|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 23, 2020 21:37:31 GMT -8
About Washington and Jefferson: the best take I've seen was the whole bug vs feature thing. With a lot of those folks, the slave-owning and having participated in the racism of their time was a bug. With the confederacy, it was a feature. That's a pretty facile argument. I'm all for pulling down confederate monuments. But, that is just giving Washington and Jefferson a pass. And, as I've said before, their treatment of the indigenous American population was equally egregious.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 23, 2020 21:59:00 GMT -8
Conversation with my 10 y.o. son tonight.
Son: "dad, did I hear that they tore down a statue of Junipero Serra?" Me: "yes" Son: "well, then shouldn't they tear down the missions?" Me: "those are catholic churches, I don't think the Catholics would like that" Son: "but they were built with slave labor" Me: "I don't think they were slaves, I think they could have left if they wanted to" Son: "my social studies book said that if they left, they would chase them down and bring them back." Me: "you make a good point - maybe they should."
|
|
|
Post by grant73 on Jun 23, 2020 22:51:39 GMT -8
After the Mexican dictators stole Alta-California from Spain (along with Mexico herself), they were so secular that they let the missions nearly turn back into mud. Most of the decent structures we see now have been fixed up since 1870. By 1940 (18 years after the first revolution) most were in disrepair.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 24, 2020 6:04:19 GMT -8
Conversation with my 10 y.o. son tonight. Son: "dad, did I hear that they tore down a statue of Junipero Serra?" Me: "yes" Son: "well, then shouldn't they tear down the missions?" Me: "those are catholic churches, I don't think the Catholics would like that" Son: "but they were built with slave labor" Me: "I don't think they were slaves, I think they could have left if they wanted to" Son: "my social studies book said that if they left, they would chase them down and bring them back." Me: "you make a good point - maybe they should." I think there is a difference between a monument, which is a depiction of a person or event, and an actual historical artifact. We preserve places like Auschwitz and Dachau, not to honor the Nazis, but to educate people. Some times they lines are blurred. Trajan's Column in Rome was built after the fact of the events, but it is used by historians to learn about the events of the era, since there are few documents. The missions are complicated. They have been portrayed as built by heroic priests bringing civilization and Christianity to the savages. That narrative needs to be fixed. But they are also working churches, museums, and of legitimate historical importance. The emphasis should be on telling the full story, not a one-dimensional story of only good or only evil. But the missions are legitimate history.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 24, 2020 8:24:05 GMT -8
Conversation with my 10 y.o. son tonight. Son: "dad, did I hear that they tore down a statue of Junipero Serra?" Me: "yes" Son: "well, then shouldn't they tear down the missions?" Me: "those are catholic churches, I don't think the Catholics would like that" Son: "but they were built with slave labor" Me: "I don't think they were slaves, I think they could have left if they wanted to" Son: "my social studies book said that if they left, they would chase them down and bring them back." Me: "you make a good point - maybe they should." I think there is a difference between a monument, which is a depiction of a person or event, and an actual historical artifact. We preserve places like Auschwitz and Dachau, not to honor the Nazis, but to educate people. Some times they lines are blurred. Trajan's Column in Rome was built after the fact of the events, but it is used by historians to learn about the events of the era, since there are few documents. The missions are complicated. They have been portrayed as built by heroic priests bringing civilization and Christianity to the savages. That narrative needs to be fixed. But they are also working churches, museums, and of legitimate historical importance. The emphasis should be on telling the full story, not a one-dimensional story of only good or only evil. But the missions are legitimate history. Well said. I have a few nits to pick, but they are just nits. You make excellent points. Trajan's Column was preserved for centuries because a) no one cared who he oppressed, there were probably very few of the people he oppressed in Rome; The column stood for centuries after it was erected, while Rome was still Rome - for centuries no one was going to have a beef with the column being there, aside from the few Dachians that happened to be living in Rome; Despite many changes in the form of government, Romans still claim the heritage of Rome; there is nobody, anywhere, that sees Trajan's column as a symbol of oppression, but if any Romanians did (my guess is that modern day Romanians generally see their colonization by Rome as a step forward), the column is entrenched by almost 2 millenia of consideration as a significant historical and artistic work.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 24, 2020 8:49:38 GMT -8
Conversation with my 10 y.o. son tonight. Son: "dad, did I hear that they tore down a statue of Junipero Serra?" Me: "yes" Son: "well, then shouldn't they tear down the missions?" Me: "those are catholic churches, I don't think the Catholics would like that" Son: "but they were built with slave labor" Me: "I don't think they were slaves, I think they could have left if they wanted to" Son: "my social studies book said that if they left, they would chase them down and bring them back." Me: "you make a good point - maybe they should." I think there is a difference between a monument, which is a depiction of a person or event, and an actual historical artifact. We preserve places like Auschwitz and Dachau, not to honor the Nazis, but to educate people. Some times they lines are blurred. Trajan's Column in Rome was built after the fact of the events, but it is used by historians to learn about the events of the era, since there are few documents. The missions are complicated. They have been portrayed as built by heroic priests bringing civilization and Christianity to the savages. That narrative needs to be fixed. But they are also working churches, museums, and of legitimate historical importance. The emphasis should be on telling the full story, not a one-dimensional story of only good or only evil. But the missions are legitimate history. Sorry for following up with two posts. My computer is interfacing with the site weirdly. The story is being presented to California students now as one that is pretty much fully evil. Maybe it is. My son wouldn't be able to tell you anything positive that came from the mission system. If you don't believe in forced conversion (I don't), maybe there wasn't. I can't think of anything. But, I will say, if anyone is looking for a consistent standard to be applied to tearing down symbols off oppression and symbols made from oppression, it's not going to happen. There is noooooo way. As I've said ad nauseum, in addition to being slave holders, Washington and Jefferson participated in ethnic cleansing. There is a nascent (I say nascent, because I just heard of it, now I've heard it mentioned twice in the last week) movement in OC to change the name of cities and schools, etc. who are name for people who were in the Klan. I'm all for it. Document that someone was in the Klan, and I'm all for getting their name off of something. I mean that. But, nobody is going to be clamoring for changing the name of Yorba Linda. Or, Irvine for that matter. Is that because the Klan stuff was only 100 years ago, vs. 200 years ago? (A friend was telling me about the movement, and cited Klan connections that were in the 1910's; the Yorba grant from Spain was in 1810) So, back to reality - what I wonder, is what's going to come of the Civil War memorials? I've only been to Vicksburg. It's replete with monuments to the military units of both sides who fought there. Should the Confederate ones be torn down? I'm going to say "no." But, I don't have a good reason. Blindness, I'm askin', tear down the Confederate monuments at Civil War memorials?
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 24, 2020 9:24:40 GMT -8
I am with you on the monuments on the battlefields. I think the were genuine commemorations of those fought by those connected to them, not some symbol of white supremacy.
I wouldn't destroy tombstones of confederate soldiers or Klan members either.
The whole thing with heroes is hard. I grew up idolizing Davy Crockett. But was Injun fightin' so noble? Was the Texas fight for independence noble, or a land grab to spread slavery to new territory?
Of course that works both ways. Native Americans were not all like the wonderful people of Dances with Wolves.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 24, 2020 9:27:44 GMT -8
WTF?
"Statues of Wisconsin’s motto “Forward” and of Col. Hans Christian Heg were dragged away from the statehouse. The statue of Heg, an anti-slavery activist who fought and died for the Union during the U.S. Civil War, was decapitated and thrown into a Madison lake by protesters, the newspaper said.
|
|
|
Post by blindness on Jun 24, 2020 9:37:04 GMT -8
So, back to reality - what I wonder, is what's going to come of the Civil War memorials? I've only been to Vicksburg. It's replete with monuments to the military units of both sides who fought there. Should the Confederate ones be torn down? I'm going to say "no." But, I don't have a good reason. Blindness, I'm askin', tear down the Confederate monuments at Civil War memorials? Memorials are kinda like museums, so that would get a soft no from me. Meaning, it's ok to monuments to confederate forces who participated in the war, but (a) make sure they are not being glorified to fulfil some neo-confederate fantasy, and (b) make sure they are not a monument to the confederacy, if you catch my drift.
I am also fine with representing confederate soldiers or characters in the public space as statues, by the way. But it has to be balanced with depictions (not glorification) of slavery, which is a really tight tight rope that may not be worth walking.
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 24, 2020 11:05:35 GMT -8
I am with you on the monuments on the battlefields. I think the were genuine commemorations of those fought by those connected to them, not some symbol of white supremacy. I wouldn't destroy tombstones of confederate soldiers or Klan members either. The whole thing with heroes is hard. I grew up idolizing Davy Crockett. But was Injun fightin' so noble? Was the Texas fight for independence noble, or a land grab to spread slavery to new territory? Of course that works both ways. Native Americans were not all like the wonderful people of Dances with Wolves. Absolutely. I read somewhere (I wish I could find the source), that when L&C reached the west, 1/4 of the native population were slaves to other natives. And, people can debate about the various transgressions of the Aztecs, but no matter where you come down, they did a whole bunch of stuff that should get their statues torn down. If people are tearing down statues of Serra, they shouldn't be letting any statues of Moctezuma stand: www.ancient.eu/Montezuma/I started, but didn't get far into the doc series The West, by what's his name. I was hoping that there would be some discussion of pre-European history. But, there was nothing. It should have been called European's in the West. There was a brief, (60 seconds?) interview with a native American woman, who said something along the lines of what you said. That was it.
|
|
|
Post by andyh64000 on Jun 24, 2020 14:04:38 GMT -8
I am with you on the monuments on the battlefields. I think the were genuine commemorations of those fought by those connected to them, not some symbol of white supremacy. I wouldn't destroy tombstones of confederate soldiers or Klan members either. The whole thing with heroes is hard. I grew up idolizing Davy Crockett. But was Injun fightin' so noble? Was the Texas fight for independence noble, or a land grab to spread slavery to new territory? Of course that works both ways. Native Americans were not all like the wonderful people of Dances with Wolves. Absolutely. I read somewhere (I wish I could find the source), that when L&C reached the west, 1/4 of the native population were slaves to other natives. And, people can debate about the various transgressions of the Aztecs, but no matter where you come down, they did a whole bunch of stuff that should get their statues torn down. If people are tearing down statues of Serra, they shouldn't be letting any statues of Moctezuma stand: www.ancient.eu/Montezuma/I started, but didn't get far into the doc series The West, by what's his name. I was hoping that there would be some discussion of pre-European history. But, there was nothing. It should have been called European's in the West. There was a brief, (60 seconds?) interview with a native American woman, who said something along the lines of what you said. That was it. These are both glorifying a despicable human being and need to be done away with immediately and have nothing to do with history (other than history needs to do a better job of teaching how terrible Jackson really was). Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Floppy Johnson on Jun 24, 2020 14:36:53 GMT -8
These are both glorifying a despicable human being and need to be done away with immediately and have nothing to do with history (other than history needs to do a better job of teaching how terrible Jackson really was). Agreed.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 24, 2020 22:35:22 GMT -8
As the wise man once said, you gotta pick and choose your battles. Unauthorized destruction of monuments and statues isn't the way to go.
BLM should focus on police reform and affirmative action. Desecration of public property isn't going win support.
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 25, 2020 6:54:56 GMT -8
As the wise man once said, you gotta pick and choose your battles. Unauthorized destruction of monuments and statues isn't the way to go. BLM should focus on police reform and affirmative action. Desecration of public property isn't going win support. T agree totally. They can push for them to be officially removed, but stop defacing and destroying, Don't give the other side an issue.
|
|
|
Post by andyh64000 on Jun 25, 2020 7:41:42 GMT -8
As the wise man once said, you gotta pick and choose your battles. Unauthorized destruction of monuments and statues isn't the way to go. BLM should focus on police reform and affirmative action. Desecration of public property isn't going win support. T agree totally. They can push for them to be officially removed, but stop defacing and destroying, Don't give the other side an issue. The problem is that this has been tried and waiting patiently for a government often run by racists to remove them hasn't worked. I agree that we are now getting into irrational destruction territory but that is what happens when you compress something beyond its limits.
|
|