The difference between a book and a statue

[Antisthenes]

I guess if we're discussing the Confederate effigies which would seem to be the lion share of what's being destroyed, my opinion would be if you want the thing on private property then that should be your right and business. But it also seems out of place to have them on public prooerty. I mean, they were seditionists so why would we have their presence on Public grounds. I can think of no other Country that has Statuary or Portraiture of people that commited treason against the present regime. I mean, I don't see any statues of the Shah in Iran?

I'm curious as to the route you took to work out "treason" and "sedition" - aren't those crimes committed against one's OWN government?

The Confederacy was not the US - that's why the US invaded them.


.

But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye.

[Antisthenes]

I don't think I'm formatting my replies correctky?


Yay!!!! Fixed

[Ninurta]

But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye.

No, they started out as colonies. Colonies who voluntarily entered a union of a new nation, and then later voluntarily left that union to form their own nation. Yes, they repudiated their statehood in that union, in favor of forming their own union. At the time, there was nothing illegal about that, no more illegal than a colony declaring itself independent of the British Crown. Of course they had that right - that's how the US was formed to begin with! Or are you asserting that the colonials were treasonous seditionists as well, and that the US is in fact an illegal and invalid nation?

Virginia, and 3 other Confederate states, did not secede until two days after Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy and called up 75,000 troops to prosecute his war. Their hand was forced into it.

The logical extension of your argument is that the UK can reclaim the US at any time, because we are an illegal nation of treasonous seditionists.


.

[Antisthenes]

But they did in fact start out as States in the Union and declared themselves as being separate from that Union. So in effect they were repudiating their Statehood in that Union. They didn't have that right. Consequently, that makes them treasonous in my minds eye.

No, they started out as colonies. Colonies who voluntarily entered a union of a new nation, and then later voluntarily left that union to form their own nation. Yes, they repudiated their statehood in that union, in favor of forming their own union. At the time, there was nothing illegal about that, no more illegal than a colony declaring itself independent of the British Crown. Of course they had that right - that's how the US was formed to begin with! Or are you asserting that the colonials were treasonous seditionists as well, and that the US is in fact an illegal and invalid nation?

Virginia, and 3 other Confederate states, did not secede until two days after Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy and called up 75,000 troops to prosecute his war. Their hand was forced into it.

The logical extension of your argument is that the UK can reclaim the US at any time, because we are an illegal nation of treasonous seditionists.


.

I definitely see the United States as traitors to the Crown .....and if they ever want it back....come and get it?.To the Victor always goes the spoils. So aside from verbiage and semantics, the Confederacy lost. Had they won, I suspect you wouldn't see any statues of Lincoln or Grant. To a greater degree though, I understand why blacks who pay taxes in the United States and are citizens, may not want to subsidize those statues as they do represent some pretty horrible history for them.

[Antisthenes]

As an aside and before I head to snoozeland, section 3 of the Constiturion allows for treason against any citizen of the United States to that wages war against it to be treasonous. Now you could argue they seceeded and then waged war but now it really is word salad and any U.S. court that wanted to prove that against a Defendant most likely would according to most Constitutional scholars

[Ninurta]

As an aside and before I head to snoozeland, section 3 of the Constiturion allows for treason against any citizen of the United States to that wages war against it to be treasonous. Now you could argue they seceeded and then waged war but now it really is word salad and any U.S. court that wanted to prove that against a Defendant most likely would according to most Constitutional scholars

Indeed, they did secede, and then told the US to get off their lawn. The Commandant of Ft. Sumter refused to get off their lawn, and that is why they bombarded Sumter - to repel invaders on their territory. After Sumter fell, Lincoln declared war on the Confederacy and called up 75k troops "for 3 months service". It was a very long 3 months.

It was no more "treason" under the Constitution than it was "treasonous" against Germany for the UK to refuse German overtures of overlordship in WWII. They were separate countries. The Constitution you speak of was the US Constitution, not the Confederate Constitution. Extending it over the Confederacy would be like trying to extend it over Mexico, and make Mexicans beholden to US law on Mexican soil.

.

[Ninurta]

I definitely see the United States as traitors to the Crown .....and if they ever want it back....come and get it?.To the Victor always goes the spoils. So aside from verbiage and semantics, the Confederacy lost. Had they won, I suspect you wouldn't see any statues of Lincoln or Grant. To a greater degree though, I understand why blacks who pay taxes in the United States and are citizens, may not want to subsidize those statues as they do represent some pretty horrible history for them.

Point out which of those statues was erected with US government funds (i.e "subsidized" by the taxpayers), and I'll lead the charge to have it un-erected.

.

[BIAD]

(Oh jeez, as a Limey, I'm staying out of this one!)

[Wallfire]

A statue, you look at it you listen to the man telling you who it represents and the bad he did, you cheer and get the ropes out and pull it down.
A book, you need to want to open it, have the ability to read it and understand it.
Germany burned books because the level of education there was high, people could read books.

Even a statue of Miguel Cervantes (1547-1616) was vandalized with red spray, reports the San Francisco Chronicle.

Cervantes is regarded as the foremost and most classic writer of Western literary history and is best known for the comic early novel Don Quijote.
However, what he would have with the "racism" and American slave trade that the left-wing extremists claim to be fighting is unclear.
In fact, Miguel Cervantes himself was a slave - to Muslims - a fate he shared with millions of other white Christians during the era. In today's leftist history writing, however, slavery is something that mainly white people are accused of engaging in, with dark-skinned victims.
After being recruited in the Navy, in 1575, the author was captured by Ottoman slave pirates and taken to Algeria where he was held prisoner. According to a Turkish historian, there is also evidence that Cervantes was forced to work on the construction of the Kilic Ali Pasha Mosque in Istanbul. Only after five years and four unsuccessful escape attempts was Cervantes released after paying a considerable ransom.
"Cervantes never set foot in America, on the other hand, he was a slave in North Africa for five years. But what does it matter to the cultural evolutionists," Arpi writes on Twitter.

"Tearing down a statue depicting Cervantes is like fighting against windmills," responds a user who was not alone in coming with that joke
link

Communists writing history again, if people could only read books. I wonder how many there had read Don Quijote.
As each day goes by I wonder if George Orwell was a time traveler

[Ninurta]

(Oh jeez, as a Limey, I'm staying out of this one!)

Well, going by the argument presented, the Colonies are still your to deal with - but I'm not entirely sure you'd want them at the moment!

.

[FauxMulder]

@"beez" 

Odd, I know, but I agree with Phage on this one. Let me explain how I see it. 

People don't walk by a statue and look at it as a work of art or free expression. The usually wonder who it is and then read the plaque that explains the person. It is most commonly used to celebrate a person and their accomplishments. What did these confederates accomplish? I don't need to see a statue of this mother f-er to know who they are. I learned about it in school, hell I own a few books on the civil war. 

Example, lets say you are a black man walking with your kids in a park. You walk by a statue of Nathan Bedford Forest. A prominent confederate, KKK leader / founder. 

Your kids ask "daddy who is that?" 

"Oh, thats just some guy who thinks we are inferior to whites and he helped fight a war that would they have won, kept us enslaved"

"He sounds like a bad man, why do they have a statue of him?"

"Ummm.....erm....thats just art kids"

Edit to add: I dont think people should go around tearing them down thats just stupid. If they want to get rid of or move them, that should be up to the town or city to vote on.

[BIAD]

Well, going by the argument presented, the Colonies are still your to deal with - but I'm not entirely sure you'd want them at the moment!

The odd creature that lives in my shed has no eyes and yet, has the ability to see both sides of a discussion.
Sadly, I -as the mere owner of BIAD's abode, struggle!

It was another time and mind-set, I wasn't there.

[727Sky]

[beez]

I have to travel to Portland Oregon today, but when I'm safe in my hotel room (after some minor touring and looting) I'll be back online.



Thanks for the honest debate everyone!

[Mystic Wanderer]

Well, going by the argument presented, the Colonies are still your to deal with - but I'm not entirely sure you'd want them at the moment!

The odd creature that lives in my shed has no eyes and yet, has the ability to see both sides of a discussion.
Sadly, I -as the mere owner of BIAD's abode, struggle!

It was another time and mind-set, I wasn't there.

What he said, except I do have eyes. I see both sides of the argument.

I was told once upon a time by a professional who does an analogy on people's personality, strengths, etc., that I would make a good negotiator because I can see both sides more clearly than most people.

So... I agree with both sides. There, that's my opinion.  

[IAMTAT]

I have an issue.  Well, many, but that's beside the point.

For weeks now, the narritive has been that knocking down statues is justified because racism.  And that's confused me.  

Voltaire once said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". That used to be the rallying cry of freedom lovers everywhere.
But now it's "I disapprove of what you say and it offends me, so shut the hell up!"
Statues are an object of free expression.  Same as the written word.  What is the difference between a statue and a book?  Nothing.

Absolutely nothing.
So I see the statue topplers the same as book burners.

Now some are also saying, "HEY!  Just put the statues in a museum!"  

Really.

A fricking museum.  What museum?  When?  Are you going to control the hours it is open, the days the museum is open?
So now we have authoritarians dictating where and when free expression can be expressed.
Which stops making free expression. . . .free.
Which is what they ultimately want.
I'd like to hear others opinions.  Am I right?  Wrong?

Quite a difference, actually.

A statue an image of a person. Most often, an homage. An homage which is on constant display.

A book is a collection of ideas. A collection which one may choose to delve into, or not.

If one wants to see a statue of an advocate for slavery and a traitor to his country, he should be free to do so. In a museum.

(Where the hell am I supposed to insert my reply? Before the quote, or after?)

A statue is free expression.  It is an expression of the sculpter's ideas.

Agreed.
Phage does not address the concept of 'battlefield' statues.
THESE are integral to telling the story of how the battle unfolded and what took place at that point. These are outdoor installations...designed to teach, inform and memorialize.

God help the Gettysburg battlefield once the SJWs go hunting for Confederate statues at Devils Den or the site of Pickett's charge.

[Antisthenes]

I definitely see the United States as traitors to the Crown .....and if they ever want it back....come and get it?.To the Victor always goes the spoils. So aside from verbiage and semantics, the Confederacy lost. Had they won, I suspect you wouldn't see any statues of Lincoln or Grant. To a greater degree though, I understand why blacks who pay taxes in the United States and are citizens, may not want to subsidize those statues as they do represent some pretty horrible history for them.

Point out which of those statues was erected with US government funds (i.e "subsidized" by the taxpayers), and I'll lead the charge to have it un-erected.

.

I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down. I choose to be empathetic to Black Americans and realize the only way these silly things are going away is to take matters into their own hands. It seems once destroyed, unlikely they'll be reinstated to their former position. Pragmatics and deep seeded frustration seems to be in play?

[Mystic Wanderer]

I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down.

You mean like this one?  I see a big phallus there, and children bowing to him.
As far as I know, this was planted in Arkansas and is still there. I might be wrong, but I never heard that it was moved. Or, maybe it was left some other place. I'm not up to date on this.

A satanic idol goes to the Arkansas Capitol building

[Antisthenes]

I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down.

You mean like this one?  I see a big phallus there, and children bowing to him.
As far as I know, this was planted in Arkansas and is still there. I might be wrong, but I never heard that it was moved. Or, maybe it was left some other place. I'm not up to date on this.

A satanic idol goes to the Arkansas Capitol building

YIKES! That's all kinds of wrong! Apparently it was moved after sitting on a flatbed at the Capitol in Arkansas for "a few hours" It's presently in an Art museum in Salem, MA.

[Mystic Wanderer]

I have to wonder if a private citizen erected (no pun intended) a 15 foot stone phallus in a public Park with private funds, just how long it would be there before it was torn down.

You mean like this one?  I see a big phallus there, and children bowing to him.
As far as I know, this was planted in Arkansas and is still there. I might be wrong, but I never heard that it was moved. Or, maybe it was left some other place. I'm not up to date on this.

A satanic idol goes to the Arkansas Capitol building

YIKES! That's all kinds of wrong! Apparently it was moved after sitting on a flatbed at the Capitol in Arkansas for "a few hours"   It's presently in an Art museum in Salem, MA.

Salem, MA?     How appropriate!