Jump to content

Thread of Statue Removals

Hugo Stiglitz

By Hugo Stiglitz
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

Chad Fuck

Chad Fuck 17567

Posted
Posted
I do find it funny that Wayne always played the quintessential masculine badass in all his movies yet he avoided service in WW2. Definitely deserved getting an airport named after him. 


At least we know that ours isn’t the only generation that confuses entertainers with noteworthy citizens.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 985
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Neonmoon
Neonmoon
HenryJames
HenryJames
Deej
Deej

Posted Images

Llano Estacado

Llano Estacado 1257

Posted
Posted

John Wayne's not dead. He's frozen. And as
soon as we find the cure for cancer we're gonna thaw out the Duke and he's gonna be pretty pissed off. You know why? Have you ever taken a cold shower? Well multiple that by 15-million times, that's how pissed off the Duke's gonna be.

I'm gonna get the Duke, and John Cassavetes, and Lee Marvin, and Sam Pekinpah and a case of Whiskey and drive down to Texas...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18661

Posted
Posted
On 6/25/2020 at 8:27 PM, MaybeACoordinator said:

https://www.varsitytutors.com/earlyamerica/early-america-review/volume-15/hamilton-and-slavery

"Hamilton has been accused of owning slaves, by scholars and his grandson, which suggests that any beliefs he has on the quality and natural rights of blacks did not always translate into action. It is possible that Hamilton did not own slaves but, even so, his involvement in slave transactions suggests a more ambiguous picture of Hamilton than the 'unwavering abolitionist.'"

So maybe, but probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

"Hamilton has been accused of owning slaves, by scholars and his grandson, which suggests that any beliefs he has on the quality and natural rights of blacks did not always translate into action. It is possible that Hamilton did not own slaves but, even so, his involvement in slave transactions suggests a more ambiguous picture of Hamilton than the 'unwavering abolitionist.'"

So maybe, but probably not.

No, almost certainly so.

 

“It has been stated that Hamilton never owned a negro slave, but this is untrue. We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others.” -- Hamilton's grandson.

Read the link for details. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

No, almost certainly so.

 

“It has been stated that Hamilton never owned a negro slave, but this is untrue. We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others.” -- Hamilton's grandson.

Read the link for details. 

 

 

Nooooooooooooooooooooo !!!!!  Yut uhhhhh, Dennison said so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Parliament

Parliament 14140

Posted
Posted

And there you have it.  Lincoln statue gotta come down.

"This statue right here embodies the white supremacy and the disempowerment of black people that is forced upon us by white people. That is why we are tearing this statue down," said 20-year-old organizer Glenn Foster at an earlier protest this week.

According to the National Park Service, which maintains the park, an African American woman named Charlotte Scott of Virginia used the first $5 she earned in freedom to kick off a campaign as a way of paying homage to Lincoln after he was assassinated in 1865.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-blast-emancipation-memorial-trump-signs-order-protect/story?id=71494738

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Parliament said:

And there you have it.  Lincoln statue gotta come down.

"This statue right here embodies the white supremacy and the disempowerment of black people that is forced upon us by white people. That is why we are tearing this statue down," said 20-year-old organizer Glenn Foster at an earlier protest this week.

According to the National Park Service, which maintains the park, an African American woman named Charlotte Scott of Virginia used the first $5 she earned in freedom to kick off a campaign as a way of paying homage to Lincoln after he was assassinated in 1865.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/protesters-blast-emancipation-memorial-trump-signs-order-protect/story?id=71494738

And they should.  A proper monument to emancipation would have the freed slave standing tall next to Lincoln as his equal.  Not kneeling before him as a savior.

Donating to something before its designed does not mean one approves of the final design.  None of the donors had any say at all in the actual monument.  I am sure you would also like some artistic control over the donations you sent Trump as well.  Maybe you should get your five bucks back too. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChiTownDoc

ChiTownDoc 21102

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Gandhi was racist against "Kaffirs" and if statues of American racists are to come down it's only logical his come down too. I don't know why this would surprise anybody. 

 

 

 

 

My wife buys kefir.  I hate that shit.  
 

 

edit:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/theprint.in/opinion/ramachandra-guha-is-wrong-a-middle-aged-gandhi-was-racist-and-no-mahatma/168222/%3famp

yep, no shock they’d wanna take his statue down.  Makes sense to me...

Edited by ChiTownDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, FondrenRoad said:

And they should.  A proper monument to emancipation would have the freed slave standing tall next to Lincoln as his equal.  Not kneeling before him as a savior.

Donating to something before its designed does not mean one approves of the final design.  None of the donors had any say at all in the actual monument.  I am sure you would also like some artistic control over the donations you sent Trump as well.  Maybe you should get your five bucks back too. 

Says a 20th-21st c. person. We should go back and change all art from the 19th c. so it conforms to (your) 21st c. thought processes and motivations....  Your interpetation is your interpretation of the piece, it's wrong, but have at it.  Mr. Lincoln was thought of as a savior by many freed slaves.  But that's just wrong they shouldn't have... stupid slaves....

Edited by Onboard 2.0
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18661

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

No, almost certainly so.

 

“It has been stated that Hamilton never owned a negro slave, but this is untrue. We find that in his books there are entries showing that he purchased them for himself and for others.” -- Hamilton's grandson.

Read the link for details. 

 

 

I read it. It's not exactly overwhelming evidence. 

So maybe, but probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
FondrenRoad

FondrenRoad 4378

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Says a 20th-21st c. person. We should go back and change all art from the 19th c. so it conforms to (your) 21st c. thought processes and motivations....  Your interpetation is your interpretation of the piece, it's wrong, but have at it.  Mr. Lincoln was thought of as a savior by many freed slaves.  But that's just wrong they shouldn't have... stupid slaves....

Why don't you go see what Frederick Douglass had to say about it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, David Dennison said:

I read it. It's not exactly overwhelming evidence. 

So maybe, but probably not.

It is pretty compelling to me. I mean, he married into a plantation family. Do you think he and his wife at the very least did not borrow a slave or two?

What was redacted from his papers by his widow and son? Where is the evidence that he was the "staunch abolitionist" history has unaccountably made him out to be?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Dennison

David Dennison 18661

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It is pretty compelling to me. I mean, he married into a plantation family. Do you think he and his wife at the very least did not borrow a slave or two?

What was redacted from his papers by his widow and son? Where is the evidence that he was the "staunch abolitionist" history has unaccountably made him out to be?

Still a big maybe. But probably not.

And the evidence that he was an abolitionist is in the very links that you have cited. One of them even concluded, "Whether or not Hamilton owned slaves, it is certain that he was active as an abolitionist. If for no other reason, he saw abolition as militarily or politically advantageous over the years."

Edited by David Dennison
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13133

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

For example, is there some significant percentage of the anti-statue folks who want no statues of any actual people at all?  If so, this seems almost bordering on religious or at minimum some more fundamental philosophical motivation that seems to have come out of nowhere.

I don't think so.

Quote

 Or is this only targeted at individuals based solely on their views on race?

Depends on who you're talking to.

Regional issues factor in greatly (as in, for instance, the pulling down of the Catholic priest statue by indigenous people).

Quote

If that is the case, will there be a push to pull down monuments and statues of FDR, who was against an anti-lynching bill?

No idea. Let's find out!

I guess you want there to be a settled process and that's just not how basically anything works.

Quote

Would you care at all if we pulled all Karl Marx statues and monuments down due to his racist views? 

I wouldn't care about probably any statue anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ghost of LL

Ghost of LL 15493

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

It is pretty compelling to me. I mean, he married into a plantation family. Do you think he and his wife at the very least did not borrow a slave or two?

What was redacted from his papers by his widow and son? Where is the evidence that he was the "staunch abolitionist" history has unaccountably made him out to be?

 

 

 

Well, he was a co-founder of the New York Manumission Society.  Every one of his writings indicate his support not only for abolition, but also for equality.  And when it came down to it, he supported the Haitian Revolution and promoted close ties between Haiti and the United States.

I think that's pretty compelling evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bad_teammate

bad_teammate 13133

Posted
Posted

Since these public-area statues were erected by councils of white people, I'd like to see some adjudication from councils of all-non-white scholars. Non-binding, of course, but getting a non-white recasting of American history would be very useful to put alongside the profoundly whitewashed one we are taught in schools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hugo Stiglitz

Hugo Stiglitz 23362

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

It's a good thing that Trump exists for the Democrats - it's about the only thing uniting them.  When Trump is gone...watch out for the in-fighting.

Democrats, like the actual democrats that vote, don’t have a lot of ideological disagreements.  There isn’t a debate on whether or not to have open borders or repeal the second amendment.  Even the healthcare debate isn’t heated.  Most every democrat is pro-public option and at least open to the idea of single payer.  Democrats don’t fight over dumb shit like statues and bathroom bills.

The fight on the left is between the voters and the party leaders who are dead set on doing jack shit. 

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted (edited)
43 minutes ago, Axiom of Choice said:

You’ve made the point before that there is no single group or motivation behind the statue/monument/song/flag removal and that each incident should be looked at individually.  I don’t completely disagree with that perspective, but at the same time I think you can see how one might view this as a somewhat cohesive crusade as it is all happening at once and many folks who are advocates for one statue removal often are advocates or in strong agreement on the removal of others.  Most of the recent statue removals for me fall somewhere between agreement (on some of the confederates who were setup for no reason other than they were confederates) and indifference.  


However, some of it I don’t agree with (Grant, for example) and some if it I don’t really understand the base motivations.  For example, is there some significant percentage of the anti-statue folks who want no statues of any actual people at all?  If so, this seems almost bordering on religious or at minimum some more fundamental philosophical motivation that seems to have come out of nowhere.   Or is this only targeted at individuals based solely on their views on race?  If that is the case, will there be a push to pull down monuments and statues of FDR, who was against an anti-lynching bill?  I’m not aware of any Marx monuments in the US, but he has some in Europe and elsewhere.  Would you care at all if we pulled all Karl Marx statues and monuments down due to his racist views?  Maybe you do not care about Marx or any individuals and only the ideals themselves; I’m not arguing that you would or should care, just trying to get your perspective on it.     
 

The only acceptable memorialization of people are Che T shirts. Get with the program man...... errrrr comrade....

Edited by Onboard 2.0
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, he was a co-founder of the New York Manumission Society.  Every one of his writings indicate his support not only for abolition, but also for equality.  And when it came down to it, he supported the Haitian Revolution and promoted close ties between Haiti and the United States.

I think that's pretty compelling evidence.

Manumission is not abolition. Manumission is the drunk at the bar telling you he might quit drinking tomorrow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, mdmost said:

Pretty well sourced discussion on Hamilton and slavery. 

https://columbiaandslavery.columbia.edu/content/ambition-bondage-inquiry-alexander-hamilton-and-slavery

Everybody speculates that Hamilton alone among people who grew up in slave colonies pitied and empathized with slaves without a single shred of evidence to support that supposition. This guy is no exception. The fact is Hamilton worked in the slave trade on St. Croix though historians like to say he clerked in an import / export business. What the fuck do you think Hamilton's business was importing? 

I just don't understand why historians from deep in the past right up until today bend over backwards to give Hamilton a break. They just have made up the idea that Hamilton was a "staunch abolitionist all his life" with no evidence whatsoever to support that he was ever an abolitionist at all (much less a staunch one), and in fact a few little smoking guns in his business papers indicating that he in fact actually owned slaves. 

I mean, would a staunch abolitionist marry into one of New York's largest slaveowning families?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaybeACoordinator

MaybeACoordinator 8349

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Still a big maybe. But probably not.

And the evidence that he was an abolitionist is in the very links that you have cited. One of them even concluded, "Whether or not Hamilton owned slaves, it is certain that he was active as an abolitionist. If for no other reason, he saw abolition as militarily or politically advantageous over the years."

That is not abolitionism -- that is conditional manumission. Lots of writers make that mistake. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...