Is tearing down statues the modern equivalent of the Nazi book burnings?

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
If we’re making broad, inaccurate comparisons, then tearing down these particular statues is more like burning all copies of mein kampf.

However, I don’t endorse a sweeping tear down of anything a select band of social influencers (who may well be shills of one kind or another) determine to be racist.

But I do endorse an organised, academic review of each statues meaning and context. Those that are of questionable moral shouldn’t be torn down, it rather place in museums to stir debate on a persons bad deeds vs their good deeds.

Note: where the good deeds overwhelmingly outshine the bad ones (Washington, Churchill, Harario Neslon and Nelson Mandela) their statues should be left where they are, imho.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation
If we’re making broad, inaccurate comparisons, then tearing down these particular statues is more like burning all copies of mein kampf.

However, I don’t endorse a sweeping tear down of anything a select band of social influencers (who may well be shills of one kind or another) determine to be racist.

But I do endorse an organised, academic review of each statues meaning and context. Those that are of questionable moral shouldn’t be torn down, it rather place in museums to stir debate on a persons bad deeds vs their good deeds.

Note: where the good deeds overwhelmingly outshine the bad ones (Washington, Churchill, Harario Neslon and Nelson Mandela) their statues should be left where they are, imho.

In my country, Hitler´s Mein Kampf was forbidden well into the 80´s, then only libraries were allowed to hold a copy and if you wanted to read it you had to register yourself with your personal ID etc (I suspect the secret services got a copy of that library list for their own records of "potentially dangerous" individuals). Personally, I have always vigorously opposed Nazi ideology, but I also oppose suppression of ideas considered "too dangerous" for the masses. Would it be ok to burn all copies of Mein Kampf book because its ideas are too dangerous, or should even dangerous ideas be protected by the Constitution and Freedom of Expression? Not comparing the statues with Mein Kampf, of course, but I ask only from a curious point of view.

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I don’t endorse any book burn whatsoever, just as I said I don’t endorse the tearing down of any statues. There’s a place in a museum for me in Kampf, right beside the statues of people who propagated and profited from the slave trade.

originally posted by: McGinty
a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

I don’t endorse any book burn whatsoever, just as I said I don’t endorse the tearing down of any statues. There’s a place in a museum for me in Kampf, right beside the statues of people who propagated and profited from the slave trade.

If the old proverb "out of sight, out of mind" is anything to go by - then is this not a kind of censorship of "dangerous ideas" and political "undesirables"? Could making it harder to access certain books and statues be a kind of censorship?

-MM

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Whether you ban such things altogether is a complex debate, which frankly I don’t feel I can be judge and jury on all by myself. But there will be exceptions that even I am confident, or foolish enough to have an option on, such as bomb-making manuals. Thy should without doubt be banned and if a by-product of their outlawing is that a few people want it even more, then so be it and all efforts need to be made to stop those people utilising such heinous instructions.

For mein kampf And slave trader statues A museum isn’t ‘out of sight’, whereas as having them erected prominently in town etc gives them an authority, suggesting their activities are orthodox, mainstream and sanctioned by the state. That’s Surely a message!

a reply to: McGinty

Would you agree that making something less accessible to the public is a form of cencorship?

-MM

originally posted by: MerkabaMeditation
a reply to: McGinty

Would you agree that making something less accessible to the public is a form of cencorship?

-MM

Statues are a community or organisation honouring an individual or group. If that community or organisation no longer wishes to do so then that is not censorship in any way.

Decisions about that however should be made through normal means, not acts of vandalism.

This whole thing is more inline with the Jihad going on within our country - Erasing history: why Islamic State is blowing up ancient artefacts - June 2017

It’s difficult to interpret the unprecedented scale of this heritage destruction. The global media and politicians have tended to frame these events as random casualties of wanton terror or as moments of unrestrained barbarism.

Godspeed

a reply to: Bicent

George Washington, is. If not for him, America, as we know it would not exist

America exists because Britain put colonies there.

Washington took advantage of that fact.

a reply to: AgarthaSeed

I wouldn't be surprised, however do you have some good sources for that?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Because the ones toppling the statues know if it was up to a sensible vote, most of the statues would be kept.

Does anyone else remember a big wall in Germany that got vandalised by a big group of yobs?
I have a memory of seeing it on the TV when I was a kid.

What WAS that all about?
I've tried looking it up but can't find any information on it anywhere...

Yes, Antifa is the modern day equivalent of the Nazi Brown Shirts.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

They weren't yobs.

The Berlin Wall came down which dived West Germany from Communist East Germany.

a reply to: alldaylong

"Wind of Change" was all over the charts, i remember they would not shut up about it.

That was a great time all the same and actually felt like the world was changing for the better.

God knows what happened???!!!

When i was in school we were promised bases on the Moon and Mars by now. LoL

Typical.

You're "qualifying" free expression.

As are you

She asks a legitimate question you don't want to answer honestly. I have to say, you're all for free expression so long as it's simple

It's crap art put up as a form of propaganda to oppress while simultaneously trying to assuage a really big owie

We've been debating these statues for decades - this isn't something new. People had the money and incentive to put them up - people also have a right to agree to take them down

Vandalism is a form of expression, but not free. It's also against the law, so - there is that

I'm guessing that had we been oppressed for decades here by someone Stalinesque, nobody would be all bent out of shape if in the middle of the night his statue was desecrated or destroyed

Free expression often butts heads with rule of law

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Ruiner1978

They weren't yobs.

The Berlin Wall came down which dived West Germany from Communist East Germany.

How do you know they weren't yobs?

If the structure was pulled down and history was erased, how do we know??

Also, where did you find that video?
What sorcery is this???

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Well behaved yobs ta boot.

It was a nonsensical divisionary wall that came down, which became part of history via the fall of an oppressive regime.

Nothing to do erasing history, plenty to do with the creation of history.

a reply to: MerkabaMeditation

Is tearing down statues an attempt to erase history and rewrite it from the perspective of the victims?

Putting up those statues was an attempt to erase history and rewrite it from the perspective of the losers. It was the ruling class that remained in the south that agreed to this and made it possible

It was the government and the law that was behind book burning in Germany. They not only made it possible, but demanded it. Which is to say, the law is not always on the right side of history

So if someone has a photo of a statue that later gets pulled down, it's not gonna slowly disappear from the photo too, like what happened to Marty McFly's brother and sister?