Eternity RPC Board
08-17-2017, 03:03 PM
I'm going to ignore your comments regarding lefties, progressives, etc. since it distracts from the primary argument in play.
I'm trying to understand where removing statues is not removing history, as you say here:
But you make the claim that it is removing history here:
I'm just trying to understand whether you are making the argument that removing statues is removing history or not. While your post is appreciated, and goes to explain some of the reasons political figures might be looking to jump on this bandwagon, it doesn't really identify whether or not removing statues is removing or re-writing history, which is a primary argument against removing statues.
As I read the article, I do recognize that they're arguing for removal from a museum (the Roosevelt article), which is particularly interesting to me, as museums are places where one would go to see things like this. Are you making the distinction because the folks trying to remove Roosevelt are trying to remove it from a museum?
The Jefferson memorial and mount rushmore one is interesting as well. I have not visited the Jefferson memorial personally, and don't really plan to, so I can't speak to whats inside it or what it does from a first hand basis. Mount Rushmore, however, has always been something that I thought was stupid. We carved four presidents heads into a mountain in the middle of nowhere, for whatever reason. Rushmore is more of a monument than a piece of historical reference, etc. their heads are on the side of a mountain and will be for a long time, even if it wasn't maintained. To me that's a place of honor, respect, etc. as I mentioned previously. As I previously stated, places of honor and respect shouldn't really be there for people who don't "deserve it" in a way, and if those people don't represent what society believes is worthy of respect, I understand why they would be torn down.
(aside: I'm not sure what they'd do to tear down rushmore... would they blow it up with TNT? would they put washingtons giant ass nose in a museum? that'd be interesting lol, end aside)
My opinions about whether or not they were "the best presidents" or not is irrelevant and would distract from what I'm trying to say. The Roosevelt demand is interesting, because it's a museum, but is a statue really a piece of historical reference? What do people go to museums for? Do I look at a statue to learn about history? These are the questions we should be looking to ask if we want to identify the historical value of a thing, a statue, in this instance. I'm not a historian, so correct me if I'm wrong with regards to that.
![[Image: Theodore-Roosevelt-GOR-90714-cE2-12.jpg]](http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000NXGed.XMpE0/s/650/650/Theodore-Roosevelt-GOR-90714-cE2-12.jpg)
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7808514,...312!8i6656
This is the statue in question. You can click the google maps link and if I did it right it should show you right where it is. When I look at it I notice a few things. This isn't actually in the museum at all, it's outside of the museum, similar to some of the confederate statues that are being toppled. To me, this is a place of honor, reverence, respect, etc. not a place for "learning history". This goes back to my previous comments.
I'm trying to understand where removing statues is not removing history, as you say here:
Quote:The problem with pleasing the massing by tearing down statues is hardly a move to rewrite history (yet),
But you make the claim that it is removing history here:
Quote:These are real. Where we have political ideologues on the left who want either our best US president ever to be kicked out of a museum, or we have our founding father lose his memorial. This is a matter of history. It's not a slippery slope if activists are already pushing for it. It's just the left won't say that till the time comes. But five years from now? We'll be hearing debate about Mt. Rushmore. You can say its just crazy lefties for now, but if Progressives believe in progress being endless, then this is coming soon to a museum near you.
I'm just trying to understand whether you are making the argument that removing statues is removing history or not. While your post is appreciated, and goes to explain some of the reasons political figures might be looking to jump on this bandwagon, it doesn't really identify whether or not removing statues is removing or re-writing history, which is a primary argument against removing statues.
As I read the article, I do recognize that they're arguing for removal from a museum (the Roosevelt article), which is particularly interesting to me, as museums are places where one would go to see things like this. Are you making the distinction because the folks trying to remove Roosevelt are trying to remove it from a museum?
The Jefferson memorial and mount rushmore one is interesting as well. I have not visited the Jefferson memorial personally, and don't really plan to, so I can't speak to whats inside it or what it does from a first hand basis. Mount Rushmore, however, has always been something that I thought was stupid. We carved four presidents heads into a mountain in the middle of nowhere, for whatever reason. Rushmore is more of a monument than a piece of historical reference, etc. their heads are on the side of a mountain and will be for a long time, even if it wasn't maintained. To me that's a place of honor, respect, etc. as I mentioned previously. As I previously stated, places of honor and respect shouldn't really be there for people who don't "deserve it" in a way, and if those people don't represent what society believes is worthy of respect, I understand why they would be torn down.
(aside: I'm not sure what they'd do to tear down rushmore... would they blow it up with TNT? would they put washingtons giant ass nose in a museum? that'd be interesting lol, end aside)
My opinions about whether or not they were "the best presidents" or not is irrelevant and would distract from what I'm trying to say. The Roosevelt demand is interesting, because it's a museum, but is a statue really a piece of historical reference? What do people go to museums for? Do I look at a statue to learn about history? These are the questions we should be looking to ask if we want to identify the historical value of a thing, a statue, in this instance. I'm not a historian, so correct me if I'm wrong with regards to that.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7808514,...312!8i6656
This is the statue in question. You can click the google maps link and if I did it right it should show you right where it is. When I look at it I notice a few things. This isn't actually in the museum at all, it's outside of the museum, similar to some of the confederate statues that are being toppled. To me, this is a place of honor, reverence, respect, etc. not a place for "learning history". This goes back to my previous comments.