"on the tearing down of statues" Topic

link

Doug Wilson is a (VERY) conservative Christian, and an original thinker. Almost everyone on TMP will disagree with some of this, as do I, but his larger points seem to me to be correct.

"The issue for me is not that questions have been raised about Churchill and the Second World War. Anybody who has read anything at all about the tangled issues involved in that War knows that our side, comparatively righteous as I believe it was, was nevertheless guilty of atrocities. For a balanced (and conservative) treatment of such things, I would refer you to Paul Johnson's Modern Times.

The issue for me is how and why conservatives have gotten suckered into the popular pastime of pulling down of statues. This is not at all the same issue."

"We live in unstable times. Everything is up for grabs. The role that Christian leaders should be playing in this moment is that of building real community. The old points of cohesion have largely given way, and the people fomenting all of that are waiting in the wings with their statue of Ho Chi Minh. In such a moment, our task should be two-fold. First, don't help them tear down anything else. I don't care if it is a statue of Cecil Rhodes, or Winston Churchill, or Nathan Bedford Forrest—nothing else comes down. The coming anarchy doesn't need our help, and we need to be using all of our resources to be preparing the kind of communities that would be willing to put up a statue of King Alfred instead. In celebration of the common law."

"Societies put up statues and memorials for a reason, and that reason is largely for the sake of culture cohesion. A people put up markers to indicate the places and heroes and events that unify us. And no one should be allowed to pull down a statue until they can explain to us why the statue was erected in the first place, and what role it places in the current stability that we all enjoy.

In addition to this, I would also offer a most necessary addendum. I also don't want anyone to come near any of our society's statues and memorials with arms full of ropes, tackle and pulleys unless they are prepared to explain to us what statues are going to replace the ones that are to be torn down. As much as I believe that Abraham Lincoln was a destructive president, and I do, if the proposal is to replace his position on the pedestal with the figure of Ho Chi Minh, you can deal me out."

Doc adds: I do not think Lincoln was destructive (except of slavery) so much as transformative, but I am less worried about what statue replaces him than with what happens when we lose all of our history, our collective memory.

Ask the Irish how much they love Winston.
Or the Bengali people who Winnie starved to death. Was it 2 or 3 million?
And what about the statues of Lenin that were happily demolished?
Or Saddam Hussein?

Hopefully the people of North Korea will soon be able to demolish statues of the Dear Leader dynasty. Highly unlikely, though. 🤷

Not long ago finished a biography of Lenin ( see What are you Reading ) . He wanted to tear down anything Czarist memorial and statues and put up monuments to the Bolsheviks. Erase history and replace it with your own.
We are seeing this today again

Have but didn't start a big biography of Churchill, reading The Murderers of Katyn now.

The only statues of perfect people are the crucifixes.

It is appropriate to debate our heroes' human strengths and weaknesses. But destroying the old (whether it is books or statues) is severing ourselves from the past that in great measure has made us what we now are.

I fail to see how this paints miniatures or improves scenarios.

Still, I only see one satisfactory solution: all statues in public spaces are to be abstract, with a screw-in brass plaque on the base telling viewers the person or event to be celebrated. Then with every regime change, the plaque can be switched out.

No, you won't get decent art that way. You also won't have conditioned young people to vandalize art.

But rp, we PLAY with little statues!

Only matters to me in this context, generally we are historical minded, and that puts us in the conversation.

Doc you know my views on statue destruction and name changes. I'm against all of them. Todays hero is tomorrows villain and a 100 years from now it will change again (except if you tore the statue down, you can't put it back up).

Is it that time again? Jeez….

Doc adds: I do not think Lincoln was destructive (except of slavery) so much as transformative, but I am less worried about what statue replaces him than with what happens when we lose all of our history, our collective memory.

So you wouldn't cry for Lincoln, but the first Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan gets your tears flowing?

I think I now understand all I need to understand here.

I only play with MY little statues, doc, and those of my friends. They are not public property, and not kept where the vandals can get at them without criminal trespass.

Personally, I like having well-done statuary on public display. Can you imagine Italy, Greece or Spain with every statue of someone currently in disfavor melted down or turned into gravel? They don't keep statues of Sforzas up in Milan because someone wants a return to rule by mercenary captains. But I cannot fight a nation of poorly brought-up adolescents and young adult vandals, and rehashing the vandalism on TMP diminishes my day without having any chance of fixing the problem.

Surely somewhere there's a site for art lovers?

I think it is great that this forum allows such a discussion. Sure, it has nothing to do with miniature soldiery, but it is chance to "vent our spleen".

I expressed a concern on a French modelling site, two days ago, about a series of new models from a maker labelled as "Triumph of the Will". I was not sure that everyone knew this was a reference to Leni R's Nazi propaganda film. I thought, in France of all places, this was inappropriate at best.

My comment was deleted as they do not do politics on their site. A shameless Nazi reference, is allowed. Weird

20th Maine, do you not READ what is posted?

Where did I indicate anything about a Grand Wizard? (I assume you mean Forrest?)

So, 20th, you are okay with tearing down statues, as long as they are of people of whom you disapprove?

I assume, then, it is okay for my mob to tear down YOUR statues, if there are enough of us?

So am I. I approve of knocking down Lenin, Saddam statues.
I would applaud knocking down Mao and Kim statues.
Forrest too, for that matter.

Lee? Meh. I wouldn't pull on a rope, but I wouldn't stand in the way either.

My town has a Columbus statue. I'm okay with that.

Okay, but what criteria do you/we use, aside from personal distaste? Because if it is just who can raise the larger mob, then the end of that process is empty public squares or else statues only of who the regime currently approves of.

Isn't the reason for statues to create or communicate common values? How is that possible if we only have statues that a temporary majority likes?

The Puritans shot out all the stained glass windows and tore down the crucifixes. Iconoclasm is as bad a book burning, isn't it?

Why would I approve of and want to remember the first grand wizard of the klan?

For such criminals we have to remember their despicable crimes, we need to ensure such awful behaviour never occurs again, we don't have to celebrate them with statues.

I don't expect you to agree, I refer you to my earlier post.

Isn't the reason for statues to create or communicate common values? How is that possible if we only have statues that a temporary majority likes?

A "temporary majority" that puts up statues of Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. deserves to have their beloved trash art torn down.

Does Forrest merit "temporary good guy" status?

Bragg is the poster boy for incompetent General, only loved by his president. It was a huge mistake naming a Fort after him, and he deserved to have his name taken down.

Obviously you do not approve of people coming to their senses.

Are there statues of Putin?

Luckily the German nation has been doing pennance for Hitler for years. That may be over now.

doc mcb + 1. I don't want anyone to tear down the staute of Col Chamberlain – so people can remember what happen, in the Civil War. By the way my Ancestor's (Alabama Infantry) were killed and wounded, by the 20th Maine. War is hell and I will forgive but not forget. We were not there – leave the statues alone.

Ok, one exception I am lying, if they put up Ho Chi Minh statue – I am bring a rope and tackle. (Vietnam 71-72) Some gave some and some gave all

I don't get worked up enough about things to demand the removal of a statue. I also don't get worked up enough to protest when a statue is removed. Just don't care that much. History does not disappear just because a hunk of metal does.

And art generally? Books? You leave us defenseless against the barbarians

But somebody approved putting up the statue to commemorate something. Usually that something is with the statue or was discussed when the statue was erected. I'm with Mr, Wilson and docmb---you can't take down a statue unless you get approval. Further, you can't melt it down, it needs to go someplace else---museum, battlefield, etc.

There is a Karl Marx statue out on west coast states somewhere. Rather see it painted red for all the hundreds of millions lives lost from his rhetoric and theories

So we're putting that statue of Jimmy Savile back up? Will it be next to the daycare or the morgue?

Not that I expected much (or anything) from a slavery apologist like Doug Wilson, but the line "waiting in the wings with their statue of Ho Chi Minh"speaks volumes.

Here are 4 in the US to our enemies. Should we exclude all our enemies statues, or just the Confederates, or anyone who owned slaves, approved of slavery, enabled slavery to exist, benefited in any way from slavery, even indirectly.

What about statues or monuments to those who committed criminal felonies?

So what is the criteria for destruction? Who decides? A minority of people? A group of politicians? A vote of everyone in the country?

Right now a minority of people and politicians are making the decisions. Or of course a very violent minority.

"In Chicago stands an ancient roman column, a monument gifted to Chicago by Mussolini to honor his air commander, Italo Balbo. The gift was made in 1933, to honor a flight of 25 seaplanes that flew from Italy to Chicago (with some stops along the way). The column stands on a pedestal with words exalting fascism. It not only remained during WWII, but stills stands today. In all the recent anti-monument fervor it was almost taken down, but then support from the local Italian community saved the monument. Some have argued that the one being honored, Italo Balbo, while yes he was a fascist, was also anti-Nazi and was against the racial laws. And, the feat the monument honors, the 1933 flight from Italy to Chicago, was still an accomplishment worth honoring.[8]"

"What kind of enemy do people hate the most? How about someone who turns on their own country during a war? That's what Henri Philippe Petain did. After becoming a war hero in WWI, he was honored in NYC with a ticker tape parade. During WWII, however, the hero turned traitor and collaborated with the Nazi's, helping them to round up tens of thousands of French Jewish people for extermination. In 2004, New York City decided to install plaques to immortalize everyone who had been honored with ticker tape parades. Since Petain had been so honored, he got a plaque. In light of all the monument destruction going on in the U.S., the Petain plaque was reviewed by a commission for possible removal. The commission found that it was clear some ticker tape parades were for people we would no longer call heroes, especially by modern standards. But "removal of the vestiges of past decisions risks leading to cultural amnesia."[9]"

"For decades the United States was involved in a tense scary Cold War of brinkmanship with communist USSR, with both sides building up their militaries, including thousands of nuclear weapons, and proxy wars fought around the world. But in a Seattle neighborhood stands a 16-foot tall bronze sculpture of one of the great icons of Communist Russia—Vladimir Lenin. The statue was rescued by an American veteran who mortgaged his house to save it from a Russian statue graveyard.Like the Soviet statue in Bulgaria, people have had fun with the Lenin statue, decorating it in various ways. Someone painted his hands red, once he was given a tutu, and another time he was covered in Christmas lights. Fremont's website notes, "If art is supposed to make us feel, not just feel good, then this sculpture is a successful work of art. The challenge is to understand that this piece means different things to different people and to learn to listen to each other and respect different opinions." Yes – that seems to sum this all up nicely.[10]"

"In 1935, Germany erected a POW memorial at the Chattanooga National Cemetery to honor German Soldiers who died in American POW camps during World War I. There are 78 German POWs buried there, including 22 German sailors who died in Hot Springs, NC, and dozens of German POWs who died in Georgia. Their remains were reburied in secret and the local papers were only told about it the next day. There's also a German POW monument in Utah. The German War Memorial to the Victims of War was erected in memory of the German's who died while interred at Fort Douglas during WWI. Dedicated on Memorial Day, May 30, 1933, it includes the names of 21 German POWs who died 1917-1918. The memorial is now a monument for POWs of WWII as well – since 20 German, 12 Italian, and 1 Japanese WWII POWs were added to those buried there.[7]"

I would not call for removal of any of these. But I wound not remove or destroy any even some I do actually find offensive.

What about the plaque to honor Margaret Sanger in the Smithsonian?
Oh, yeah. Planned Parenthood. Yay abortion! 🙄
But she was also a racist and eugenicist, primarily aimed at birth control and abortion for Blacks. She has bye and large succeeded at keeping the population of the down.
I consider this reprehensible. There have been calls to remove her plaque. I support that.

So, I'm asking people here a simple question.
Is a statue, any statue, inviolate? Is it permanent and can never be removed?

John, good question. Sanger is not on my approved list either. As to the Smithsonian, much would depend, I think, on context and what else is in the exhibit; what are visitors told about her? And I also agree that public versus private matters. A statue in a Federal park conveys a different message than one in, say, a state capitol or on private land.

A culture needs heroes, and will create new ones as needed. But REMOVING heroes is rather a different matter. If only because we should try to understand people, particularly our ancestors, who had different heroes than we would have chosen.

In democratic states, statues should never be removed by mobs. Mobs are anti-democratic.

I think there is a substantive difference between a totalitarian nation that puts up thousands of statues to the Great Leader as opposed to a democratic nation that puts up statues to national, state, local leaders.
So I don't think every town square in Iraq needs a statue to Saddam. However, there is a difference between pulling them down and removing them to a safe place where they can be exhibited in an outdoor museum with plaques explaining who he was and why his statues are down.
As for Confederates they were defending their home states in a war against the United States. Not unlike American Indians who were defending their territories against the United States. And most became good Americans once the war was over, and even so are now part of our common heritage as Americans. Also many of the Confederate statues were put up as a gesture of healing decades after the ACW when the nation was under stress from the Spanish American War and First World War.
Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Doug Wilson seems to have quite the fixation with Uncle Ho. Anyone could be forgiven for thinking this was written in 1974, not 2024.

Cheers,
John

Most town centres in the UK have a statue of Queen Vicky somewhere prominent….are we therefore suggesting that she was the head of a totalitarian state….

….I can imagine the Iraqi's saying "tish-tosh, do we really have to keep them all? They are all the same….couldn't we keep just one in the museum with the label and all that? And just, you know, quietly dispose of the rest, eh? What ho?"

I refuse to be drawn into a discussion of whether the Confederacy was legitimate….although no nation on the whole of the globe gave it official recognition which perhaps suggests…but no, I'll let others make of that what they will…no nation on the whole of the globe and the USA not yet the dominant superpower so no particular reason to be cowed…well….hmm…

By the by, where do we stand on statues made of wax? They melt them down you know when no-one remembers who the person was…

There are a few in Rome that deserve to be torn down. Slave traders.

I think the key issue here is WHY people pull down statues, even the Russians mostly just moved them to obscure places rather than destroying them.
Here in the UK we had a brief period when statues of people involved, even in a limited way were pulled down by mobs.
I think of it a lynching the dead, pretty pointless.
I agree with Bill about mobs being anti democratic!

I believe in freedom. If the majority black population of Decatur, Georgia gets sick of walking every day under a memorial to people who wanted to enslave them, then they have the right in a republic to vote for representatives who will remove the statue. If someone feels the opposite way, maybe because they revere their ancestors who fought to keep others enslaved, then they can keep voting for representatives who will keep the memorial. But don't get all grumpy and pissed when the population changes and the tide turns, and your statue/memorial to oppression and slavery gets taken down. Maybe have some empathy and compassion about why the other side feels the way they do. Regardless, its freedom in action.

20th, like unto some arguments

Bunkermeister, yes.

As for Confederates they were defending their home states in a war against the United States. Not unlike American Indians who were defending their territories against the United States. And most became good Americans once the war was over, and even so are now part of our common heritage as Americans. Also many of the Confederate statues were put up as a gesture of healing decades after the ACW when the nation was under stress from the Spanish American War and First World War.

Indeed, the degree of reconciliation after our bloodiest war was remarkable. FOUR Confederate generals served again as US Army generals in 1898. It was very much in the national interest to honor the Confederates in such ways.

And if the men who fought against them could do so, perhaps we today should as well.

link

Chamberlain's account of the surrender

and this:

Before us in proud humiliation stood the embodiment of
manhood: men whom neither toils and sufferings, nor the
fact of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from
their resolve; standing before us now, thin, worn, and famished, but erect, and with eyes looking level into ours, waking memories that bound us together as no other
bond; – was not such manhood to be welcomed back into a
Union so tested and assured? […] On our part not a sound of
trumpet more, nor roll of drum; not a cheer, nor word nor
whisper of vain-glorying, nor motion of man standing again
at the order, but an awed stillness rather, and breath-holding,
as if it were the passing of the dead!

link

Painting Ben red.

+1 Cleburne1863

forrest disavowed the KKK and removed himself from the kkk when it exceeded its original intent.

If the role of Christian leaders right now is building real community, as stated, this does not do that, IMO. As with their political activism in recent years.

Forrest was also a slave trader before war.

Tort, I largely agree. And I suspect Wilson does as well, hence this essay.

Of course the church is itself very divided, and even within particular denominations there are leaders advocating quite different approaches.

I asked this earlier, and nobody has responded.
Is a statue inviolate, once it is erected?
Are we stuck with it for all eternity?

I think Chesterton answered, and Wilson did as well. Why was it erected? and what will replace it?

The same questions apply to the heroes our culture creates. Daniel Boone has almost disappeared.

(There are practical limits to how many holidays we can celebrate, and ditto heroes and statues, in any sort of active sense. Years ago WF Buckley commented, when we combined GW and AL's birthdays into President's day, to make room for MLK. WFB speculated that sooner or later we would have a woman president, and if her birthday happens to be in February, then it will be necessary to combine President's Day (GW and AL) with MLK to make room for her. He suggested the new holiday would be called "Men's Day."

But I will argue that what Christians reluctantly say about scripture is true also of heroes (and villains) and statues. The parts you find most uncongenial are likely the parts that have the most to teach you. UNDERSTANDING something is not the same as accepting it. That applies to ideas and also to famous people. Forrest, for example, would not be on my list of 1000 heroes, though he'd be pretty high up on a list of effective cavalry commanders. He would make my list of villains, perhaps, though not terribly high up. But it is important that he be remembered, one way or another.

Some more on US soil. British and Loyalist.

Subject: A Monument In Petersburg Honoring a British General Who Invaded Virginia in the Revolutionary War


link

Subject: Patrick Ferguson monument at Kings Mountain | NCpedia


link

Subject: Loyalist Monument (U.S. National Park Service)


link

Of course we can't forget Benedict Arnold. There is of course the boot statue at Saratoga and numerous plaques around the US, including this one.

Subject: Facilities • Benedict Arnold Homestead


link

Can we forget that Tecumseh fought against the US in the war of 1812, along with many other Indians, yet there are statues to him.

Again, I would not touch any of these. But there seems to be one standard for those of the Confederacy and those who owned or dealt in slaves, and another for all others who opposed our country either in war or politics.

IMO, this is all current revisionism and attempts at vote buying by generating animosity between different groups in the country.