Agnostic.com

3 2

Have you ever heard anyone use the argument that statues and memorials, no matter what they represent, shouldn't be taken down because they are a part of history?

Now, obviously, this is a stupid reason to leave offensive monuments up in public places. Why do we put monuments in public? To honor people and events that society deems worthy of admiration, right? Do we want to honor slave traders and confederate leaders who fought to preserve that despicable practice of slave holding?

For those aspects of history that society does not wish to honor with statues and monuments in the public sphere, well they aren't deleted and forgotten, they are taken out of that place of honor and put in museums which clearly educate the history rather than glorify it. That's where those things belong. The history is remembered through lectures, books, films, museums, podcasts, documentaries...

It's important to remember all of history even, and especially, the bad stuff, but it's also important to remember it in the proper context and not glorify it as these statues currently being pulled down do.

So for those still arguing that they must stay up because they are history. Well, you know what else is history? When there is a spontaneous explosion of anger and rage within the populace and they then decide to defy the authorities and topple the offensive monuments. So I say that we erect a monument in each place where a statue of hate has been pulled down to honor the history of that statue's violent removal. And if you say, hey that's wrong, we shouldn't be putting up monuments to iconoclastic law breakers. Well hold on, the statue pulled down in the first place commemorated treasonous rebels who killed Americans in order to preserve the despicable practice of slave holding. So yeah, totally fine to honor and remember the heroes who pulled down those statues with memorials to the rioters who are clearing public spaces of hateful monuments.

RoboGraham 8 June 20
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

3 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Sure. Why not? Statues of MLK, for instance. The Confederate battle flag is a LOT like the Nazi swastika; EXTREMELY obnoxious, offensive, and an insult to not only the descendants of black slaves, but also to the victorious north who fought a bloody Civil War to end slavery as a state-sanctioned institution.

1

From what I’ve heard and witnessed (in person & with guns just yesterday), such ‘statues or monuments’ are to remind us ‘who’s in charge.’

Yes, stuff that crap in a museum. Don’t force ‘free people’ to feel subordinate to the glorification of deeds or entities proven to have been wrong and cruel.

It appears by a longshot to be far more courageous removing monuments to hate, suppression or cruelty than it was to erect them. Yes, thoses are my he & sheroes..

Varn Level 8 June 20, 2020
3

The pushback against removing symbols and monuments even renaming mostly comes from Conservatives—the same crowd that claims to be strict Constitutionalists, which begins “We the People.” Of course “We the People” explicitly excludes Natives (“savages&rdquo😉 and relegates slaves to 3/5ths of a person. I appreciate your breakdown. I’m working on a difficult project to rename Johnson County, Kansas, where I live. It was named for a slaveholder who operated an Indian Mission, where Native children were removed from their homes to force them to renounce their Native ways, where they were exploited for labor, beaten, starved, died and buried in unmarked graves. Today Johnson County is a wealthy White enclave where police harass and incarcerate people of color at disproportionate rates.

Perhaps it would be best to rename it after the tribe that inhabited the are before that Johnson fella came and ruined everything for them.

How do you even accomplish the remaining of a county?

@RoboGraham Good call on the name. We have two name proposals: Blackbob County, named for the chief of the Shawnee Tribe that was forced to move to Oklahoma (Shawnee is already a County name). And Martha County, named for a 15-year-old African girl that Johnson purchased as “a slave for life.” We have the receipt.

We’re researching other counties have gone through a renaming process and working on our first draft proposal to the county charter commission. It won’t be easy, it likely won’t be successful. But we want every Johnson Countian to know the notorious history if the county’s namesake, and the name of the tribe on whose stolen land we reside.

@Bobbyzen It looks like I am fortunate to live in Pottawatomie County in the town of Shawnee. Both names are Indian tribe names. Oaklahoma has use Indian names as place names for a long time period I need to look at and Oklahoma map to see if they have ever honored any slaveholders. Sadly there is the fact that many of the 5 civilized tribes that were forced to walk the trail of tears to Oklahoma were also slaveholders. The Cherokees have decided to make sure those slaves that were at one time considered tribal members have been disenfranchised and won't get to share the wealth created by the casinos.

@Lorajay I’m well aware of racism in the Native community...it’s for sure real.

The Shawnee were originally from back East, forcibly evicted in the Trail of Tears after passage of the Indian Removal Act, sent to Kansas before Oklahoma. It was while they were here that the Methodist Church established the Shawnee Indian Mission—one of the Native assimilation schools that ripped children from families, stripped them of their culture, exploited them, etc., and hired Thomas Johnson to run the Mission. Johnson was also a slaveholder....ugh

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:507780
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.