3rd, 2017, 9:48 am

Really, that was my Dad's favourite author. I read a few too.

Neil Howe features on interviews and talks on YouTube, a lot is about generations. Says the latest generation are ultra risk adverse so they really won't like change or anything challenging I guess..gen x parents to blame ultra protecting them :lol:
Last edited by Cippenham on February 3rd, 2017, 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#28

Post by Cippenham » January 22nd, 2018, 12:06 am

Amazing fact The 10th US President John Tyler 1841 to 1845 still has two grandchildren alive according to Wikipedia
Last edited by Cippenham on January 22nd, 2018, 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Turning over a new leaf :ICM:

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#29

Post by Cippenham » June 22nd, 2020, 3:12 pm

Once you destroy your history you cannot teach it and can pretend it never existed. The Chinese cultural revolution started destroying culture and ended with millions of people killed so even Mao was threatened. This means if statues are destroyed it could be the slippery slope to disaster. Let me make it clear slavery was a terrible thing but you cannot pretend it never existed. I am proud the British empire got rid of slavery and fought to stop it, this does not fit the Maoist agenda though.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 631
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#30

Post by Teproc » June 22nd, 2020, 3:40 pm

Statues are not history books. They say next to nothing about the past: does anyone learn history by looking at statues? No. Statues are for the present, to show what values we celebrate.

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20258
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#31

Post by Pretentious Hipster » June 22nd, 2020, 3:45 pm

You could argue that throwing a statue in a lake would increase the chances of it appearing in the history books.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4543
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#32

Post by OldAle1 » June 22nd, 2020, 3:56 pm

Teproc wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 3:40 pm
Statues are not history books. They say next to nothing about the past: does anyone learn history by looking at statues? No. Statues are for the present, to show what values we celebrate.
More or less - but to be strictly accurate, they are for the present when they are or were created; obviously our present is different, and a large percentage of us have different values, than the present (and recent past) being celebrated in, say, Confederate statues erected in 1910.

It is starting to get tricky with monuments to people like Washington being pulled down; while Washington was a slaveholder, he freed his slaves before his death. And slavery was so entrenched in what was to become the USA already by the late 18th century that he and the other founders of the country saw no way forward without continuing to allow it - or to return to the heavy hand of the British empire. Do we ultimately get rid of every public monument to every leader in this country prior to Lincoln? But... I can understand that perhaps looking at this all through a new lens is necessary. Perhaps statues to heroes of the past - especially those that we see as heroes no longer - in general don't belong in public spaces anymore, at least not places like parks and squares. Put 'em in museums where there is better opportunity for contextualizing what they represent now, and what they represented once upon a time.

Not surprising that a pro-Imperialist/colonialist like Cipp would disagree though, anymore than I'm surprised at the Confederate sympathizers here celebrating traitors, or neo-Nazis celebrating Hitler. White supremacy is not dying easy anywhere and too many people just use "tradition" and similar words to hide it.

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4297
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#33

Post by Onderhond » June 22nd, 2020, 4:06 pm

Teproc wrote:
June 22nd, 2020, 3:40 pm
Statues are not history books. They say next to nothing about the past: does anyone learn history by looking at statues? No. Statues are for the present, to show what values we celebrate.
When you do guided city tours, statues are a kind of "history book". We often see groups of tourists here standing around a statue, with a guide doing a short presentation on the history. But I don't think the impact is that big and most people (me included) just walk past these things, no clue about what they represent. Most of them are rather ugly too.

Destroying statues would be stupid though. When you feel they have no more place in the open, they should best go to a museum, the go-to place for history.

User avatar
Teproc
Posts: 631
Joined: Sep 23, 2015
Contact:

#34

Post by Teproc » June 22nd, 2020, 4:37 pm

I agree they ideally shouldn't be destroyed, but statues of slavers (who do not have massive accomplishments other than that to make their legacy more complicated, as is the case with a George Washington) belong in museums and not in public places.

I certainly agree that a lot of what has been going on around this issue has been unthinking and sometimes absurd, but if it leads to rethinking some things (it is truly insane that Leopold II still has statues in Belgium), then that's great. And for the ones who draw ludicrous comparisons to 1984, consider that we have talked more about most of the figures that have been targeted than at any time in the past 50 years or so, so maybe we're not quite in a dystopian state yet.

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4543
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#35

Post by OldAle1 » June 22nd, 2020, 4:52 pm

I think the better Orwell comparisons would be the patently false statements made by so many right-wing leaders today - Trump and Bolsonaro especially - about COVID and innumerable other current-day issues. If you can erase or alter the present through lies then erasing the past is probably child's play.

Cippenham
Donator
Posts: 13304
Joined: May 09, 2011
Location: Dorset England
Contact:

#36

Post by Cippenham » June 22nd, 2020, 5:52 pm

Maybe Trump who has done a lot for minority groups should replace Teddy Roosevelt on Rushmore. But Really if you pretend it did not exist it means you cannot learn. They wont stop at statues will go for paintings windows books and then people, the marxist university kids now with no jobs or future seek to destroy

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20258
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#37

Post by Pretentious Hipster » June 23rd, 2020, 12:01 pm

You do realize that they don't read Marx and Lenin in schools right? I've spoken to "cultural Marxists" and anarchists and I can say that Marxists are a different beast.

You would love this https://www.rferl.org/a/germany-marxist ... 81737.html

User avatar
Pretentious Hipster
Donator
Posts: 20258
Joined: Oct 24, 2011
Contact:

#38

Post by Pretentious Hipster » June 23rd, 2020, 12:03 pm

Also I fucking love how the boomers and gen x both RAISE those kids and then BLAME them for their problems.

Prat
Posts: 581
Joined: May 04, 2012
Location: France
Contact:

#39

Post by Prat » June 23rd, 2020, 12:26 pm

I don't know if the statues are a problem by themselves or if the problem is that the society (at least in some areas/countries) is still acting like slavery is just a "nice memory" and black people are still perceived as less than citizens.
I mean, I'm from Marseille, in France, and all of southern Europe is covered by roman and greek monuments. No one want to destroy them because they were all slavers. It's because the consequences of these centuries of slaveries are inexistant in our society. (We have others issues, of course)

It's a balance to find between the preservation of history and the actual society. Obviously, I don't have the solution ^^

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 4297
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#40

Post by Onderhond » June 23rd, 2020, 12:36 pm

Prat wrote:
June 23rd, 2020, 12:26 pm
I mean, I'm from Marseille, in France, and all of southern Europe is covered by roman and greek monuments. No one want to destroy them because they were all slavers. It's because the consequences of these centuries of slaveries are inexistant in our society.
I think that last part makes a really big difference. I've heard those same arguments before (i.e. "we're not still mad at the Germans, are we"), and they're kind of fair. But then again we won the war. I usually ask people how people would feel about Germans if we'd lost the war and we were actually governed by them right now. That usually flips a switch :)

Post Reply