Was it really necessary to melt down the Robert E. Lee statue?

[Alben Barkley]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

[7,052,770]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

Statues put up explicitly to intimidate black people and glorify slavery are "works of art" now?

[DrScholl]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

Statues put up explicitly to intimidate black people and glorify slavery are "works of art" now?

Alben is one step away from being a Republican declaring slavery had a benefit so I'd expect him to say that. He was one of the folks implying that Democrats being to friendly towards gays and minorities was the reason that Trump won.

With that said a "museum" or private collector would had to have stepped up to take the statue for it to be preserved.

[7,052,770]

One of these statues could go to a museum if it has some historical significance beyond "sending a message to black people that whites are in charge now and forever," but they shouldn't just automatically go to one. Are there even enough museums out there to house them all?

I guess someone could open up a private museum that's just for these Confederate statues, but who beyond a dedicated Lost Causer would want to go that museum?

[jojoju1998]

I take the opinion of a prominent Black Conservative Reformed Theologian, that I like very much so.

Robert E. Lee was bad period.

[DaleCooper]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

Statues put up explicitly to intimidate black people and glorify slavery are "works of art" now?

They're indisputably works of art. Whether you think the destruction of offensive art is a good thing or not is the real question here.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Isn’t melting down the usual way of disposing of such a thing? I suppose they could have blown it up or dropped it to the bottom of the ocean instead.

Especially as you want to keep the only value the statue had, right? I.e. the metal.

[Amanda Huggenkiss]

One of these statues could go to a museum if it has some historical significance beyond "sending a message to black people that whites are in charge now and forever," but they shouldn't just automatically go to one. Are there even enough museums out there to house them all?

They're indisputably works of art. Whether you think the destruction of offensive art is a good thing or not is the real question here.

Yea, that's the thing - most museums and archives have to be highly selective in deciding what they keep and not all pieces of art are worthy of preservation - in fact, most of them are not, especially if they are big and take up much space.

[Alben Barkley]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

Statues put up explicitly to intimidate black people and glorify slavery are "works of art" now?

Alben is one step away from being a Republican declaring slavery had a benefit so I'd expect him to say that. He was one of the folks implying that Democrats being to friendly towards gays and minorities was the reason that Trump won.

Excuse me? What the f--k? This is 100% defamatory, disgusting lies. Pistols at dawn, sir! One of the main reasons I AM a Democrat is because the party is more friendly towards gays and minorities! I was a proud Hillary Clinton supporter when Trump won! I was the opposite of the kinds of people, mostly Bernie supporters frankly, who were implying that the Democrats being too socially liberal was why Trump won. Just because I don't believe in suppressing all speech from people who disagree with me, Mao Zedong style like you, or literally destroying works of historical value does not change that. And the idea that I would say slavery had a benefit? This is straight up libel and absolutely absurd. Watch your f--king mouth.

As to Harry's point: You are massively oversimplifying the issue. The Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville was put up in 1917, long before the Civil Rights movement when some of the others were put up to make a statement, and was not done explicitly to "intimidate black people" or "glorify slavery." Also, even if it was, that does not mean it cannot be a work of art. I even AGREE with removing it from its position of public prominence! But I do NOT approve destroying any art, even ugly art or offensive art or art made for nefarious purposes and/or by nefarious people; even the Nazis made works of historical value that should not be destroyed. I am for preserving ALL history: The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Seriously, what is going on in this thread? Again, I SUPPORTED removing the statue! But there's a big leap from that to DESTROYING it. I'm not for that kind of Cultural Revolution s--t. Never have been, never will be. And no one can seriously convince me that no one was willing to take it into a museum or collection.

Besides, my point was more practical anyway, and everyone is completely ignoring that: As far as the conservatives are concerned, this is a betrayal and lie from the "progressives" who claimed incessantly that they didn't want to destroy this stuff, they wanted to put it in a museum. They will use this as ammunition to oppose removing every other Confederate statue from here on out, and frankly they'll have a point now.

You wanna know why liberals lose so f--king always? It's because they have no f--king common sense!

[WalterWhite]

Why do people care so much about statues when they have no real impact on anyone's lives?

[DrScholl]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

Statues put up explicitly to intimidate black people and glorify slavery are "works of art" now?

Alben is one step away from being a Republican declaring slavery had a benefit so I'd expect him to say that. He was one of the folks implying that Democrats being to friendly towards gays and minorities was the reason that Trump won.

Excuse me? What the f--k? This is 100% defamatory, disgusting lies. Pistols at dawn, sir! One of the main reasons I AM a Democrat is because the party is more friendly towards gays and minorities! I was a proud Hillary Clinton supporter when Trump won! I was the opposite of the kinds of people, mostly Bernie supporters frankly, who were implying that the Democrats being too socially liberal was why Trump won. Just because I don't believe in suppressing all speech from people who disagree with me, Mao Zedong style like you, or literally destroying works of historical value does not change that. And the idea that I would say slavery had a benefit? This is straight up libel and absolutely absurd. Watch your f--king mouth.

As to Harry's point: You are massively oversimplifying the issue. The Robert E. Lee statue in Charlottesville was put up in 1917, long before the Civil Rights movement when some of the others were put up to make a statement, and was not done explicitly to "intimidate black people" or "glorify slavery." Also, even if it was, that does not mean it cannot be a work of art. I even AGREE with removing it from its position of public prominence! But I do NOT approve destroying any art, even ugly art or offensive art or art made for nefarious purposes and/or by nefarious people; even the Nazis made works of historical value that should not be destroyed. I am for preserving ALL history: The good, the bad, and the ugly.

Seriously, what is going on in this thread? Again, I SUPPORTED removing the statue! But there's a big leap from that to DESTROYING it. I'm not for that kind of Cultural Revolution s--t. Never have been, never will be. And no one can seriously convince me that no one was willing to take it into a museum or collection.

Besides, my point was more practical anyway, and everyone is completely ignoring that: As far as the conservatives are concerned, this is a betrayal and lie from the "progressives" who claimed incessantly that they didn't want to destroy this stuff, they wanted to put it in a museum. They will use this as ammunition to oppose removing every other Confederate statue from here on out, and frankly they'll have a point now.

You wanna know why liberals lose so f--king always? It's because they have no f--king common sense!

I never said I supported suppressing free speech. I'm supportive of right-wingers admitting to who they are to their detriment. What White supremacists use as ammunition to support racist monuments is not my concern because they are always going to find a reason to support racism.

[7,052,770]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

Statues put up explicitly to intimidate black people and glorify slavery are "works of art" now?

They're indisputably works of art. Whether you think the destruction of offensive art is a good thing or not is the real question here.

I dispute it. The motivation of the creator is relevant in determining whether something qualifies as "art."

[7,052,770]

this is a betrayal and lie from the "progressives" who claimed incessantly that they didn't want to destroy this stuff, they wanted to put it in a museum.

I don't recall ever making that claim.

[WalterWhite]

The fact that people feel more passionately about the removal of a single statue than about real social issues impacting African-Americans (police brutality, wealth inequality, hate crimes, etc...) really highlights the quality of American political discourse.

[DaleCooper]

No but seriously, it was a big mistake to do it because everyone kept saying "Don't worry, they just won't be displayed in public places, we aren't actually going to destroy historical works of art, we'll just put them in a museum or something." Now that appears to be a lie, and this will strengthen the opposition to removing these kinds of statues from town squares and such in the future.

Statues put up explicitly to intimidate black people and glorify slavery are "works of art" now?

They're indisputably works of art. Whether you think the destruction of offensive art is a good thing or not is the real question here.

I dispute it. The motivation of the creator is relevant in determining whether something qualifies as "art."

Not really. The only times such motivation is relevant is when we're talking about marketing or true mass production or commodification of art, like Thomas Kincaid paintings or direct-to-video cash grab movies. It's rare that the political intention of a piece is used to determine whether something is art or not. If you throw out propaganda as a whole then you're tossing out some of the most important pieces in human history as not art. You can narrow it down beyond that, and just toss out racist art (although that would still eliminate a number of important works), but then you're basically just saying that art with political messages you don't like is not art. It's ridiculous and the whole conversation is a waste of time.

[Senator Spark]

Lee was a scoundrel. Obviously we shouldn't be venerating his legacy whatsoever. As for the statues, they should be out of public view and not commemorated.

[DaleCooper]

this is a betrayal and lie from the "progressives" who claimed incessantly that they didn't want to destroy this stuff, they wanted to put it in a museum.

I don't recall ever making that claim.

A lot of liberals did make that claim as a kind of compromise for removing the statues. Now that this statue has been melted down, it calls into question what they'll do with for example Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials when they tear those down.

The fact that people feel more passionately about the removal of a single statue than about real social issues impacting African-Americans (police brutality, wealth inequality, hate crimes, etc...) really highlights the quality of American political discourse.

Any kind of legislation or action that would improve the lives of black Americans is not going to get the headlines that renaming old parks and demolishing old memorials will give them. A lot of liberals and progressives have delusions of grandeur and think that this is their generation's demolition of the swastika on top of the building at Nuremberg.

[7,052,770]

A lot of liberals did make that claim as a kind of compromise for removing the statues. Now that this statue has been melted down, it calls into question what they'll do with for example Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials when they tear those down.

Those statues won't be taken down, unless they were put up way after the Civil War explicitly to intimidate blacks.

[GoTfan]

this is a betrayal and lie from the "progressives" who claimed incessantly that they didn't want to destroy this stuff, they wanted to put it in a museum.

I don't recall ever making that claim.

A lot of liberals did make that claim as a kind of compromise for removing the statues. Now that this statue has been melted down, it calls into question what they'll do with for example Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials when they tear those down.

The fact that people feel more passionately about the removal of a single statue than about real social issues impacting African-Americans (police brutality, wealth inequality, hate crimes, etc...) really highlights the quality of American political discourse.

Any kind of legislation or action that would improve the lives of black Americans is not going to get the headlines that renaming old parks and demolishing old memorials will give them. A lot of liberals and progressives have delusions of grandeur and think that this is their generation's demolition of the swastika on top of the building at Nuremberg.

The issue with this is that very few museums actually want them. Apart from the fact that a lot of them were put up specifically to intimidate black people into silence, massive outdoor statues are difficult to maintain indoors. There could be an argument to move them to a museum dedicated to African-American slavery, but then you run the very real risk of said museum becoming a pilgrimage site for white supremacists.

Museums DO NOT WANT THESE THINGS.

[DaleCooper]

A lot of liberals did make that claim as a kind of compromise for removing the statues. Now that this statue has been melted down, it calls into question what they'll do with for example Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln memorials when they tear those down.

Those statues won't be taken down, unless they were put up way after the Civil War explicitly to intimidate blacks.

They will, and some of them already have been pulled down by vandals and rioters. And New York took down a 200 year-old Thomas Jefferson statue a while back. I remember a Late Show segment with Stephen Colbert virtue signalling about how much he hates slave owners. And it'll go beyond that too. Gradually every monument will be removed and every building or site will be renamed after someone supposedly less offensive. It's very obvious that this is the direction that liberals are going so I don't see any reason to lie about it or play dumb.

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Insanely stupid debate. I couldn't care less what they do with the statue after they took it down. If you're reading any deeper meaning into the disposal method, be it as an active participant or as an observer, you need a life.

[ingemann]

This is an effort at an American version of the Maoist Cultural Revolution. I expected nothing less.

Yes. it looks something like that, I must admit the triumphant melting it down and remake it into art showing the ideology of the new regime is the thing which really gives it Year Zero vibes.

I won't say I'm always against removal of statue or renaming things, I as example think it was a good thing that Leopoldville changed name.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This is an effort at an American version of the Maoist Cultural Revolution. I expected nothing less.

Yes. it looks something like that, I must admit the triumphant melting it down and remake it into art showing the ideology of the new regime is the thing which really gives it Year Zero vibes.

I won't say I'm always against removal of statue or renaming things, I as example think it was a good thing that Leopoldville changed name.

Always, now that's a word one should use carefully.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I will say this and that is if my ideas for how our history should be taught and represented both Yellowhammer and Ferguson would team up to try to stop it

[7,052,770]

There are apparently more than 1,500 Confederate monuments across the South. There's just no way that a museum can take all of them, or that more than a handful would have the historical significance to be wanted by a museum in the first place.

I honestly don't remember anyone making the argument that they'd only go to museums in the first place. I'd put that idea in the same category as "shoot them in the leg only" or "teach miners how to code" - things that sound good on paper if you don't think too critically, and that might work in limited circumstances, but that just aren't practical as blanket nationwide solutions. At "best," those 1,500 statues are going to just sit in a basement forever. What's the point of that? How is that materially better than repurposing the metal for something else?