'Destroying or demolishing a historical statues = erasing history.' do you agree or disagree with this statement?

[Still-alive]

Strongly agree

agree

disagree

Strongly disagree

I'm unsure and wanna see results

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

Very much. It really upsets me, probably because I'm a lover of history, culture (even ones I find most disagreeable in their customs), and also very into visual arts. These monuments don't just celebrate the people they're intended to depict but also the extremely skilled artists who created these works of art.

I can understand that there are many things throughout history which we can find upsetting today. We might as well erase all knowledge of history if we are going to be upset by anything which doesn't agree with our contemporary ideas of right and wrong.

Yet I really don't find that a practical solution as opposed to learning to see history in its proper context and learning not to be offended by it. We can't just erase every little thing a thin-skinned person finds offensive or threatening or else we're going to end up having to erase everything.

I'm not always the biggest fan of Jordan Peterson but he made an excellent point in that we might be able to avoid statements that are offensive to one person if that one person is the only audience for such statements. That might actually be quite easy to avoid as we get to know them on a personal level. Yet what if that statement is exposed to a hundred people, or thousands of people, or millions of people, or even billions of people from a variety of different cultures? We quickly reach a point where we literally can't say anything without the risk of offending at least one person in the audience.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/moWe3rk7LzQ

So especially in an age of internet where we can communicate with people from across the globe with radically different views, the only practical solution short of destroying each other as I see it is for all of us who are adults to be reasonably thick-skinned that we aren't tempted to censor or outright destroy anything that the one in a million person can find offensive.

[OtterMan68]

so it's OK to put up statues of Hitler because that's how people learn history?
There's a statue of Gen William Worth in New York City. I'll wager 99% of the people who walk past that statue of him every day have no idea who he is. Same thing for the Admiral Farragut memorial in NYC.
How many people learn history from statues? Statues should be made to memorialize great people who accomplished great things or memorialize people who suffered: memorials to Holocaust survivors, slaves, Tuskegee experiment victims, Kent State victims, etc. Many statues to confederates were put up in the South during the civil right era. Gee, I wonder why.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

@OtterMan68 I would prefer even for Hitler statues that they aren't destroyed. If the public eye deems it too offensive, I would rather see such art archived in a museum for WW2, including proper descriptions atrocities, rather than destroyed outright.

For me though being a Visual Arts major (dual major in VisArts/CompSci), art history becomes a key part of connecting with and understanding history. For many history buffs, that would probably be more textual, but I'm visually-dominant and seeing the artworks of a culture is one of the key ways for me to connect to a culture and understand it, even if only to strongly disapprove of their actions. It's still a key part for me in understanding the mindset of such people.

This is what we largely do in Japan for depictions of warlords who committed atrocious acts. Instead of works depicting them or even by them, we move them to a museum where we can study the art and in the proper context of the time period.

[GuyAnswersGirls123]

[*] Instead of [destroying, sorry] works depicting them or even by them, we move them to a museum where we can study the art and in the proper context of the time period.

[abc3643]

I am not interested in destroying statues, but certain statues should be removed from the public and placed in historical museums.

Back in 1994, I moved across the US from Los Angeles to upstate NY. I took about 2-3 weeks to do this visiting friends along the way. One friend I visited lived in Alexandria VA across the Potomac River from Washington DC. Along the river in Virginia, the road was named Jefferson Davis Highway. I was instantly upset and screamed in my mind "How can they get away with this? ! Davis was the President of the Confederate States of America; an enemy of the United States!"

Since then, I've come to see that this was common in the South - using Confederate imagery. To me, the Confederacy was an enemy, pure and simple, and you don't support and glorify the enemies of your country. The Union readmitted these Confederate states, but those states are still glorifying their enemy status. Don't bullshit me and say it is glorifying your heroic ancestors; your ancestors were traitors and should have been put up against the wall and shot.

So, no, I don't want anything Confederacy-related in the public sphere. However, these statues are works of art and their existence is a reminder of the mental attitude of Southerners still being racist and sympathetic to their racist cause and racist past. For this reason, I don't mind having such statues in museums to remind us of that past.

[abc3643]

Fortunately, in 2019, Jefferson Davis Highway in Arlington VA was renamed.
wtop.com/.../

[menina]

I strongly disagree. Sure, destroying and demolishing historical statues DOES NOT change history. However, it reminds us that history wasn't only made by the oppressors. It shows that we shouldn't celebrate those who only caused chaos and suffering.

[Ms_Facesitter]

Disagree. It still happened. All you did was destroy a symbol, but the event still took place.

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Strongly Disagree

[ShadezMcgee]

Yes it is. It doesn't change the fact it happened and trying to hide it or invalidate it is merely hiding truth for the appeasement of few and is honestly just as damaging because it is creating a lie via omission and hiding it.

History regardless if it is good or bad is supposed to be used as a tool of reflection and a learning point to not only know why it happened, but how it happened and what can be done to make sure it is avoided for the future if it was something bad or embraced if it was good.

[NaultD]

How does a single statue spell out a dozen years of years of history? A statue is just a monument a monument in history. Do we rejoice in it or reject that single monument or moment?

In terms of the Confederate statues. they are mass production garbage as a reaction to the civil rights monument. Every Confederate statue represents a moment of history of black people being slaves. That is the entire purpose of the monument of a single moment of time in public squares and government buildings.

[bobby_bush_eater]

Absolutely. "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."

You cannot hold someone of 200 years ago to your moral standards and degrade history on that basis. Anyone who does is a weak sensitive puppet of those who want to control what you think. To tear down people just because they owned slaves is pathetic, to hate all generals because they were Confederates is pathetic. Would half you cowards fight in a musket line for your beliefs? I doubt it...

In 200 years what will they think of us? We mutilate genitals and pretend to be the other gender. Will they think that's normal?

[MiddleAgedClimbee]

It does not erase what happened. It defaces public property and is dangerous while setting a bad example for those who may not understand what the perpetrators are trying to accomplish (illegally)

[OtterMan68]

There is a statue of William Worth in New York City. I'll wager a Coke, 99% of New Yorkers don't know who Gen Worth is. Is the statue educating people and preserving history?

[DJB72]

Generally yes, but it depends on what country you're in.

[Wise4myage]

I strongly disagree, you can't change history, and liberals need to accept that and stop acting like children.

[Wiredone]

It destroys a piece of history, but it doesn't erase history.

[Pohjolan]

Its contextual.

[Twalli]

There can be arguments made that the statues glorify someone who shouldn't.

[Enginn]

No. History is written in books not statues.

[llorando]

1000% Strongly agree.