How do you all feel about this? Does it make sense to see men/women of the past through a modern lens? We are living in a society where we are expecting everyone to be perfect lest they be cancelled. I am not perfect. I have said and done things in the past that I am ashamed of. But I am ashamed because I have grown, learned and bettered my understanding of the world and my fellow man. There's currently no room for growth for the living in this culture. There's no chance of growth for the dead. I don't know who the councilmen/women are that made this choice, but I would wager that they're imperfect.
I think it's good to study our founders and learn from the past. To understand that they were men/women of their time and imperfect. Removing a statue of our third president is a big move. I'm not convinced it's the right one.
I do think it would make sense to have a plaque that explained what a complex individual Jefferson was. He was a hypocrite when it came to slavery.
Every single person reading this comment thread needs to read the book, Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen. Every American on Hubski has been indoctrinated using the same source materials as a child... source materials that intentionally glorify - and deify - the person, over their deeds. American history textbooks are specifically designed to create teflon heroes, and diminish their misdeeds in honor of a whitewashed version of their biographies. Everyone one of us Americans reading this has been indoctrinated in the same way, and we are powerless to de-program ourselves because they did it to us when we were children. Loewen makes the excellent point that elevating these fictionalized depictions of our "founding heroes" then makes it HARDER for children to visualize themselves excelling... because we are all failures in our own eyes; not teflon god-heads who stand tall and claim we chopped down the cherry tree. Some humans have good ideas that other humans want to embrace. That does not require embracing the originator of the idea, who - after all - is just a person that got it right, one time. Statues of individual human beings are solely for the purposes of whitewashing. Elevate the idea, not the man.
I read your comment a few days ago, and it's stuck with me. While I agree with some of the comments already posted about how Jefferson's acts are likely beyond anything shameful any of us have done, your general sentiment with cancel culture is one I very much agree with. Note, I'm now talking about modern day cancel culture about those who are alive and not so much the specific Jefferson situation. "There currently no room for growth for the living in this culture." I like this line you wrote a lot. When a person is cancelled today, they're tossed to the garbage, left to either rot or figure out their growth on their own. I could certainly imagine an idealized version of our culture where when a person is called out on their past infractions, their community comes together to re-educate this person, to help them dissect any childhood experiences or traumas that would have shaped them to be a person who's behavior would result in the harming of others. Either this or some sort of center where a person could go to learn. The premise of these ideas is essentially that any group/culture/society is only as strong as its weakest link, so why not focus repertory energy on those in need of the most assistance? Often when a person is cancelled, it's done so in a public way in which the person being cancelled doesn't have the ability to offer their perspective, or even to apologize/address all those that are now aware of a person's past mistakes. I was recently talking with a friend about this, she is a self identified Christian and practices her faith. She proposed a theory that cancel culture could be exacerbated by the decline of Christianity. She was saying that Christianity places a strong importance on forgiveness, and as the decline of this tradition increases in the US, more people get cancelled. I'm aware this talking point brings up a whole separate can of worms (let it be known I do not identify as Christian and broke ties with those grows after growing up in a Souther Baptist church) but the main point here is that people are finding it easier to extend an accusatory finger instead of a helping hand.
this reads like you're afraid of being left behind more than you're worried about historical revisionism it's dishonest to conflate "we should be able to make mistakes and grow as people" with "we should revere and protect a statue of a man who kept and raped slaves" you've done things that you're ashamed of - did you ever own slaves, or rape anybody? did you say the n-word once in a while? got pushy with a girl at a bar? did you think a bad thought about somebody at some point? you have your own life, point of view, blind spots, things you've been screwed over on - so does everybody. right? culture war stuff like this scares liberals the same way that fox news broadcasts of mexicans flooding over the border scares conservatives, and i urge you to think about whether it makes sense to fear being cancelled you are not in danger from the young or the left! i promise - now please don't greenwald yourself -don't become an old man in the head
Being left behind? Lol. By whom? I am not afraid of anything. I am disturbed that people can’t recognize the complexity of the human condition. Jefferson himself is an example of hypocrisy and self delusionment. Simultaneously arguing to eradicate slavery and he owned something like 600 slaves.He also largely helped to craft our republic. There’s both good and bad there. Instead of tearing down statues, why not acknowledge that? And when I talk about myself being ashamed, it largely stems from saying mean things to people when I was a kid. If any of that had been on social media and I ran for office, you can bet they would dredge it up. I’m not a kid anymore, I have changed my thinking and I am less insecure. Now, I understand that comparing that to owning human beings is a stretch. But also comparing 2021 to the 1780s is also a stretch. I’m disturbed by the far right and the far left these days. This smacks as far left to me.
Why is the idea inextricable from the man, for you? Why do we have to worship the whole man, and not just his good ideas? The man was a fucking tool. A complete asshole. Doesn't mean he didn't have good ideas. Why do you require us to burden ourselves with the full man, instead of just recognizing a good idea - wherever it came from - and building on that idea?
The idea came from a man. That man had a life that lead to that idea. That man made choices of study, of pursuit that lead to that idea, that moment, that novel, that piece of music, that speech. Some choices awful, some not. It's right to study men/women for what formed them and their physical form has been a symbol of that journey since we took a chisel to stone. That said, I worship no man. Quite a different thing to enjoy a statue than to worship its subject. I have always liked the quote from the Buddhist sage, Lin Chi, "If you see the Buddha on the trail. Kill him." To me this has always meant that it's not the Buddha, it's the teachings. It's not the statue, but the journey of the man/woman the statue is meant to portray.
Study of the man is a worthy and valuable thing to do, in the right context and time/place. There is absolutely zero value to erecting a statue of the man, as a person. In fact, it ossifies the man and his works/thoughts, rather than allowing us to continue to evaluate the man and his doings in light of an evolving and changing society. Again, the statue has zero intrinsic value, and has a very real possibility of making his equals feel like outsiders or outcasts. What possible value does the statue provide? Nothing.
I'm sure you've been to Washington DC. I'm sure you've seen the monuments of our founders and those that shaped our countries history. When you were there did the statues make you feel like an outsider or an outcast? Honestly? That's so foreign to me. When I see the statue of MLK I am embolden towards his greatest virtues. When I see the statue of FDR in his wheelchair, and the statue of a family listening to a fireside chat of his, I am reminded that a person, a handicapped man (yes, old and white), helped to steer a country through incredibly dire times. A human. It's right to celebrate each other as humans. I cannot even believe that I am having to have a discussion about it being right and proper to use the art form of sculpture to represent human struggle and achievement. Art has amazing intrinsic value. This statue that started this discussion was commissioned by a Jewish man that felt indebted to Jefferson for fighting for religious freedoms. That story alone has intrinsic value. The debate that this statue has stirred up has intrinsic value. I can understand having a debate as to weather or not Thomas Jefferson's misdeeds should make us rethink his place in history. But debating the intrinsic value of sculptures of the human experience/form is, to me, bonkers.
The only statue in DC that had any effect on me at all, was the Lincoln Monument. It is awe inspiring, and the quotes on the walls are poignant even today. Every other statue was devoid of context or message. Which Roosevelt was it in a wheelchair? Which one implemented the New Deal? Which one didn't shoot a bear? No idea. Just more men on pedestals, devoid of valuable information or context. But I was moved to tears at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. (As I was at the 9/11 memorial in NYC, too.) The grave of the Unknown Soldier is a powerful monument with a gravity and apparent purpose that inspires visitors to speak in a whispered hush. THAT's good statuary/art/monumenting; the message is apparent and powerful, regardless of the era it is viewed in, or the people involved.
The US has 11 times more monuments to mermaids than congresswomen I'ma wave my magic wand and poof every monument erected prior to 2000 is gone. Not even dust or bronze powder to mark their passing. Rushmore is a cliff, Lincoln is a park, lady Liberty is a lighthouse. Expound, in whatever detail you choose, the detrimental effect to society. aaaaaand.... GO
This post was about removing a specific statue, not all statues. But, I'll play along. I think it would have the same detrimental effect to society that waiving a magic wand and eliminating all fountains, all murals or other works of art would have. Statues, at their best are beautiful works of art that convey a message, often but not always of historical significance.
Okay, fair. Thanks for playing. The central argument you're making is for the aesthetic benefits of statuary, which is not the argument at hand - clearly, the subject is the reconciliation of past deeds with current mores. Here's my argument: Thomas Jefferson's legacy has withstood challenge for a couple hundred years now. There's no new information come to light that might challenge it. What we're experiencing is a new openness about the uneven impact our accepted cultural heroes have on our culture. It's not like the statue hasn't moved before: And it's not like the statue is going to be destroyed. And granted - everyone in discussion would happily trade the end of this thing for moving Jefferson into the foyer if they were given the choice. But they haven't been. Art is worth reconsidering. I feel - and feel strongly - that our culture is made up of what we revere, and if we are unwilling to rethink what we revere our culture can never advance.A final spot for the statue is yet to be determined. It was first placed in City Hall around 1834 and was displayed in several locations there before moving to the main chamber in 1915.
I don’t disagree with most of this. However, I do think that as a culture you can revere aspects of people, certain accomplishments and separate them from their shortcomings. I like that we are having this discussion. I think having these statues with the caveat of stating how immensely imperfect the subject is, is valuable. And I did read the article Re the history of this specific statue. My larger concern is where does it start and where does it end? mk made the case better below when he said, if we can only honor people in the whole, then we are trapped in a lie..
I think mk is making the mistake of applying logic and permanence to an emotional, ephemeral condition. Confederate statues are being taken down because there was no reason for them to ever be up. Jefferson is being taken down because emotions are high. If it calms emotions to move a statue, move the statue. If we as a culture still find something to value about Thomas Jefferson we won't move it far. It's not like we're blowing up the Bamyan Buddhas here.
This is not revising history, or "viewing the past through a modern lens," as you state. This is recognizing that present-day America is informed by its past, and if we intend to improve, we must address the issues that white men have successfully swept under the carpet for hundreds of years. The indigenous, black, asian, women, disabled, and other people who make up America have been marginalized, denied, and outright killed for asserting the same rights we white men take for granted. Imagine standing in any of their shoes, going into a public building to exercise your Constitutional rights, and having to do so below the overbearing statue of a man who saw you as less than him ... less than human. "But what about the good stuff he did?" When I lived in Hungary, I could easily thrive without a car because there is a mature and extensive electrified transportation network that could get me cheaply from the Baltic Sea to the Balkans, and from Moscow to Vienna. This is solely due to Stalin's hell-bent drive to get electricity EVERYWHERE, to modernize transportation and home life for every citizen of the USSR. Today, everyone relies on this network - from streetcars in city centers to international train travel - without genuflecting before the statue of Stalin, and constantly bringing up his name when appreciating the ease they have in moving around Europe. The same can be done for Thomas Jefferson. As an author in our founding documents, and one of the first people to step up and serve in the office of President, he deserves recognition. In school, during subjects that pertain to those topics. We don't need a statue of him - or any individual, honestly - to remind ourselves of the history of our institutions. In fact, I'd say that a statue of Lady Justice would be far more appropriate in a government building, since she stands as an idol for an idea/ideal rather than a flawed human individual. It has taken me a long time to come around to this way of thought, but I am now convinced that erecting statues of people is a poor option. Glorify their good works, not the person. Teach kids that a HUMAN BEING, JUST LIKE THEM, came up with these good ideas, and they can too! Don't literally put an old white man on a pedestal like he's the only one that could have provided that value to the world. Not only is it untrue, it whitewashes people who were truly terrible human beings.
It is very odd to me that you want children to see that ideas come from humans, but are opposed to showing the statue of the human that conceived of that idea. As for "old" white dudes, Thomas Jefferson was 33 years old when he wrote the declaration of independence. Not exactly a geezer. Is it okay for young white people's ideas to be celebrated? Young hispanic people? Middle aged asian people? Eldery inuits? And if so, why can't those ideas be celebrated with an image of that person? What's wrong with that? Truly baffled. And, btw I am not indoctrinated by any means. I know that the history that was spoon-fed me in my youth was/is immensely propagandized. It has taken me a long time to come around to this way of thought, but I am now convinced that erecting statues of people is a poor option. Glorify their good works, not the person. Teach kids that a HUMAN BEING, JUST LIKE THEM, came up with these good ideas, and they can too! Don't literally put an old white man on a pedestal like he's the only one that could have provided that value to the world. Not only is it untrue, it whitewashes people who were truly terrible human beings.
like he's the only one that could have provided that value to the world. Not only is it untrue
- I disagree with this. Often times it is very true. There are men and women of their age that were singular and provided value and ideas that no others could have. Da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, Beethoven, Shakespeare, O'Keefe. They provided a value that only they could have. It's okay to celebrate exceptionalism and it's okay to call out hypocrisy. But what worries me is the question, who decides? Who are the moral gatekeepers? You? Me? I say let the statue stand and change the placard next to it to make it clear re his accomplishments and shortcomings. Of which there were plenty of both.
This is the same logic as, "why are my keys always in the LAST place I look?!?" From Einstein to Feynman to Jesus Christ to Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh, those people are famous because their ideas got popular. Not because they were the ONLY people that could have had those ideas. If it wasn't Einstein or Feynman, it would have been someone else because the base principles were sitting there to be identified by a sharp intellect. Nothing JC or Rajneesh said was new or original. All of the ideas they shared were old by the time they said them. Lionizing/deifying a human for an idea is illogical and unproductive, and is surprisingly defeating to young people's development. (See: Loewen) Turns out that raising an individual person on a whitewashed pillar - as opposed to elevating their few good ideas - shows the child that some are born to greatness, and they (the child) are not. "You are just a person; not great, like Einstein. He was special. You don't have that." Statues as art? Great. Statue of Liberty. Lady Justice. Hell, even statuary of the four horsemen of war, famine, pestilence, and death, have more conversational and educational value than a statue of a person. Separating the idea from the individual is, in fact, the best way to get the most out of the idea. Then, in a sociology elective in college, the student can dig into the various people behind ideas, and how/why people with serious issues can have good ideas, too. Creating statuary of human beings to glorify their ideas/deeds is problematic. So why continue in this way? There are far better ways to raise ideas and ideals on pedestals... The Liberty Statue in Budapest: The Book Fountain in Budapest: Fallen Firefighter statue in Seattle: The Shoes on The Danube (memorial to Jews killed in Budapest during the Holocaust): I Viaggiotori There are men and women of their age that were singular and provided value and ideas that no others could have.
Good. Stop deifying a very select group of people and start emphasizing different perspectives about American history in public spaces. Removing a statue isn't "cancelling" Thomas Jefferson. You can't cancel a dead person anyway. What does that even look like? Jefferson will get fired from his job? Banned from Twitter for a month? He will need to make an apology video before his comeback? The dude is dead. History will always be there, and Jefferson isn't the one being excluded from the history we teach. We all know who is actually excluded. This is a choice about now and the future, specifically what values they want to honor in a public space. Why not make a deliberate choice about that, instead of just relying on the default of what was there before? And it seems like a good choice to me. A fundamental problem in America is white supremacy, and it is deeply tied to the "founding fathers" mythology. How can we expect things to change if we can't change our cultural values and education? Maybe put the statues in a park as a memorial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_statues
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?
"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.
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.
"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.
Ironic that those good ideas allow us to choose what to do with the statue. 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.Carrying the baggage of the human being along with their ideas is pointless and destructive to the actual numerical majority of Americans.
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.
> 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.
George Washington thought blacks were inferior to whites and he owned slaves. If Jefferson comes down, then we must bring down George too. Freeing your slaves after you die doesn't really cut it, does it? If we can only honor people in the whole, then we are trapped in a lie. I would guess some of those council members voted to reelect Barack Obama after he escalated the murder of innocents in Afghanistan. But that's excusable among them for now.