MUScoop

A commission appointed by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot identified city statutes that it called "problematic" and should potentially be removed.

https://chicagomonuments.org/monuments

This list includes that noted racist Abraham Lincoln (five statues), George Washington (two statues), Christopher Columbus, and Jacques Marquette. The Marquette statues are highlighted below.

So, if Chicago decides Marquette is racist, how long until the discussion turns to MU changing its name?

Tablet Dedicated to Jolliet and Marquette
(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/d5754a8e76/dusable-bridge-marquette-tablet-01.jpg)


Jaques Marquette-Louis Jollet Memorial
(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/1024x1024/3690a59337/li-marquette-memorial-01.jpg)


Damen Avenue Bridge Marquette Monument
(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/5cc2f0be54/marquette_winter_monument_chicago.jpg)

well, our seal is a symbol of white supremacy per groups on campus so who the hell knows where this will go.

I (half) joked about this over the summer and was assured Father Marquette was in the clear.

Her tenure continues to be full of misguided focus and priorities. Of all the problems in Chicago, this is a focus? I mean come on.

And then you look at the actual list. A hundred year old statue of Leif Erickson is a potential problem now?  Lincoln and Grant are now controversial?  I'm not one for whitewashing history, but this list may as well be "we deem any white man alive before the Civil Rights movement as a problem."

Quote from: JWags85 on February 18, 2021, 06:07:01 PM
Her tenure continues to be full of misguided focus and priorities. Of all the problems in Chicago, this is a focus? I mean come on.

And then you look at the actual list. A hundred year old statue of Leif Erickson is a potential problem now?  Lincoln and Grant are now controversial?  I'm not one for whitewashing history, but this list may as well be "we deem any white man alive before the Civil Rights movement as a problem."

I guess she's trying to keep up with the San Francisco School Board.

As for the list, when this guy isn't good enough his statue is dumped in the lake, who is?  https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/who-was-hans-heg-whose-statue-was-torn-down-in-madison-heres-why-the-civil/article_4fbfaa15-f1c6-5c4a-b609-a4cab462b448.html

Quote from: JWags85 on February 18, 2021, 06:07:01 PM
Her tenure continues to be full of misguided focus and priorities. Of all the problems in Chicago, this is a focus? I mean come on.

And then you look at the actual list. A hundred year old statue of Leif Erickson is a potential problem now?  Lincoln and Grant are now controversial?  I'm not one for whitewashing history, but this list may as well be "we deem any white man alive before the Civil Rights movement as a problem."

Well, if judging men who lived hundreds of years ago based on the standards of 2021 is the way to go, then... ::)

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 18, 2021, 05:16:25 PM
A commission appointed by Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot identified city statutes that it called "problematic" and should potentially be removed.

This isn't what the commission said.
Here's what the commission actually said:

Out of a collection of over 500 monumental sculptures, commemorative plaques and artworks on the public way and in Chicago parks, the following have been identified for public discussion.
We invite you to review the artworks that have been identified, suggest others, and to share your opinions on the role of monuments in Chicago's public spaces.

Grant probably did more to benefit Black Americans than any other President in US History.

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 18, 2021, 07:40:31 PM
Grant probably did more to benefit Black Americans than any other President in US History.

How?

Quote from: Pakuni on February 18, 2021, 07:38:53 PM
This isn't what the commission said.
Here's what the commission actually said:

Out of a collection of over 500 monumental sculptures, commemorative plaques and artworks on the public way and in Chicago parks, the following have been identified for public discussion.
We invite you to review the artworks that have been identified, suggest others, and to share your opinions on the role of monuments in Chicago's public spaces.

What do you think the point of the public discussion is?

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 18, 2021, 07:44:46 PM
How?

Read Ron Chernow's Grant.  (Yes, Grant drank.  We don't need 200 pages about it.)

More brief, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, established the Justice Dept to take on the Klan, sent federal troops to the south to enforce the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.  Many Blacks were elected to office during Reconstruction in the South. 

Unfortunately the SC overturned the 1875 Act and Grant's presidency was tarnished by scandals among his aids.

A very honest and good man, with very little "street smarts".

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 18, 2021, 07:40:31 PM
Grant probably did more to benefit Black Americans than any other President in US History.

No that was trump. He told us so himself

Quote from: JWags85 on February 18, 2021, 06:07:01 PM
Her tenure continues to be full of misguided focus and priorities. Of all the problems in Chicago, this is a focus? I mean come on.

And then you look at the actual list. A hundred year old statue of Leif Erickson is a potential problem now?  Lincoln and Grant are now controversial?  I'm not one for whitewashing history, but this list may as well be "we deem any white man alive before the Civil Rights movement as a problem."

I agree. This is absurd

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 18, 2021, 08:01:51 PM
Read Ron Chernow's Grant.  (Yes, Grant drank.  We don't need 200 pages about it.)

More brief, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, established the Justice Dept to take on the Klan, sent federal troops to the south to enforce the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.  Many Blacks were elected to office during Reconstruction in the South. 

Unfortunately the SC overturned the 1875 Act and Grant's presidency was tarnished by scandals among his aids.

A very honest and good man, with very little "street smarts".

The strike I hear against Grant was he owned a slave...an individual given to him by his father-in-law as a wedding gift. Grant emancipated that individual and did not charge him the "freedom license" that was standard practice at the time. Additionally, when working on his father-in-law's farm Grant worked with slaves but was open about his feelings of shame in doing so.

Of course, that past may be enough to invalidate everything Grant did to benefit the African-American population in the US. According to woke culture, one's past cannot be erased by further good and noble deeds...except Malcolm X, whose past includes pimping. However, when the SFSB rejected removing his name from schools they said his past was redeemed by his later life (never mind that pimping is basically the enslavement of women).

"the following have been identified for public discussion."

isn't this how fr wilde started up the "discussion" on MU's nicname?

umm kay, let's see how this plays out

Quote from: Jockey on February 18, 2021, 07:19:20 PM

Well, if judging men who lived hundreds of years ago based on the standards of 2021 is the way to go, then... ::)

Yes.

I have a sneaking suspicion that a few hundred years from now the vegetarians will win and meat eating may be outlawed.  At that point will there be movements to take down MLK Jr statues because he enjoyed a steak now and again? 

And a lot of folks will be just as convinced that we and our ancestors knew in our hearts that eating meat was wrong.

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 18, 2021, 08:01:51 PM
Read Ron Chernow's Grant.  (Yes, Grant drank.  We don't need 200 pages about it.)

More brief, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, established the Justice Dept to take on the Klan, sent federal troops to the south to enforce the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.  Many Blacks were elected to office during Reconstruction in the South. 

Unfortunately the SC overturned the 1875 Act and Grant's presidency was tarnished by scandals among his aids.

A very honest and good man, with very little "street smarts".

He also sympathized with Native-Americans plight and he completely reset American Government policy on Native-American relations with his PEACE policy. 

Too bad some of his aids were corrupt because Grant himself was clean.
He reputation was "tarnished" by a concerted effort over time by Confederate sympathizers and by the Daughters of Confederacy campaign.

Quote from: rocket surgeon on February 18, 2021, 08:24:21 PM
"the following have been identified for public discussion."

isn't this how fr wilde started up the "discussion" on MU's nicname?

umm kay, let's see how this plays out

Exactly ... These statues were single out by a commission of the Mayor set up to look at cultural insensitivities.

They are careful to say no decisions have been made, and indeed no decisions have been made.  They just want to talk.

We all know where this is going.

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 18, 2021, 08:01:51 PM
Read Ron Chernow's Grant.  (Yes, Grant drank.  We don't need 200 pages about it.)

More brief, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, established the Justice Dept to take on the Klan, sent federal troops to the south to enforce the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments.  Many Blacks were elected to office during Reconstruction in the South. 

Unfortunately the SC overturned the 1875 Act and Grant's presidency was tarnished by scandals among his aids.

A very honest and good man, with very little "street smarts".

Thank you.  I have to admit I didn't know much about him as a President.  Sounds like a good read

So, after the Fr Marquette statues are removed because it is decided he is like Lincoln, a racist (and they remove his five statues and rename Lincoln Park) ... what happens next?

Does the City of Chicago, which owns Wintrust arena, bans teams with culturally insensitive names like Marquette from playing in it? Does MU then fold as it did in the earlier 90s over the state's pressure about Indian nicknames?

This a road that may take a while, but we all know what the destination will be.

Should I start a thread about what the new name of the school will be?  Or what the future name of Lincoln Park will be (this is easy ... Obama Park, next to the Obamaville neighborhood).

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 19, 2021, 08:01:18 AM
So, after the Fr Marquette statues are removed because it is decided he is like Lincoln, a racist (and they remove his five statues and rename Lincoln Park) ... what happens Next?

Does the City of Chicago, which owns Wintrust arena, bans teams with culturally insensitive names like Marquette from playing in it? Does MU then fold as it did in the earlier 90s over the state's pressure about Indian nicknames?

This a road that may take a while, but we all know what the destination will be.

Should I start a thread about what the new name of the school will be?  Or what the future name of Lincoln Park will be (this is easy ... Obama Park, next to Obamaville).

I suggest you review basic critical thinking.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-slippery-slope/


But again for the record I'm against it going this far. There's objectively wrong (confederate monuments and statues) and then there's nitpicking and holding old times to moral standards of today.

Of course this is absurd.  And the San Francisco school board is taking the absurdity to an entirely new, and occasionally funnily inaccurate manner.

But erecting statues and giving other honors to the likes of Robert E. Lee is just as absurd.  Sometimes when people aren't willing to engage in a good faith discussion about one absurdity, they engage in others.  Maybe instead of getting all up in arms as a first reaction, people should be more open to listening to other's points of view.

And no...Marquette University won't be changing its name.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 19, 2021, 08:03:58 AM
I suggest you review basic critical thinking.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-slippery-slope/

Why should he start now?  It's how he gets is Scoop clicks.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 19, 2021, 08:01:18 AM
So, after the Fr Marquette statues are removed because it is decided he is like Lincoln, a racist (and they remove his five statues and rename Lincoln Park) ... what happens next?

Does the City of Chicago, which owns Wintrust arena, bans teams with culturally insensitive names like Marquette from playing in it? Does MU then fold as it did in the earlier 90s over the state's pressure about Indian nicknames?

This a road that may take a while, but we all know what the destination will be.

Should I start a thread about what the new name of the school will be?  Or what the future name of Lincoln Park will be (this is easy ... Obama Park, next to Obamaville).

I wouldn't worry, we will all be long dead before any of this happens.

Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.  Treat each case on its own merit.

FWIW, I think the name Marquette is just fine, and not culturally insensitive.  Sometimes you guys need to just relax a little and realize that when the Mayor of Chicago says absurd things, and any politician says or does something absurd, they're trying to distract you from something else that is happening or change the narrative.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 19, 2021, 08:08:25 AM
Of course this is absurd.  And the San Francisco school board is taking the absurdity to an entirely new, and occasionally funnily inaccurate manner.

But erecting statues and giving other honors to the likes of Robert E. Lee is just as absurd.  Sometimes when people aren't willing to engage in a good faith discussion about one absurdity, they engage in others.  Maybe instead of getting all up in arms as a first reaction, people should be more open to listening to other's points of view.

And no...Marquette University won't be changing its name.

I have a feeling we'll look back on this point in history and  chuckle at how certain people/things got really twisted out or proportion. I'm guessing this is just an example of the pendulum swinging a little too far in the other direction and not really being indicative of where we eventually land.

As to Marquette, I doubt the university will change its name. But given the current climate nationally and on campus, I can easily see some student groups proposing that the name be changed. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some kind of protest pushing for a change.

I'm going to go on record as saying that the statues of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Jacques Marquette in Chicago will not end up being torn down.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 19, 2021, 08:08:25 AM
Of course this is absurd.  And the San Francisco school board is taking the absurdity to an entirely new, and occasionally funnily inaccurate manner.

But erecting statues and giving other honors to the likes of Robert E. Lee is just as absurd.  Sometimes when people aren't willing to engage in a good faith discussion about one absurdity, they engage in others.  Maybe instead of getting all up in arms as a first reaction, people should be more open to listening to other's points of view.

And no...Marquette University won't be changing its name.

FIFY

And no...Marquette University won't be changing its nickname.
- circa the late 1980s

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 19, 2021, 09:16:55 AM
I'm going to go on record as saying that the statues of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Jacques Marquette in Chicago will not end up being torn down.

Chicago?
I think you mean Obamaville.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 19, 2021, 09:24:46 AM
FIFY

And no...Marquette University won't be changing its nickname.
- circa the late 1980s

I guess if you can't see the fundamental difference between changing a nickname, which had been done two times earlier in the schools history, and changing the actual name of the school, I don't know what to tell you.

And nevermind the fact that just because one thing happened at sometime, that doesn't mean that something similar will be happening later.

Just another thing to add to list of stuff you've been wrong about.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 19, 2021, 09:32:11 AM
Chicago?
I think you mean Obamaville.

Home of the deep dish Obama, the Obamaville style hot Obama, the Obamaian beef, and beautiful views of lake Obama.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 19, 2021, 09:35:56 AM
Home of the deep dish Obama, the Obamaville style hot Obama, the Obamaian beef, and beautiful views of lake Obama.

And the Super Bowl champion Obama Indigenous Mammals.
(I mean, as long as we're being ridiculous, might as well go for it)

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 19, 2021, 09:16:55 AM
I'm going to go on record as saying that the statues of Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Jacques Marquette in Chicago will not end up being torn down.

Once the points have been made about why these statues can be considered problematic, it could be very risky for a public figure or a prominent community member to defend them. It doesn't take much to get Scarlet Lettered these days, and going on record defending old dead dudes is just the kind of thing that can get you branded.

Plus, Lightfoot is in such a bad place right now that she's probably willing to make this push as a way to score some points with the uber woke crowd while drawing some attention away from the problems her administration has had lately.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 19, 2021, 07:54:09 AM

Thank you.  I have to admit I didn't know much about him as a President.  Sounds like a good read

Fluff,
History Channel also ran a very good 3-part documentary in May based on the book.

Anything jump out about the depiction of certain folks in all three of the statues in Heisy's original post? 

We don't need to go full tear down on all things Father Marquette.  But a more nuanced depiction of the role of Native Americans in his accomplishments is called for.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 19, 2021, 09:51:52 AM
Once the points have been made about why these statues can be considered problematic, it could be very risky for a public figure or a prominent community member to defend them. It doesn't take much to get Scarlet Lettered these days, and going on record defending old dead dudes is just the kind of thing that can get you branded.

Plus, Lightfoot is in such a bad place right now that she's probably willing to make this push as a way to score some points with the uber woke crowd while drawing some attention away from the problems her administration has had lately.

Im going to stay on record as none of the statues of Lincoln,  Washington,  or Father Marquette will end up being taken down. Feel free to quote this if I end up being wrong.

When some of the statue stuff started I tried to see Father Marquette's treatment of Native Americans and didn't find anything too unseemly. What is the reason he's on the "hot-seat"? Did he not treat Native Americans well in areas he explored? Or their role in the travel party?

Quote from: cheebs09 on February 19, 2021, 01:30:10 PM
When some of the statue stuff started I tried to see Father Marquette's treatment of Native Americans and didn't find anything too unseemly. What is the reason he's on the "hot-seat"? Did he not treat Native Americans well in areas he explored? Or their role in the travel party?

The issue does seem to be Marquette, but the depiction of Native Americans in the monuments to Marquette.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 19, 2021, 02:08:29 PM
The issue does seem to be Marquette, but the depiction of Native Americans in the monuments to Marquette.

maybe.  Junipero Serra has been deemed unworthy of having a school named after him (including the HS from which Tom Brady graduated) and statues have been torn down because he was a white colonizer who brought Catholicism to Native population.

The information presented through the petition details the history of the school's namesake Father Junipero Serra, a Franciscan missionary, who came to the new world and converted natives to Christianity.

"His mission was to colonize them, which was to strip them of their culture and force them into Christianity," said Dr. Erica Renfree, Ph.D., the school's principal, who supports the sisters' efforts.

Quote from: Billy Hoyle on February 19, 2021, 05:43:14 PM
maybe.  Junipero Serra has been deemed unworthy of having a school named after him (including the HS from which Tom Brady graduated) and statues have been torn down because he was a white colonizer who brought Catholicism to Native population.

The information presented through the petition details the history of the school's namesake Father Junipero Serra, a Franciscan missionary, who came to the new world and converted natives to Christianity.

"His mission was to colonize them, which was to strip them of their culture and force them into Christianity," said Dr. Erica Renfree, Ph.D., the school's principal, who supports the sisters' efforts.

Google  "non-sequitur."

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 19, 2021, 09:32:26 AM

I guess if you can't see the fundamental difference between changing a nickname, which had been done two times earlier in the schools history, and changing the actual name of the school, I don't know what to tell you.

And nevermind the fact that just because one thing happened at sometime, that doesn't mean that something similar will be happening later.

Just another thing to add to list of stuff you've been wrong about.

Schools are beginning to change their name.

Princeton Renames Wilson School and Residential College, Citing Former President's Racism
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-renames-wilson-school-and-residential-college-citing-former-presidents-racism

Clemson Removes Calhoun Name From Honors College
https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/confronting-racism-on-college-campuses/



California districts look to rename schools linked to racist history
https://edsource.org/2020/california-districts-look-to-rename-schools-linked-to-racist-past/634080

So you are already wrong, nice job.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 19, 2021, 01:00:38 PM
Im going to stay on record as none of the statues of Lincoln,  Washington,  or Father Marquette will end up being taken down. Feel free to quote this if I end up being wrong.

I hope you're right and fear you're wrong.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 19, 2021, 08:03:58 AM
I suggest you review basic critical thinking.

https://owl.excelsior.edu/argument-and-critical-thinking/logical-fallacies/logical-fallacies-slippery-slope/


But again for the record I'm against it going this far. There's objectively wrong (confederate monuments and statues) and then there's nitpicking and holding old times to moral standards of today.

Why do you think the country has so many confederate statues?  There is a basic answer and the word "racism" has nothing to do with it.

No cheating ... no googling the answer.  You already said you're against them and they should be taken down so you obviously thought about it.  So, dazzle us with your critical thinking skills

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 12:42:31 AM
Schools are beginning to change their name.

Princeton Renames Wilson School and Residential College, Citing Former President's Racism
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-renames-wilson-school-and-residential-college-citing-former-presidents-racism

California districts look to rename schools linked to racist history
https://edsource.org/2020/california-districts-look-to-rename-schools-linked-to-racist-past/634080

So you are already wrong, nice job.

I hope you're right and fear you are wrong.

Don't blame Princeton for taking Woodrow's racist, progressive, racist name off of their buildings.  Probably one of the worst presidents in history, especially in regards to race.

Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on February 20, 2021, 12:56:17 AM
Don't blame Princeton for taking Woodrow's racist, progressive, racist name off of their buildings.  Probably one of the worst presidents in history, especially in regards to race.

Not buildings ... they had an entire college named after him, a world-leading school for political science.

Also a movement you wipe out the Yale name, a noted slave trader.  Saying no, for now. Let's check back in 5 to 10 years.

Yale Doesn't Need to Change Its Name
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/troll-campaign-rename-yale/613684/

I'll assume that if you think Woodrow Wilson was racist and Princeton was correct, you also think Yale should ditch the name of its school since he was a slave trader.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 12:47:20 AM
Why do you think the country has so many confederate statues?  There is a basic answer and the word "racism" has nothing to do with it.

No cheating ... no googling the answer.  You already said you're against them and they should be taken down so you obviously thought about it.  So, dazzle us with your critical thinking skills

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 12:42:31 AM
Schools are beginning to change their name.

Princeton Renames Wilson School and Residential College, Citing Former President's Racism
https://paw.princeton.edu/article/princeton-renames-wilson-school-and-residential-college-citing-former-presidents-racism

Clemson Removes Calhoun Name From Honors College
https://www.bestcolleges.com/blog/confronting-racism-on-college-campuses/



California districts look to rename schools linked to racist history
https://edsource.org/2020/california-districts-look-to-rename-schools-linked-to-racist-past/634080

So you are already wrong, nice job.

I hope you're right and fear you're wrong.

Yale dropped the name of Calhoun College from one of its residential halls.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 12:47:20 AM
Why do you think the country has so many confederate statues?  There is a basic answer and the word "racism" has nothing to do with it.

No cheating ... no googling the answer.  You already said you're against them and they should be taken down so you obviously thought about it.  So, dazzle us with your critical thinking skills

The country has so many confederate statues because they were erected in the early 20th century by historical revisionists, specifically the UDC.  Statues were placed to intimidate the Black population, and because the myth of the "Lost Cause" was en vogue in the South.  The country had abandoned reconstruction and was moving backward towards what became the Jim Crow era.  When a person sees a monument to someone, they surmise that person is to be revered, as well as their actions and their 'cause'.  Since their 'cause' was slavery, it instilled the mindset that the Confederacy was good, and romanticized a time before the US Civil War.  The idea is clearly cemented in racism and a desire to go back to the past.  And in that quest they succeeded.  Black Americans have been oppressed by White Americans for hundreds of years, and those statues are a reminder of that oppression every day they stand.

Need anymore history lessons today Heisey?

Exactly. Far too many people (mostly racists, but not all) like to argue that the statues were put up in the years shortly after the war to honor the confederate heroes for their sacrifice and that they are an important part of American history. But the vast majority actually were put up decades later as a way for racists to "reclaim" their white heritage, to rally their white supremacist supporters, and to intimidate Black people.

I have yet to hear one viable reason to display a confederate statue or flag or any other kind of confederate symbol on public land in the United States.

If you want to put them in a museum or some other kind of facility where you can give them context, that's one thing. But to have a statue or flag that represented the South's treasonous fight to keep enslaving an entire class of Americans displayed on a college campus or in front of a state capitol, or in front of a town hall ... it's racism, plain and simple.

That the previous president argued so forcefully to keep them ... it just drives that point home.

Nikki Haley, a shrewd and calculating politician, made the correct gambit that finally taking the confederate flag off the S.C. capitol would be a political winner. Sure, it ticked off some of her fellow Republicans, but she now can forever be remembered as the "S.C. governor who took a stand against racism" -- something that will help her when she runs for president in 2024. (We'll see soon enough if the stand she just took against the party's dominant figure will help or hurt her, though.)

Or ...

After the civil war, The North had a choice.  Treat The South like a conquered people or invite them back into the United States as full citizens.  This is something that has rarely if ever been done in the history of civil wars.

To show they were indeed full citizens, the south was allowed to preserve its history, even though they erected monuments to those that killed hundreds of thousands of northern soldiers, not to mention the assassination of an American President in the name of the South.

Maybe these statues were instrumental in bringing along south into reintegration of the United States as equal citizens, and in their way, helped to prevent a second civil war and a breaking of the country into two.

Hards, Fluffy, and 82 do not understand this. Probably because they prefer to take the morally superior explanation revisionist history explanations (most likely to make themselves feel better).  Probably never occurred to them a lot of these monuments were viewed by the northern population as those responsible for the death of the brothers, sons, and fathers.  It was a powerful symbol to the South that they were invited back as equals and not as the conquered.

That said, if these statues have taken on a different meaning, I'm fine if elected officials decide to remove them.  And if they want to put them in a museum of American history, I'm also ok what that too, in fact, I would prefer it.  History should never be erased, and should never be bastardized into a revision like done here.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 10:13:31 AM
Or ...

After the civil war, The North had a choice.  Treat The South like a conquered people or invite them back into the United States as full citizens.  This is something that has rarely if ever been done in the history of civil wars.

To show they were indeed full citizens, the south was allowed to preserve its history, even though they erected monuments to those that killed hundreds of thousands of northern soldiers, not to mention the assassination of an American President in the name of the South.

Maybe these statues were instrumental in bringing along south into reintegration of the United States as equal citizens, and in their way, helped to prevent a second civil war and a breaking of the country into two.

Hards, Fluffy, and 82 do not understand this. Probably because they prefer to take the morally superior explanation revisionist history explanations (most likely to make themselves feel better).  Probably never occurred to them a lot of these monuments were viewed by the northern population as those responsible for the death of the brothers, sons, and fathers.  It was a powerful symbol to the South that they were invited back as equals and not as the conquered.

That said, if these statues have taken on a different meaning, I'm fine if elected officials decide to remove them.  And if they want to put them in a museum of American history, I'm also ok what that too, in fact, I would prefer it.  History should never be erased, and should never be bastardized into a revision like done here.

Part of that is dribble.

But we agree on not erasing history. That's what museums are for.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 20, 2021, 06:08:12 AM

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

Shallow revisionist history take.

So why did the people of the North allowed well over 1,000 of these reminders of who killed their fathers, sons, and husbands?

Heisey you are the one revising history.  The memorials immediately after the War were largely dedicated to those who died in the War.  Those to confederate "heroes" like Robert E. Lee, were largely erected during the Jim Crow era, long after Reconstruction ended and the south was back on full terms.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 10:18:15 AM

Shallow revisionist history take.

What did I say that was innaccurate?

Quote from: MU82 on February 20, 2021, 10:16:36 AM
Part of that is dribble.

But we agree on not erasing history. That's what museums are for.

Of course, you would think it is dribble ... it makes you feel uncomfortable walking around with the morally superior feeling you prefer.

Your footer reminds us of this every time you post.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 20, 2021, 10:21:43 AM

What did I say that was inaccurate?

I never said it was inaccurate, I said you have a revisionist history take. Not the same thing.

Child psychologists tell us that small children, under five, do not know the difference between facts and opinions.  What they believe is what they think is.

Apparently, you have not emotionally matured beyond this point and still constantly show you do not know the difference between the two.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 20, 2021, 10:20:34 AM
Heisey you are the one revising history.  The memorials immediately after the War were largely dedicated to those who died in the War.  Those to confederate "heroes" like Robert E. Lee, were largely erected during the Jim Crow era, long after Reconstruction ended and the south was back on full terms.

And it never occurred to you that the Jim Crow South was a regression and, maybe the beginning movement toward a second civil war?  And instead of hammering them (like you want today) resulting in another war and hundreds of thousands more dead, the country let them preserve their history as they wanted and brought them along as equals.

ADDED LATER

Maybe circa 1900, the country was smart enough to not hammer those in The South that preferred Jim Crow, and erecting Robert E. Lee statues because it would make it worse.  So, while they did not like it, they tolerated it in an attempt to bring them along without more violence.

And Maybe circa 2020, the country was smart enough to not hammer those in pushed for Black Lives Matter and tore down statues and burned down Kenosha because it would make it worse.  So, while they did not like it, they tolerated it in an attempt to bring them along without more violence.

As much as want to pretend otherwise, history often repeats.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 10:13:31 AM
Or ...

After the civil war, The North had a choice.  Treat The South like a conquered people or invite them back into the United States as full citizens.  This is something that has rarely if ever been done in the history of civil wars.

To show they were indeed full citizens, the south was allowed to preserve its history, even though they erected monuments to those that killed hundreds of thousands of northern soldiers, not to mention the assassination of an American President in the name of the South.

Maybe these statues were instrumental in bringing along south into reintegration of the United States as equal citizens, and in their way, helped to prevent a second civil war and a breaking of the country into two.

Hards, Fluffy, and 82 do not understand this. Probably because they prefer to take the morally superior explanation revisionist history explanations (most likely to make themselves feel better).  Probably never occurred to them a lot of these monuments were viewed by the northern population as those responsible for the death of the brothers, sons, and fathers.  It was a powerful symbol to the South that they were invited back as equals and not as the conquered.

That said, if these statues have taken on a different meaning, I'm fine if elected officials decide to remove them.  And if they want to put them in a museum of American history, I'm also ok what that too, in fact, I would prefer it.  History should never be erased, and should never be bastardized into a revision like done here.

You're just making most of this up.  Sorry.  The statues went up long after everyone who fought in the Civil War had died.  There was never going to be a second civil war in the time period you're referencing, and I challenge you to find literature to actually back up that claim and then display it here. 

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 20, 2021, 10:53:59 AM
You're just making most of this up.  Sorry.  The statues went up long after everyone who fought in the Civil War had died.  There was never going to be a second civil war in the time period you're referencing, and I challenge you to find literature to actually back up that claim and then display it here.

Are you saying you never heard of reconstruction, or what its purpose was?  Or did you honestly think it was merely about fixing war-torn buildings?


Read a book
https://www.amazon.com/Ordeal-Reunion-History-Reconstruction-Littlefield/dp/1469617579

Probably should take Eli Callaway's name off the building at Emory. As far as I know they only make neon yellow and white golf balls, aina?

Just a sampling of Heisey's historical ignorance.

Fort Bragg ... dedicated in 1918.
Fort Benning .... 1917.
Fort Hood .... 1942.
Jefferson Davis statue in the Alabama state capitol .... 1940
The Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama(named for a confederate general and Alabama Grand Dragon of the KKK) .... 1940.
Statutes of Lee and Jackson in Charlottesville .... 1917 and 1919, respectively.
Hood's Texas Brigage monument at the Texas state capitol .... 1910
John Brown Gordon (confederate general and KKK leader) statue at Georgia state capitol ... 1907

The vast majority of these monuments, statutes and other public recognitions of Confederate figures came generations after the war ended, and in no way were part of some kind of reconciliation of Heisey's imagination.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 20, 2021, 11:32:58 AM
Just a sampling of Heisey's historical ignorance.

Fort Bragg ... dedicated in 1918.
Fort Benning .... 1917.
Fort Hood .... 1942.
Jefferson Davis statue in the Alabama state capitol .... 1940
The Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama(named for a confederate general and Alabama Grand Dragon of the KKK) .... 1940.
Statutes of Lee and Jackson in Charlottesville .... 1917 and 1919, respectively.
Hood's Texas Brigage monument at the Texas state capitol .... 1910
John Brown Gordon (confederate general and KKK leader) statue at Georgia state capitol ... 1907

The vast majority of these monuments, statutes and other public recognitions of Confederate figures came generations after the war ended, and in no way were part of some kind of reconciliation of Heisey's imagination.

"But they were just preventing another Civil War!"

Lolololololololololol...

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 10:35:37 AM
And it never occurred to you that the Jim Crow South was a regression and, maybe the beginning movement toward a second civil war?

Why would something so painfully inaccurate occur to me?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 10:29:04 AM
Child psychologists tell us that small children, under five, do not know the difference between facts and opinions.  What they believe is what they think is.

LOL. Given your wholesale manufacturing of alternative facts in this thread alone, this is amusing.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 10:23:01 AM
Of course, you would think it is dribble ... it makes you feel uncomfortable walking around with the morally superior feeling you prefer.

It's dribble because it's dribble.

The vast majority of confederate statues, plaques and other symbols were put up decades after the Civil War. And the confederate flags that the deposed president says are wonderful are still being flown today. They honor only racists.

I know actual factual facts make you feel uncomfortable because you prefer alternative facts that help you build upon your smugness.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 20, 2021, 11:15:25 AM
Are you saying you never heard of reconstruction, or what its purpose was?  Or did you honestly think it was merely about fixing war-torn buildings?


Read a book
https://www.amazon.com/Ordeal-Reunion-History-Reconstruction-Littlefield/dp/1469617579

LMFAO.  Brother, I know exactly what Reconstruction was.  I'm not reading a book your suggested without even reading it yourself.  There is plenty of literature that flies directly in the face of your original claim.  And your reply is that I need to read a book you suggested. 

Do you what century we live in?

Quote from: Pakuni on February 19, 2021, 08:06:34 PM
Google  "non-sequitur."

Why? Serra statues are coming down. Why? For converting Natives to Christianity.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/06/22/who-st-junipero-serra-and-why-are-california-protesters-toppling-his

Quote from: Billy Hoyle on February 21, 2021, 01:47:26 AM
Why? Serra statues are coming down. Why? For converting Natives to Christianity.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2020/06/22/who-st-junipero-serra-and-why-are-california-protesters-toppling-his

Did you actually read the article you quoted? Nowhere does it say his statues are coming down because Serra "converted Natives to Christianity."

From your article:

QuoteWhile Serra is credited with spreading the Catholic faith across what is now California, critics say Serra was part of an imperial conquest that beat and enslaved Native Americans.

and

QuoteNative Americans brought into the mission to be evangelized were not allowed to leave the grounds. Many labored for no pay. There is evidence of beatings, imprisonment and other abuse at the hands of the missionaries.

The reason for the protests is not because Serra was a missionary but because the tactics used at the missions he founded involved kidnapping, slavery, and physical abuse. There is also evidence that suggests that it wasn't just something that happened at the missions but something that Serra participated in as well. He was also a member of the Spanish Inquisition and accused multiple people of witchcraft and devil worship which likely resulted in those people's deaths.

Despite all of that, I condemn the vandalism and believe that a majority of the statues should remain...but a more honest depiction of his treatment of Native Americans should be a part of the narrative accompanying those statues.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 21, 2021, 02:09:07 AM
Did you actually read the article you quoted? Nowhere does it say his statues are coming down because Serra "converted Natives to Christianity."

From your article:

and

The reason for the protests is not because Serra was a missionary but because the tactics used at the missions he founded involved kidnapping, slavery, and physical abuse. There is also evidence that suggests that it wasn't just something that happened at the missions but something that Serra participated in as well. He was also a member of the Spanish Inquisition and accused multiple people of witchcraft and devil worship which likely resulted in those people's deaths.

Despite all of that, I condemn the vandalism and believe that a majority of the statues should remain...but a more honest depiction of his treatment of Native Americans should be a part of the narrative accompanying those statues.

He's a "colonizer" and therefore bad. And we don't know that HE was involved all of that. What we do know, per the article:

"He preached God's compassion, fought for the dignity of women and the rights of America's native peoples, and he was probably the first person in the Americas to make a moral case against capital punishment," Gómez said.

The Catholic News Agency detailed how Serra asked Spanish authorities to spare the lives of the California natives who had attacked a San Diego mission."

If our university seal is a symbol of white supremacy will the name of the university be far behind?

A wise man ,I believe Churchil, said something like. If you don't read into the past you will never see far into the future.
Because of what we don't teach our students now we are seeing the past re-emerge

Nobody here is saying ignore the past. We're saying don't honor traitors who were fighting for the right to continue enslaving human beings.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 20, 2021, 11:32:58 AM
Just a sampling of Heisey's historical ignorance.

Fort Bragg ... dedicated in 1918.
Fort Benning .... 1917.
Fort Hood .... 1942.
Jefferson Davis statue in the Alabama state capitol .... 1940
The Edmund Pettus Bridge in Alabama(named for a confederate general and Alabama Grand Dragon of the KKK) .... 1940.
Statutes of Lee and Jackson in Charlottesville .... 1917 and 1919, respectively.
Hood's Texas Brigage monument at the Texas state capitol .... 1910
John Brown Gordon (confederate general and KKK leader) statue at Georgia state capitol ... 1907

The vast majority of these monuments, statutes and other public recognitions of Confederate figures came generations after the war ended, and in no way were part of some kind of reconciliation of Heisey's imagination.

You're really slipping with your google trolling (too much Toobin-ing?) because you forgot that on October 17, 1978, President Carter pardoned Confederate President Jefferson Davis and Robert E Lee.  This was done to allow them to be US Citizens again (they were stripped of citizenship in 1865).


If history was actually studied we would have found that something extraordinary happened after 1865.  For arguably the first and only time in human history a group that violently tried to secede from their country fought a war that killed 600,000 soldiers (still the bloodiest war in American history), was then invited back into that country as full citizens (save the handful of leaders) without any retribution.  They were even allowed to have their representation back in the federal government as it was before the war.  It was truly an extraordinary accomplishment. No one has pulled it off before or since.

Part of what made this work was the South was allowed to celebrate and memorialize its history.  That celebration continued for well over 100 years.  That includes the monuments and the open displays of the rebel flag.  It was all part of Southern heritage.

Celebrating their heritage was not building some statues between 1865 and 1870 and calling it a day.  It was about having Southern Pride despite trying to secede and losing.  That Southern Pride went on for generations.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 20, 2021, 11:53:17 AM
"But they were just preventing another Civil War!"

Lolololololololololol...

Yes, that is exactly what they were doing. They understood, because they actually studied history, that the type of Civil War we fought was often the first of many such conflicts.  They did not want to South to try and leave again or become an angry underclass.

But today that history is forgotten.  And we think it is a virtue that our mind is closed and want everyone to celebrate our mind is closed and staying that way ... like these guys.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 20, 2021, 02:22:19 PM
LMFAO.  Brother, I know exactly what Reconstruction was.  I'm not reading a book your suggested without even reading it yourself.  There is plenty of literature that flies directly in the face of your original claim.  And your reply is that I need to read a book you suggested. 

Do you what century we live in?

Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2021, 05:09:32 PM
Nobody here is saying ignore the past. We're saying don't honor traitors who were fighting for the right to continue enslaving human beings.

The truth is they have no idea what Reconstruction was really about and proudly announced they are not interested in learning about it.

It was one of the extraordinary achievements in human history ... merging two warring groups back into one without any more bloodshot or animosity.

We prefer an alternate history.  That is, everyone that came before us was terrible and racist.  The first 150 years of the country's history needs to be canceled.  This guy believes this, it is the only possible outcome to his comments.

Quote from: MU82 on February 20, 2021, 12:43:05 PM
It's dribble because it's dribble.

The vast majority of confederate statues, plaques and other symbols were put up decades after the Civil War. And the confederate flags that the deposed president says are wonderful are still being flown today. They honor only racists.

I know actual factual facts make you feel uncomfortable because you prefer alternative facts that help you build upon your smugness.

Again, it took about 170 years to pass for the events of the 19th century to take on a different meaning.  That is fine.  And I'm fine if we want to remove the symbols of that period, so long as we stop with the ignorant view of the "circle jerk of the Superbar" that everything that came before was terrible and we are the era of the enlightenment.

The circle Jerk represents far too many ignorant people that think they are brilliant because they can google Atlantic and New York Times magazine articles from the last 10 years and think that is the only take away from history.

The circle jerk is going to lead the effort to cancel 150 years of American history, include father Marquette and all the symbols of him, and everyone, of every race, will be worse off when that happens.

Whatever you have to say or do to feel better about yourself, Smuggles. You're a one-man circle jerk.

Explains a thing or two about you know who.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/feb/22/people-with-extremist-views-less-able-to-do-complex-mental-tasks-research-suggests?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1613953797

Quote from: Billy Hoyle on February 21, 2021, 12:25:42 PM
He's a "colonizer" and therefore bad. And we don't know that HE was involved all of that. What we do know, per the article:

"He preached God's compassion, fought for the dignity of women and the rights of America's native peoples, and he was probably the first person in the Americas to make a moral case against capital punishment," Gómez said.

The Catholic News Agency detailed how Serra asked Spanish authorities to spare the lives of the California natives who had attacked a San Diego mission."

If our university seal is a symbol of white supremacy will the name of the university be far behind?

So, I was correct, they aren't vandalizing his statues because "he converted people to Christianity" as you originally claimed. They are vandalizing them because of his role in the kidnapping, enslavement, and physical abuse of the native peoples of California.

You'll also notice that at the end of my post I condemned the vandalizers and said that a majority of the statues should remain up.

I'll admit, my history knowledge on Father Marquette isn't perfect. Have their been any claims that he committed any sort of violence against native peoples? If there hasn't, I don't think the comparisons to Father Serra are valid.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 21, 2021, 09:49:33 PM
Explains a thing or two about you know who.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/feb/22/people-with-extremist-views-less-able-to-do-complex-mental-tasks-research-suggests?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1613953797

Yes, thinking that not everyone that came before the "enlightening period" is an awful terrible racist that needs to be canceled is now an extremist view.

If hacked your account and wanted to prove the point of my post, I could not have done a more efficient job.

Well done!

Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2021, 06:58:59 PM
Whatever you have to say or do to feel better about yourself, Smuggles. You're a one-man circle jerk.

Yes, I feel better thinking that history is full of people that made considered decisions based on the world they lived in. And yes, the opinion of those decisions will change over time, but that does not mean they were automatically terrible racists, like the "enlightened one" that wrote the quote below.

Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2021, 05:09:32 PM
Nobody here is saying ignore the past. We're saying don't honor traitors who were fighting for the right to continue enslaving human beings.

See, he has to get angry that they were the worst of humanity, not just doing the best they could.  Why does it have to be angry about history?  Because he wants it canceled, what other conclusion can this opinion lead to?  He wants it canceled so he can stay morally superior.

(Remember Pakuni thinks my post is extremist.  82s view is just conventional wisdom that everyone agrees with ... or they are incapable of complex thought like the "enlightened ones of the circle jerk.")

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 21, 2021, 11:29:32 PM
Yes, thinking that not everyone that came before the "enlightening period" is an awful terrible racist that needs to be canceled is now an extremist view.

Who said this?  Are you making up stuff again?

Again, you are being purposely absurd in an attempt to make your arguments look valid.  Yet they have been painfully wrong throughout the topic.

But you do you Hesey.  You're getting the Scoop clicks you crave while the rest of us roll our eyes in the process.

He's on a roll today.  He must have found his 7th grade History book.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 07:59:57 AM

Who said this?  Are you making up stuff again?

Again, you are being purposely absurd in an attempt to make your arguments look valid.  Yet they have been painfully wrong throughout the topic.

But you do you Hesey.  You're getting the Scoop clicks you crave while the rest of us roll our eyes in the process.

This member of the "enlightened circle jerk of the Superbar" said it.  He called everyone from that period an awful terrible racist. 

And if the "enlightened" truly believe this, there is only one conclusion, tear down all symbols of them and cancel them from history.

And that includes Father Marquette, and all his symbols, including the name of our school, when he is also deemed a vicious racist by the "enlightenment."

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 20, 2021, 06:08:12 AM

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 22, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
He's on a roll today.  He must have found his 7th grade History book.

I'll send it to you as it is obvious you were too busy Toobin-ing during that class.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 08:49:32 AM
This member of the "enlightened circle jerk of the Superbar" said it.  He called everyone from that period an awful terrible racist. 

And if the "enlightened" truly believe this, there is only one conclusion, tear down all symbols of them and cancel them from history.

And that includes Father Marquette, and all his symbols, including the name of our school, when he is also deemed a vicious racist by the "enlightenment."

Do you know what a logical fallacy is?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 21, 2021, 11:29:32 PM
82s view is just conventional wisdom that everyone agrees with ... or they are incapable of complex thought like the "enlightened ones of the circle jerk."

We know, Smuggles. Anybody who doesn't agree with you on everything is "incapable of complex thought."

I suggest a cross-country trip to genuflect in front of the tributes to traitors and racists ... while they're still standing. Then you can go into mourning when they're in museums, as they should be.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 21, 2021, 11:29:32 PM
Yes, thinking that not everyone that came before the "enlightening period" is an awful terrible racist that needs to be canceled is now an extremist view.

Who said this, exactly?
But this entire thread is an example of your extremist thinking.
I think most of us can agree there's a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not. And I imagine most of us fall somewhere in the middle, not wanting to banish those like Lincoln or Jefferson for what today is recognized as retrograde thinking, but also believing that guys who violated their oaths to fight a treasonous war in defense of slavery shouldn't be glorified with public monuments or have military bases named in their honor.

But you're incapable of being a part of that kind of reasonable discussion, and instead rant about the mere discussion itself being some kind of existential threat. Thus, you come up with gems like Lincoln Park will be renamed Obamaville and Marquette University will be forced to change its name. And that's not to mention your willingness to rewrite U.S. history to defend your terrible takes.

I for one think that Heisy was very clever to see through Fluffy and know that by talking about "traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people" he actually meant "everyone that came before the "enlightening period" including Father Marquette." And that by "shouldn't be honoring" he actually meant
"is an awful terrible racist that needs to be canceled".

Without Heisys translation I would have fallen into the trap of reading comprehension and logic. Thank you Heisey

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 08:49:32 AM
This member of the "enlightened circle jerk of the Superbar" said it.  He called everyone from that period an awful terrible racist. 

Me?  On that quote?

You're lying.  I never used the word "racist."  I never said "everyone."

You're basically flailing away at the computer in desperation.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 09:35:32 AM

Me?  On that quote?

You're lying.  I never used the word "racist."  I never said "everyone."

You're basically flailing away at the computer in desperation.

You wrote

honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

And who was honoring them? The entire southern half to the country, Ergo you called half the country racist, if not worse.

And this guy continues to call most of the country racist

Quote from: MU82 on February 22, 2021, 09:10:29 AM
We know, Smuggles. Anybody who doesn't agree with you on everything is "incapable of complex thought."

I suggest a cross-country trip to genuflect in front of the tributes to traitors and racists ... while they're still standing. Then you can go into mourning when they're in museums, as they should be.

Don't worry, I made my point, you only have ad hominem attacks, which means you do not have a response.  I will eventually grow bored and you can all go back to pleasuring yourself circle trying to show who is more enlightened than the next guy.

So, get the lube ready.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 22, 2021, 09:12:00 AM
Who said this, exactly?
But this entire thread is an example of your extremist thinking.
I think most of us can agree there's a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not.

Really (highlighted part).  which part of these statements suggests we are ready for a reasonable discussion?

Quote from: MU82 on February 22, 2021, 09:10:29 AM
We know, Smuggles. Anybody who doesn't agree with you on everything is "incapable of complex thought."

I suggest a cross-country trip to genuflect in front of the tributes to traitors and racists ... while they're still standing. Then you can go into mourning when they're in museums, as they should be.

Quote from: MU82 on February 21, 2021, 05:09:32 PM
Nobody here is saying ignore the past. We're saying don't honor traitors who were fighting for the right to continue enslaving human beings.

Quote from: MU82 on February 20, 2021, 09:44:40 AM
Exactly. Far too many people (mostly racists, but not all) like to argue that the statues were put up in the years shortly after the war to honor the confederate heroes for their sacrifice and that they are an important part of American history. But the vast majority actually were put up decades later as a way for racists to "reclaim" their white heritage, to rally their white supremacist supporters, and to intimidate Black people.

I have yet to hear one viable reason to display a confederate statue or flag or any other kind of confederate symbol on public land in the United States.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 20, 2021, 09:30:30 AM
Statues were placed to intimidate the Black population, and because the myth of the "Lost Cause" was en vogue in the South.  The country had abandoned reconstruction and was moving backward towards what became the Jim Crow era.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 20, 2021, 06:08:12 AM

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

These are not the comments of those that want a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not.

They are the comments of closed minds that want total agreement or cancellation.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 18, 2021, 05:16:25 PM
Jaques Marquette-Louis Jollet Memorial
(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/1024x1024/3690a59337/li-marquette-memorial-01.jpg)

Heisey, do you think there is anything about this statue that warrants discussion and maybe modification?

This has to be either the best trolling the board has ever seen, or the total mental collapse of a human being.

It's really hard to tell which.

Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 22, 2021, 10:02:36 AM
This has to be either the best trolling the board has ever seen, or the total mental collapse of a human being.

It's really hard to tell which.

Another example that only total agreement or ad hominem attacks and cancellation are the options.

Quote from: MUBurrow on February 22, 2021, 10:01:44 AM
Heisey, do you think there is anything about this statue that warrants discussion and maybe modification?

Don't be bashful, plenty of room in the circle for you ... go ahead and plainly state say what you mean and what should be done about it, and the larger issue of what Father Marquette was.

What's with the constant masturbation references you're posting between "toobin-ing" "circle jerk" get the lube ready and room in the circle it's a weird fixation especially when you're trying to cast blame on others for being unable to have an actual discourse about this topic.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 10:06:36 AM
Don't be bashful, plenty of room in the circle for you ... go ahead and plainly state say what you mean and what should be done about it, and the larger issue of what Father Marquette was.

I'm sorry to have directly asked you the original question posed by the thread you started and including the picture you had embedded.

Quote from: MUBurrow on February 22, 2021, 10:12:12 AM
I'm sorry to have directly asked you the original question posed by the thread you started and including the picture you had embedded.

Ok, nothing should be done about it ... what say you.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 09:52:49 AM
Don't worry, I made my point,

Only in your own head, son. Everyone else understands your arguments are failures.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 10:06:36 AM
Another example that only total agreement or ad hominem attacks and cancellation are the options.

Don't be bashful, plenty of room in the circle for you ... go ahead and plainly state say what you mean and what should be done about it, and the larger issue of what Father Marquette was.

But I've never said we should cancel Father Marquette, you absolute lunatic.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 10:06:36 AM
Another example that only total agreement or ad hominem attacks and cancellation are the options.

The cognitive dissonance here has to be intentional, right? Nobody can be this self-unaware.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 09:52:49 AM
You wrote

honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

And who was honoring them? The entire southern half to the country, Ergo you called half the country racist, if not worse.

You are the one making the leap saying "if you are honoring them, therefore you are racist."  I never made that statement or that inference.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 10:12:48 AM
Ok, nothing should be done about it ... what say you.

Thanks for answering. I was genuinely interested in what you thought.

I believe that the depiction of the Native American figure compared to Marquette and Joliet is problematic.  I think the awestruck expression, trailing behind and lower height combine as a hamfisted attempt at visually representing Marquette's achievements through negative comparisons to the native population. I don't know enough about the historical accuracy of the dress to speak to that.  I think that a discussion about how the representation could be modified in a more positive and equal light, with input from experts and persons of Native American descent is warranted.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 22, 2021, 10:09:44 AM
What's with the constant masturbation references you're posting between "toobin-ing" "circle jerk" get the lube ready and room in the circle it's a weird fixation especially when you're trying to cast blame on others for being unable to have an actual discourse about this topic.

Yes, but others are making "ad hominem attacks."

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 10:00:29 AM
These are not the comments of those that want a reasonable discussion to be had about which historical figures ought to be exalted in the public square and which should not.

They are the comments of closed minds that want total agreement or cancellation.

Excellent. BUT NEXT TIME TRY BOLD AND ALL CAPS. AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!!!

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 21, 2021, 11:02:31 PM


I'll admit, my history knowledge on Father Marquette isn't perfect. Have their been any claims that he committed any sort of violence against native peoples? If there hasn't, I don't think the comparisons to Father Serra are valid.

I am far from being a Jacques Marquette scholar, but I have read what is considered to be the most detailed and thoroughly researched biography of him.  According to that book, Father Marquette was highly respected by the native peoples he encountered.  Yes, he did preach about Christianity, but he also avoided condemning their cultural traditions (such as polygamy) that were at odds with church doctrine.  He spent a great deal of his time trying to protect peaceful tribes from the warring ones (hence the irony of MU's Warrior nickname). 

Anyone who wants to lump Father Marquette in with the conquering explorers is an idiot.

On a side note, I once spent a day in Father Marquette's hometown of Laon, France.  It is gorgeous.

Quote from: MUBurrow on February 22, 2021, 10:41:13 AM
Thanks for answering. I was genuinely interested in what you thought.

I believe that the depiction of the Native American figure compared to Marquette and Joliet is problematic.  I think the awestruck expression, trailing behind and lower height combine as a hamfisted attempt at visually representing Marquette's achievements through negative comparisons to the native population. I don't know enough about the historical accuracy of the dress to speak to that.  I think that a discussion about how the representation could be modified in a more positive and equal light, with input from experts and persons of Native American descent is warranted.

I understand what you are saying ... but is this how we are to view history over time?  That is, constantly changing emotional responses to the "look" of a statue?

The people that commissioned and made it thought it was a proper depiction.  Why can't we learn to understand their point of view?  Why do we have to modify it to what we believe is the proper interpretation based on today's sensibilities?  Should we change it again in 2o to 50 years should those views change again?

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 09:35:32 AM

Me?  On that quote?

You're lying.  I never used the word "racist."  I never said "everyone."

You're basically flailing away at the computer in desperation.

Correct, you did use the word racist. 
Instead, you gave the definition of it.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:24:04 PM
I understand what you are saying ... but is this how we are to view history over time?  That is, constantly changing emotional responses to the "look" of a statue?

The people that commissioned and made it thought it was a proper depiction.  Why can't we learn to understand their point of view?  Why do we have to modify it to what we believe is the proper interpretation based on today's sensibilities?  Should we change it again in 2o to 50 years should those views change again?

Because many of the views of the people who commissioned it were inherently flawed. If Alabama had a statue commemorating the Governor who tried to stop the university from integrating is it on us to say "well maybe this is why he did it and we should commemorate him for that" or should we say "yeah this guy was clearly in the wrong and those commemorating him for this are trying to honor an inherently wrong side of history that we should not"

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 22, 2021, 10:09:44 AM
What's with the constant masturbation references you're posting between "toobin-ing" "circle jerk" get the lube ready and room in the circle it's a weird fixation especially when you're trying to cast blame on others for being unable to have an actual discourse about this topic.

Because the Superbar has been taken over by an extreme political view that is each one try to out woke the other and shouting out dissenting views.  So, I'm mocking them as that is how I see it.

I'm about the only person left that speaks up.  The rest have been banned or given up because the mods share their political views.

Notice they say no politics here, it only certain politics are not allowed.  They let the woke go on for 15 pages celebrating the death of Limbaugh.  How fast would they have slammed down a thread celebrating the death of RGB, and ban those that expressed it?

They are the "enlightened" among us and they demand we give them the respect and accolades they think they deserve, because they morally superior.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:25:31 PM
Correct, you did use the word racist. 
Instead, you gave the definition of it.

OK, I guess you have decided to resort to trolling / lying because the Scoop collective handed your a$$ to you once again in a topic of your own making.

Hope you are having fun saving face.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 22, 2021, 12:30:10 PM
Because many of the views of the people who commissioned it were inherently flawed. If Alabama had a statue commemorating the Governor who tried to stop the university from integrating is it on us to say "well maybe this is why he did it and we should commemorate him for that" or should we say "yeah this guy was clearly in the wrong and those commemorating him for this are trying to honor an inherently wrong side of history that we should not"

By what standard?  Will that standard be the same in 20, 50, or 100 years?

They had a point of view, we have a different point of view, future generations will have yet another point of view.  To argue that today's standard is "objective" (as you implied above) and all others are "flawed" is a dangerous way to view history.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 12:34:04 PM

OK, I guess you have decided to resort to trolling / lying because the Scoop collective handed your a$$ to you once again in a topic of your own making.

Hope you are having fun saving face.

Really, this is your best response to you using the definition of racist.

Face it, you used the definition of racism in smearing most of the country in the second half of the 19th century.  This is extremely dangerous as the only remedy to this is to erase history.

Quote from: warriorchick on February 22, 2021, 11:51:44 AM
I am far from being a Jacques Marquette scholar, but I have read what is considered to be the most detailed and thoroughly researched biography of him.  According to that book, Father Marquette was highly respected by the native peoples he encountered.  Yes, he did preach about Christianity, but he also avoided condemning their cultural traditions (such as polygamy) that were at odds with church doctrine.  He spent a great deal of his time trying to protect peaceful tribes from the warring ones (hence the irony of MU's Warrior nickname). 

Anyone who wants to lump Father Marquette in with the conquering explorers is an idiot.

I agree with this and the Mayor of Chicago has a commission that is asking if he was too racist and should all references of him (statues) in Chicago be erased.

Lincoln too.

If the answer is yes, this is only the beginning of the process.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:37:36 PM
By what standard?  Will that standard be the same in 20, 50, or 100 years?

They had a point of view, we have a different point of view, future generations will have yet another point of view.  To argue that today's standard is "objective" (as you implied above) and all others are "flawed" is a dangerous way to view history.

If I'm in the 60s saying separate but equal is ok, when it objectively was not equal. Then they were wrong for their own times. If I'm in the 1800s and willing to kill to say that slavery is ok, when even England outlawed it years and years prior along with half the country having outlawed it. Then your views are flawed for the times as well.

The bottom line is the argument you're making isn't the "it was par for the times" you think it is because there was already a large contingent of people saying "hey this isn't right".

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:33:59 PM
Because the Superbar has been taken over by an extreme political view that is each one try to out woke the other and shouting out dissenting views.  So, I'm mocking them as that is how I see it.

I'm about the only person left that speaks up.  The rest have been banned or given up because the mods share their political views.

Notice they say no politics here, it only certain politics are not allowed.  They let the woke go on for 15 pages celebrating the death of Limbaugh.  How fast would they have slammed down a thread celebrating the death of RGB, and ban those that expressed it?

They are the "enlightened" among us and they demand we give them the respect and accolades they think they deserve, because they morally superior.

So you're saying if I go and tally posts on that Limbaugh thread it'll be extremely one sided toward the left? I disagree and don't have a project at work today so happy to undertake this task.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:40:52 PM
Really, this is your best response to you using the definition of racist.

Face it, you used the definition of racism in smearing most of the country in the second half of the 19th century.  This is extremely dangerous as the only remedy to this is to erase history.

Only if you change the definition of the word and shift goalposts for your strawman argument.

Other than that, you are doing a great job.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 12:46:46 PM

Only if you change the definition of the word and shift goalposts for your strawman argument.

Other than that, you are doing a great job.

ok, explain to us what you meant by

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

Specifically, explain why this is not calling the entire southern half of the country for a century that built these statues a bunch of racists.  What did you mean by it?

Then tell us what the remedy is for the action you described above?  Tearing down over 1,000 statues and nothing more?  Not re-writing history to fit this sensibility you hold at this moment.

You think I'm a five-year-old, so explain it to me.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 22, 2021, 12:46:02 PM
So you're saying if I go and tally posts on that Limbaugh thread it'll be extremely one sided toward the left? I disagree and don't have a project at work today so happy to undertake this task.

No, you would not have tolerated the same comments about RGB.  The thread would have been immediately closed, if not deleted, and the posters might have been banned.

the bias is painfully obvious.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 01:00:45 PM
No, you would not have tolerated the same comments about RGB.  The thread would have been immediately closed, if not deleted, and the posters might have been banned.

the bias is painfully obvious.

How is that the comparison you make. They aren't on the same level one is a talk show radio host college dropout. One was the second female Supreme Court Justice that had degrees from Cornell, Columbia and Harvard.

Maybe make a Bush Sr or McCain comparison... or Sandra day O'Connor

Never mind I can't have a reasonable discourse like you claim to want if this is what you believe is logic that you're bringing to the table.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 22, 2021, 12:46:02 PM
If I'm in the 60s saying separate but equal is ok, when it objectively was not equal. Then they were wrong for their own times. If I'm in the 1800s and willing to kill to say that slavery is ok, when even England outlawed it years and years prior along with half the country having outlawed it. Then your views are flawed for the times as well.

Views change all the time but we don't erase them from history.  That is what this is about, erasing history.

The cancel culture is out of control here.  THis thread is about erasing the South of the last 100 years.  We just finished a thread with some calling for a LaCrosse player getting erased/canceled (expelled from school) for using inappropriate language. We have others celebrating Limbaugh's death, as they view it as a form of him being canceled.

I find this view an extremely dangerous point of view, and it is rampant everywhere. 

I have no problem with the views changing and presentation of these new views.  I have a problem with these new views being accompanied by the erasure of history.

Now the usual suspects will say that is not what they want (Pakuni stood on his head to say this already) but that is only because I called them out.  Otherwise, they would be out of control with their demands for erasure of everything about the South during reconstruction.

Quote from: Galway Eagle on February 22, 2021, 01:05:34 PM
How is that the comparison you make. They aren't on the same level one is a talk show radio host college dropout. One was the second female Supreme Court Justice that had degrees from Cornell, Columbia and Harvard.

Maybe make a Bush Sr or McCain comparison... or Sandra day O'Connor

Never mind I can't have a reasonable discourse like you claim to want if this is what you believe is logic that you're bringing to the table.

OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 01:17:22 PM
OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

In political discourse? Yes one who has higher education absolutely matters. It's where you learn logical thought (or so I thought. I'm beginning to think Marquette didn't), and important things that should give context to governmental decisions like macro economics, statistics, law (in RBG's case). At the end of the day your comparison is akin to me saying a person on social media with a bunch of followers who dies deserves the respect that Reagan does.

also you went to college why did you go?

I notice that like others who made that comparison you've failed to actually address whether it's valid, because in your heart you know as well as me that's a massive false equivalency between the two.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 01:17:22 PM
OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

This is the meltdown of a grown man whose world has been yanked out from beneath him.  And its happening here in real time.  It makes me sad.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 01:13:09 PM

Views change all the time but we don't erase them from history.  That is what this is about, erasing history.

The cancel culture is out of control here.  THis thread is about erasing the South of the last 100 years.  We just finished a thread with some calling for a LaCrosse player getting erased/canceled (expelled from school) for using inappropriate language. We have others celebrating Limbaugh's death, as they view it as a form of him being canceled.

I find this view an extremely dangerous point of view, and it is rampant everywhere. 

I have no problem with the views changing and presentation of these new views.  I have a problem with these new views being accompanied by the erasure of history.

Now the usual suspects will say that is not what they want (Pakuni stood on his head to say this already) but that is only because I called them out.  Otherwise, they would be out of control with their demands for erasure of everything about the South during reconstruction.

We aren't erasing them from history. We still learn about the civil war. We don't honor them though.

My thought was this thread was about whether Marquette's culturally insensitive, and was turned into a south thing be use of false equivalencies.

I'm pretty sure you're assuming the lacrosse player got expelled when there's no proof. I would say using conjecture like that to make a point that is false, is a more dangerous thing to do than hold those who make poor decisions accountable.

Again, there's no erasure of history. There's a desire to not put individuals on a pedestal who were objectively wrong at the time. There was no march for equal rights at the time of Lincoln so it's unfair to hold him accountable for not going far enough. There was a war on slavery, so it's fair to hold Lee and other confederates accountable.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 01:00:45 PM
No, you would not have tolerated the same comments about RGB.  The thread would have been immediately closed, if not deleted, and the posters might have been banned.

Not at all. I for one would have welcomed the right wingers posting all the racist, homophobic, misogynistic, hateful comments that RGB made on a constant basis. What are you waiting for?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 01:13:09 PM

Views change all the time but we don't erase them from history.  That is what this is about, erasing history.

Removing, changing or adding to a public monument is not "erasing history," you drama queen.

Robert E. Lee hasn't vanished from American history because a statue was removed in Virginia. Lenin hasn't disappeared from the history books because his statues were toppled in former Eastern Bloc countries. Iraqis still know about Saddam Hussein.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:53:31 PM
ok, explain to us what you meant by

Because we shouldn't be honoring traitors who fought a war for the primary purpose of continuing to enslave other people.

It's not hard.

Specifically, explain why this is not calling the entire southern half of the country for a century that built these statues a bunch of racists.  What did you mean by it?

Then tell us what the remedy is for the action you described above?  Tearing down over 1,000 statues and nothing more?  Not re-writing history to fit this sensibility you hold at this moment.

You think I'm a five-year-old, so explain it to me.

It is going to be hard to explain this to you without the aid of a picture book, but here goes....

Erecting statues of Confederate heroes isn't about history.  It is actually about rewriting history.  It's about giving honor to those who don't deserve honor.  Furthermore, the motivation for erecting those statues was about turning back the clock and rewriting history.  That certainly doesn't mean that those who don't want the statues torn down are racist.  That's ridiculous.

As Pakuni said, removing those statues meant to honor is not rewriting history.  It's correcting it.  Museums, textbooks, etc. will still exist.  And those vehicles will properly put those figures in their proper historical context.

I mean, do the Germans put up statues of Hitler so they won't forget World War II?

As for the 1,000 that exist now?  Take them down.  It may take decades, but one at a time is better than leaving them up.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:24:04 PM
I understand what you are saying ... but is this how we are to view history over time?  That is, constantly changing emotional responses to the "look" of a statue?

The people that commissioned and made it thought it was a proper depiction.  Why can't we learn to understand their point of view?  Why do we have to modify it to what we believe is the proper interpretation based on today's sensibilities?  Should we change it again in 2o to 50 years should those views change again?

No doubt its a tough and nuanced conversation.  I don't want to wax too philsophic, but I think that whenever we literally put something in stone, we have to price in that its just a snapshot of what we knew, and how we thought, at the time. Said a blunter way - we are making a testament to our own ignorance.  We know less about that thing the day the statue goes up than we will 20 to 50 years down the road.  And that ignorance doesn't have independent value. Its not worth preserving just because it was how we thought at the time.

The point of the statue is to honor Fr. Marquette, not to memorialize the artist's perspective of Native Americans.  We shouldn't feel compelled to leave that untouched because it reflects the artist's point of view.  That's conflating the historical value of Fr. Marquette with the historical value of the artist's perspective. We have better context now of the role Native American guides played in Fr. Marquette's story, and we are societally better positioned to appreciate that context.
So if that means changing the statue, I don't see that as a problem.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 12:43:22 PM
I agree with this and the Mayor of Chicago has a commission that is asking if he was too racist and should all references of him (statues) in Chicago be erased.

Can you point to where the Mayor of Chicago has asked if Father Marquette was too racist? I don't think the discussion has anything to do with Father Marquette or his legacy, I think it's about how native peoples are depicted in the statue with Father Marquette.

Of course if this is true, our alma mater would not be in danger of having to change its name.

Quote from: MUBurrow on February 22, 2021, 03:00:15 PM
No doubt its a tough and nuanced conversation.  I don't want to wax too philsophic, but I think that whenever we literally put something in stone, we have to price in that its just a snapshot of what we knew, and how we thought, at the time. Said a blunter way - we are making a testament to our own ignorance.  We know less about that thing the day the statue goes up than we will 20 to 50 years down the road.  And that ignorance doesn't have independent value. Its not worth preserving just because it was how we thought at the time.

The point of the statue is to honor Fr. Marquette, not to memorialize the artist's perspective of Native Americans.  We shouldn't feel compelled to leave that untouched because it reflects the artist's point of view.  That's conflating the historical value of Fr. Marquette with the historical value of the artist's perspective. We have better context now of the role Native American guides played in Fr. Marquette's story, and we are societally better positioned to appreciate that context.

Edit - I've been thinking about this more, and I also think it's fair to ask why it's OK that we (myself included here) so quickly jump to a negative conclusion based on several assumptions. Do we know anything about the guide Marquette worked with? Maybe he was shorter than Marquette and Joliet. Or the person who was used as the model for the statue was shorter, and the artist simply captured reality? Do we know anything about the artist and his background? Is there any specific reason to think he would have a bias that comes through in his statue? Is it possible that our new lens actually makes us read things into history that weren't actually there? I've got to think that happens plenty.
So if that means changing the statue, I don't see that as a problem.

Honoring Father Marquette doesn't take anything away from the many people who worked alongside him throughout his life. And I think that's something that needs to be brought up more in conversations like this - specifically honoring one person does not belittle or diminish others who have been left out. It's fair to say that we need more statues and monuments to honor more cultures that have contributed to our history over the years, for sure. But I don't see that as an excuse to remove many of the existing statues.

So maybe the right idea here is that instead of considering tearing down statues, we should be talking about adding more statues to honor more people representing a broader and more diverse population. Wouldn't that achieve a lot more than knocking down statues that don't fit our current understanding of events/people? (this applies to the Lincolns and Marquettes of the world, not the Confederate stuff) 

I think it's also worth saying that if we're looking at how tall a person is in a bronze statue that maybe we're not in as bad of shape as we think. Could the Native American guide have been taller to be more equal? Yeah, and there's probably some bias showing here. But he could have been left out altogether too.

Quote from: MUBurrow on February 22, 2021, 03:00:15 PM
No doubt its a tough and nuanced conversation.  I don't want to wax too philsophic, but I think that whenever we literally put something in stone, we have to price in that its just a snapshot of what we knew, and how we thought, at the time. Said a blunter way - we are making a testament to our own ignorance.  We know less about that thing the day the statue goes up than we will 20 to 50 years down the road.  And that ignorance doesn't have independent value. Its not worth preserving just because it was how we thought at the time.

I think you hit a lot of nails on the head in this comment, so I'll respond to this piece specifically as well, although I have a slightly different conclusion. You're right that we continue to learn more as time progresses. More voices are added to the conversation, and perspectives grow.

Here's where I diverge from you. Those conversations that continue on do so in part because we chose to dedicate a statue or a space to an honorable person or event. Without drawing attention to a person, it's possible they get lost in the noise along the way. And then we don't get to learn all the new pieces that fill in the gaps of the whole story.

If we focus too much on what we don't know for fear that someday in the future our views may be considered ignorant, we can overlook a lot of things worth celebrating in the here and now. And just because a person or a scene may not represent 100% of what we want them to, I don't think that means we can't lift up the positive pieces. Lincoln is a great example of this. We know more about him now, and his history is more complicated and uglier than most knew years ago. But does that mean we can't honor his accomplishments? I would say no. Dialogue about his flaws is perfectly fair, even encouraged, but I don't see that erasing the good things he did.

What I learned today:

All monuments should be kept in place, in deference to those who considered them appropriate at the time they were erected. If we remove them, we will be 'rewriting history,' And the pain they cause many people is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

Close?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 01:17:22 PM
OMG! Did you just write the most elite sanctimonious thing yet?

One's credentials (school, chosen career) determines the respect people deserve? Did you really go there, honestly think it was a proper view?

What is wrong with you?

After about 5 minutes of gooling, it appears the sculptor of the potentially problematic Marquette statue was probably very well intentioned in his depiction of the Native American guide. His biographic website says he was inspired by Native American culture and spent time with various tribes, even creating a sculpture of a Navajo chief in New Mexico. The Smithsonian says he wanted to help rehabilitate the image of Native Americans through his work.

If the imagery depicted in the Marquette statue is seen as offensive, I would hope that an understanding of the sculptor would change some minds.

https://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/about-2/ (https://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/about-2/)
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/hermon-macneil-3244 (https://americanart.si.edu/artist/hermon-macneil-3244)

Quote from: skianth16 on February 22, 2021, 07:35:18 PM
After about 5 minutes of gooling, it appears the sculptor of the potentially problematic Marquette statue was probably very well intentioned in his depiction of the Native American guide. His biographic website says he was inspired by Native American culture and spent time with various tribes, even creating a sculpture of a Navajo chief in New Mexico. The Smithsonian says he wanted to help rehabilitate the image of Native Americans through his work.

If the imagery depicted in the Marquette statue is seen as offensive, I would hope that an understanding of the sculptor would change some minds.

https://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/about-2/ (https://hermonatkinsmacneil.com/about-2/)
https://americanart.si.edu/artist/hermon-macneil-3244 (https://americanart.si.edu/artist/hermon-macneil-3244)

I'm not sure the intent of the sculptor really matters.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 07:37:05 PM
I'm not sure the intent of the sculptor really matters.

I think it should. If any of the offense taken assumes negative intent, that needs to be reconsidered. If someone is offended because they're reading something into the sculpture that isn't there, why should that be the viewpoint that we listen to?

From what I can find about the sculptor, he dedicated part of his life to better understanding native people and their customs. He then shared that with others through art. If someone doesn't understand his background and takes offense to his work, I would say that view comes from a lack of understanding. Context matters. Understanding the artist's background needs to be a part of the discussion about this statue.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 22, 2021, 07:45:00 PM
I think it should. If any of the offense taken assumes negative intent, that needs to be reconsidered. If someone is offended because they're reading something into the sculpture that isn't there, why should that be the viewpoint that we listen to?

From what I can find about the sculptor, he dedicated part of his life to better understanding native people and their customs. He then shared that with others through art. If someone doesn't understand his background and takes offense to his work, I would say that view comes from a lack of understanding. Context matters. Understanding the artist's background needs to be a part of the discussion about this statue.

The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 08:16:54 PM
The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

If people view his art without understanding him or his background or his intentions when memorializing native people, how can their views be valid? Isn't that basically judging a book by its cover?

Here's another way to think about it - the key reason this might be deemed problematic is because it was created by a non-native artist. Do you think this would be up for debate if the artist was Native American? Or if a Native American commissioned the sculpture? Wouldn't the background and intent of the artist / commissioner matter then?

Where was all the 'dont erase history' and sanctimonious defense of the thought process behind why the art was put up when you were talking about the Assata Shakur mural?

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=47617.0

You don't care about not erasing history, you don't care about the thought process of the times, or heritage, or anything about that. Bottom line is that the news you watch got you riled up with talking points and you'll defend confederate monuments to the end now.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 22, 2021, 04:03:17 PM
What I learned today:

All monuments should be kept in place, in deference to those who considered them appropriate at the time they were erected. If we remove them, we will be 'rewriting history,' And the pain they cause many people is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

Close?

That pretty much covers it.

Smuggles gonna Smuggles.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 22, 2021, 03:58:46 PM
If we focus too much on what we don't know for fear that someday in the future our views may be considered ignorant, we can overlook a lot of things worth celebrating in the here and now. And just because a person or a scene may not represent 100% of what we want them to, I don't think that means we can't lift up the positive pieces. Lincoln is a great example of this. We know more about him now, and his history is more complicated and uglier than most knew years ago. But does that mean we can't honor his accomplishments? I would say no. Dialogue about his flaws is perfectly fair, even encouraged, but I don't see that erasing the good things he did.

This is fair. Part of what makes those discussions so hard is that there are so many interrelated considerations when putting a statue up of someone, not the least of which is that it will probably be up for a long long time.  The subject himself/herself, the way he or she is depicted, and whether he or she is depicted with other persons and how they are represented are all huge factors.  The devil is in the details for the point at which the social benefit of memorializing someone that way outweighs the drawbacks.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 22, 2021, 03:12:14 PM
Can you point to where the Mayor of Chicago has asked if Father Marquette was too racist? I don't think the discussion has anything to do with Father Marquette or his legacy, I think it's about how native peoples are depicted in the statue with Father Marquette.

Of course if this is true, our alma mater would not be in danger of having to change its name.

Yes, in the first post. The Mayor appointed a commission, meaning they speak for her, to look at potentially insensitive statues and have a public discussion about them.  That commission flag about 50 statues (over 500 in Chicago) five were of Lincoln and three were of Father Marquette.

Again, no decision was made, they just want to talk about them.

One of them was this one

(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/d5754a8e76/dusable-bridge-marquette-tablet-01.jpg)

and this one

(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/5cc2f0be54/marquette_winter_monument_chicago.jpg)

I understand MUburrow's point about how the third statue is viewed with "today's eyes." But that is purely an emotional reaction without any historical context.

skianth16 had a wonderful find showing the sculptor's true intention is not at all consistent with a uninform emotional response.

If, repeat if, Chicago decides to remove all three Marquette statues, it is a decision, like many in this area of statue removal, born of ignorance.  It will probably come down to "White Jesuit Priest must be a racist ... take it down."  Just like Lincoln and Columbus were racists (I still need these explained.)

And if they are removed this decision will not end here.  I believe this will lead to MU deciding, having a discussion, about the name of the school.  It will not be for several/many years, but it will come.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 22, 2021, 04:03:17 PM
What I learned today:

All monuments should be kept in place, in deference to those who considered them appropriate at the time they were erected. If we remove them, we will be 'rewriting history,' And the pain they cause many people is, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.

Close?

What I learned today was the Wokes were instructed that the only reason we have confederate statues is the entire South was brutal racists for over a century and they were purposely erected to send hate and intimidation to minorities.  There can be no other possible explanation for them, and anyone that attempts an alternate explanation is also a brutal racist.  You can tar everyone with one brush.

So, when presented with an alternate explanation about the reason we have confederate statues, they reject it outright.  Fluffy just told you that why the statue went up, or what its intention was is irrelevant.  It might be the most closed-minded post in the history of MUscoop.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 07:37:05 PM
I'm not sure the intent of the sculptor really matters.

Fluffy, and the rest of the circle jerk, are good 21-century Wokes. All you need is to let them look at the picture for three seconds, have an emotional reaction and the decision is made.  Please don't complicate their judgment was other opinions and facts (besides Fluffy does not know the difference between an opinion and a fact).

And if you were unsure that Fluffy thinks all decisions about history must be made on pure emotional, based on the current values demanded by one side of the political spectrum, and in a vacuum of ignorance ...

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 08:16:54 PM
The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

Take them all down (war heroes, war "heroes", athletes, priests, etc.). They are unnecessary and serve only a small part of any population. Put a figurine on the mantel rather than a towering bronze in the central square.

Maybe keep Neil Armstrong, but I'm sure he did something nefarious, too. I kid, probably my youthful pride of attending the great Neil Armstrong Elementary.

I'm enjoying the back and forth, perhaps it's another discussion on just slightly the wrong piece? I don't know, I'm probably unique in my apathy towards the need for statues. And, I'm not a fan of keeping something up that offends someone else. I get it, that means no public statues or monuments. Perfect.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 22, 2021, 11:52:13 PM
Yes, in the first post. The Mayor appointed a commission, meaning they speak for her, to look at potentially insensitive statues and have a public discussion about them.  That commission flag about 50 statues (over 500 in Chicago) five were of Lincoln and three were of Father Marquette.

Again, no decision was made, they just want to talk about them.

One of them was this one

(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/d5754a8e76/dusable-bridge-marquette-tablet-01.jpg)

and this one

(https://img2.storyblok.com/500x0/f/94643/5cc2f0be54/marquette_winter_monument_chicago.jpg)

I understand MUburrow's point about how the third statue is viewed with "today's eyes." But that is purely an emotional reaction without any historical context.

skianth16 had a wonderful find showing the sculptor's true intention is not at all consistent with a uninform emotional response.

If, repeat if, Chicago decides to remove all three Marquette statues, it is a decision, like many in this area of statue removal, born of ignorance.  It will probably come down to "White Jesuit Priest must be a racist ... take it down."  Just like Lincoln and Columbus were racists (I still need these explained.)

And if they are removed this decision will not end here.  I believe this will lead to MU deciding, having a discussion, about the name of the school.  It will not be for several/many years, but it will come.

Got it, so you've got nothing that says the mayor of Chicago said Father Marquette is too racist. You just made something up.

Father Marquette isn't the percieved potential problem in these statues. The depiction of native peoples with him is the percieved potential problem. Even if it is decided to make alterations,  it would have zero impact on the name of our alma mater.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 23, 2021, 12:05:36 AM
Fluffy, and the rest of the circle jerk, are good 21-century Wokes. All you need is to let them look at the picture for three seconds, have an emotional reaction and the decision is made.  Please don't complicate their judgment was other opinions and facts (besides Fluffy does not know the difference between an opinion and a fact).

And if you were unsure that Fluffy thinks all decisions about history must be made on pure emotional, based on the current values demanded by one side of the political spectrum, and in a vacuum of ignorance ...

Heisey, up above you asked me a series of questions that I answered.  So instead of going head on with me and debating those, you have decided to engage in labelling, goalpost shifting and strawman arguments.

Such an intellectual lightweight.  Amazing you even got past Logic 101 at MU.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 22, 2021, 08:54:10 PM
If people view his art without understanding him or his background or his intentions when memorializing native people, how can their views be valid? Isn't that basically judging a book by its cover?

Here's another way to think about it - the key reason this might be deemed problematic is because it was created by a non-native artist. Do you think this would be up for debate if the artist was Native American? Or if a Native American commissioned the sculpture? Wouldn't the background and intent of the artist / commissioner matter then?

Regarding your first paragraph, that essentially is exactly what art is.  Art evokes emotions of all sorts, and public art memorializing historic figures is going to do the same thing.  That's not judging a book by the cover - it's judging the book as a whole.  You are advocating for judging the book based on the intent of the author.

And regarding your second paragraph, I don't think it matters what the cultural background of the artist is.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think the artist had bad intent when crafting the image, but the image can be viewed quite differently through the lens of history.

To answer the op's question...no, hey?

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 23, 2021, 12:05:36 AM
So, when presented with an alternate explanation about the reason we have confederate statues, they reject it outright.

I have an equally accurate alternative explanation that the moon is made of cheese. Don't be so closed-minded as to reject it!

Also, we need to keep statues of traitors to the country NOW because otherwise it will cause a second civil war 150 years ago.

Still waiting your list of all the hateful things RGB said over her lifetime.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 22, 2021, 08:54:10 PM
If people view his art without understanding him or his background or his intentions when memorializing native people, how can their views be valid? Isn't that basically judging a book by its cover?

I'm a big fan of the show How I Met Your Mother. The main character is an architect. In one of the early seasons, his boss, a very famous architect, is hired to design a skyscraper that will define the skyline of Spokane, WA. The famous architect designs a skyscraper with a rounded top, two spherical outcroppings at the base of the building, and plans for it to be constructed out of light pink limestone. In other words, he designed a skyscraper that looked like a penis. Problem was, for whatever reason, he couldn't see it even though everyone around him could. His intent, and what he truly believed he was doing, was to design the best possible skyscraper for this client. Of course, when the client sees the model he emphatically states "That's a penis" and when the architect explains his intent, the client makes another crack about it being a penis and starts to storm out.

This of course is an absurdist example from a fictional TV show, but the reality is, intent doesn't matter. People often make terrible mistakes and decisions despite the best of intentions, it doesn't mean that those mistakes and decision shouldn't be corrected. What matters is the impact that a person's actions have on others. If a significant population of reasonable people find the impact to be problematic, I think a change could be warranted. Now what defines a "significant population", "reasonable", and "problematic" are all open to debate.

The statue in question here, the open faced awe displayed on the native person's face does make me cringe a little, but on my personal scale of 0 to statue honoring Hitler, this one barely registers. I see the concern, but its not enough to warrant a change in my opinion. I just don't think the artist's intent matters in this case.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 23, 2021, 07:54:43 AM

Regarding your first paragraph, that essentially is exactly what art is.  Art evokes emotions of all sorts, and public art memorializing historic figures is going to do the same thing.  That's not judging a book by the cover - it's judging the book as a whole.  You are advocating for judging the book based on the intent of the author.

And regarding your second paragraph, I don't think it matters what the cultural background of the artist is.  Don't get me wrong, I don't think the artist had bad intent when crafting the image, but the image can be viewed quite differently through the lens of history.

What new lens could make this statue problematic?

The reality of the current situation is that a sculptor made a point to create works of art depicting Native Americans in attempt to highlight their part in American history and culture. This was driven by his respect for native cultures and people, which he gained from spending time with various tribes. Flash forward 100 years, and segments of our society - very likely including descendants of the very people being honored in these statues - view his work as offensive enough to need to be torn down. Oh the irony.

Plus, I would argue that a statue like the one of Marquette, Joliet, and their guide represents a lesser known piece of history, particularly the inclusion of a native guide. Tearing that one down really could have an impact on people learning about the role native people played in early exploration efforts. Marquette and Joliet have a university and city named after them; no one is forgetting them. What about their guide? What else honors his work? What happens to his legacy if that statue comes down?

Quote from: skianth16 on February 23, 2021, 08:33:52 AM
What new lens could make this statue problematic?

The reality of the current situation is that a sculptor made a point to create works of art depicting Native Americans in attempt to highlight their part in American history and culture. This was driven by his respect for native cultures and people, which he gained from spending time with various tribes. Flash forward 100 years, and segments of our society - very likely including descendants of the very people being honored in these statues - view his work as offensive enough to need to be torn down. Oh the irony.

Exactly.  Depictions can evoke different thoughts and emotions at different times.  That's exactly my point.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 23, 2021, 08:33:52 AM
Plus, I would argue that a statue like the one of Marquette, Joliet, and their guide represents a lesser known piece of history, particularly the inclusion of a native guide. Tearing that one down really could have an impact on people learning about the role native people played in early exploration efforts. Marquette and Joliet have a university and city named after them; no one is forgetting them. What about their guide? What else honors his work? What happens to his legacy if that statue comes down?

Apparently I didn't have to take history classes in school.  Apparently I never had to visit a museum.  I could have learned all I needed to know about historical figures by looking at their sculptures in a public park somewhere.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 23, 2021, 08:02:51 AM
This of course is an absurdist example from a fictional TV show, but the reality is, intent doesn't matter. People often make terrible mistakes and decisions despite the best of intentions, it doesn't mean that those mistakes and decision shouldn't be corrected. What matters is the impact that a person's actions have on others. If a significant population of reasonable people find the impact to be problematic, I think a change could be warranted. Now what defines a "significant population", "reasonable", and "problematic" are all open to debate.

The statue in question here, the open faced awe displayed on the native person's face does make me cringe a little, but on my personal scale of 0 to statue honoring Hitler, this one barely registers. I see the concern, but its not enough to warrant a change in my opinion. I just don't think the artist's intent matters in this case.

Good example. I get what you're saying. But there are still plenty of examples where intent does matter and does affect the interpretation of a situation. Think of all the heartwarming stories of the special needs football players who get to score a touchdown on senior day. If Coach A says to Coach B he'd like to score without Coach B's team playing defense, that would normally be an absurd request. But if the intent is to allow a young man with Down's Syndrome to have a chance to live out a dream, that totally changes the interpretation of the request. 

The reason I think intent and context matter here is that there seems to be some pretty negative assumptions built into the cause for offense. If those offended took time to learn about the artist's history and why he wanted to include the native guide in this statue, I do think it would change the interpretation for many.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 23, 2021, 08:38:50 AM

Exactly.  Depictions can evoke different thoughts and emotions at different times.  That's exactly my point.


Apparently I didn't have to take history classes in school.  Apparently I never had to visit a museum.  I could have learned all I needed to know about historical figures by looking at their sculptures in a public park somewhere.

Do you view the statue as problematic or see why others might? Is there something you know now that would not have been known at the time that would warrant the removal of the statue?

There's really no explanation for why this statue is considered potentially problematic from Chicago. Once that's made clear, then a more detailed conversation can take place. And I'm still pretty convinced that any negative emotions would be eased by learning more about the artist. I've beat that dead horse enough now, so I won't continue to repeat myself.

As to your second paragraph - why do we bother to create statues at all then? You don't seem to place much value on them, but I think a lot of people do. Statues highlight unique people and events in history. They help draw attention to things we may overlook in a book or might forget about after we've moved on from a certain class. They keep history alive in a way. For all those reasons, I think we need to be mindful of the effects of removing statues depicting lesser known people/stories.

Quote from: 4everwarriors on February 23, 2021, 08:01:08 AM
To answer the op's question...no, hey?

+1. This is why Marquette's Jacques Marquette statue was modeled to look like a rugged superhero.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Jacques_Marquette_sculpture.jpg)

Quote from: skianth16 on February 23, 2021, 08:54:21 AM
Good example. I get what you're saying. But there are still plenty of examples where intent does matter and does affect the interpretation of a situation. Think of all the heartwarming stories of the special needs football players who get to score a touchdown on senior day. If Coach A says to Coach B he'd like to score without Coach B's team playing defense, that would normally be an absurd request. But if the intent is to allow a young man with Down's Syndrome to have a chance to live out a dream, that totally changes the interpretation of the request. 

The reason I think intent and context matter here is that there seems to be some pretty negative assumptions built into the cause for offense. If those offended took time to learn about the artist's history and why he wanted to include the native guide in this statue, I do think it would change the interpretation for many.

I think there is a difference between intent and context.  The intent on this statue was likely very positive. The context is that it was made in era where the history learned in schools was whitewashed and Native Americans were often portrayed as savage heathens that were saved by white missionaries.  So a statue depicting a native person in open faced awe of a white missionary wouldn't have been seen as potentially problematic at the time. As our understanding of history and race relations grows, how that statue is perceived is likely to change, despite the positive intent of the artist.

All that being said, I repeat what I said earlier. On my personal scale, this one barely registers. Not enough to warrant removal or alteration in my opinion. I think a better way to address it is to add more to the plaque accompanying the statue to discuss the artist and why the artist might have chosen to depict the native person in the way that he did. That way the statue is documenting two pieces of history.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 23, 2021, 09:05:29 AM
Do you view the statue as problematic or see why others might? Is there something you know now that would not have been known at the time that would warrant the removal of the statue?

There's really no explanation for why this statue is considered potentially problematic from Chicago. Once that's made clear, then a more detailed conversation can take place. And I'm still pretty convinced that any negative emotions would be eased by learning more about the artist. I've beat that dead horse enough now, so I won't continue to repeat myself.

The monuments commission has not detailed why each individual piece made the list, but put out a general explanation for why any piece might warrant further discussion. The criteria are:
    - Promoting narratives of white supremacy
    - Presenting inaccurate and/or demeaning characterizations of American Indians
    - Memorializing individuals with connections to racist acts, slavery, and genocide
    - Presenting selective, over-simplified, one-sided views of history
    - Not sufficiently including other stories, in particular those of women, people of color, and themes of labor, migration, and community building 
    - Creating tension between people who see value in these artworks and those who do not

My guess is the Marquette statue fell under the second point.

You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.
Case in point, Blake Edwards and Mickey Rooney honestly thought they were being funny with the latter's portrayal of a Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffany's." It was also terribly racist and offensive to many Asian viewers. Should those viewers' legitimate offense be ignored and dismissed because Rooney and Edwards didn't mean any harm? I'd argue no.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 23, 2021, 09:44:02 AM
I think there is a difference between intent and context.  The intent on this statue was likely very positive. The context is that it was made in era where the history learned in schools was whitewashed and Native Americans were often portrayed as savage heathens that were saved by white missionaries.  So a statue depicting a native person in open faced awe of a white missionary wouldn't have been seen as potentially problematic at the time. As our understanding of history and race relations grows, how that statue is perceived is likely to change, despite the positive intent of the artist.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 23, 2021, 09:44:48 AM
You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.

Both great points. The artist's interpretation is definitely not the only one that matters; I fully agree with that. And TAMU, the expression of the native guide easily rub some people the wrong way. I see that too. 

I think where a lot of us are landing is that discussions are good and will lead to more understanding of all sides of the issue. What I would love to see as an outcome is something that can try to appease multiple parties. Maybe commission a new statue that specifically focuses on the contributions of the native people who worked alongside Marquette. Dig up some old records that better explain the original commission and the stories surrounding those depicted, and then add a plaque with some background. Include more context, steer the interpretation. I see all those things as much better outcomes that just tearing the statue down.

Quote from: skianth16 on February 23, 2021, 09:05:29 AM
As to your second paragraph - why do we bother to create statues at all then? You don't seem to place much value on them, but I think a lot of people do. Statues highlight unique people and events in history. They help draw attention to things we may overlook in a book or might forget about after we've moved on from a certain class. They keep history alive in a way. For all those reasons, I think we need to be mindful of the effects of removing statues depicting lesser known people/stories.

To be fair, I actually don't see much value in statues at all.  They usually either vanity pieces meant to cement someone's place in history, or they fall into the "great man" theory of history where people place an inordinate amount of credit on one person's impact.

BTW, this has been a great back and forth.  Thanks.

Quote from: MUBurrow on February 23, 2021, 09:24:51 AM
+1. This is why Marquette's Jacques Marquette statue was modeled to look like a rugged superhero.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/21/Jacques_Marquette_sculpture.jpg)

I think he looks more like Captain Morgan.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 23, 2021, 09:44:48 AM
The monuments commission has not detailed why each individual piece made the list, but put out a general explanation for why any piece might warrant further discussion. The criteria are:
    - Promoting narratives of white supremacy
    - Presenting inaccurate and/or demeaning characterizations of American Indians
    - Memorializing individuals with connections to racist acts, slavery, and genocide
    - Presenting selective, over-simplified, one-sided views of history
    - Not sufficiently including other stories, in particular those of women, people of color, and themes of labor, migration, and community building 
    - Creating tension between people who see value in these artworks and those who do not

My guess is the Marquette statue fell under the second point.

You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.
Case in point, Blake Edwards and Mickey Rooney honestly thought they were being funny with the latter's portrayal of a Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffany's." It was also terribly racist and offensive to many Asian viewers. Should those viewers' legitimate offense be ignored and dismissed because Rooney and Edwards didn't mean any harm? I'd argue no.

Sometimes even that doesn't matter. In Portland, we had a statue of Lewis, York (Lewis and Clarks's slave), and a Native guide at the University of Portland. It was sculpted and designed to recognize and honor the contribution of York and the Native guide and the plaque stated as much - that was was created to show that three races, white, black, and Native, contributed to the success of the expedition. That statue was targeted for vandalism ("symbol of white supremacy and colonization." We see "stolen land" graffiti all over town)and University property was vandalized. So even positive intent isn't enough for the woke crowd. Flash forward to this past weekend, a bust of York appears out of nowhere in a park and people can't stop pleasuring themselves to it.

But then again, Ghandi statues were torn down in London, so nothing is good enough anymore.

Quote from: Billy Hoyle on February 23, 2021, 11:42:39 AM
Sometimes even that doesn't matter. In Portland, we had a statue of Lewis, York (Lewis and Clarks's slave), and a Native guide at the University of Portland. It was sculpted and designed to recognize and honor the contribution of York and the Native guide and the plaque stated as much - that was was created to show that three races, white, black, and Native, contributed to the success of the expedition. That statue was targeted for vandalism ("symbol of white supremacy and colonization." We see "stolen land" graffiti all over town)and University property was vandalized. So even positive intent isn't enough for the woke crowd. Flash forward to this past weekend, a bust of York appears out of nowhere in a park and people can't stop pleasuring themselves to it.

But then again, Ghandi statues were torn down in London, so nothing is good enough anymore.

Your example is a result of mob mentality v.s thoughtful discussions re: Chicago statues

Quote from: Spotcheck Billy on February 23, 2021, 12:47:28 PM
Your example is a result of mob mentality v.s thoughtful discussions re: Chicago statues

Right.  And perhaps if people engaged in good faith conversations about items like Confederate statues and the renaming of bases, that that discussion can then extend to statues or displays with "good intent."

But it's easier to dismiss concerns and label them the "woke crowd" instead.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 23, 2021, 10:33:21 AM

BTW, this has been a great back and forth.  Thanks.

Agreed. This has been a good thread. Let's hope the discussion in Chicago is similar.

Quote from: warriorchick on February 23, 2021, 10:52:22 AM
I think he looks more like Captain Morgan.

Maybe they could just put that on the plaque at the base of the statue so there'd be no more controversy.

Quote from: GooooMarquette on February 23, 2021, 01:23:22 PM

Maybe they could just put that on the plaque at the base of the statue so there'd be no more controversy.

About that... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/05/buccaneers-embody-tampas-love-pirates-is-that-problem/)

Quote from: StillAWarrior on February 23, 2021, 01:26:35 PM
About that... (https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/02/05/buccaneers-embody-tampas-love-pirates-is-that-problem/)

Oops....

Quote from: Pakuni on February 23, 2021, 09:44:48 AM
The monuments commission has not detailed why each individual piece made the list, but put out a general explanation for why any piece might warrant further discussion. The criteria are:
    - Promoting narratives of white supremacy
    - Presenting inaccurate and/or demeaning characterizations of American Indians
    - Memorializing individuals with connections to racist acts, slavery, and genocide
    - Presenting selective, over-simplified, one-sided views of history
    - Not sufficiently including other stories, in particular those of women, people of color, and themes of labor, migration, and community building 
    - Creating tension between people who see value in these artworks and those who do not

My guess is the Marquette statue fell under the second point.

You raise a fair point about intent being relevant to the discussion. I agree! It absolutely should be part of the discussion. But intent shouldn't be the only - or perhaps even the prevailing - lens by which we view these things, and I think any artist would agree. Most artists not only are open to different interpretations of their work, but welcome them. And I think it's myopic to argue that the only interpretation that really matters is the artist's.
Case in point, Blake Edwards and Mickey Rooney honestly thought they were being funny with the latter's portrayal of a Japanese guy in "Breakfast at Tiffany's." It was also terribly racist and offensive to many Asian viewers. Should those viewers' legitimate offense be ignored and dismissed because Rooney and Edwards didn't mean any harm? I'd argue no.

I'm thinking about the Columbus statues that the city removed (without damage) last October to bring down the boil over the protests that were trying to tear them down.

This was the catalyst for the statue commission in the first place.

If the commission decided they were ok and should be returned, do you think that can actually happen?  Would the protestors from last October accept this decision?

What should the city do if they are deemed ok?  How far should the city go to protect them if they return them? If the City decides they could return but pose public health because a protestor could be injured tearing it down, so they will not, would that be acceptable?

As I've said throughout, I'm ok if elected officials decide to remove a statue, change the name of a park, or street. As it is done in the best interest of all citizens and by elected officials so voters can punish them if they do not like the decision.  I'm not ok with the decision being driving being crammed down by a woke mob. 

I fear the retribution of the woke mob is going to drive all the decisions and the city will buckle and remove every statue on the list.  How can they not?  They are all now marked.

R-E-L-A-X

Those Columbus statues aren't returning.

Quote from: Spotcheck Billy on February 23, 2021, 04:37:40 PM
R-E-L-A-X

Those Columbus statues aren't returning.

I suspect not. And I think I'm OK with that. Columbus was a monster who's great achievement was accidentally stumbling upon a continent and claiming to have discovered it, some 500 years after other Europeans were here.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 23, 2021, 05:56:18 PM
I suspect not. And I think I'm OK with that. Columbus was a monster who's great achievement was accidentally stumbling upon a continent and claiming to have discovered it, some 500 years after other Europeans were here.

Others here first? Who knew?

As an aside, I just discovered a mighty river that runs between Minnesota and Wisconsin and goes all the way to the Gulf of Mexico! Thinking of calling it the Goooo Past Mississippi River. 🤔

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 23, 2021, 03:59:22 PM
I fear the retribution of the woke mob is going to drive all the decisions and the city will buckle and remove every statue on the list.  How can they not?  They are all now marked.

Ever think that the 'woke mob' is just our society becoming more empathetic and realizing that words and imagery have impact and that we should work towards making sure that impact isn't harmful but empowering when possible?

Quote from: naginiF on February 23, 2021, 08:09:33 PM
Ever think that the 'woke mob' is just our society becoming more empathetic and realizing that words and imagery have impact and that we should work towards making sure that impact isn't harmful but empowering when possible?

Don't expect nuanced thought from ole Heisey.

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 23, 2021, 08:30:21 PM

Don't expect nuanced thought from ole Heisey.

I get it and agree(ish). But I know that there are people close to him in the real world that are part of the 'woke mob' and maybe a nudge from an anonymous fan board will get him to be more accepting of those people.

nm

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 22, 2021, 08:16:54 PM
The sculptor may have intended something to be seen in a charitable light than is now seen completely different.

Again I don't think the intent matters one bit. What matters is how people view his art and sculpture now, and what that symbolizes.

What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

Start a protest.

Quote from: naginiF on February 23, 2021, 08:09:33 PM
Ever think that the 'woke mob' is just our society becoming more empathetic and realizing that words and imagery have impact and that we should work towards making sure that impact isn't harmful but empowering when possible?

I guess singling out just one race of people is empathetic and not harmful but empowering so they can see themselves as they all really are. Yes, this is really going to bring us all together.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9268585/NYC-principal-sent-parents-pamphlet-asking-rate-whiteness.html

Quote from: Fluffy Blue Monster on February 25, 2021, 04:07:04 PM

Start a protest.

... and so someday a majority of politicians in DC decide to remove the MLK memorial, and they may only be a majority for a short time, is going to bring us all together?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 04:19:09 PM
... and so someday a majority of politicians in DC decide to remove the MLK memorial, and they may only be a majority for a short time, is going to bring us all together?

I just didn't think your absurdist statement necessitated a well thought out response.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

Why do you feel the need to call out MLK's womanizing and not the multitude of people you ardently defend?

Different standards for your own "Christian" folks?

Pointing out the splinter, ignoring the plank.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 04:13:48 PM
I guess singling out just one race of people is empathetic and not harmful but empowering so they can see themselves as they all really are. Yes, this is really going to bring us all together.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9268585/NYC-principal-sent-parents-pamphlet-asking-rate-whiteness.html

On the one hand you have people who realize/acknowledge that words and imagery have been used for decades and centuries by the majority to convey negative (even dehumanizing) messages about minority groups and realize it's not the right thing to perpetuate. This doesn't even touch on the fact that there are laws in place and being proposed today that further target these groups as well as elected officials publicly marginalizing them.

On the other hand we have a white guy that's threatened by the single (and stupid) act of a principal in NY.

To say that is a 'false equivalence' is putting it mildly

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

I'm not sure womanizing and plagiarism on a doctoral thesis are quite on par with treason, slavery and genocide, but perhaps our moral codes differ.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 04:01:05 PM
What people? So some people who go to Washington and see the MLK memorial as a statue of a plagiarist and womanizer who really wanted to judge people by the color of their skin and not the content of their character as his famous quote to the contrary is intentionally omitted. So that statue has to go because some people see it as a symbol differently than what was intended.

Yes, for centuries now, the white man hasn't been able to catch a break in America. Such victims we have been.

Quote from: Heisenberg v2.0 on February 23, 2021, 03:59:22 PM

I'm thinking about the Columbus statues that the city removed (without damage) last October to bring down the boil over the protests that were trying to tear them down.

Oh C'mon, the statue came down because the mob was outside the Mayor's home disturbing her rest.

Morale of story -- Make noise around the Mayor's house, get what you want!!!!

Quote from: naginiF on February 25, 2021, 05:18:08 PM
On the one hand you have people who realize/acknowledge that words and imagery have been used for decades and centuries by the majority to convey negative (even dehumanizing) messages about minority groups and realize it's not the right thing to perpetuate. This doesn't even touch on the fact that there are laws in place and being proposed today that further target these groups as well as elected officials publicly marginalizing them.

On the other hand we have a white guy that's threatened by the single (and stupid) act of a principal in NY.

To say that is a 'false equivalence' is putting it mildly

That principal is molding the minds of those he is supposedly educating and those definitions of whiteness are written by a black professor at Northwestern supposedly teaching young college students how racist our society is. So it is not a single act especially if our children are being taught that being white is at the root of all racism. So bringing up negative images of white people in our schools and colleges is the right thing to do, will solve the race problem, and bring us together. I think not; and who is dehumanizing whom?

Quote from: Pakuni on February 25, 2021, 07:13:06 PM
I'm not sure womanizing and plagiarism on a doctoral thesis are quite on par with treason, slavery and genocide, but perhaps our moral codes differ.

The Moores enslaved the slavs, my people, centuries ago. Can you say the same? But that was a long time ago so it does not count. I get it.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 09:04:44 PM
The Moores enslaved the slavs, my people, centuries ago. Can you say the same? But that was a long time ago so it does not count. I get it.

Dudley or Mary Tyler?

I'm not aware of any Moors being honored with statues in Prague or  Slovakian military bases named after Moor leaders. Are you?

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 08:58:27 PM
That principal is molding the minds of those he is supposedly educating and those definitions of whiteness are written by a black professor at Northwestern supposedly teaching young college students how racist our society is. So it is not a single act especially if our children are being taught that being white is at the root of all racism. So bringing up negative images of white people in our schools and colleges is the right thing to do, will solve the race problem, and bring us together. I think not; and who is dehumanizing whom?

Maybe we should level set. We agree that any imagery, language, and especially law that marginalizes or degrades a person or people based on their color, ethnicity, sex, age, sexual orientation/identification or religious beliefs should be called out or stricken. Right?

That gets us down to quibbling over either a) which of acts we should focus on eradicating from society first and b) which group of people is hurt most by existing acts/laws.

Quote from: Pakuni on February 25, 2021, 09:06:49 PM
Dudley or Mary Tyler?

I'm not aware of any Moors being honored with statues in Prague or  Slovakian military bases named after Moor leaders. Are you?

He said Slavs which is pretty broad, by my count that's pretty much most of Eastern Europe... a lot of countries have their own blood on their hands.

When evaluating what to do about older public monuments, there are three categories of monument, from worst to best:

WTF -- As in, who on earth would ever really make a monument to this person? Nathan Bedford Forrest's statue in the State Capitol in Nashville qualifies. Why would anyone honor the founder of the Klu Klux Klan? Monuments to people like J. Edgar Hoover, Donald Trump, any Confederate army officer, Richard Nixon, John Wayne Gacy, William Calley etc., would tend to inflame. The WTF category falls into a universally disgusting person or a person who on reflection should be buried, not memorialized. Realistically, we rarely do public monuments to WTF characters. We should also be looking at flags, building names, highway and street names etc., and try to get WTF people off our public recognitions. Hint: Florida, you need to get the Confederate Naval Battle Flag out of your state flag!

Eeh -- Many of our monuments probably are Eehs. As in, on reflection we understand why these people were recognized but we really probably wouldn't do it over if we could. Steven Douglas' monument and grave on the south side of Chicago qualifies. So does naming an airport after some dude named Butch O'Hare. Christopher Columbus, given he wasn't the first European to walk on North American shores, also probably qualifies. Naming freeways in Chicago after Dan Ryan, William Edens and Bishop Ford also probably qualify. Or Buford Ellington in Tennessee (find me 10 living Tennesseans who know who Buford was or 10 living Illinoisans who know who either Bishop Ford or William Edens were and I'd tell you that you found 10 geeks). Bottom line is we have way too many monuments to people who really were nothing more than a local, period hero. They probably were great people but to perpetually memorialize them is a bit much. Many also may have character flaws that upon examination make them less than ideal for a monument.

I Get It -- Memorializing George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, John Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jackie Robinson and even Barack Obama qualifies as we clearly "get it." These are people that, however flawed, played such a significant role in the founding or advancement of our country that we would not be the same place without them. If a public monuments commission goes after these folks, there clearly is something wrong or these folks have a distorted view of history. Father Marquette falls into this group. He was a significant early explorer in the Midwest and his impact on Wisconsin, Illinois and the surrounding region was extensive. He paved the way for the eventual settlement and development of the region we call "home." Maybe he's responsible for Illinois $150 billion public pension shortfall! He started it. LOL

The point is that in reviewing monuments and naming conventions you have to ask two things -- first why did the folks that built or approved the memorial choose remember the person? Second, have we learned anything about the person since the time of the memorialization that would cause us to basically say, "WTF???" On the second point, it's why many since 1971 have questioned honoring J. Edgar Hoover by naming the FBI headquarters after him. The man likely was a crook, even by standards of the time.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 09:04:44 PM
The Moores enslaved the slavs, my people, centuries ago. Can you say the same? But that was a long time ago so it does not count. I get it.

The Moofs as per the Seinfeld Bubble Boy episode?

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on February 26, 2021, 10:54:36 AM
The Moofs as per the Seinfeld Bubble Boy episode?

Moops

Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on February 26, 2021, 10:56:24 AM
Moops

Damn, you're right!

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 09:04:44 PM
The Moores enslaved the slavs, my people, centuries ago. Can you say the same? But that was a long time ago so it does not count. I get it.

Um I'm thinking it's a bit different when great grandpa was a slave vs when you're going 20+ generations back...

Quote from: dgies9156 on February 25, 2021, 11:09:05 PM
Monuments to people like J. Edgar Hoover, Donald Trump, any Confederate army officer, Richard Nixon, John Wayne Gacy, William Calley etc., would tend to inflame.

Um ... a golden idol has been set up at CPAC for this weekend. Of course, after spending 5 years bowing to this false god, it shouldn't surprise anybody.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTurton/status/1365109969490567169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1365140311920562183%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fdonald-trump-gold-statue-cpac_n_6038eac7c5b60f03d9b3dec5

Quote from: MU82 on February 26, 2021, 02:52:53 PM
Um ... a golden idol has been set up at CPAC for this weekend. Of course, after spending 5 years bowing to this false god, it shouldn't surprise anybody.

https://twitter.com/WilliamTurton/status/1365109969490567169?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1365140311920562183%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Fdonald-trump-gold-statue-cpac_n_6038eac7c5b60f03d9b3dec5

That's a flag code violation

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on February 26, 2021, 04:51:12 PM
That's a flag code violation

True, though not as big a violation as when the Capitol terrorists used a flagpole (with American flag attached) to beat a cop.

But at least they didn't take a knee. That would have been disrespectful to the flag, police, veterans and apple pie.

Quote from: muwarrior69 on February 25, 2021, 09:04:44 PM
The Moores enslaved the slavs, my people, centuries ago. Can you say the same? But that was a long time ago so it does not count. I get it.

actually Slav meant slave. Foe centuries the Vikings raided eastern europe for slaves that they sold in N. Africa among other places. about a week ago Ancient Origins had an aricle about the history of mankind and slavery. The Ottoman empire was engaged in raiding and taking slaves from everywhere in Europe.  In the 1600s the Barbary pirates raided and took captive an entire Irish town. Men, women and children were transported to N. african slave markets. They also engaged in piracy and captured and enslaved Europen ships for centuries until the U. S. sent the marines to Tripoli. jefferson refused to pay the ransom demanded.

Quote from: WellsstreetWanderer on February 26, 2021, 07:17:05 PM
In the 1600s the Barbary pirates raided and took captive an entire Irish town. Men, women and children were transported to N. african slave markets. They also engaged in piracy and captured and enslaved Europen ships for centuries until the U. S. sent the marines to Tripoli. jefferson refused to pay the ransom demanded.

Never knew the backyard of the story.
This would make a good movie or mini-series on one the streaming platforms.

Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on February 27, 2021, 06:45:06 AM
Never knew the backyard of the story.
This would make a good movie or mini-series on one the streaming platforms.

It's pretty crazy. However, Baltimore was a relatively young settlement at the time and the majority of the population was involved in pirating in one way or another. It's not like Barbary pirates randomly sacked a town out of nowhere