Here in the States, I've been thinking similar thoughts about the removal of Confederate statues for many of the same reasons. I recently watched a piece on Russia who has taken their statues and placed them together in a memorial garden of sorts so they are still on display. To my knowledge, the ones removed here are placed somewhere where they can't be seen by the public anymore.
The problem with the statues in the US south isn't so much what they did during the Civil War but that many after became prominent in the KKK. There was also a profound anti Catholic-Jew-Irish-German-Italian ethos with them too. Of course the military memorials when a death on the battlefield is removed it's due to the connections the others that survived and what they did post the war. I would see providing a park for the deaths in battle monuments, the Citadel perhaps, but the others no.
I think even those post civil war racist monuments have a place and should be seen lest we never forget. I will never forget because I grew up among it but with two daughters who didn't, how will they know our mistakes if they can't read or see them? I'm all for putting them somewhere where they aren't in your face and one has to make an effort to see them to shield those who do not want (or probably need) to remember those things again.
I'd be inclined to agree were these monuments not lightening rods for a very polarized society. You see I think with the -left call them the secondary rank-, if they had no connection to the Civil War would they have gone up, possibly. But they wouldn't have been in uniform. And since most died twenty years and more after their war years why harp back to it unless that structure remained in place and the reasoning wasn't a great one. That's why I'm splitting the battle deaths, and the general regimental statues from the Beau Pritchards-Boyde's in full grey atop a steed before a county courthouse.
His thoughts on Trump are choice too, apt I feel though. But yeah the f-word is a bit heavy, I don't think it's beyond what most at all levels of society would deem excessive here or the UK though. As to re-writing history, that's exactly what historians do. Usually someone sets a date range and that sits for a while then someone re-jigs the dates and the picture changes entirely.
Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about historians re-writing history. I have a couple of historians in my family and I put forward that idea to them and one came back with this response:
"A good historian does not rewrite history. It may correct history. A good historian must be objective and not put his/her opinions in, which is hard to do. Some say it’s not possible. A lot of historians have to correct history. We have many more resources available to use than we once had. I’ve been doing research from home in newspapers that, prior to the internet, would’ve been almost impossible for anyone to afford to travel to the 15 or 20 states to look at them physically, if you learned that they existed at all. We tend to view history through our current lives and perspectives, which is unfair to history. History is harsh and unforgiving. It’s not politically correct and it shouldn’t be sugarcoated. Bad stuff happened to a lot of innocent people. Good stuff happened to a lot of undeserving people. Write the truth."
This is the preamble to Herodotus 'This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other' and nothing much has changed. Historians re-write for many reasons. Mostly because the thinking current has caused a review of earlier inquires, and of course the finding of new data. My one is a re-jigging of the set time periods together with data from the archaeological discoveries/sagas. I think the focus over the last 60 years of written sources has distorted the record to those that wrote it in the first place.
Yep, the f-word is way over used... and outrage on all sides is overdone... someone should have taken this dude's blood pressure before and after his rant.
This isn't real, it's a commentary. This guy a while back became hacked off with the way the mainstream media was hyping rubbish all while kids were dead on Greek shores while trying to cross to safety. It's a sort of reality check about the social and mainstream media's treatment.
This type of thing he is complaining about is a big beef I have with liberals. There are some REAL concerns we need to have over REAL issues, and the petty stuff just gets in the way of that. While I'm in favor of being PC and aware of society and my place in it, out of respect for other people, I feel that there are so many shades of it or the lack of it. The PC police wants to ruin the lives of anyone who doesn't follow their perceived "rules" of being PC. An unintended, off the cuff remark can garner as much outrage as intended racism, sexism, etc. That's my issue with it. Media (Social media mostly) has turned everything into a shit storm. We no longer have degrees of offensiveness. Harvey Weinstein should be fired and sent to jail. Al Franken should not have lost his job. But the left bundled everyone into that "Me Too" category and didn't take the degree of their offenses into account. None if it is/was appropriate, but mistakes are made and people shouldn't have their lives ruined over mistakes, especially if they can be learned from and corrected. I'm just saddened over the Engel Wilder removal. I remember reading some of her books (as well as several other books of that time) and learned SO much about society from them. The discussions they bring about are invaluable. I hate to hear we're going back to that place of "book banning" of sorts. I hate to see we're going backwards on a lot of things these days. :(
The problem I have with removing Laura Ingalls Wilder from schools is that some schools won't -the top schools- and it will impinge upon the true education and their ability to assess. But I would also say as far as US history is concerned those books are a true snapshot of society at that time and truly deserve reading. And yes, the PC police are truly doing more damage than they know to the very things they want to protect. And militant feminism by is dismissal of logic has given people like Jordan Peterson enough room to drive a convoy of trucks through any argument they produce for at it's core is the contention that the pay differential is solely down to sex, and it's not. But because it's easier to argue that way and rather than examine all the factors and address them one by one. The Franken issue is why the real issue won't be addressed, why, because reasonable people see this and CAN gradate even if the PC fools can't. On Weinstein, here I am somewhat conflicted. I don't for one instant believe he took anyone by force. Did he create conditions that women felt they had to service him to get work on his films, probably to almost certainly. Is this a crime though, I don't think for one instant it is. Yes, he's an ugly nasty little man but as Germaine Greer said they had choice.
Here in the States, I've been thinking similar thoughts about the removal of Confederate statues for many of the same reasons. I recently watched a piece on Russia who has taken their statues and placed them together in a memorial garden of sorts so they are still on display. To my knowledge, the ones removed here are placed somewhere where they can't be seen by the public anymore.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with the statues in the US south isn't so much what they did during the Civil War but that many after became prominent in the KKK. There was also a profound anti Catholic-Jew-Irish-German-Italian ethos with them too. Of course the military memorials when a death on the battlefield is removed it's due to the connections the others that survived and what they did post the war.
DeleteI would see providing a park for the deaths in battle monuments, the Citadel perhaps, but the others no.
I think even those post civil war racist monuments have a place and should be seen lest we never forget. I will never forget because I grew up among it but with two daughters who didn't, how will they know our mistakes if they can't read or see them? I'm all for putting them somewhere where they aren't in your face and one has to make an effort to see them to shield those who do not want (or probably need) to remember those things again.
DeleteI'd be inclined to agree were these monuments not lightening rods for a very polarized society. You see I think with the -left call them the secondary rank-, if they had no connection to the Civil War would they have gone up, possibly. But they wouldn't have been in uniform. And since most died twenty years and more after their war years why harp back to it unless that structure remained in place and the reasoning wasn't a great one. That's why I'm splitting the battle deaths, and the general regimental statues from the Beau Pritchards-Boyde's in full grey atop a steed before a county courthouse.
DeleteI loved this... even if it was a little heavy on the F-word, but yeah - definitely worth watching.
ReplyDeleteAs for Ed's comment, don't even get me started on re-writing history.
His thoughts on Trump are choice too, apt I feel though.
DeleteBut yeah the f-word is a bit heavy, I don't think it's beyond what most at all levels of society would deem excessive here or the UK though.
As to re-writing history, that's exactly what historians do. Usually someone sets a date range and that sits for a while then someone re-jigs the dates and the picture changes entirely.
Well, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about historians re-writing history. I have a couple of historians in my family and I put forward that idea to them and one came back with this response:
Delete"A good historian does not rewrite history. It may correct history. A good historian must be objective and not put his/her opinions in, which is hard to do. Some say it’s not possible. A lot of historians have to correct history. We have many more resources available to use than we once had. I’ve been doing research from home in newspapers that, prior to the internet, would’ve been almost impossible for anyone to afford to travel to the 15 or 20 states to look at them physically, if you learned that they existed at all. We tend to view history through our current lives and perspectives, which is unfair to history. History is harsh and unforgiving. It’s not politically correct and it shouldn’t be sugarcoated. Bad stuff happened to a lot of innocent people. Good stuff happened to a lot of undeserving people. Write the truth."
This is the preamble to Herodotus 'This is the display of the inquiry of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, so that things done by man not be forgotten in time, and that great and marvelous deeds, some displayed by the Hellenes, some by the barbarians, not lose their glory, including among others what was the cause of their waging war on each other' and nothing much has changed.
DeleteHistorians re-write for many reasons. Mostly because the thinking current has caused a review of earlier inquires, and of course the finding of new data. My one is a re-jigging of the set time periods together with data from the archaeological discoveries/sagas. I think the focus over the last 60 years of written sources has distorted the record to those that wrote it in the first place.
Yep, the f-word is way over used... and outrage on all sides is overdone... someone should have taken this dude's blood pressure before and after his rant.
ReplyDeletes
This isn't real, it's a commentary. This guy a while back became hacked off with the way the mainstream media was hyping rubbish all while kids were dead on Greek shores while trying to cross to safety.
DeleteIt's a sort of reality check about the social and mainstream media's treatment.
This type of thing he is complaining about is a big beef I have with liberals. There are some REAL concerns we need to have over REAL issues, and the petty stuff just gets in the way of that. While I'm in favor of being PC and aware of society and my place in it, out of respect for other people, I feel that there are so many shades of it or the lack of it. The PC police wants to ruin the lives of anyone who doesn't follow their perceived "rules" of being PC. An unintended, off the cuff remark can garner as much outrage as intended racism, sexism, etc. That's my issue with it. Media (Social media mostly) has turned everything into a shit storm. We no longer have degrees of offensiveness. Harvey Weinstein should be fired and sent to jail. Al Franken should not have lost his job. But the left bundled everyone into that "Me Too" category and didn't take the degree of their offenses into account. None if it is/was appropriate, but mistakes are made and people shouldn't have their lives ruined over mistakes, especially if they can be learned from and corrected.
ReplyDeleteI'm just saddened over the Engel Wilder removal. I remember reading some of her books (as well as several other books of that time) and learned SO much about society from them. The discussions they bring about are invaluable. I hate to hear we're going back to that place of "book banning" of sorts. I hate to see we're going backwards on a lot of things these days. :(
The problem I have with removing Laura Ingalls Wilder from schools is that some schools won't -the top schools- and it will impinge upon the true education and their ability to assess. But I would also say as far as US history is concerned those books are a true snapshot of society at that time and truly deserve reading.
DeleteAnd yes, the PC police are truly doing more damage than they know to the very things they want to protect. And militant feminism by is dismissal of logic has given people like Jordan Peterson enough room to drive a convoy of trucks through any argument they produce for at it's core is the contention that the pay differential is solely down to sex, and it's not. But because it's easier to argue that way and rather than examine all the factors and address them one by one.
The Franken issue is why the real issue won't be addressed, why, because reasonable people see this and CAN gradate even if the PC fools can't.
On Weinstein, here I am somewhat conflicted. I don't for one instant believe he took anyone by force. Did he create conditions that women felt they had to service him to get work on his films, probably to almost certainly. Is this a crime though, I don't think for one instant it is. Yes, he's an ugly nasty little man but as Germaine Greer said they had choice.