Protesters to tear down Andrew Jackson Statue this weekend... (2 Viewers)

[guidomerkinsrules]

I wonder what the protesters do with their $20 bills.

you mean "Tubmans"

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I've fat fingered many in my day

Sounds gross now that I typed it

especially if you didn't wash in between

 

[crosswatt]

Very few people in this world who have been deemed worthy of a statue were good and decent people. Most were pretty reprehensible in their pursuit of "greatness". Steve Jobs serves as a modern example.

Andrew Jackson was a bad person, but he was instrumental in the continued existence of this nation and New Orleans, so I think he should remain.

Robert E. Lee was by all accounts a true gentleman and a wonderful human being. He also took up arms against the nation and fought on the side that wanted the practice of slavery, and should not be honored outside of his personal sphere of influence, so I could get behind his statue being removed.

Having said that, I wouldn't even dream of entertaining the idea of taking anything down under pressure from this current threat. Petulance should be shamed and resisted every time it is presented to society.

Continued political pressure and public efforts to win the hearts and minds of the opposition are fine, but this threat and the "if you don't do what I want I'll destroy something you love" is just wrong.

 

[billinms]

You're opposed to putting them in a New Orleans museum? Or New Orleans just won't be the same if these things aren't displayed on public property?

They're part of the history of the city IMO and part of the fabric that makes New Orleans so unique. I'd hate to see that change.

 

[seandroog]

Apparently you don't know anything about Native Americans.

Consider my mind blown. What an ignorant post.

I assume you are white? White Nazi's committed the worst genocide, maybe you should be arrested for that crime.

About the same as suggesting native americans of southern florida deserved to die for the crimes of certain people in a Comanche tribe.

 

[Sun Wukong]

Apparently you don't know anything about Native Americans.

How Comanche Indians butchered babies and roasted enemies alive | Daily Mail Online

"All the men were killed, and any men who were captured alive were tortured; the captive women were gang raped. Babies were invariably killed.

One by one, the children and young women were pegged out naked beside the camp fire,’ according to a contemporary account. ‘They were skinned, sliced, and horribly mutilated, and finally burned alive.

John Parker was pinned to the ground, he was scalped and his genitals ripped off. Then he was killed. Granny Parker was stripped and fixed to the earth with a lance driven through her flesh. Several warriors raped her while she screamed.

The Comanche roasted captive American and Mexican soldiers to death over open fires. Others were castrated and scalped while alive. The most agonising Comanche tortures included burying captives up to the chin and cutting off their eyelids so their eyes were seared by the burning sun before they starved to death.

Contemporary accounts also describe them staking out male captives spread-eagled and naked over a red-ant bed. Sometimes this was done after excising the victim’s private parts, putting them in his mouth and then sewing his lips together.

One band sewed up captives in untanned leather and left them out in the sun. The green rawhide would slowly shrink and squeeze the prisoner to death.

T R Fehrenbach quotes a Spanish account that has Comanche torturing Tonkawa Indian captives by burning their hands and feet until the nerves in them were destroyed, then amputating these extremities and starting the fire treatment again on the fresh wounds. Scalped alive, the Tonkawas had their tongues torn out to stop the screaming."

Holy ****, congrats on making the most awful post in SR history.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Very few people in this world who have been deemed worthy of a statue were good and decent people. Most were pretty reprehensible in their pursuit of "greatness". Steve Jobs serves as a modern example.

Andrew Jackson was a bad person, but he was instrumental in the continued existence of this nation and New Orleans, so I think he should remain.

Robert E. Lee was by all accounts a true gentleman and a wonderful human being. He also took up arms against the nation and fought on the side that wanted the practice of slavery, and should not be honored outside of his personal sphere of influence, so I could get behind his statue being removed.

Having said that, I wouldn't even dream of entertaining the idea of taking anything down under pressure from this current threat. Petulance should be shamed and resisted every time it is presented to society.

Continued political pressure and public efforts to win the hearts and minds of the opposition are fine, but this threat and the "if you don't do what I want I'll destroy something you love" is just wrong.

i get the sentiment - but status quo does not respond to gentle prodding - most any significant social change has come about by loud, uncomfortable, obnoxious insistence

 

[DaveXA]

You said pretty much how I feel about this issue. I suck at articulating my point of view sometimes. I'm pretty open minded about stuff like this because while I think statues of famous and infamous people are good reminders of our past, they aren't necessarily sacrosanct. There's a time and place, but I think recklessly tearing down stuff actually creates more negative feelings about those trying to make whatever point they're trying to make.

In other words, their message gets lost in the process of tearing down the statue because the argument shifts from injustices the people to a trivial in comparison statue. I think there are better ways to not only get the message out, but create an atmosphere of dialogue and real, meaningful changing of people's minds.

Very few people in this world who have been deemed worthy of a statue were good and decent people. Most were pretty reprehensible in their pursuit of "greatness". Steve Jobs serves as a modern example.

Andrew Jackson was a bad person, but he was instrumental in the continued existence of this nation and New Orleans, so I think he should remain.

Robert E. Lee was by all accounts a true gentleman and a wonderful human being. He also took up arms against the nation and fought on the side that wanted the practice of slavery, and should not be honored outside of his personal sphere of influence, so I could get behind his statue being removed.

Having said that, I wouldn't even dream of entertaining the idea of taking anything down under pressure from this current threat. Petulance should be shamed and resisted every time it is presented to society.

Continued political pressure and public efforts to win the hearts and minds of the opposition are fine, but this threat and the "if you don't do what I want I'll destroy something you love" is just wrong.

 

[st dude]

Its a publicity stunt, the leader of the group has as much as admitted he wants to get arrested.

If him and only four other of his group get arrested, would they then become the Jackson five?

 

[DaveXA]

i get the sentiment - but status quo does not respond to gentle prodding - most any significant social change has come about by loud, uncomfortable, obnoxious insistence

I tend disagree with this somewhat. I find open, sensible dialogue more persuasive than simply creating tension to make a point. Now I do agree that if a valid argument gets argued and completely ignored long enough, that sometimes that tension is called for. Certainly the great causes for social justice, i.e. ending slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights and disability rights, came about from tension and civil disobedience. It's part of what makes our country great. We would be an entirely different country without the first amendment.

That said, I think bridges can also be built between groups of people as well. If we're having open and honest dialogue, as we are here, then there's no need to go destroy something to get a reaction out of people when you already have their attention to begin with.

Just a few personal thoughts.

 

[Mr. Sparkle]

I'm glad this is happening if only to remind citizens of what life would be like here if we started listening to crackpots like Malcolm Suber, Tracie Washington, Dyan "Mama D" French, etc., or went back to voting in people like the Cynthias again.


If you want the complete list of monuments this group wants to tear down, the website has an easy to navigate map:

The Monuments

Some highlights:

Touro Infirmary Hospital @ 1401 Foucher St
Judah Touro - Jewish slaveholder. First Touro hospital opened where today's Morial Convention Center sits. Slaveholders paid minimum of $1/day to house slaves at his hospital for 'repair' or medical care during antebellum era. This fee was considered high by the slaveholder community.

Lusher Charter Elementary School @ 7315 Willow St
rabid Confederate and out spoken racist who was state superintendent of Louisiana public schools post Civil War.


Tulane University
named after Paul Tulane, the largest Louisiana financier to the Confederacy.

McDonogh #35 College Preparatory High School
1331 Kerlerec St

These people are nuts.

 

[Galbreath34]

I'm guessing after over two decades straddling Katrina the people engaging in sensible dialog about the Lee statue would disagree about its effectiveness.

Still, as I said before not ready to condone threat as only alternative form of protest or to say at all that Jackson is equivalent to Lee or Davis statues in NOLA, since he at least has a tie here to go with his baggage.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I tend disagree with this somewhat. I find open, sensible dialogue more persuasive than simply creating tension to make a point. Now I do agree that if a valid argument gets argued and completely ignored long enough, that sometimes that tension is called for. Certainly the great causes for social justice, i.e. ending slavery, women's suffrage, civil rights and disability rights, came about from tension and civil disobedience. It's part of what makes our country great. We would be an entirely different country without the first amendment.

That said, I think bridges can also be built between groups of people as well. If we're having open and honest dialogue, as we are here, then there's no need to go destroy something to get a reaction out of people when you already have their attention to begin with.

Just a few personal thoughts.

individually most of us would fall in line with this thinking - but that supposes the "other side" is willing to engage in public discussion. I really don't see that happening much
there was a rally of support for removing the statues after Dylan Roof shot up the church. processes were put in motion and then 'groups' started threatening the companies who would have removed the statues
that is not public discourse - that is a group who lost (much like the South in the Civil War) and would not accept the loss and retaliated
-- so the pro-removal side, sat and waited for 'things to get better/get right" and wouldn't you know it? it didn't "get better"
so now they're taking public/provocative action

makes sense to me

 

[DaveXA]

individually most of us would fall in line with this thinking - but that supposes the "other side" is willing to engage in public discussion. I really don't see that happening much
there was a rally of support for removing the statues after Dylan Roof shot up the church. processes were put in motion and then 'groups' started threatening the companies who would have removed the statues
that is not public discourse - that is a group who lost (much like the South in the Civil War) and would not accept the loss and retaliated
-- so the pro-removal side, sat and waited for 'things to get better/get right" and wouldn't you know it? it didn't "get better"
so now they're taking public/provocative action

makes sense to me

I dunno, the removing statues doesn't really move the needle much for me. I think what has a greater impact is dialogue, followed by action that actually addresses the grievances of a group. I think removing a statue, while maybe significant in symbolism, simply serves to turn people off who might otherwise listen to a healthy discourse.

In other words, you drive away the people who actually might be open to changing because acting out reinforces the argument the opposite point of view is making. I think it takes more courage and effort to actually reach across the divide than to break stuff.

 

[DavidM]

I dunno, the removing statues doesn't really move the needle much for me.

Perhaps, as it's only a part of a bigger discussion about how we go about honoring which notable figures and important moments.

It's not just fighting to keep some statues, it's arguing against a holiday for King and objecting to Tubman on currency. It's much less about preserving history, and much more about preserving a narrowed vision of history.

Just wait until really serious efforts get underway to commemorate America's first black president. I anticipate a lot of overlap in the pro-[Lee, etc.] statue contingent and the anti-Obama statue contingent.