Does the act of tearing down statues erase history?

Maybe, but I doubt any revolutionaries are going to say "Hold up. I know that this is our most hated figure and we suffered under them for ages, but what about posterity?" The act of tearing down statues like that is just as symbolic as them being raised and existing in the first place.

>statue is removed
>suddenly all recollection of said person/event collectively removed from the public conscious and perspectives radically change

This is how dense "muh history" people sound

Who the fuck cares about history, when you can replace it with pop culture references, amiright?

To erase history, you must have it. Ukraine doesnt have a history of independent nation.

Ukraine is a meme

t.vatnik

Yes

>ukraine
>nation

Statue toppling in the wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union was probably just an opportunistic spur of the moment act carried out by a mob of sympathizers some of which may have been receiving ideological and material backing from the West already. Not much different from what happened in post Saddam Iraq, in Libya, and Syria.

would like to hear what the pro confederate monument people who say doing something like this is destroying history think of this. This isnt some sassy shitty little hypothetical question, Im actually interested

it's not comparable in the slightest

these are conquered peoples toppling symbols of a foreign power

Delete this thread right now, or else I will report you.

*Statues are so much more triggering than having to view the continuance of the same general practices and manners of managing society anyway. It's like people could finally breath and their freedom was consolidated when the statues were toppled and they weren't just living a partially less shitty and part more shitty life than before. So liberating.

It's usually "muh heritage" which is literally the most retarded argument ever. Confederate monuments are literally memorializing enemy governments. That's like a Hirohito statue at Pearl Harbor because "you have to give it to him, he really bamboozled us" or a Benedict Arnold statue because he as (((American)))

Slippery slope fallacy.

enemy governments? american governments are not enemies

You could easily make the point that the very existence of confederate statues is a glorification of illegal and treasonous activities and they shouldn't exist

What about moving Lenin's plastic body into a huge mausoleum complex surrounded by 10000 statues of himself and the big one that was supposed to go on the palace of the soviets on top, or perhaps, inside like in the greek temples?

Lenin did nothing wrong

They attacked the legally elected government of the United States and seceded from the union. They were the enemy

and the example of hirohito statues in pearl harbor is farcical, that is a foreign head of state, none of the men memorialized in the former confederacy are foreigners, and they were immortalized on their own soil

your argument is ridiculous

but they were not alien governments

Can you imagine a entire statue park full of nothing but Lenin statues. It gives me a giggle.

>youtube.com/watch?v=U1ll83Wf_Js starts playing

I don't see the benefit of memorializing traitors for cultural reasons. It would be the equivalent of having a Sherman statue in an alternate history Confederate America.

that's stupid

Yes, when Carthaginians destroyed these they knew exactly what they were doing, and they got away with it.

You don't find memorializing traitors farcical?

so the only historical happenings that should be remembered are those of the regime?

get the fuck out

I think you make bad arguments

Why are you assuming history will be forgotten if it isn't memorialized? There is no benefit of a Confederate statue. You might as well elect statues of all historical American traitors.

I disagree with you that the southerner is a traitor, they held to their own ideals of their rights to decide for themselves how they structured their law. Do I think they were wrong, yes, but I see nothing wrong with them memorializing their struggle. The monuments exist because it was a cause the people were greatly invested in, you rob our country when you remove this history, and I hate you.

Erecting a statue commemorating the common man is not the same as erecting the statue of a Confederate leader. The common man fought for many reasons. The leader fought with specific intent. I don't know why you assume removing a statue is removing "history". Nobody points to Lee's statue to commemorate anything other than the bloodiest war ever fought on American soil. Nobody points to a statue of Davis and commemorates his great political attempt at secession. He was a traitor just like the rest of them. If you honor one, you might as well honor all of them.

to hell with you

Several confederate leaders are on record as saying the war was a fucking retarded idea but followed orders from their state, states were a way bigger deal back then, almost sovereign nations even before the civil war

Im not really sure what the big deal with statues is.

That doesn't absolve them from siding with the Confederacy. Find me more statues of these Confederate leaders who opposed the war, than those who supported it till it ended in 1856. There were still slave states that were pro-Union and I'd much rather have their leadership memorialized because even though they were contending with the controversy at the time, they still wanted to preserve the Union.

your own personal opinions don't matter, what you want is a world where historical record conforms to your own dictatorial whim, and I say to hell with you

There's no big deal with statues. People are just ignorant enough to assume that a statue is somehow the complete, absolute representation of a period of history. And removing it will somehow permanently destroy the historical value of said person and event simply because there isn't a cast figure of them in a public space.

The only place a Confederate statue belongs is in a museum, not in a public space.

collecting dust no doubt, along with your sense of perspective

You make it sound like statues are a big deal while saying they arent.

This. Get a good picture of ripping some shitty looking statue down and it'll have infinitely more value than the shitty statue itself

Robert E Lee thought the war was an exercise in futility, hell he even opposed slavery, but he felt nationalism over his state like everybody else in the Union did

Confederate statues are opposed on grounds of racism by people of all races. Communist statues are opposed by political opposition to communism but they are of people of the same race. Maybe Turko-Mongols, Caucasians, or Balts would have greater reason for removing statues on racial grounds. That is not to say oppression racial or not suffered by ethnic Slavs could not have been greater though.

I'm racially oppressed by this hunk of bronze commemorating the war between states ;_;

I'm physically oppressed by a hunk of bronze commemorating a former leader.

nothing does

I'm theoretically oppressed by this hunk of bronze perpetuating a meme

Well burning texts, destroying monuments and structures to rubble, and killing entire peoples and letting thousands of years pass does seem to be somewhat effective at doing this.

What he thought doesn't change what he did. Even if he opposed slavery himself, that didn't prevent him from allowing Confederate soldiers from capturing free blacks in the 1863 Pennsylvania raids, let alone command armies against the Union itself. People say the same thing about Davis - that he respected Lincoln, was hesitant to attack Sumter and even believed secession was the last resort to the Union's problems; but none of this defends him from how he championed slavers' rights and defended the institutional value of slavery.

I'm not fickle about a man's loyalty to the state. I understand this completely. But you can't defend the men who raised armies to fight for a cause that was the aberration of American politics forever.

>theoretically oppressed
Rightists are the sjws of logic.

The thing is, Lincoln didn't give two shits about slavery.

>ists
>ism

your attempt to divide and sunder this nation will fail

Well shit I don't know, maybe America should have banned slavery when Britain did, but they didn't did they? I mean are we really saying cunts like Lincoln are better because they only banned that shit after a war?

Communism is probably also much more supported in the former communist world today than confederatism is in the U.S. in relation to population.

his family was quite averse to it, as a practice it was thought unsightly by his father

yet you still know that it has happened

it was actually abolished during the war, but what more can I expect from Veeky Forums?

>Christianity is special becuz it doesn't have an -ism in it
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/χριστιανισμός

Everyone knows Lincoln wasn't a pious supporter of free men the way he's portrayed. But he didn't secede and start a war that cost 600K+ American lives.

Yeah that's just about it. We may not know about it having occurred in other places though.

How can he abolish slavery when the slave states weren't occupied yet?

In regards to Lenin statues, wasn't Lenin the guy who made sure the Ukraine is even a thing in the first place? I'm a bit confused with Ukraine destroying Lenin statues.

Ukraine is confused about everything

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian–Soviet_War

His election caused it though. The North had long bullied the south in Congress and in elections because it had a greater population, even including slaves. Tariffs passed pretty much solely by the North meant the South couldn't afford to sell to European textile mills. They were practically slaves themselves.

The South was under-represented Federally, THAT's why they seceded. Just like why the 13 colonies seceded from Britain.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. All the EP did was state that the Union army was allowed to confiscate and free slaves in rebel territory. The slave states that remained in the Union still had slaves.

it's true that this was the case, however, action was being taken on abolishing slavery actively before the end of the war, and the poster I replied to claimed otherwise

so there!

>The North had long bullied the south in Congress and in elections

>you have more people
>you should have less representation per person to make it fair

Ruralcucks should be euthanized.

Britain had more people than the 13 colonies. Should the 13 colonies always be at the mercy of Britain?

>Said it should have been banned when Britain did
>30 years later is close enough
lol
Well it would have meant no muh slavery shitposting so I can see the benefits

Yes.

"No taxation with equal representation" probably wouldn't have been a good enough battle cry to get a shooting war going.

you are simply ignorant of the factors involved

that's ever been the reason for your worthless replies

Please user, tell me all about your morally bankrupt counties ideals in the early to mid 19th century and how you needed a 5 year war to abolish something Britain did with a far larger empire with none

If you ALWAYS lose in Congress, you may as well not be represented at all.

What difference does it make if your region gets 10 votes if the other region gets 100?

If your region gets BTFO in every vote, you may as well have not had any votes to begin with.

Majority black cities in the South feel the same way

at first I'd like for you to show yourself as something more than a simpleton failing to punch above his weight

feelings are not reality

>Does the act of tearing down statues erase history?
No, it erases propaganda.

When they're at war with the United States they absolutely are

They already do user.

>Britain abolishes slavery
>America doesn't
>Even with a constitution declaring all men equal when Britain's doesn't
Pretty simple facts here user

that can be said, but they are not at all on the par with foreign powers, and I am insulted that there are "americans" that would adopt this view

I like how the communist scum pretends the thousands of Lenin/Stalin/partisan/whatever statues are as valuable as the pyramids or some shit.

what are you even trying to argue here, you have nothing but one word replies to my post in particular, and facts that don't align with events

That America could have nipped the Confed issue in the bud by not clinging onto the slave meme 30 years earlier, you can't dispute it

Yes, it would have been nice, but it was not possible, unless you'd have liked the nation you're forming to break apart even earlier.

Statues have some inherent historical value, but the significance that has been placed on them as of late is vastly overrated.

Most of the statues that get removed should at least be preserved and stored in museums. In cases like Russian Lenin statues, that may be a little excessive though.

In the case of most statues, especially statues in southern states. It doesn't erase history because you can easily learn far more about said history with a visit to a local library, a museum, or even a google search. In the case of the Confederate statues, its about time they were removed. They represent a pervasive and dangerous ideology of traitorous dissidents that deserves no recognition or respect. the war ended 150 years ago, it's time to stop worshiping people like Lee as if they were heroes. they were traitors and secessionists, with the blood of thousands of Americans, both northern and southern, on their hands.

>They represent a pervasive and dangerous ideology of traitorous dissidents that deserves no recognition or respect. the war ended 150 years ago, it's time to stop worshiping people like Lee as if they were heroes. they were traitors and secessionists, with the blood of thousands of Americans, both northern and southern, on their hands.
That opinion might hold weight if America wasn't a retarded cesspool of MUH STATE RIGHTS, FUCK THE FED, THEY"RE EBIL GOMMUNISTS

No they aren't and since there's so many of them it probably doesn't hurt to discard quite a few but it wouldn't hurt to collect many of them somewhere either.

better look at the beam in your own eye dipshit :P

Not really. Its one thing to record history. Its another to keep up an edifice that praises a man who did or supported incredibly immoral things.