confederate monuments deserve the same fate as BinLaden

[Fresh_Start]

dumped without marker somewhere in the deep blue sea

[WePurrsevere]

1. Even as rubble, dumped in specific areas they could even help rebuild coral reefs...

At least they'd finally be doing something truly constructive.

[Fresh_Start]

2. will coral reefs grow on metal statues? If so, even more of a reason to do it nt

nt

[WePurrsevere]

7. I had to look it up but yes, it will on SOME metals...

It looks like steel may be commonly used but I also found some saying that enough copper can be toxic.

I was originally thinking that they were made out of some sort of granite or other stone but since you mentioned it, I'm sure that some are done in metal as well. Good point!

[DinahMoeHum]

26. The USS Oriskany aircraft carrier was made of steel. . .

It's now an artificial reef off the coast of Pensacola, FL

http://www.floridapanhandledivetrail.com/oriskany.html

https://www.inverse.com/article/15787-10-years-later-after-sinking-the-aircraft-carrier-uss-oriskany-is-a-healthy-reef


So, yes, it can and has been done.

Hell, there are lots of steel ships sunk before their time out in our oceans, and they inevitably
become artificial reefs for corals and other ocean life.

[greymattermom]

3. What about the cemeteries?

http://www.mariettaconfederatecemetery.org

Leave them as is?
Dig up the graves and dump the bodies in the ocean?
Rename as loser or traitor cemetery?

I'm just curious because this cemetery is located not far from where I live.

[Bonx]

6. Hint: They're already dead and won't be bothering anyone.

[Fresh_Start]

15. we don't deface graves....

thats the other side that does that.

[Orrex]

17. Why do you keep pushing that mantra? What's your agenda?

As discussed in the other thread, they should maintain these cemeteries as reminders of the South's war against America in the name of protecting slavery and the delusion of white supremacy.

Instead, the cemeteries and the dead within them are venerated and revered as symbols of the noble sacrifice to maintain the South's sovereignty against the indignities of the North.

The cemeteries should be maintained as reminders of the South's bloody effort to destroy the republic, and as a caution not to let history repeat itself in spite of the latter-day false equivalencies foisted by the enablers.


Better yet, crack open every grave in those cemeteries, shit in each, and seal them up again.

[Sunlei]

21. our government left the millions? of civil war dead rotting where they fell. civilians buried them &

Black people organized burials of thousands and organized Americas FIRST Memorial day

If not for civilians massive effort- there wouldn't even be any graveyards today other then the few 'heros'.

[LanternWaste]

22. Be curious no more!

I think you're confusing the commemorative and collective celebratory nature of statues with the sentiment of private sorrow and remembrance.

One more time... statues are placed to collectively celebrate an event or a person, graves are designed to bury the dead.

Be curious no more (if indeed, the curiosity is sincere rather than mere pretense of agenda)

[Orrex]

24. That

[Coventina]

4. No, no, no, a thousand times NO!

I will keep posting this every time it comes up!

As an art historian, I beg you not to advocate for this.

I am all for removing them from places of honor, but PLEASE do not advocate destroying them.

Art works are important, even ones that we may find personally abhorrent. Once you open the door to destroying art, it is a very slippery slope to the ISIS type of destruction going on in Syria and Iraq.

Many ancient works of art were obliterated there. Artworks that glorified personalities far worse than the Confederacy ever dreamed.

You may try to throw false equivalency in my face, but really, it is the same thing. Artworks are a record of our past. They document a lot of things that are intangible in other media.

Put them in dusty museum basements, but please do not destroy them.

In Washington DC we have a large collection of Nazi inspired paintings (including watercolors done by Hitler himself). They are hidden away, but an important record of a movement that needs recording and continued study.

Please, please, please, never advocate for the destruction of art.

[annabanana]

5. I'm ok with just hiding them in the basement for a generation or three. . . n/t

[WePurrsevere]

9. You make an excellent point & the history lover in me agrees...

however, last I knew most museums have precious little extra storage space to spare no less for something the amount and size some of these statues are so if we're to save these where else could they be saved for historians of the future, yet be kept possibly permanently out of public view?

[Coventina]

10. Decisions on where to place objects would have to be made on a case by case basis.

Some museums have space, others don't, so I would imagine some would have to travel some distance to find a long-term spot.

It can be done, it's just a matter of logistics.

What I'd like to see is that the monuments get donated to the Smithsonian. They are the best equipped to deal with large scale donations.

[WePurrsevere]

14. If they can be stored out of sight by the Smithsonian...

That would work for me. I'd highly prefer not to see any art destroyed but I strongly belie we need to remove any chance of these being rallying places. Until our species has outgrown this phase of our evolution, which ATM looks like it may take quite a while, out of sight seems to be the best option.

[hunter]

12. They could be stored dry with the old nuclear submarine reactors at the Hanford Site...

...where they'd remain perfectly preserved for thousands of years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanford_Site

[Coventina]

13. Works for me.

[Orrex]

19. They should not be maintained with public funding

The South is saying, in essence, "Be sure to pay your taxes, black people, so that we can maintain monuments to the men who fought to keep your ancestors as subhuman property."

[moda253]

20. This.

Frankly I'd be more in favor of melting the materials down and giving the materials to art centers for fee.

[Coventina]

29. I completely agree with removing them as public monuments.

But artwork should never be destroyed.

We are storing Hitler's watercolors with public money.

I have no problem with that. Artwork, no matter how reprehensible, needs to be preserved as historical record.

[Orrex]

32. I'm not comfortable with absolutes. Surely there are limits?

Let us suppose that a piece of Nazi art were made by a Jewish artist under extreme duress.

Must that art be preserved? Does the artist get a say in the matter? Suppose he were executed upon completing it; would his family get a say?

[Coventina]

34. Anything done at the point of a gun is of course secondary to the crime of coercion.

Of course something like that would not qualify for protection, if the heirs wished it destroyed.

[Orrex]

36. I see no reason why the statues can't be destroyed by that same standard

They were made in celebration of a crime against the nation, arguably as part of that crime against the nation, and certainly as a big "fuck you" to the slaves and descendants of slaves.

If we can reject art by the arbitrary standard of "it involves a crime," then the statues absolutely qualify.

[Coventina]

37. If a patron paid an artist to do it with an agreed contract between artist and patron

no crime was committed.

It doesn't matter if the subject matter involves crime or depicts a criminal.

By your logic, we should arrest Marilyn Manson and his band.

[Orrex]

39. Would you be ok with someone erecting a statue of you having intercourse with an animal?

Should that statue be preserved in perpetuity regardless of your wishes?

[Coventina]

41. Stuff like that gets made all the time.

Of course I wouldn't like it, but I wouldn't dream of censoring it.

[Orrex]

42. And you're comfortable making that absolute determination on others' behalf?

[Coventina]

44. I most certainly am.

Look, artworks are attacked all over the world, and as a person whose profession it is to preserve, analyze, present and document ALL ART this is incredibly frustrating to me.

Enough art gets destroyed through accident, natural disaster, warfare, and natural deterioration. Wanton destruction is just that: wanton destruction.

All we have (going back just one hundred years or so) are fragments that through accident or purpose have been preserved. We try to understand what these objects meant to their original makers and viewers. When all you have are bits and pieces of a visual culture, interpretation gets that much more skewed.

How can we know what people really thought or felt if their visual history is erased? What if 500 years from now, the absence of Confederate monuments makes future historians conclude that those who fought in the Civil War were quickly forgotten?

ISIS is busily attempting to erase all prior civilizations to theirs. Many of the locations I used to teach about early empires have been completely bulldozed into oblivion. They were cruel, horrific societies by Enlightenment standards, but they were the world's earliest. And now they are gone, thanks to ISIS.

The Nazis tried to erase modern art from their society. They destroyed thousands of artworks they considered offensive, morally degenerate, etc.

The Suffragettes in England splashed acid on many "Old Masters," particularly sumptuous female nudes by such greats as Velasquez and Reubens. They were protesting the fact that women were treated as sex objects instead of rational creatures entitled to a political voice.

Many modern works of art are attacked because people react angrily toward them. They don't understand how a huge red canvas with a few white stripes can be art. So they attack it with a knife. Or they throw white paint over a painting they think defames a religious figure.

During the French Revolution resentment toward the Catholic Church led mobs to hack statues to pieces, smash stained glass windows, or sometimes just burn the entire church down (including monuments like the great church of Cluny, one of the greatest achievements of the Middle Ages).

Mobs of angry Protestants destroyed Catholic artwork they considered "idolatrous," including books of history and other learning which are now lost forever.

Lots of people have destroyed art for lots of different reasons, and they all felt justified. Maybe some were more justified than others. But it doesn't change the fact that once it is gone, that history is gone forever. We will always be left with an incomplete picture of what really was - whether it was a beautiful truth or an ugly one.

[Orrex]

47. Then everyone has that authority, and no one needs to listen to you

[Coventina]

50. So mob rule, huh?

Good luck with that.

[Orrex]

55. Not what I said or implied, but whatever

If you claim that individual authority, then everyone is equally able to claim that authority individually, and no one's opinion is any less valid than yours.

[Coventina]

57. Well, I am a professional Art Historian, so I do

know quite a bit about this stuff.

[Orrex]

59. Well, fuck.

I really, really hate it when I mansplain.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. I agree. It's too much like book-burning.

The statutes should be removed from the public places where they no longer belong, because in such locations they have too much symbolic power for the people who advocate racism and white supremacy and are still fighting the Civil War in their heads. Some of them might be of poor quality, but it makes more sense for art historians and Civil War historians to determine which ones have artistic merit and are historically significant. Those that are determined to be just poor-quality statues of obscure characters could be sold to whoever wants them for whatever they want to do with them. The better-quality ones should be preserved in museums. It's wrong and dangerous to try to obliterate history.

[lapfog_1]

28. I have no problem putting them here

And if it doesn't exist, we should create it.

[Coventina]

30. I assure you, such facilities do exist.

Can't say for sure if the Arc is in one of them, though.

[LeftInTX]

53. Many can be moved to Confederate cemeteries

[Iggo]

8. .

[B2G]

11. Let's burn all of the books we find offensive too.

Where exactly do you plan on drawing the line?

[Fresh_Start]

16. the other side bans and burns books

our side reads books and explains the fallacies in them

[Orrex]

25. How about at statues venerating men who fought to destroy the Republic?

If someone skinned your dog/cat/pet alive as part of an artwork, would you argue that it should be maintained as a reminder of the past?

Where exactly do you plan on drawing the line?

[Coventina]

31. Breaking the law by inflicting cruelty is not acceptable in the name of art.

Making a statue of inanimate materials, even of subject matter with which you disagree, is NOT breaking the law.

The line is not that hard to draw.

[Orrex]

35. That is a completely arbitrary standard

Is the line drawn at breaking the law, or at inflicting cruelty.

Graffiti is, in most cases, breaking the law. Is it art?

The statues in question inflict cruelty upon the descendants of slaves. Are they art?

[Coventina]

38. I have said all along that Confederate monuments should be removed.

Just not destroyed.

Again, art made in committing a CRIME does not deserve protection. People who make graffiti know this.

That is why artists of merit who start that way generally move on to other media.

Examples include:

Jean-Michele Basquiat

Banksy (although he still does straight-up graffiti from time to time)

Shepherd Fairey (of the Obama Hope poster fame)

[Orrex]

40. Again, that's a completely arbitrary standard

When you demand that art be preserved in perpetuity, why should it matter whether a crime was committed? Art, in your conception, transcends time and sensitivities; why should a mere law get to supersede all of that?

[Coventina]

43. When did I ever say art trancends sensitivities?

There are tons of art I disagree with, I disagree with these confederate creations.

The law is arbitrary - you either are breaking it or you aren't (that's what the courts decide).

Just because a work of art depicts a crime doesn't make the work itself criminal.

[Orrex]

46. Nor have I declared the work criminal

By dismissing the concerns of, say, the actual slaves and their immediate descendants, you are declaring that the statues of Confederate generals--champions of slavery--transcend those sensitivities.

You seem to want art to be this inviolable thing that must be preserved, but you declare illegal acts not to be art worthy of preservation. Why would art be subordinated to the whims of the legislature? That is ridiculous on its face.


Put them in a museum, if they must be preserved, but let them be placed in context that makes it impossible for the worshipers of Confederate nostalgia to exalt them.

[Coventina]

49. That's all I ever wanted! I've said all along the monuments should be

taken down from public squares, parks, etc.

Certainly, deprive them of "monument" status.

I just said don't destroy them.

And I never said anything about the art transcending anyone's sensitivities.

People SHOULD be outraged at the adoration shown these people. That's what critical thinking about art is all about, something I teach in my classes. But if we arbitrarily destroy anything we deem to be damaging propaganda, we lose the ability to analyze and teach how it works, how it deceives.

[Orrex]

56. I'm not sure that it's "arbitrary," but you're starting to make sense

Much of your rhetoric up to now has come across as "art before all else," as in "we must preserve all art, period."

Frankly I find that silly, and I dismiss the notion that humanity lacks the authority to destroy what it has created.

[Coventina]

58. Well, please just acknowledge that I have a differing perspective.

We lose too much of humanity's history as it is.

I don't want to glorify horrible people, but I think we can find a balance between preserving the artifacts and making sure that they are not objects of veneration.

[XRubicon]

54. Are you ok with a bronze statue of Adam Lanza

Placed in the town common to honor the 2nd amendment?

It is offensive to honor people who wanted to keep slaves and killed thousands of their countrymen. That is where I draw the line.

[Sunlei]

18. They should move the statues to the civil war graveyards and those 'battlefields' for tourists.

plenty of room there.

[B2G]

23. I think that's an exellent idea.

The graveyards shouldn't be disturbed and the statues shouldn't be destroyed. This way folks would have the choice to view them from a historical perspective yet they can be avoided by those they offend.

Savannah is one of my favorite cities in the US. To tear down that history would be a travesty.

[dalton99a]

33. Take them down, and give them to their descendants or throw them in the trash

[0rganism]

45. can we shoot them before ditching them at sea?

if we can put some bullets in them they'll sink faster

[XRubicon]

48. Rebel monuments deserve the same fate as BinLaden

FIFY

[loyalsister]

51. No

They represent something that we absolutely should not forget. We need to remember the current state of US culture. Looking at some statues of Native Americans is historically important. They are often barely clothed furthering the perception and historical presentation white people offered to their history. As offensive as those stues are when one gives it some thought, that should not be forgotten.
The confederate monuments should be preserved in museums because they reveal what the culturally accepted mindset about that war was until finally it took having a white supremacist white house for people to take action.
People should be able to see that the army general who tried to overthrow the US government were presented as glorified or harmless.

Future citizens need to know that about us and those sho came before us. I have heard of professors who have had white supremacists speak to their classes. They said that for full effect, a person has to see exactly how sincere they are.

[Warpy]

52. A Hungarian poster on another site described what they did with Commmunist era monuments

that were offensive to the majority but beloved by a deluded minority: they pulled them out of parks and other areas in the center of town and created a new park in which to display them, and nothing else. That way, they kept the peace and people no longer had to look at the damned things on the way to work every day.

That might be a good idea, all southern states having their Confederate Memorial Park where people can go to see the statue of great-great-great-grandpappy Culpepper and no one else need to be offended by what he stood for.