Political Correctness

[DK]

I'm familiar with the statue to General Lee in Richmond, VA. It may not be a an extraordinary work of art like Michelangelo's Medici tomb, but by Richmond standards (no offence) it's a major statue & quite splendid. Sure, you can put up a plaque explaining the history & context, but it remains a very powerful symbol of a racist cause. So what do you do?

Build a public toilet around it.

 

[PeterJB]

Wait, what's wrong/questionable with the pyramids?

They were built by slaves as monuments to the men that owned said slaves. But unless you're ISIS, everyone (rightfully) wants them to be left alone.

 

[Biggles]

Wait, what's wrong/questionable with the pyramids?

The pyramids were built with slave labour to glorify the life & death of an autocratic dictator.

I think it might not actually be that difficult. You need to figure out whether the work of art has a history of its own, or a symbol worthy of praise, or is simply borrowing on history to make a horrible statement.

Michelangelo's work is of historical significance because it represented art innovation. A statue of Jefferson Davis did nothing for art. And if it did, great, let's keep it. If the statue is of historical significance for other reasons, such as being erected by the confederacy under some kind of interesting historical circumstances, great, let's keep it. If it was just put up to intimidate and glorify racism, and it represents no real historical or artistic significance, then what the hell are we keeping it around for? It's time for private ownership in that case.

I think it would be extremely difficult. There's no question about the artistic value of a Michelangelo ... but there's a whole sliding scale down from there. And then there's the question of historical significance of the monument & the ... let's say ... moral significance of the historical figure. So perhaps nobody much cares about the things the Medici did any more, but what about the slave owner Jefferson, or the openly racist Lincoln? What about the racist Ghandi, or the war-mongering, imperialist Churchill - all four of them great figures in world history?

The statue of General Lee isn't an overtly racist monument, Lee wasn't a particularly racist or obnoxious individual ... & he was one of the greatest military leaders in modern history. And it's not an artistic masterpiece either, but given that Richmond, VA doesn't possess a Notre Dame Cathedral, or a Sistine Chapel, it's still a noteworthy piece of public art for where it is.

The simple answer is that once the events & personalities recede far enough into history & the issues they call up have similarly receded, it's easy to just look upon them as interesting artefacts from the past. But when you start scratching the surface, with General Lee & Edward Colston, then Winston Churchill & Ghandi, where does it all end?

 

[Dotini]

The pyramids were built with slave labour to glorify the life & death of an autocratic dictator.

I believe archeology has proved at least the Great Pyramid was built by well-paid craftsmen.

The purpose is much more inscrutable. But whatever it is, it is off topic.
If you wish to discuss this elsewhere, I will defend the viewpoint that the Great Pyramid was a resurrection machine.

 

[Danoff]

The pyramids were built with slave labour to glorify the life & death of an autocratic dictator.



I think it would be extremely difficult. There's no question about the artistic value of a Michelangelo ... but there's a whole sliding scale down from there. And then there's the question of historical significance of the monument & the ... let's say ... moral significance of the historical figure. So perhaps nobody much cares about the things the Medici did any more, but what about the slave owner Jefferson, or the openly racist Lincoln? What about the racist Ghandi, or the war-mongering, imperialist Churchill - all four of them great figures in world history?

The statue of General Lee isn't an overtly racist monument, Lee wasn't a particularly racist or obnoxious individual ... & he was one of the greatest military leaders in modern history. And it's not an artistic masterpiece either, but given that Richmond, VA doesn't possess a Notre Dame Cathedral, or a Sistine Chapel, it's still a noteworthy piece of public art for where it is.

The simple answer is that once the events & personalities recede far enough into history & the issues they call up have similarly receded, it's easy to just look upon them as interesting artefacts from the past. But when you start scratching the surface, with General Lee & Edward Colston, then Winston Churchill & Ghandi, where does it all end?

I'm just not seeing how this is so hard. Does the artwork have its own interesting and important history? If not, it's not necessary.

Pyramids? Yes obviously have their own significance.
Michelangelo? Probably everything he did does.
Lincoln/Ghandi/Jefferson/Churchill/Lee? No not everything. Just the significant works. Artwork with their own significant history.

If a General Lee statue is a historically important or significant work in Richmond VA in its own right, keep it. Now the one in Richmond VA does not seem necessary to keep based on an overall lack of historical significance. It's just not that interesting in terms of a monument.

It becomes more interesting as other monuments start getting removed. So if there's only one left, suddenly it becomes historically significant and it can be worth keeping. The Lee monument in Richmond might have been the hill to die on when it comes to confederate monuments. I'm not sure, I'm not up to speed on my confederate monuments, but it might have been. In which case, keep it.

It's not like any of these should be destroyed. They're valuable to someone. Private ownership is not the same as destruction. Stone Mountain, on the otherhand, that's basically destroy or keep. And it seems less significant than the Lee statue.

 

[yas]

They were built by slaves as monuments to the men that owned said slaves. But unless you're ISIS, everyone (rightfully) wants them to be left alone.

Just because they were built in Africa does not mean they were built with slave labour owned by a dictator. This is a very racist assumption based on no evidence but pop culture.
Anyway erasing history preceding a current era has not really had a positive outcome for anyone... So far. Maybe this will be a first.

 

[Danoff]

Anyway erasing history preceding a current era has not really had a positive outcome for anyone

Who is erasing history?

 

[UKMikey]

Who is erasing history?

If the history was erased, I'd like to know how he knew it was gone in the first place.

 

[BobK]

Just because they were built in Africa does not mean they were built with slave labour owned by a dictator. This is a very racist assumption based on no evidence but pop culture.

Why is that racist? Are you assuming (incorrectly) that only sub-Saharan Africans were ever slaves?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just because they were built in Africa does not mean they were built with slave labour owned by a dictator.

Fortunately nobody said it was because they were in Africa. It's because of the archaeological understanding of the site - huge numbers of people were required to move the components, some of them crafts specialists, many of them just heavy lifters. That was how Egyptian society worked.

This is a very racist assumption based on no evidence but pop culture.

Well... what you make of your assumption is up to you. I wouldn't call it racist, I think you just misread.

Anyway erasing history preceding a current era has not really had a positive outcome for anyone... So far. Maybe this will be a first.

Which events in this thread are "erasing history", or did you use the wrong word?

Can you give an example of history being erased? Logically you cannot.

 

[Joey D]

The pyramids were built with slave labour to glorify the life & death of an autocratic dictator.

Archaeologically speaking, the Great Pyramids of Giza were probably built by employees rather than slaves. The leading theory is that when farmers couldn't farm because the Nile was flooded, they worked on the pyramids. Once the flood-waters receded, they went back to farming. There's also evidence in the camps excavated around the pyramids that the people living there were probably treated halfway decent.

The idea that the pyramids were built by slaves largely comes from the Bible/Torah. While Egypt certainly had slaves, they were probably doing service-related tasks for the ruling class of people. The pyramids were incredibly important for the Pharaohs, I can't see them wanting a "mere slave" working on their canon to the afterlife. I could see slaves excavating the stone though and transporting it from the quarry to the stoneworks where skilled masons formed it into blocks. But past that, I'm not really sure there's any evidence to point to slaves building the pyramids.

As for other monuments in Ancient Egypt? I don't think we really know, but I'm sure slaves were used. But more likely they were probably used to construct buildings, palaces, manors, etc.

Or you know:

 

[Biggles]

Just because they were built in Africa does not mean they were built with slave labour owned by a dictator. This is a very racist assumption based on no evidence but pop culture.
Anyway erasing history preceding a current era has not really had a positive outcome for anyone... So far. Maybe this will be a first.

Good lord! They were built "in Africa" because at the time it was one of the only areas with the social organization & technology to build something that large & sophisticated. There's no "racist" assumption about that at all. However, the social organization that built the pyramids also created a stratified society where many worked to create luxury - & in this case - a massive tomb, for the few. It's not really important whether they were slaves, or some other kind of social underclass. BUT THE POINT IS: nobody really cares, because it was long enough ago that it doesn't have any meaningful resonance in the present day.

So, the many monuments & statues through the ages dedicated to questionable figures or events tend not to elicit much response in the present (although, of course the Taliban notably blew up ancient Buddhist sculptures to try & expunge them from history) regardless of how inappropriate those memorializations may seem to present sensibilities. But the intensification of attitudes towards the "politically incorrect" seems to open up an almost unlimited potential to re-assess historical figures & events & the monuments that commemorate them.

I'm just not seeing how this is so hard.

I think you're being incredibly naive if you think that. Just take a look at what's happening in the US with the polarization of political ideologies. Who's going to adjudicate the appropriateness - or for that matter, artistic merit - of a statue of the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson, the reluctant emancipator Abraham Lincoln, the imperialist Winston Churchill or the racist Mahatma Ghandi? Commissar Danoff?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Archaeologically speaking, the Great Pyramids of Giza were probably built by employees rather than slaves.

It depends on how "a slave" is defined. It's almost certainly untrue that Israelite slaves were a thing, but much of the recent archaeological interpretation is that indentured labourers and prisoners (still technically "free") were used for the graft.

 

[UKMikey]

I think you're being incredibly naive if you think that. Just take a look at what's happening in the US with the polarization of political ideologies. Who's going to adjudicate the appropriateness - or for that matter, artistic merit - of a statue of the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson, the reluctant emancipator Abraham Lincoln, the imperialist Winston Churchill or the racist Mahatma Ghandi? Commissar Danoff?

Why not have a discussion? Get as many people as possible to make the decision collectively? It may not be a perfect decision but it's better than just throwing our hands up and saying nothing should change because the decision's too hard. Start with the easy ones and work our way up to the hard ones. They are not all equivalent as you appear to be implying. The important thing is to at least have the conversation.

 

[Joey D]

It depends on how "a slave" is defined. It's almost certainly untrue that Israelite slaves were a thing, but much of the recent archaeological interpretation is that indentured labourers and prisoners (still technically "free") were used for the graft.

Good point, it's been a minute since I was in my archaeology classes.

 

[Danoff]

I think you're being incredibly naive if you think that. Just take a look at what's happening in the US with the polarization of political ideologies. Who's going to adjudicate the appropriateness - or for that matter, artistic merit - of a statue of the slave-owning Thomas Jefferson, the reluctant emancipator Abraham Lincoln, the imperialist Winston Churchill or the racist Mahatma Ghandi? Commissar Danoff?

It depends on who is responsible for the particular statue. Each one of these public statues has a public body (and it's going to be different) that is in charge of the care and maintenance of the statue. If the public wants a statue removed, they should file a petition with that organization, and there will likely be a public hearing. At the public hearing, the artistic significance, cost of upkeep, estimated value of the statue, cultural significance, cultural offense, speeches from representatives within the public, the art community, and all of it can be heard. Someone, in each of these cases, is in charge of whether or not that statue stays on the grounds.

That's generally the process. Doesn't seem like a bad one to me.

Also doesn't require defacing public property, trying to pull things down, or general panic or throwing up of arms.

Edit:

And to be clear, when I say "someone", it may end up being a panel.

 

[Biggles]

It depends on how "a slave" is defined. It's almost certainly untrue that Israelite slaves were a thing, but much of the recent archaeological interpretation is that indentured labourers and prisoners (still technically "free") were used for the graft.

Exactly. How precisely do you distinguish between a "badly treated" slave, a "well treated slave" & a poverty-stricken "free" sharecropper in ancient Egypt ... or in the United States? Or a labouring, landless French peasant, a Russian serf etc. ? All working to maintain the privileges & luxurious lifestyle of the 1%. Is the palace of Versailles a masterpiece of French art & architecture, or a monument to a repressive & inequitable social system? Postmodernism seeks to deconstruct & critique the "establishment" historical record. What is the deconstructed meaning of this equestrian statue of Louis XIV heroically posed in front of the gargantuan vanity folly of Vesailles:

Different era & a different autocratic figure: the Emperor Napoleon's Arc de Triomphe;

... which was the largest monument of its kind in the world ...until Kim Il Sung built a bigger one!

It depends on who is responsible for the particular statue. Each one of these public statues has a public body (and it's going to be different) that is in charge of the care and maintenance of the statue. If the public wants a statue removed, they should file a petition with that organization, and there will likely be a public hearing. At the public hearing, the artistic significance, cost of upkeep, estimated value of the statue, cultural significance, cultural offense, speeches from representatives within the public, the art community, and all of it can be heard. Someone, in each of these cases, is in charge of whether or not that statue stays on the grounds.

That's generally the process. Doesn't seem like a bad one to me.

Also doesn't require defacing public property, trying to pull things down, or general panic or throwing up of arms.

Edit:

And to be clear, when I say "someone", it may end up being a panel.

Sounds all very reasonable ... until you take into account the polarization of public opinion in the US ... & for that matter elsewhere in the world. I would like to remind you that Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States. People can't even agree on promoting the use of masks as a response to the coronavirus epidemic. How are "panels" going to successfully negotiate the fate of highly controversial & emotive monuments without provoking bitter recriminations on all sides?

 

[Dotini]

How are "panels" going to successfully negotiate the fate of highly controversial & emotive monuments without provoking bitter recriminations on all sides?

That's the whole idea. Stoke, provoke and precipitate a social revolution, nonviolent or otherwise. The timing is right, the conditions are perfect.

 

[Biggles]

That's the whole idea. Stoke, provoke and precipitate a social revolution, nonviolent or otherwise. The timing is right, the conditions are perfect.

I'm not sure about that at all. Again, Trump was elected President in 2016. There's no limit to the revolutionary aspirations of elements of the "radical left", but they have very little support IMO among the vast majority of Democratic voters & of course are bitterly opposed by Republican voters.

 

[ryzno]

It becomes more interesting as other monuments start getting removed.

I agree, where does it end?
https://www.westernjournal.com/grea...tm_content=2020-06-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

 

[Dotini]

I'm not sure about that at all. Again, Trump was elected President in 2016. There's no limit to the revolutionary aspirations of elements of the "radical left", but they have very little support IMO among the vast majority of Democratic voters & of course are bitterly opposed by Republican voters.

The public, the politicians, media, academia, corporations and race car drivers have all bent the knee to BLM. If they, working with Antifa and progressives cannot make a successful social revolution at this moment of vast change and opportunity, then I will be very surprised.

 

[Danoff]

I agree, where does it end?
https://www.westernjournal.com/grea...tm_content=2020-06-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

Aunt Jemima (a brand, designed to sell merch), does not get more interesting as other things get removed.

 

[Joey D]

Aunt Jemima (a brand, designed to sell merch), does not get more interesting as other things get removed.

I don't get why they just didn't rebrand Aunt Jemima to "Nancy Green's Syrup" or "Aunt Nancy" since that's who the character of Aunt Jemima is based on.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Exactly. How precisely do you distinguish between a "badly treated" slave, a "well treated slave" & a poverty-stricken "free" sharecropper in ancient Egypt ... or in the United States?

This. We don't need to, slaves are slaves.

All working to maintain the privileges & luxurious lifestyle of the 1%.

There's a difference between electively working and being born into a scrip-town, capitalism is not an automatic creater of slavery.

Is the palace of Versailles a masterpiece of French art & architecture, or a monument to a repressive & inequitable social system?

Very much both. They don't need to be separated.

Different era & a different autocratic figure: the Emperor Napoleon's Arc de Triomphe

That was "reclaimed" by people a long time ago and is now an important grave as much as anything else.

I would like to remind you that Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States. People can't even agree on promoting the use of masks as a response to the coronavirus epidemic. How are "panels" going to successfully negotiate the fate of highly controversial & emotive monuments without provoking bitter recriminations on all sides?

And there's the real problem, after the 20th century which saw the greatest peace for much of known history we (The West) seem to have reverted to the mad social tribalism that characterised the interwar years. A lot of improvements are being steadily undone through needless nationalism, identityism (is that even a word?) and an obsession with arbitrary map lines.

I agree, where does it end?
https://www.westernjournal.com/grea...tm_content=2020-06-20&utm_campaign=manualpost

It never ends. Is it supposed to? These things aren't permanent.

 

[ryzno]

Aunt Jemima (a brand, designed to sell merch), does not get more interesting as other things get removed.

This. We don't need to, slaves are slaves.



There's a difference between electively working and being born into a scrip-town, capitalism is not an automatic creater of slavery.



Very much both. They don't need to be separated.



That was "reclaimed" by people a long time ago and is now an important grave as much as anything else.



And there's the real problem, after the 20th century which saw the greatest peace for much of known history we (The West) seem to have reverted to the mad social tribalism that characterised the interwar years. A lot of improvements are being steadily undone through needless nationalism, identityism (is that even a word?) and an obsession with arbitrary map lines.



It never ends. Is it supposed to? These things aren't permanent.

My bad y'all. Had an old link in my copy/paste thingy...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...an-francisco-soldier-politician-a9580091.html

 

[Danoff]

My bad y'all. Had an old link in my copy/paste thingy...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voice...an-francisco-soldier-politician-a9580091.html

It's worth consideration for Grant's actions against Native Americans as to whether to publicly display a statue of him. Of course I don't think that's what rioters (I don't call them protesters here intentionally) had in mind. I'm not sure what they had in mind. Anyway, it's worth consideration, it's worth having a discussion about whether this person should remain memorialized, what the memorial means in terms of art and culture, and whether it's worthy of being displayed and kept. The idea that we should skip the discussion, because some people don't like it, is remarkably selfish though. I don't like FDR, you don't see me going around spray painting FDR statues.

I don't condone the use of violence, destruction, and vandalism to make these points. Especially a point like defacing a Ulysses S. Grant statue. This is not exactly a critical element to change in a timely manner. There's no reason to skip the public discussion. File a petition, have a hearing, make the case.

 

[Biggles]

It's worth consideration for Grant's actions against Native Americans as to whether to publicly display a statue of him. Of course I don't think that's what rioters (I don't call them protesters here intentionally) had in mind. I'm not sure what they had in mind. Anyway, it's worth consideration, it's worth having a discussion about whether this person should remain memorialized, what the memorial means in terms of art and culture, and whether it's worthy of being displayed and kept. The idea that we should skip the discussion, because some people don't like it, is remarkably selfish though. I don't like FDR, you don't see me going around spray painting FDR statues.

I don't condone the use of violence, destruction, and vandalism to make these points. Especially a point like defacing a Ulysses S. Grant statue. This is not exactly a critical element to change in a timely manner. There's no reason to skip the public discussion. File a petition, have a hearing, make the case.

It doesn't get much more "in your face" than the Grant memorial in front of the Capitol in DC. It's easy to understand why the Confederate states might have wanted to have some memorialization of their own dead & their leaders. The American Civil War is a uniquely poignant & messy affair on so many levels & the statues of Robert E. Lee kind of epitomize the issues & contradictions. It has to be said, in that context, that Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial design, which was highly controversial at the time it was created, stands out as the most inspired memorialization of war & remembrance that I can think of.

It's pretty obvious that almost every major world figure inevitably has complicated & conflicting associations attached. In many cases, I really don't see an easy way forward to resolve these.

 

[Danoff]

It doesn't get much more "in your face" than the Grant memorial in front of the Capitol in DC. It's easy to understand why the Confederate states might have wanted to have some memorialization of their own dead & their leaders. The American Civil War is a uniquely poignant & messy affair on so many levels & the statues of Robert E. Lee kind of epitomize the issues & contradictions. It has to be said, in that context, that Maya Lin's Vietnam Memorial design, which was highly controversial at the time it was created, stands out as the most inspired memorialization of war & remembrance that I can think of.

It's pretty obvious that almost every major world figure inevitably has complicated & conflicting associations attached. In many cases, I really don't see an easy way forward to resolve these.

What on Earth is hard about this?

Are you saying that because some people want it to stay and some people want it gone that it's hard? That doesn't make it hard. That's all of public everything. There is a committee, or person that is ultimately responsible for each of these statues. And that person probably has to listen to appeals to change their public displays (if not, they should). File your petition, make your case, work through the public system which has people whose job it is to hear and moderate these issues. At the end of the day a decision will be made. How is that hard? Weigh the arguments, make a call, move on. If it's not decision you wanted, gather up more support and try again. Maybe use it as an campaign talking point if the problem is some appointed stick-in-the-mud.

I don't like the 10 commandments being displayed at courthouses. I think it goes directly against the 1st amendment, and undermines the impartiality of the judicial system. But there is a process for this kind of petition, and that's how this kind of change should be made.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm happy with Marion Sims's statue being taken down and I'm not sure I'd be personally convinced by any case for re-erecting it. Many physicians have advanced the cause of medicine wthout experimenting on live people without anaesthetic; maybe they should build statues to them instead. At any rate, a lot of people seemed to be happy when this one came down two years before the present riots.

https://www.theguardian.com/artandd...sims-statue-removed-new-york-city-black-women

 

[Wolfe]

Protesters tear down Forward statue after arrest of Black activist seen causing disturbance

Protesters wrapped chains around “Forward,” the bronze statue of a woman located at the State Street corner of Capitol Square, and pulled her down around 10:45 p.m. The sculpture is a replica of a Jean Pond Miner sculpture cast in 1893 and installed in the Capitol in 1895 that was designed as an allegory for devotion and progress, the embodiment of her home state.

Protesters set their sights on another statue, one of Col. Hans Christian Heg at the top of King Street, tore it down and dragged it into Lake Monona.

...At twenty years old, lured by the discovery of gold in the Sacramento Valley, [Hans Christian Heg] and three friends joined the army of "Forty-Niners". He spent the next two years prospecting for gold in California. Upon the death of his father, he returned to the Muskego area in 1851. He married Gunhild Einong, daughter of a Norwegian immigrant.

Heg became a rising young politician who found slavery abhorrent. He naturally became an ardent member of the Free Soil Party. Heg was a major in the 4th Wisconsin Militia and served as Wisconsin State Prison Commissioner. He was the first Norwegian-born candidate elected statewide in Wisconsin.

He soon joined the recently formed Republican Party. He was an outspoken anti-slavery activist and a leader of Wisconsin's Wide Awakes, an anti-slave catcher militia. During this time, he sheltered Sherman Booth, who was made a federal fugitive after inciting a mob to rescue an escaped slave.

In 1860, Heg was elected commissioner of the state prison in Waupun, and served there for two years. Heg spearheaded many reforms to the prison, believing that prisons should be used to "reclaim the wandering and save the lost."