Renaming buildings and institutions

[The Sultan]

I disagree. Regardless of imperfection, George Washington is an heroic figures when viewed in any reasonably fair context. Lots of others also fit that category. Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

While that is true, we also aren't having honest discussions about placing people in context.  The last time this issue boiled over, we had a lot of people claiming  that Colin Kaepernick was "disrespecting the troops" while peacefully kneeing, yet defended honoring the general of a rebellion that literally killed 300,000+ troops.

That's a context problem.

[warriorchick]

I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.

So tear those guys' statues down.  They were all misogynists.

[The Sultan]

I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.

So tear those guys' statues down.  They were all misogynists.

But I guess this is the point.  I am all for placing people into the context of history, but then let's have honest discussions about that history.

[Pakuni]

I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.

So tear those guys' statues down.  They were all misogynists.

Could you cite some specific examples?
Like, was Martha Washington a fledgling young architect until George came along and banished her to the kitchen?

[lawdog77]

I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.

So tear those guys' statues down.  They were all misogynists.

This was science based.

[Babybluejeans]

Of course.

Do you accept that some attitudes considered dark today were once not only accepted but were considered "best science"? For example, homosexuality was deemed a mental illness by our most learned less than 50 years ago. Should any psychiatrist who agreed with that scientific consensus be "cancelled" because of what we know now?

Placing today's standards  on people who lived in much different societies 50, 100, 200 or 2000 years ago misses the points that history should be explaining rather than demonizing.

If statues were erected in the south 50 or 100 years after the Civil War to intimidate the black community they should be removed from the public square. But the fact that Washington had slaves (while it should be noted by historians) does not disqualify him from being honored.

Yes, I'm pretty much with you the whole way here. To be clear though, there's a difference between "not canceling someone" and "honoring" them. That context is important. Cancel culture generally is unhelpful, and I think lots of folks who think certain statues should come down also think cancel culture is impulsive and problematic. People should learn about Lee, for example, rather than pretend he didn't exist. At the same time, that doesn't mean we should honor him or what he stood for. And it seems reasonable to identify that he represented a horrific part of American history.

[Galway Eagle]

I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.

So tear those guys' statues down.  They were all misogynists.

Is this true in the case of the slave owning founding fathers? If I recall correctly slaves were used for the vast majority of the housework and nannying responsibilities.

[warriorchick]

Is this true in the case of the slave owning founding fathers? If I recall correctly slaves were used for the vast majority of the housework and nannying responsibilities.

Not necessarily.  Their wives supervised those activities, just as their husbands supervised the slaves on the plantation.

Also, none of these guys thought women should vote.  Tear 'em down!!!!

[dgies9156]

I am reasonably certain that up until the last 40-50 years are so, very few men would allow their wives to have a full-time career, and expected them to perform the overwhelming majority of housework and childcare.

So tear those guys' statues down.  They were all misogynists.

Replace them with statues of Baby Boomer Heros!!!!!!!!

[Galway Eagle]

Not necessarily.  They wives supervised those activities, just as their husbands supervised the slaves on the plantation.

Also, none of these guys thought women should vote.  Tear 'em down!!!!

Fair enough. I'll get my pitchfork and torch ready to join the tear em down rabble

[brewcity77]

I disagree. Regardless of imperfection, George Washington is an heroic figures when viewed in any reasonably fair context. Lots of others also fit that category. Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Are there not people today saying the same about Lee and Davis? When you say "reasonably fair context" you are looking through your own lens. That's exactly why it's a slippery slope. Honestly, I don't get any obsession with monuments. Who cares about a monument to anyone, or what something is named after? We don't teach history at monuments, we don't read placards at a park and write papers on them. History has never needed monuments.

Through my own lens, I agree that Washington should be viewed as a heroic figure. But who makes that call, who defines reasonably fair, that's always going to be the rub. I just don't care that much about monuments or what things are named after. I just don't think it's that important.

[Galway Eagle]

I disagree. Regardless of imperfection, George Washington is an heroic figures when viewed in any reasonably fair context. Lots of others also fit that category. Anyone demanding perfection in his or her heroes doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.

Through the context of a British mindset they might reasonably and fairly say otherwise

[Billy Hoyle]

What will be interesting to me, regarding cancel culture, is if or when it comes for MLK. He was no saint, he was an abuser and adulterer 40+ women). Does that mean MLK should be "cancelled?"

https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015

[Pakuni]

What will be interesting to me, regarding cancel culture, is if or when it comes for MLK. He was no saint, he was an abuser and adulterer 40+ women). Does that mean MLK should be "cancelled?"

https://theconversation.com/im-an-mlk-scholar-and-ill-never-be-able-to-view-king-in-the-same-light-118015

What's so interesting to you about it?
Like Lenny, you're setting up a false dilemma here. Nobody engaged in any serious thought or discussion on these topics has suggested that one need to be "perfect" (his word) or a "saint" (yours) to merit some form of honor.
And, as Fluffy has suggested, the kind of extreme slippery slopes narratives being tossed about in this thread only serve to distract from having a real discussion of the issue.

[Lennys Tap]

Honestly, I don't get any obsession with monuments.

The only people "obsessed" over the monuments are the people who have been lawlessly tearing them down.

[Lennys Tap]

What's so interesting to you about it?
Nobody engaged in any serious thought or discussion on these topics has suggested that one need to be "perfect" (his word) or a "saint" (yours) to merit some form of honor.

You clearly have not read Brew's posts. He wants zero monuments because nobody is a hero in everyone's eye. That sounds like nobody's perfect or a saint to me.

[Pakuni]

You clearly have not read Brew's posts. He wants zero monuments because nobody is a hero in everyone's eye. That sounds like nobody's perfect or a saint to me.

I read Brew's post, and then re-read them to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
I wasn't missing anything.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

The only people "obsessed" over the monuments are the people who have been lawlessly tearing them down.

Lenny - I don't know that it is actually fair.  The person/people who fund & erects a monument is in some way 'obsessed'.  Having a dialog about the person being honored & the motivation for erecting a monument is fair game.

I classify ripping something down in anger as just that.  A symptom of rage that is unfair and doesn't give a satisfactory conclusion to anyone.

[Lennys Tap]

Lenny - I don't know that it is actually fair.  The person/people who fund & erects a monument is in some way 'obsessed'.  Having a dialog about the person being honored & the motivation for erecting a monument is fair game.

I classify ripping something down in anger as just that.  A symptom of rage that is unfair and doesn't give a satisfactory conclusion to anyone.

Frenns,

In general, the people responsible for putting them up have been dead quite some time. Whether they were "obsessed" is anyone's guess but I would doubt it.

[Lennys Tap]

I read Brew's post, and then re-read them to make sure I wasn't missing anything.
I wasn't missing anything.

No big deal, but we disagree.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Frenns,

In general, the people responsible for putting them up have been dead quite some time. Whether they were "obsessed" is anyone's guess but I would doubt it.

I am pretty sure we can research & document the motivation side on the Confederate monuments erected after 1900. 

It's not like we are trying to figure out stonehenge.

[JWags85]

Confederacy aside, I think there is this, for lack of a better term, obsession with the need for the statue's representation to be blameless in order for it to stand.

Look at the people flipping out over Churchill. The man who was instrumental in guiding England through hell and making sure they weren't the Isle of Deutschland or complete shambolic has-been after the War.  He was far from perfect, but if you're English and you decry Churchill, then you better decry England's entire history and identity up until the last 30-40 years, if that.  His negative criticisms are  largely a result of his embodiment of the mentality of English exceptionalism and imperialism. So either you're not proud to be English and you realize Churchill was an imperfect as the country's historical identity that you're proud to be from, or you're not.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

 The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.

    George Orwell

  Where do we stop.... Alexander the Great  Genghis Khan  The Pharaohs?
All men are flawed . we celebrate the good deeds they have accomplished

[Pakuni]

Confederacy aside, I think there is this, for lack of a better term, obsession with the need for the statue's representation to be blameless in order for it to stand.

Look at the people flipping out over Churchill. The man who was instrumental in guiding England through hell and making sure they weren't the Isle of Deutschland or complete shambolic has-been after the War.  He was far from perfect, but if you're English and you decry Churchill, then you better decry England's entire history and identity up until the last 30-40 years, if that.  His negative criticisms are  largely a result of his embodiment of the mentality of English exceptionalism and imperialism. So either you're not proud to be English and you realize Churchill was an imperfect as the country's historical identity that you're proud to be from, or you're not.

You're being kind to Winnie.
There's a few million dead Indians who may have stronger words for him than "far from perfect."

[tower912]

All of our forefathers were flawed.   Just as we are all flawed.   On balance, were they working to move society forward and better?