a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by user-inactivated
user-inactivated  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Thomas Jefferson statue coming down in New York's City Council chamber : NPR

Canceling has two varieties:

1. Holding people in power to account, in a way similar to a boycott.

2. Publicly shaming regular people for having political beliefs different than yours.

Both are intended to make consequences for that person, i.e., they have to be alive.

(The first definition is the original. It was appropriated from black culture and twisted into the second one, just like the term "woke".)

The main point is: who or what we choose to honor in a public space is a choice, maybe even an important choice. Why does it have to be Jefferson? Or even a person? Are people not supposed to reason about who and what we should be honoring?





mk  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Jefferson wrote "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. When viewed through the lens of his time, it is a humbling statement and act; one that set a course for the better place that we are at today.

goobster  ·  915 days ago  ·  link  ·  

"All men are created equal" was a time-worn concept by the time Jefferson included it in his draft of the Declaration of Independence. Hell, Milton had written almost the exact same phrase back in 1649, and throughout French history (prior to the French Revolution) similar phrasing and sentiments were common.

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

mk  ·  915 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I didn't mean it was humbling because he was the first to have the sentiment, but to put it in the Declaration.

goobster  ·  915 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Ah. Got it! Yes... bringing this verbiage into the Declaration is a landmark for sure.

mk  ·  915 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
user-inactivated  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Okay, so you just disagree with their choice of what to honor and think Jefferson is the right choice.

mk  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I disagree with what seems to be a reductionary view of history that led them to that choice. IMO it'd be better for them to put a plaque on it that said something like: "As an individual, Jefferson was a slave-raping piece of shit. However, ironically, the ideals that Jefferson fought for led to the emancipation of slaves in the U.S., and many of the rights that we possess as citizens today."

We are probably all future pieces of shit.

goobster  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

"Hello women, people of color, indigenous Americans, Asians, immigrants, the disabled, and everyone that is not a white man. Welcome to our building. Remember the slave owner who accidentally gave you rights he never believed you should have, due to poor wording on his part. Genuflect before the statue of this imperfect man, rather than living his words and ideals better than he ever did."

The founders of this country were just men. They had some good ideas. Let's run with the ideas, and leave the men as they were; imperfect humans with moments of brilliance. Carrying the baggage of the human being along with their ideas is pointless and destructive to the actual numerical majority of Americans.

mk  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Ironic that those good ideas allow us to choose what to do with the statue.

    Carrying the baggage of the human being along with their ideas is pointless and destructive to the actual numerical majority of Americans.

I disagree. We all have baggage and the lens of history will increase its impact. We factory farm and eat patented seeds and fly in planes and heat our homes with coal and wear clothes made by poverty stricken peoples in serfdom and use phones made in factories with suicide nets made with materials mined by children and the list goes on and on and we don't care enough for our descendents.

goobster  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Ironic that those good ideas allow us to choose what to do with the statue.

In fact, it is not ironic at all. The idea is good, even if the man is not. Just further proves my point.

mk  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I do think that qualifies as irony. But ok to agree to disagree.

goobster  ·  915 days ago  ·  link  ·  

For it to be irony, the statue itself would have to express the good idea... which it does not. It presents an idealized image of a man (created close to 200 years after his death) to commemorate a completely different thing.

The piece was commissioned to recognize Jefferson's defense of religious freedom ... which even you, in defending the statue, have failed to equate it with.

A far more powerful and appropriate statue would have been a ring of religious symbols with Jefferson's face in the center of them... arranged around his head like a constellation. That would at least demonstrate the idea the man is being recognized for. So even on an artistic basis, this plaster cast of the real bronze statue fails to live up to even it's most basic purpose and intent of its creator.

user-inactivated  ·  917 days ago  ·  link  ·  

> I disagree with what seems to be a reductionary view of history that led them to that choice.

Doesn't seem to be a fair or charitable interpretation of their case, but an assumption. These points are addressed by the people proposing the change in the video of the city council meeting. And they still provide a good case for removing it from that particular spot in city hall.