Gastown Steam Clock

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by libtard

Wow how long have you been waiting to take that word out of the holster? Doesn’t even apply here

It applies to your ridiculous hyperbole.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Much as I dislike Jefferson as a person and as a politician (two-faced, unfaithful, thin-skinned, bigoted, isolationist to the point of idiocy), he also bought the Louisiana Territory, sponsored Lewis and Clark, founded West Point, and designed U.Va. himself.

To reduce all of that to "yeah, but he owned slaves, and that's the only thing that matters" is despairingly stupid.

Like I said before, absolutely no one of sound mind is going to argue that we should remove Jefferson from the history books, but maybe he was an asshole who doesn't deserve a statue? Is that an unreasonable idea? I think famous politicians of recent history like Stalin or Kissinger are incredibly important historical figures based on how their decisions shaped the modern world, but these are not men that ought to be honoured with statues. Leave their stories to the history books.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Like I said before, absolutely no one of sound mind is going to argue that we should remove Jefferson from the history books, but maybe he was an asshole who doesn't deserve a statue? Is that an unreasonable idea? I think famous politicians of recent history like Stalin or Kissinger are incredibly important historical figures based on how their decisions shaped the modern world, but these are not men that ought to be honoured with statues. Leave their stories to the history books.

Absolutely. Question is, where do we draw the line between "deserving" and "undeserving?" Everybody's got flaws.

I mean, do they dynamite Jefferson's Memorial and his Mount Rushmore head and take him off the $2? If slavery's the qualifier, do we move on to Washington and Grant? And what do we do about the slavery advocate in the middle of Trafalgar Square? And then ten years from now, we're going to have some group say that non-racism is the qualifier (in which case even Lincoln and Einstein are on the chopping block) and so on and so forth... there does have to be a limit somewhere.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Absolutely. Question is, where do we draw the line between "deserving" and "undeserving?"

I mean, do they dynamite Jefferson's Memorial and his Mount Rushmore head and take him off the $2? If slavery's the qualifier, do we move on to Washington, Grant and Lincoln? And what do we do about the slavery advocate in the middle of Trafalgar Square?

Not a popular opinion, but probably based on public opinion and the environment of the time. I personally don't have a problem with Jefferson. People generally still like Jefferson, and though he wasn't perfect he is generally considered to be progressive for his time.

Andrew Jackson is probably a better example of this. For most of history he was considered a good president worthy of honour by the people of the day. The US still has him on the $20, probably one of the biggest honours an individual can have. Nowdays, however, people are looking back and realising that he supported anti-abolitionist policies and ethnic cleansing against Native Americans which even at the time were considered morally dubious, so it does not appear as though our modern society ought to honour such an individual. Now you're seeing policies to remove him from the $20 bill and calls for removal of statues honouring him.

As painful as it can be, sometimes opinions on people change, even opinions on "heroes" of the day. As new information surfaces or history is further analyzed, perceptions can change.

Perhaps in the future you'll see modern day "heroes" being called out for their injustices.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Not a popular opinion, but probably based on public opinion and the environment of the time. I personally don't have a problem with Jefferson. People generally still like Jefferson, and though he wasn't perfect he is generally considered to be progressive for his time.

Andrew Jackson is probably a better example of this. For most of history he was considered a good president worthy of honour by the people of the day. The US still has him on the $20, probably one of the biggest honours an individual can have. Nowdays, however, people are looking back and realising that he supported anti-abolitionist policies and ethnic cleansing against Native Americans which even at the time were considered morally dubious, so it does not appear as though our modern society ought to honour such an individual. Now you're seeing policies to remove him from the $20 bill and calls for removal of statues honouring him.

Agreed on both counts. Though IMO the latter has much more to do with a plan to change the $10 and a certain musical...

Originally Posted by chowhou

As painful as it can be, sometimes opinions on people change, even to "heroes" of the day. As new information surfaces or history is further analyzed, perceptions can change.

Perhaps in the future you'll see modern day "heroes" being called out for their injustices.

Gandhi and John A. Macdonald come to mind. Steve Jobs, too. And as noted last post, Einstein and Lincoln both held views that were okay in their time, but horrible now.

I agree with the need to constantly question our biased interpretations of history, while at the same time noting that A) whitewashing of history is not okay (e.g. Mark Twain getting all his books' N-words censored) and B) if we keep setting the bar higher and higher, the only role models we'll have left are Martin Luther King, Bob Ross and Mister Rogers, and even they might not be safe.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

I agree with the need to constantly question our biased interpretations of history, while at the same time noting that if we keep setting the bar higher and higher, the only role models we'll have left are Martin Luther King, Bob Ross and Mister Rogers (and even they might not be safe).

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't believe in historical role models. Their actions were their own and shaped by the time, perhaps they are worth studying to understand the history and their effects on the modern day, but they are all just people, good or bad. I'm not a big fan of the hero worship you see around historical figures. Let their actions speak for themselves.

Besides the artistic and aesthetic merit of statues (some look great, and some are incredibly impressive), I think statues purely for the sake of honouring a historical figure are not of any value. They're just people. You brought up earlier the statues in Trafalgar Square; Who are some of these people? General Sir Charles James Napier? Major-General Sir Henry Havelock? Seems like their actions are remembered, but the people certainly aren't. Will people really care about the statue of George Vancouver in 300 years if Vancouver ever changes names?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I don't believe in historical role models. Their actions were their own and shaped by the time, perhaps they are worth studying to understand the history and their effects on the modern day, but they are all just people, good or bad. I'm not a big fan of the hero worship you see around historical figures. Let their actions speak for themselves.

Yeah, but not everybody thinks that way. That's why we invented storytelling and religion and celebrity culture: a lot of people need examples in order to live better.

[Klazu]

Man, this really escalated quickly. Since I don't think we are gaining anything here, could we just have this thread deleted? Let's leave this debacle for other places. Please and thank you.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Yeah, but not everybody thinks that way. That's why we invented storytelling and religion and celebrity culture: a lot of people need examples in order to live better.

This is a good point that I also thought about.

It’s interesting that in an age when 2 dimensional bland superheroes are praised and celebrated we are deconstructing all our historical heroes.

I do think that self reflection and historical deconstruction is a good thing for a society but at times, especially over the last 20 years, the west is starting to push that to an unhealthy extreme where nothing can be enjoyed or honored without controversy.

Yes, some statues do need to come down, the confederate statues erected during the 20th century are good examples of that, their entire purpose is essentially to give the finger to civil rights.

But now we are all whipped up into a frenzy and anything that eve has a minor taint of past injustices, even if only indirectly or thigh circumstance, must come down.

The call to remove Winston Churchill is maybe the best example of this. Yes, he held racists views of they day and wasn’t a progressive leader......... buuuuuuuuut he was instrumental in leading the UK through some of its darkest days and in defeating the fucking Nazis.

So sorry, his contributions there outweigh his negatives, it stays, and to quote him or say you admire him should not then equate to needing to apologize and being branded as a racist.

Ghandi is a terrorist to some, so even his statues have been vandalized, but again I feel his positive contributions towards the modern world outweigh his negatives.

A lot of this BS comes from the same angry SJW extremists who want to throw away modern science simply because it was largely built upon the work of white men over the last few hundred years (yes, this is a real thing).

If we really start digging even MLK doesn’t deserve a statue or to have facilities named after him because he cheated on his wife and had negative views towards homosexuality.

Is there racism to be tackled and conversations to be had over colonialism, yes. That said, the self hate is starting to get nauseating and actually distracts from making any real progress on equality.

I am aware of our atrocities but I am also proud of Canada, BC, and Vancouver. I am also proud of what my family has helped build over the last 120 years.

The most ironic thing is western nations are probably the best places that have ever existed for marginalized groups, yet by the attitudes expressed by so many you would think that they are the worst that have ever existed...

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Klazu

Man, this really escalated quickly. Since I don't think we are gaining anything here, could we just have this thread deleted? Let's leave this debacle for other places. Please and thank you.

Just because you don't like a discussion about the implications of monuments (which is the purpose of this thread), it doesn't mean you get to shut it down.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The call to remove Winston Churchill is maybe the best example of this. Yes, he held racists views of they day and wasn’t a progressive leader......... buuuuuuuuut he was instrumental in leading the UK through some of its darkest days and in defeating the fucking Nazis.

So sorry, his contributions there outweigh his negatives, it stays, and to quote him or say you admire him should not then equate to needing to apologize and being branded as a racist.

I'll only address this point since I think the rest follows from my argument. No one is saying you cannot praise the actions of an individual. No one is saying you cannot quote an individual. No one is trying to rewrite history to "deconstruct" our historical heroes. No one is trying to "remove" Churchill. The only argument is that we ought not to heap praise on historical figures who had dubious moral character.

The simple matter is that Churchill was directly responsible for some great things and but also some pretty reprehensible things. You probably wouldn't be saying his contributions outweigh his negatives if you were Bengali. Why deify him when we can simply respect his place in history?

A lot of this BS comes from the same angry SJW extremists who want to throw away modern science simply because it was largely built upon the work of white men over the last few hundred years (yes, this is a real thing).

No it isn't. Sorry, had to respond to this nonsense too.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Just because you don't like a discussion about the implications of monuments (which is the purpose of this thread), it doesn't mean you get to shut it down.



I'll only address this point since I think the rest follows from my argument. No one is saying you cannot praise the actions of an individual. No one is saying you cannot quote an individual. No one is trying to rewrite history to "deconstruct" our historical heroes. No one is trying to "remove" Churchill. The only argument is that we ought not to heap praise on historical figures who had dubious moral character.

The simple matter is that Churchill was directly responsible for some great things and but also some pretty reprehensible things. You probably wouldn't be saying his contributions outweigh his negatives if you were Bengali. Why deify him when we can simply respect his place in history?



No it isn't. Sorry, had to respond to this nonsense too.

If said statue or monument was in Bangladesh then there would be a real case to take it down, but in the UK itself his positive contributions to the survival of modern day Britain / democracy are justification for allowing such a statue to remain. If you want to also include his negative actions on a plaque at the site, sure.

And sorry, people are saying you can’t quote such an individual as Churchill.

Not too long ago an astronaut quoted Churchill and the social media mob came after him to the point where he did end up needing to apologize.

And yeah, there are those who say since modern science was built by white males that much of it needs to be discarded. I spent 6 years at SFU, heard it directly enough times from certain social justice groups to know its real. It may be fringe, but it’s there. For god sakes the “dead white male” trope has been around longer than most modern buzz phrases of current progressives.

I always feel that people on the left saying that such extreme fringe SJW types don’t exist is the exact same thing as people on the right claiming that fringe racist groups don’t exist.

Always interesting seeing such mental gymnastics being done.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The most ironic thing is western nations are probably the best places that have ever existed for marginalized groups, yet by the attitudes expressed by so many you would think that they are the worst that have ever existed...

run that by someone who is aboriginal....

[Vancouver_Highrise]

Ugh this thread is full of privileged losers. I like how
Marshall got banned but none of the people who actually say offensive things did. Says a lot about the mods protecting their white friends.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

If said statue or monument was in Bangladesh then there would be a real case to take it down, but in the UK itself his positive contributions to the survival of modern day Britain / democracy are justification for allowing such a statue to remain. If you want to also include his negative actions on a plaque at the site, sure.

If anyone made the same argument that Hitler ought to be honoured in India because his war in Europe helped with Indian independence and he was a great strong leader, I'm sure you'd think that was a gross injustice. And guess what? That is absolutely the case. Do you think Indian people that honour Hitler for his strong leadership have any glimpse of moral righteousness?

And sorry, people are saying you can’t quote such an individual as Churchill.

Not too long ago an astronaut quoted Churchill and the social media mob came after him to the point where he did end up needing to apologize.

And yeah, there are those who say since modern science was built by white males that much of it needs to be discarded. I spent 6 years at SFU, heard it directly enough times from certain social justice groups to know its real. It may be fringe, but it’s there. For god sakes the “dead white male” trope has been around longer than most modern buzz phrases of current progressives.

I always feel that people on the left saying that such extreme fringe SJW types don’t exist is the exact same thing as people on the right claiming that fringe racist groups don’t exist.

When those types have any sort of political influence, please let me know. People "attack" others online all the time for trivial things.
On the other hand, it sure seems like fringe racist groups do have political influence. Tell me when "extreme fringe SJW" government policy begins, because we know for a fact that fringe racist government policy exists around the world, and we've seen even more extreme levels in history. Show me they're comparable, then we can compare the two.

Always interesting seeing such mental gymnastics being done.

Sure is!

Originally Posted by Vancouver_Highrise

Ugh this thread is full of privileged losers. I like how
Marshall got banned but none of the people who actually say offensive things did. Says a lot about the mods protecting their white friends.

Please tell me this isn't the norm on this forum. I expected that people who are interested in urbanism would have a more progressive world view.

[Xelebes]

Thread closed for review.