- This topic has 65 replies, 26 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 4 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I believe that it’s always a good idea to look at current events from an outside angle, and I think that in regard to statues being ripped down there is really what to think about,
Imagine if a nazi concentration guard or something was the inventor of the internet, and there was a big statue of him in Times Square. It would probably bother you. I don’t know if someone like Ben Shapiro would come out and say “the statue is only representing the good things that he did, of course some of his actions were evil!”
Or say, if hitler had made a national park in Germany and Germany made a carving on a mountain of him in this national park. It would definitely bother me. Yes, I know most of us wouldn’t go forcefully rip it down, (maybe heshy tischler) but does this maybe put some sort of new perspective on current events?***disclaimer: I’m not saying and I don’t believe in any specific way of dealing/not dealing with American statues, just offering a new perspective to discuss.***
The people who want to take down these statues are worse.
I am one who wants to take down the statues of Confederate racist traitor losers. And I have direct ancestors who fought for the Confederacy. These statues are no different from statues of Nazis or Stalinists. And Confederate flags are no different from Aswastika or hammer/sickle flags.
DMB -“Imagine if a nazi concentration guard…”
How did you become such a Liberal?
How are you comparing Stautes that honoring people for what ever reason, just because they believe in Slavery to Nazism?!?
You seriously have a Total Lack of Education!
Go to the website of Officer Tatum (a Black Conservative), he knows more than you.
Slavery was started by Blacks in Africa. It wasn’t a Racial thing.
To compare it to Nazism, as a Jew, I’m deeply Offended!
I think all Jews should be Offended by Your Comparison!Doing my best: Yes, a statue of Hitler would indeed bother me very much.
However, assuming that the statue was not located on my own property, I would leave it alone. I have no right to destroy property belonging to others just because it bothers me.
If I did, for some reason, destroy public property, I would fully expect to face serious legal consequences. I’m surprised that anyone would think otherwise.Your comparison to nazi atrocities and their perpetrators is misguided and rather shameful. Slavery until the US had a Civil War about it was global, especially in Africa. It was such an old institution it is even in the Torah! Does it make sense to tear down statues of our forefathers because they had slaves?
I’m obviously not justifying slavery, but the people who contributed to our society are not negated because they had slaves. They would, however, be negated if they perpetrated the murder of six million men women and children.
You’re also ignoring the fact that something that bothers you is not the same as assuming the right to destroy it, but a previous post already addressed that…
Um, Health, slavery has been around for millennia. Are you trying to say that a specific Black person in Africa came up with the idea?
Before I read goldilocks’ post I would’ve posted the same exact thing
In some circumstances, it seems appropriate that some of these statues be removed. Likewise, it’s appropriate that Mississippi is removing the Confederate emblem from its flag. However, the fervor with which the statues are being attacked, and the fact that several of the statues are completely inoffensive, shows that this mob is quite mindless and quite hostile. That is the thing that’s most Nazi-, Stalin- or Mao-like, and is the thing that should be most concerning.
“Imagine if a nazi concentration guard or something was the inventor of the internet, ”
Depending on the statue, The comparison doesnt hold.
A better comparison would be “Imagine if a nazi concentration guard or something was NOT the inventor of the internet, ”
Robert E Lee, Jefferson Davis et al are glorified for one reason and one reason only their role in leading a racist traitorous movement. If they invented the internet but just happened to be on the Confderacy then your argument would work.
As to those who support glorifying racist tratirors:
In 2001 Dov Hikind led a push to have Arafat’s statue removed from a wax statue museum (note not from a Public square glorifiying heroes) maybe they were just commemorating his kefiyah wearing skills of somone who just happened dabble in murder of Jews
Was he wrong?More recently Hikind called for the removal of Petain’s name from the canyon of heroes. In spite of the fac t that it commemorated a parade held in Petain’s honor in 1931 well before his role in Vichy France.
Is he wrong?Slavery still goes on. It is still practoced by Blacks in Africa and in Arabic countries.
Why not use a real life example? Ukraine has statues to Bogdan Khmelnitzky (gezeros tach v’Tat) and others because of their legit cultural significance to Ukraine. When Jews took offense to the statues because of the massacres how much sympathy and accommodation did the Jews get? Did the Jews rampage in response?
To add to my previous post should we burn ספרי קודש because of that?
Why are people talking about slavery in past tense? There are more slaves – people owned today than in the 19th century. That does not include women who are trafficked, aka white slavery, which is a pandemic as well.
Also, imagine? We have facilities named after, and monuments to Nazi’s in this country. Who do you think got us to the moon? There was a small protest about 2 years ago about it. The response was this: But he did great things for the community and local area. We need to look past those old crimes (of the 1930’s and 40’s), while also worrying instead about the 16th century.
There is only one group that matters in the US’s perception of “diversity”. Otherwise, I wouldn’t make sense.“As to those who support glorifying racist tratirors:
In 2001 Dov Hikind led a push to have Arafat’s statue removed from a wax statue museum (note not from a Public square glorifiying heroes) maybe they were just commemorating his kefiyah wearing skills of somone who just happened dabble in murder of Jews
Was he wrong?More recently Hikind called for the removal of Petain’s name from the canyon of heroes. In spite of the fac t that it commemorated a parade held in Petain’s honor in 1931 well before his role in Vichy France.
Is he wrong?“Slavery wasn’t viewed as a wrong 150 years ago
Killing people through terrorism has always been considered wrong
Were בני ישראל (and ultimately הקב״ה ) wrong for having slaves?
I don’t understand your comparison
Also, imagine? We have facilities named after, and monuments to Nazi’s in this country. Who do you think got us to the moon? – Many people have no idea how many NAZIS who were useful to the U.S. / Russia (such as the head of NASA) were allowed to continue their careers.
People can object to statues, but we have a process in this country to effect change, at least we used to, and it wasn’t Marxist Agitators and Race Baiting Organizers leading a nationwide terror campaign.
This isn’t about the statues. It’s the thought police demanding erasure of anything that offends them.
Statues, school names, park names, sports team names, street names, books, movies, language, et. al.
People who say anything “offensive”, even if it was decades ago, are fired from their jobs and threatened with violence by the mob. And if you disagree with this, that in itself is “offensive”.
Removing statues is just the first step of a never-ending process.
One the mob has reign no one is safe. Already they have torn down statues of an abolitionist, Hans Christian Heg, who died fighting the confederacy and beat liberal state senator State Senator Tim Carpenter so badly he needed surgery.
DMB -“So to be clear, rounding up Jews and putting them into concentration camps = completely evil, but buying blacks and putting them into forced labor = totally fine.”
What you and other Liberals FAIL to or DON’T Want to Understand – it’s NOT about Right or Wrong.
The Slave owners held it was Their Property.
Then Pres. Lincoln decided it was Wrong, so he freed them.
The Libs are tearing down Statues because they were For Slavery or Owned Slaves.
But what it really was about – was Ownership.The Sick PC nowadays is Trying to Change the Reality!
They are Making it into a Race Issue.
That’s because they believe in Race Disharmony.
NOT Like MLK Jr.Avi k,
כיון שנתנה רשות למשחית להשחית …
“I don’t understand your comparison”
I am talking about statues of Robert e Lee and Jefferson Davis . I’m not discussing slave owners like George Washington or JEfferson
statues of them are for one reason and one reason only. Glorifying their role in a racist treasonous movement.
you say“Slavery wasn’t viewed as a wrong 150 years ago
Killing people through terrorism has always been considered wrong”Neither of these statements are true. 150 years ago many thought slavery was wrong. In fact a war was fought (at the very least partly) over it. It had already been quite limited in most of the Western world in the 1700’s (England France, Spain Portugal) in 1815 the congress of Vienna limited slavery in Prussia, russa Norway Sweden
The United States was relatively late in banning slavery and it took a civil war to do it. The notion that it wasn’t viewed as wrong at the time just isnt true.And as for terrorism, i’ll bet Arafat thought it was right.
so here is my question to you :
Would you support a statue of Arafat in Time square (obviously yin a museum I assume you like Madame Tussauds would be fine we arent discussing erasing history like Hikind tried to do)
would you accept the argument that they are commemorating his role in popularizing a kefiah, unfortunately he dabbled a bit in Terrorism, but he thought it was justified so lets give him a pass.I assume you would not. Arafat’s sole claim to fame is a a leader of a terrorist origination that spilled innocent blood. Glorifying him with statues is wrong (though again museum would be fine) .
Jefferson Davis is no different. his sole claim to fame, the ENTIRE reason there are statues of him is to glorify his role in a racist movement
correct me If I’m wrong
would you support a sttaue of Arafat in Time’s square?
(and in wax museum for that matter? though this is not really analagous just curiosu as to your view)“correct me If I’m wrong
would you support a sttaue of Arafat in Time’s square?
(and in wax museum for that matter? though this is not really analagous just curiosu as to your view)״I’ll calm your curiosity
I’ve seen that wax figure in madam tussade (Sorry on the spelling)
I thought it was cool but didn’t really care much for it
Additionally the civil war wasn’t just about slavery (if my memory from what I learned in high school serves me well, but then again my memory from last week isn’t that great
Coffee addict: Your memory serves you better than you think.
Must be the coffee…:)“I’ll calm your curiosity:”
you havent though
My question was “would you support a statue of Arafat in Time’s square?”
(I realize it was unclear they are 2 different question:
1) time square Ie on a pedestal like columbus in Columbus circle
2) in a museum with other wax figures
(I Have no problem with #2 he was a historical figure and belongs in a hall of political leaders that includes Castro Qaddafi I thought Hikind was silly for trying to remove him)“Additionally the civil war wasn’t just about slavery ”
true. Rarely is something complex just about one issue. But it was mostly about slavery. The reason for secession was the southern states wanted to continue to own other humans they deemed inferior. This is clear from almost all southern state’s declarations of session.
Starting wit h the first state to secede:
SC
“The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution….
A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.”MI: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery”
Happy to provide more. if necessary
I think that a distinction must be drawn between statues to Jefferson Davis whose primary claim to fame was President of the Confederacy & Washington whose primary claim to fame was as a founder of this nation.
However, ubiquitin, I would point out that strictly from what you have provided as evidence it seems that the Civil War was not about slavery.
You see from what you have provided it sees SC primarily objected to the fact that the North was trying to impose their will on the Southern States, even though they objected.
Incidentally slavery was the agent they used to do that.
However it was not a secession because they viewed wished to own slaves rather it was because they felt that it was none of the Norths business.
Historically it’s a mixed bag.
There were those who seceded because of States rights, even though they personally agreed slavery was wrong and those that seceded primarily because they believed slavery was correct
There is a degree of evidence that Robert E. Lee personally believed slavery was wrong however he also felt his first loyalty was to the State of Virginia and only after that his loyalty was to the United States.
However if memory serves me correct the Vice-President of the Confederacy was rather explicit about the fact that the moral justification of slavery was a primary cause for secession.
In fact I think that he explicitly stated that the abolitionist movement was direct result of the mistaken notion codified in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal and the Confederacy sought to change that.
But to state that slavery is/was an American thing is just simply false.
In fact slavery still exists in parts of Africa.
Child slavery is actually the source of many soldiers in many conflicts.
Blood Diamonds is the term used to refer to diamonds produced through slave labor.
So to state that slavery was an American problem is plan and simply false.The following is an excerpt from traveler Salomon de Rothschild’s 1861 letters:
“I’ll come back later to the “slavery” question, which was the first pretext for secession, but which was just a pretext and is now secondary. The true reason which impelled the Southern states to secede is the question of tariffs. The South is simply a producer and consumer; the West and the North, and especially the East, are almost entirely manufacturers, but they need strong protection. The South could supply itself with all necessary items in Europe, at prices from twenty-five to forty percent lower than what they have been paying up to now. It contends that these duties do it no good and that the money goes back into the pockets of the Northern manufacturers. Therefore it wants to escape from this tax. The suppression of, or even a strong reduction in, these duties would completely ruin the eastern states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania, which could not compete with the cheap prices attained by England and even by France. Thousands of men would find themselves unemployed and would therefore threaten the well-being and the very existence not only of their employers, but even of the merchants and the producers in those areas, leading to an imminent danger of social revolution, which the North must avoid at all costs.”
This is from a speech given by Rabbi Yissachar Dov Illowy in Baltimore 3 months before the civil war started. It was the feeling of most Southerners, Marylanders, and especially of Frum Baltimore.
“But who, for example, can blame our brethren of the South for their being inclined to secede from a society, under whose government those ends cannot be attained, and whose union is kept together, not by the good sense and good feelings of the great masses of the people, but by an ill-regulated balance of power and heavy iron ties of violence and arbitrary force? Who can blame our brethren of the South for seceding from a society whose government can not, or will not, protect the property rights and privileges of a great portion of the Union against the encroachments of a majority misguided by some influential, ambitious aspirants and selfish politicians who, under the color of religion and the disguise of philanthropy, have thrown the country into a general state of confusion, and millions into want and poverty?”
He explains how never in history have Jews waged war or threatened violence to end another groups slavery.
“All these are irrefutable proofs that we have no right to exercise violence against the institutions of other states or countries, even if religious feelings and philanthropic sentiments bid us to disapprove of them. It proves furthermore, that the authors of the many dangers, which threaten our country with ruin and devastation, are not what they pretend to be, the agents of Religion and Philanthropy.”DMB – And you Still Don’t get my Point!
Those Slave owners didn’t think in Anyway, that they were Doing something Immoral.
And they weren’t at That Time. I’m Not saying everybody should put up Statues, but whatever the reason s/o put it up, there’s No reason to remove them Illegally.Nazis Never thought e/o would agree on their idea of Aryanism.
Your comparision is Absurd!Dmb, no one is ever offended by a statue. They are offended by what the statue represents. The statue on that bridge in Prague (thank you Ubiqituin for reminding me of it) is inherently offensive; besides that, I don’t think there is too much art which I’m offended by besides for some Modern anti moral art. If you choose to be offended by a statue of Robert Lee that’s your prerogative but I don’t think I would. That being said, I think we as a people don’t have such an inferiority complex so we cannot relate.
The vast majority of Civil War scholars hold the position tjat the top 5 causes of the Civil War were slavery,slavery, slavery,slavery,and slavery. Priort to the war slavery was the only issue. The Kansas-Nebraska of 1854 addressed whether slavery could be introduced into the Western Territories . The Dred Scott case was controversial. Jefferson Davis and virtually all Southern newspapers based their secessionist arguments on slavery. It was not until after the war, when the ” Lost Cause” myth was created, that you see the issue of states rights show up as the primary cause of the war, an attempt by Southern politicians to play down slavery.
Anonynous Jew, you’re referring to the cause of secession. The top 5 reasons for the actual war was lincolns 1. Blood 2. Thirsty 3. War 4. Mongering 5. Decision to resupply fort sumter instead of abandoning it like he promised to the peace loving north.
Schnitzel Bigot, so should Lincoln have not fought the war? Should he have let the South secede and not defended Fort Sumter?
Baalteshuva
1.5m ppl died.
DMB -“So, if I kill someone, It would be a good defense to say that I don’t believe that there is anything wrong with killing people? ”
Your portraying the moral thinking of today and applying for that time!
If for Time Immorial there was Slavery, & now some guys are saying it isn’t Moral, they can’t be blamed for Not thinking that way.
Why can’t you understand this?
If the Government decides to get rid of these Statues, I wouldn’t have any problem.
These Statues weren’t put up to discriminate against anyone!
So if s/o or some people don’t like them – they have No right to illegally remove them.
In some cities, there is No rule of law, just Anarchy!To me there would seem to be a difference based on someone’s primary occupation and achievement.
Obviously a Nazi leader etc … is primarily involved with genocide.
Washington etc primarily rebelled against the UK. owning slaves – independent of what was accepted at that time – was secondary.
BTw as a patriotic Englishman I would legally try and remove every statue of Washington anyway. He was a real moired be’Malchus and most definitely chayev missa.
Doing my best: Does the General Grant National Memorial (also known as Grants Tomb) in New York bother you at all? After all, it is well known that General Grant treated the Jews terribly.
Would you support – or lead – legal efforts to have it removed?Would we object to a statute of a Nazi who didn’t support the holocaust (especially if he ended up being executed by the Nazi government)? What if he was merely not involved with the holocaust.
Do we object to statutes in honor of former American enemies with whom we now wish to be friends (e.g. Sitting Bull, Nat Turner)?
An argument can be made the rebellion of the American South in 1861-1865 was not initially about slavery but about the objections of the southerners to a modern, industrial society. Only some of the states that still had slavery (most states having abolished slavery in the aftermath of the Revolution) joined the rebellion, and most southerners were not slaveowners. Before the Civil War most Americans had never seen a Black person, and no one demanded that the south give up slavery in 1861, and the pro-union slave states were exempted from the emancipation proclamation. By the end of the war the Union was anti-slavery, and by 1865 most non-southern Americans felt they had been abolitionists all along, just like most Americans and Brits couldn’t care less about anti-Semitism in 1939, but by 1945 felt they had opposed anti-Semitism all along. In both cases, discovering the barbarity of the enemy (of slavery, and of the holocaust), combined with the struggles of war, changed minds
If there were (are?) statues in Germany for people like Field marshal Rommel or Paulus I would not make an issue about it. No these people weren’t Tzadikim. They were Nazi generals but I would still understand the German point of view that these people were ostensibly apolitical military people fighting for their country .
To be clear: No, they weren’t. Even though by the time Paulus took over all the Jews in the area had been murdered already, there is no way he was completely unaware of and completely uninvolved with the Einsatzgruppen. Even so he is still thought of in exclusive apolitical military context.
Therefore if Germans want to honor them, with the other parts of their lives being swept under the rug it would not be something I would protest.
@ Doing my best
Comparing the two is an egregious mistake. Racism and slavery is not the same as genocide. For you to make the comparison cheapens who the Nazis were and downplays the Jewish experience during the war. You should be ashamed.
That being said, I personally support taking down the statues. If it causes people real anguish I don’t believe they should remain up.
I also don’t know why you run to the Holocaust to find a comparison. If one were to walk in Ukraine nowadays, you would find monuments and statues dedicated to Bogdan chmielnicki, the father of Ukrainian nationalism who was responsible for the death of tens of thousands of Jews (if not hundreds of thousands). Have you been to Ukraine? Did you feel a terrible injustice that his statue still stands? There are real cases of statues of people which still stand who cause the Jews tremendous anguish. What would you feel if you walked the streets in Ukraine? I for one, thought- “nebach, the people probably don’t even realize who he was….” It would never cross my mind to rally a group of people to tear it down. Then again I wouldn’t care if theywould…akuperma
“Would we object to a statute of a Nazi who didn’t support the holocaust (especially if he ended up being executed by the Nazi government)? What if he was merely not involved with the holocaust.”
The question to ask is WHY is there a statue of the person. A statue or Plaque of Say Oskar schindler, is not there to commemorate his role as a member of the Nazi party it is there to commemorate his role in saving Jews. Yes he happened to be a member of the Nazi party who was a womanizer but that is not what he being glorified.
A statue of Jefferson Davis is not meant to glorify his world renowned chess skills or or his winning the Olympics or something. It is there to glorify his leadership in a racist government. Same for Lee. Yes he may have been personaly opposed to slavery. But that isnt why there are statues of him
“An argument can be made the rebellion of the American South in 1861-1865 was not initially about slavery”
That argument has been made but it doesn’t hold water. A brief perusal of the primary sources including most of the states said reasons for secession shows this.DMB -“Great, I already wrote “ I wasn’t saying it is okay to tear down offensive statues.” maybe you didn’t see that post.”
I don’t understand Why you started this Topic?!?
A lot of things bother – a lot of people.
Some are Justified & some not.
My assumption was & I think many posters think this way too, that you were Defending the Tearing Down of Statues Illegally.
Maybe you don’t Realize that the Actions of these Anarchists is that When something Upsets them – then they Throw Law & Order out the Window!
This is what bothers me about the Current Events. Looting, burning, destroying statues, etc.
All in the Name of Equality!
The First thing, a group who feels Unequal, is to Show e/o how they respect Law & Order!
Not Vice Versa.This conversation is a lot of different discussions.
1) When Doing starts these threads, it is to see how open we are to various ideas. Sort of an anti extremist exercise. Hammering in a point misses the OP. So if you are trying to do just that, direct it to someone else.
2) As a Yid, I am not into any statues. Let Mount Rushmore be destroyed in a mudslide.
3) There are more productive methods than pulling down statues. And it does not need to be stated that it is owned property. Everybody knows that. Maybe they should build a statue to the sacredness of ownership and possession.
4) Most of those pulling down statues are clueless. Tell them that the Jackie Robinson Parkway is named after a slave trader. The correct analogy would be Hebrew Israelites taking down Nazi statues.
5) There are statues that were erected in southern cities mainly to intimidate blacks. The Government should have removed those decades ago.
6) There about half a million slaves in the USA today.
7) The moral question of being a slave owner, is no different than being an employer. The concern is how you treat those beneath you (or in a lower social class). Morally, titles are insignificant.
8) If the South would have abolished slavery, there would have been no secession. Had they abolished slavery and seceded for no reason, the majority of Northerners would not have supported the Civil War. And, without the need to control vast amount of slaves, the South could have ran a more efficient military campaign. [Not to mention Blacks helping the North as spies. And hundreds of blacks who could not serve in the Confederacy.]
9) There have been attempts to revise the narrative around the Civil War to exclude slavery (or treason) since the 1890s. Some educators bought in, because of some liberal idea of multiple viewpoints or the like.
N0, an employee can leave whenever he wants.
“but when Heshy Tischler calls De Blasio “Hitler” it’s totally fine?“
It isn’t and I didn’t see (or hear) him say it
But to play satan’s advocate why is it a problem to say the n word but African Americans can say it to themselves out loud
I think the same reasoning is here too
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.