Current Events > Removed Statues should be preserved in a museum

(+) Yeah! (+)

Say look kids. This is how the country used to be

That's what i've always felt should be done with them, along with making it clear that they are displayed as a reminder of the past and not as a way of honoring that past.

---

Only if there's something historically noteworthy about them. If the city council just said "hey guys I think a statue would look good here, let's get a sculptor or something" I don't see why it should take up museum space.

I don't think statues of any kind should be destroyed. That's the kind of crap that historically has only happened when a conquering nation wanted to wipe out the history of the conquered, or what ISIS does to destroy anything they feel is blasphemous.

Put it in a museum, lock it in storage, sell it in an auction... I don't really care how you get rid of it, but destroying them is savagery. Preservation of history, no matter how vile, should be a high priority in any developed nation.

Not only because that is how we remember the past to avoid repeating it, but because there are entire civilizations lost to ancient history because all of their artifacts were destroyed by people who felt they weren't worth preserving.

---

They should be put in a museum, but in their toppled state. That sends a resounding message to future generations.
---

Do you want to force museums to take on a bunch of shitty statues just to appease a bunch of racists?
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

They should be put in a museum, but in their toppled state. That sends a resounding message to future generations.

I kinda like that actually.

---

In museums. Not on display in public squares. We need a hall of shame.



---

They're statues. Big deal.

You want to learn the history, read books, watch documentaries, research etc.

A bronze plaque with a few sentences on it barely tells you anything.

---

sLaCkEr408___RJ posted...

Say look kids. This is how the country used to be

we have books and teachers and documentaries for that

also, "used" to be lol

---

s0nicfan posted...

I don't think statues of any kind should be destroyed. That's the kind of crap that historically has only happened when a conquering nation wanted to wipe out the history of the conquered, or what ISIS does to destroy anything they feel is blasphemous.

Put it in a museum, lock it in storage, sell it in an auction... I don't really care how you get rid of it, but destroying them is savagery. Preservation of history, no matter how vile, should be a high priority in any developed nation.

Not only because that is how we remember the past to avoid repeating it, but because there are entire civilizations lost to ancient history because all of their artifacts were destroyed by people who felt they weren't worth preserving.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest_Statue

That's not history, it's just a monument to hate put up in 1998. Tear all that shit down.

---

Only if the statue has some historic or artistic value beyond simply "this is a sculpture of old dead person, it is here because the park planner thought this would be a good spot for a statue and we chose this dead person". Simply having a figure put into bronze or stone doesn't suddenly make it important or give it any inherent value worth being preserved. Museums aren't supposed to be a warehouse for problematic statues.

And any statue put up for the purpose of intimidating minorities (like a good chunk of the Confederate monuments, especially the ones put up after 1960) can be thrown straight into the scrap heap.


---

I've learned the vast majority of history without the need of a statue or other similar such monuments. But for some reason these confederate monuments just have to be memorialized into statues cause otherwise all of a sudden everyone would forget....

Uh huh.

You know what, if anything those confederate monuments probably give people an inaccurate view of history when it's all said and done. As if it's something that should be praised and celebrated, because why else would we have a statue of them, right? Fuck outta here.

---

justaguy3492 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest_Statue

That's not history, it's just a monument to hate put up in 1998. Tear all that shit down.

The statue is generally considered aesthetically unappealing due to its abnormal facial features, which bear a striking resemblance to Forrest himself

BURN

---

s0nicfan talking like someone who learned history by reading plaques on confederate statues lol

---

Not unless they make a Traitorous Loser Museum or something.
---

justaguy3492 posted...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest_Statue

Dorris has "turned down requests from the KKK to hold rallies" at the site

Lol, that tells you all that you need to know.


---

I don't care, history sucks.

---

Twin3Turbo posted...

Dorris has "turned down requests from the KKK to hold rallies" at the site

Lol, that tells you all that you need to know.

I feel like everything else written about Dorris in that section tells you more than that.
---

DeadBankerDream posted...

I feel like everything else written about Dorris in that section tells you more than that.

It definitely tells more, that's for certain

---

GrandConjuraton posted...

as a reminder of the past and not as a way of honoring that past.

s0nicfan posted...

Not only because that is how we remember the past to avoid repeating it, but because there are entire civilizations lost to ancient history because all of their artifacts were destroyed by people who felt they weren't worth preserving.

The23rdMagus posted...

We need a hall of shame.

Smashingpmkns posted...

Not unless they make a Traitorous Loser Museum or something.

those statues are not as old as you think. they got built after the civil rights movement was scaring racists. and they wanted a way to put down a lasting reminder to the black population of the south that they are still oppressed.

and you don't need statues to learn history. nobody learns history from a statue. you don't look at some statue maybe read a tiny plague and then instantly know everything. you learn from books.

take the statues down. then melt them down or grind them into dust depending on what they are made out of.

I agree 200%

Removing statues from the public square doesn't destroy history

Tossing them in a river does.

Put up whatever statues you want in the public square, don't destroy history. It's no different to book burning.

---

100% agreed.

You should never forget the past, regardless of how hideous it is. It's a reminder of where you have come from.

---

All the space afforded to these monuments to losers is space not afforded to the history that wasn't allowed statues in public squares.

I don't think museums or the public are served by replicating the power imbalances of the past in the stories they tell
---

I dont think its right to destroy them but they should be removed.

---

Everything can't be conserved. Is it wrong if a building is demolished? If America was taken over by a legit dictator who knocked things down and built monuments to himself all over every city, should those stay up forever if America overthrew him?

There isn't enough room to preserve everything that ever existed forever. Many cities are built on top of old cities. Things are destroyed for others to be put in their place.

---

There's no statues of Hitler in Germany, how can they possibly know they lost without a statue of him? /Sarcasm

---

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

I agree 200%

Removing statues from the public square doesn't destroy history

Tossing them in a river does.

Put up whatever statues you want in the public square, don't destroy history. It's no different to book burning.

Zikten posted...

those statues are not as old as you think. they got built after the civil rights movement was scaring racists. and they wanted a way to put down a lasting reminder to the black population of the south that they are still oppressed.

and you don't need statues to learn history. nobody learns history from a statue. you don't look at some statue maybe read a tiny plague and then instantly know everything. you learn from books.

take the statues down. then melt them down or grind them into dust depending on what they are made out of.

---

melt them. the museum can use a photo

---

gunplagirl posted...

There's no statues of Hitler in Germany, how can they possibly know they lost without a statue of him? /Sarcasm

No but there is the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

---

How many Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis statues or Confederate flags need to be in a museum anyway? Do 1000 flags say what 10 can't? You'd be tripping all that repetitive crap. I'm sure it could fill many warehouses to the brim.

---

TreyFlowers posted...

No but there is the Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe

But who were they murdered by? I can't find the statues of the guy.

---

To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

---

Case by case basis.
---

Monolith1676 posted...

To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Shit we need more Stalin statues

Everything that has ever existed doesn't have irreplaceable historical and societal value. Every pro-Confederate statues and knickknack has no more intrinsic value than every car that has ever been produced.

---

I can understand why others don't want statues of bad people in museums, but I'm of the belief that they are hear to educate, not just celebrate. Museumplanner.org has this as the definition of a museum.

What is a Museum?
A museum is a non-profit, permanent institution in the service of society and its development, open to the public, which acquires, conserves, researches, communicates and exhibits the tangible and intangible heritage of humanity and its environment for the purposes of education, study and enjoyment.

I get that enjoyment is the last thing they said and enjoying slave owners or people who killed others to preserve slavery shouldn't be enjoyed, but all of that still happened and we shouldn't wash it away and pretend it never happened. Tell the world who these men were, tell the world what they did, don't glorify their actions or them as a person, just lay out the facts so we know how our country started, and how every day we have to make sure that today we are further away from who they were then. It is our history, and the good, bad and ugly needs to be taught to people otherwise we get elementary school levels of education where Martin Luther King is like the black Santa Claus instead of a man fighting for the rights of his people. You can educate without celebrating the bad people.

---

Juhanor posted...

Case by case basis.

To follow up on this, I did some light research and learned some stuff. P.G. T. Beauregard, for example, was a Confederate General and held onto racist values immediately after the war...but then through education and experience, he came to be a Civil Rights advocate and believed that black and white were equal and should be treated as such. He didn't hold on to reviving the Antebellum South but wanted a better, inclusive future (integrated schools, public transportation, voting rights). And all this was nearly a hundred years before the Civil Rights Movement!

So do we judge him based on fighting in the Civil War or for Civil Rights? His (Confederate General) statue was taken down in 2017 and stereotypical memorabilia was found in a time capsule underneath...but by all estimation, he would have been against such a statue's erection in the first place, and was certainly no fan of Jefferson Davis in the second.

Thus, it's gotta be a case by case basis. Judge these men according to current values, but judge them for all that they did. Shameless racists who clung to the past, who refused to educate themselves and work for the good of all Americans, regardless of the circumstance of their birth? Sure, I've got no complaint regarding removing their statues and melting them down. The others, I'd say give a place in a museum, and speak to both their bad and their good.
---

LeperMessiahXX posted...

I get that enjoyment is the last thing they said and enjoying slave owners or people who killed others to preserve slavery shouldn't be enjoyed, but all of that still happened and we shouldn't wash it away and pretend it never happened. Tell the world who these men were, tell the world what they did, don't glorify their actions or them as a person, just lay out the facts so we know how our country started, and how every day we have to make sure that today we are further away from who they were then. It is our history, and the good, bad and ugly needs to be taught to people otherwise we get elementary school levels of education where Martin Luther King is like the black Santa Claus instead of a man fighting for the rights of his people. You can educate without celebrating the bad people.

the statues weren't constructed to educate people. they were constructed to glorify their subjects

---

Sell them off. If we remove them, no tax dollars should go towards upkeep

---

It's too late anyway, after the first was torn down and destroyed it's just going to continue

Its going to come to a point where there is no reason for a statue to be torn down but they will just mob it because

Crono99 posted...

I think statues should be preserved... not to honor the person depicted in the statue, but to honor the skill of the artist who crafted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest_Statue

The monument was designed by Jack Kershaw, a Vanderbilt University alumnus, co-founder of the League of the South, a white nationalist and white supremacist organization, and a former lawyer to James Earl Ray, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr's killer.[3] In the face of public criticism of the installation, Kershaw defended the statue by saying, "Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery."

Dorris described the process of sculpting Forrest: "Jack got some materials that I use to make bathtubs with. And he started with a butcher knife. That's the end result that you see out there right now."

---

You can't learn history from a statue. If you want your history, go read the books. No one is taking those away. Statues of Confederate dick heads in public squares is nothing but racist masturbatory idolatry.

---

a lot of confederate states aren't museum quality and were put up in the jim crow era to support the lost cause narrative. if you have a statue from the mid-1800s or something then sure put it in a museum if they are willing to do that. Who gives a shit about some shitty statue of robert e lee that a racist governor or another commissioned a local schlub to build out of garahm crackers or whatever though

---

Do we really need entire museums full of duplicate 20th Century statues of 19th Century assholes in order to educate people about the Civil War? I feel like one or two, some pictures, and books could serve the same purpose. It is not feasible to save everything forever.

---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

They should be put in a museum, but in their toppled state. That sends a resounding message to future generations.

---

C. If this whole argument really is about historical context and not glorifying racism and oppression, then yes.

---

I dunno about you guys but history classes and textbooks always bored the hell out of me and my retention was generally nothing.

But seeing the real artifacts in museums was a lot better. I remember that stuff a lot better.

---