Charlottesville Donates Lee Statue to Group Planning to Melt It Down

[Kamaji]

History by definition is the collective recollections of what took place.

Taking away those recollections whether by banning or rewriting books, renaming streets and schools, or removing statues is leading to the destruction of history.

This is the left destroying history.

You are saying since the bear did not hear the tree fall in the woods, there was still a sound.  A sound is only a sound if it is heard.

I'm saying that a mere trinket that represents someone's subjective view on a particular historical figure is not history, and therefore removing that trinket does not remove history.  And it is history, not trinkets and gewgaws, we should be concerned about.

Nazi Germany had statues of Hitler.  Those were removed after WWII.  Did that remove Hitler, or his actions, or the reasons for those actions, from history, or from the history books?  Are we ignorant of what Hitler did, and why he did it, because we no longer have statues of him?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Maybe so, but no history is lost.  And the claim that is being discussed is that removing a statue is the same thing as erasing the facts contained in a history book.

That is simply not the case.

Statues can always be replaced.

 @Kamaji   You made your point.  I simply do not agree with it.  Please, argue with someone else.

[Hoodat]

Trampled By Turtles  -  The Night They Drove Dixie Down

[Smokin Joe]

If you want to have a discussion, why are you cutting this discussion off?

I stated a position, and asked for clarification on how keeping a statue is going to prevent the re-writing of the history books.

Also, I have not yet received an argument to counter my proposition that, as far as historical understanding goes, books are important, statues are not.

Please feel free to advance the discussion by countering both of those propositions.

Our understanding of Egypt's earlier history is based on statues, temples, and hieroglyphs carved in stone.
Note, too, that succeeding pharaohs were not necessarily against carving other's existence from temple walls and destroying their statues.

Without fighting the War Between the States again, much of what is currently in secondary and even post secondary history books is popular fable, and of questionable accuracy. That has only become worse as history is rewritten, not just from the standpoint of a victor trying to justify the invasion and eventual military subjugation of political entities seeking to leave a voluntary compact, in the name of "union", but has been tainted by the further distortion of those who contend they had the moral high ground because the people they conquered were "racist".

Apply that logic to today, where racism is being assumed on the basis of skin color, and we are in for a rough ride.

[Slide Rule]

Maybe so, but no history is lost.  And the claim that is being discussed is that removing a statue is the same thing as erasing the facts contained in a history book.

That is simply not the case.

Statues can always be replaced.

Replaced? Yes. And also imaged.


A group should come forward to capture all remaining statues in 3-D digital format.
That way the images can be retained and accessed by anyone with an interest.

Today even the interior of Egypt pyramid chambers and passageways are captured.

[sneakypete]

Baloney.  It's only erased if the books are rewritten, and the old versions destroyed.

@Kamaji

Next time you have nothing to do on a weekend and are bored,ask all the teens and 20-somethings you know to name the book they are reading now,and the last book they read.

Conflating a statue with actual history is a big mistake.  It leads to reification of things, and an ignorance of actual history.

No,it is a VISUAL representative of history. A statement as to something of importance that happened.

Or should be,and WAS before statues of professional felons started having statues of them put up in public parks because they are of the new "master race".

So long as the books are there, an enterprising reader can still find them, even if it takes some effort.  And this regardless of whether the statues are still there or not.


ONLY readers find them,and there are damn few readers today compared to the number even 20 years ago.

On the other hand,a statue is a visual reminder of an historic event every time you see it.

For example,I am reminded of how uninformed and depraved the typical citizen is that supported the statue of George Floyd. What does it say about black "culture" that such an animal is honored by so many black people and idiot,brain-washed whites?

[sneakypete]

WADR, how does one better understand history?  By reading some trite inscription on the base of a statue, or by reading a well-researched book of history?

 

@Kamaji

It has never occurred to you that some young person may read what is inscribed on the base of a statue,and then be inspired to look for a book to read more about that person?

How many young adults today do you know that "stumble across" a brief note about someone or something of historic interest in a library? I know people who have never even been in a library since they left high school. In fact,I would be willing to bet that MOST people have never stepped foot in a library since graduation day.

Or read a book since then.

Reading is now a "generation thing",mostly restricted to school-age children and geezers. Don't believe me,go spend an afternoon reading a book in a ready lobby of your nearest library and take note of the ages of the readers in there.

[Smokin Joe]

@Kamaji

Next time you have nothing to do on a weekend and are bored,ask all the teens and 20-somethings you know to name the book they are reading now,and the last book they read.


No,it is a VISUAL representative of history. A statement as to something of importance that happened.

Or should be,and WAS before statues of professional felons started having statues of them put up in public parks because they are of the new "master race".

So long as the books are there, an enterprising reader can still find them, even if it takes some effort.  And this regardless of whether the statues are still there or not.


ONLY readers find them,and there are damn few readers today compared to the number even 20 years ago.

On the other hand,a statue is a visual reminder of an historic event every time you see it.

For example,I am reminded of how uninformed and depraved the typical citizen is that supported the statue of George Floyd. What does it say about black "culture" that such an animal is honored by so many black people and idiot,brain-washed whites?

And what highly regarded cultures left no stature, megaliths, temples or monuments behind, or at least left their mark on those from bygone eras?

It is the effigies, the monuments, the carvings on temple walls and in deep canyons that give us the impetus to deem some civilization worthy of investigation, barring an historical reference.

As to the latter, go ahead and pick up a mainstream history book (Secondary school level, if you can find one) and compare it with one from 100 years ago, at least for history relevant to both books. Different stories.

Primary sources don't change, but are buried beneath levels of spin and judged by the standards of the era in which they were analyzed. To assess something like Original Intent (and the groundbreaking significance thereof) , you have to be able to head trip back to the era and culture that wrote the document(s), That isn't done in the majority of current curricula. It's all based on a skewed interpretation in light of current and judgemental biased beliefs. 
But a statue, regardless of today's interpretation of the past, indicates that person was held in high enough regard as to be 'immortalized' in some durable medium, no small act, and ever requiring the expenditure of resources which would be significant in any era. That that occurred and those sacrifices were made demands investigation as to why, into the mores and deeds of the individual and era. That's something hard to just edit out of an online history with a few mouse clicks, and a presence which will endure past the flawed judgements of a given age.

Which is why the artifacts of history MUST be destroyed for the 'reset' to work. Those who remember can be eliminated or sidelined. The books can be burned, the documents reproduced, with alterations, the commentary of the past discredited by propaganda, but the statues, the monuments cannot persist without raising inconvenient questions.