30 Aug 20
@averagejoe1 said"A nation losing its history is like an individual losing his memory"
Something to ponder , with all the stuff that is going on. An example, is tearing down the statues signifying the past. I am sure there are others. Go for it.
I don't recall who said this, but it's a good analogy.
If you can imagine the problems someone with memory loss might have, then it's not hard to imagine what could happen to a nation if it 'forgets' its past
30 Aug 20
@averagejoe1 saidA statute doesn't "signify the past".
Something to ponder , with all the stuff that is going on. An example, is tearing down the statues signifying the past. I am sure there are others. Go for it.
Should Germany have left up all statutes of Hitler? Iraq of Saddam?
30 Aug 20
@lemon-lime saidIf the posters here are representative of right wing Americans, they don't know enough of this country's past to forget it.
"A nation losing its history is like an individual losing his memory"
I don't recall who said this, but it's a good analogy.
If you can imagine the problems someone with memory loss might have, then it's not hard to imagine what could happen to a nation if it 'forgets' its past
30 Aug 20
@lemon-lime saidLuckily nobody is burning books.
"A nation losing its history is like an individual losing his memory"
@lemon-lime saidIt’s a good saying but not a good analogy for the topic.
"A nation losing its history is like an individual losing his memory"
I don't recall who said this, but it's a good analogy.
If you can imagine the problems someone with memory loss might have, then it's not hard to imagine what could happen to a nation if it 'forgets' its past
Statues celebrate a particular person in history, what they stood for and what they achieved. Taking down a statue isn’t losing history it’s choosing to not celebrate a part of it.
As No1Maruader said, would you (if you were German) keep a statue of Hitler in place just because he is part of history?
30 Aug 20
@divegeester saidI probably would.
It’s a good saying but not a good analogy for the topic.
Statues celebrate a particular person in history, what they stood for and what they achieved. Taking down a statue isn’t losing history it’s choosing to not celebrate a part of it.
As No1Maruader said, would you (if you were German) keep a statue of Hitler in place just because he is part of history?
But contextualized. Add a statue of raped and dead bodies beside it or something.
I find it very difficult to find a painting or a statue offensice, no matter what the subject matter.
30 Aug 20
@chesstachio saidProbably because others are too dull to comprehend they’re boarish.
Agreed.
People are too sensitive these days.
30 Aug 20
@no1marauder saidI think Churchill said this. You are correct, we should tear down statues of despots, murderers et al.
A statute doesn't "signify the past".
Should Germany have left up all statutes of Hitler? Iraq of Saddam?
@divegeester saidRead the OP again. Tearing down statues is only one example of attempts to erase the past.
It’s a good saying but not a good analogy for the topic.
Statues celebrate a particular person in history, what they stood for and what they achieved. Taking down a statue isn’t losing history it’s choosing to not celebrate a part of it.
As No1Maruader said, would you (if you were German) keep a statue of Hitler in place just because he is part of history?
30 Aug 20
@no1marauder said
A statute doesn't "signify the past".
Should Germany have left up all statutes of Hitler? Iraq of Saddam?
A statute doesn't "signify the past".It can if it was a 'statute' enacted in the past.
30 Aug 20
@lemon-lime saidOUCH. Dumb typo on my part.A statute doesn't "signify the past".It can if it was a 'statute' enacted in the past.
30 Aug 20
@AverageJoe1
Presumably you are talking about removing statues and names from confederate state individuals.
It's not a matter of 'signifying' the past, in those cases it is GLORIFYING the past which just keeps racism smoldering.