LogFAQs > #941068963

Zeus posted...

The pretend-nuance argument is ridiculous. Humans are complex so nobody is going to be perfect. You can celebrate people for the good they did.

That, or make statues to celebrate and honour events, not individuals. That way, you end up with more interesting art (seriously, realistic human sculptures haven't been cool or novel since before the Greeks stopped making them) and you don't have to worry as much about honouring something that doesn't deserve honour. Win-win.

Zeus posted...

Which is a s***ty argument suggesting that nothing should ever be done because times could change because attitudes will inevitably change.

Uhh, no. That's not in any way what that suggests. I'm saying that things may be repurposed to reflect changing times and attitudes and that that is okay. No idea where you grabbed that particular insane reach from.

Zeus posted...

No, statues are in many ways the best way to educate somebody about history because they're a visual reminder.

A visual reminder of an incredibly narrow oversimplification of history. Retention is not the only measure of education's quality.

Zeus posted...

Compare that to kids in school who, by the end of the semester, have no f***ing clue what they learned because it went in one ear and out the other, often not even staying long enough to help them during a test.

Yes, the current lecture-focused education paradigm is rather bad at giving students useful information. This is not news. That doesn't mean statues aren't too limited in scope to give a decent understanding of history, it just means education as a whole needs some pretty radical reforms.

Zeus posted...

The only reason I learned about the history of some towns and cities is because I saw a cool statue.

By which you mean "I don't actually care about this history enough to put any actual effort into learning about it, but this one statue had a bit of neat trivia on it so now I know that trivia and not much else." You learned less about those towns and cities from those statues than you could have learned in 30 seconds on their wikipedia page. That your entire suite of knowledge regarding those towns comes from their statues is not a testament to how effective statues are at educating people about history, it's a testament to your laziness and how little you care about history.

Zeus posted...

And, because you're you, you're going to pretend that BLM has coherent, congruent goals and intentions despite having no central organization, leadership, and a membership almost as tenuous as Antifa's. And you're going to pretend that vandalism caused by multiple BLM members doesn't reflect BLM because... reasons? despite the fact that BLM has repeatedly been tearing down monuments and it very well could be ideologically motivated given far-left zealots.

I like how you explicitly state that BLM lacks a unified ideology then go on to suggest that tearing down monuments that have no pro-racism significance is consistent with their ideology. Here, let's try this again:

Do you really think that anything close enough to a majority of BLM protesters have been committing these acts of vandalism that attributing the vandalism to the movement as a whole is reasonable?

Revelation34 posted...

I see nothing wrong with that statue. Whoever created it was talented.

It's a pretty generic bronze statue. Talent went into making it, sure, but it's nothing particularly special. The artist's works are also featured in multiple museums (including several within Baltimore), so it's not like taking that one down means he stops being recognized.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.