Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "Reuters" channel.

@banedon8087 Public statues are primarily for glorification, not education. That's what museums and books are for. Leaving things like this purely up to a democratic process, typically results in marginalization of minorities. The only issue is whether it is morally appropriate to glorify this man. If not, the statue should not be up.
25
@FarmerFpv You seem more emotional than me. I was restating a very logical position held by a number of the founding fathers of the USA and layed out in The Federalist Papers regarding the democratic tendency toward tyranny of the majority. I think these are wise words that any democratic country can benefit from listening to when trying to make tough decisions.
5
@superrrnova1986 Most people are fine with bad things.
1
@mekonta This is an irrelevant tangent since we're not talking about a statue that honors the victims of slavery, we're talking about a statue of a slave trader. @Sardonicus point still stands.
1
@Outcast of The Blue Fire Nation of Outlandia That sounds like a very backwards and stupid community, but I try not to judge people I don't know. In any case, this is irrelevant to the current discussion since this action was not taken by a black guy, but by a large multicultural group of people from the community.
1
@irishcoffee8201 Unfortunately that is not true. Generally, monuments to negative elements of human history tend to centralize the victims, not the perpetrator. The 9/11 memorials display images of victims, not Mohamed Atta. The Vietnam War memorial lists the soldiers who died in the war, not the people that killed them. There are no holocaust memorials that include statues of Adolf Hitler standing proudly. To have a statue made in your honor is generally considered a reward, not a repudiation of your actions. In the rare cases where this is the opposite, the perpetrator is posed in an unflattering position and cast in a negative light.
1
@irishcoffee8201 Says everyone. If you'd like to disprove me, provide evidence. Please point out examples where publicly funded statues of individuals in triumphant poses are being erected to openly draw attention to their villainy. Remember: a building is not a statue. Buildings can be repurposed easily. Most Nazi concentration camps have indeed been torn down. A couple have been left up but they were altered significantly. They've been converted into walk in museums with numerous signs, placards, exhibits, and tour guides posted to draw attention to the evil nature of the regime. Other Nazi constructs have either been torn down, or altered and repurposed removing all Nazi symbols. So, if you're saying we should treat this statue like the Germans treated Nazi statues, then destruction or museum placement are pretty much your only options. I have already provided you evidence of my statement. You're the one spouting baseless opinions.
1
@irishcoffee8201 How is putting a statue in a museum erasing history?
1
@irishcoffee8201 I see you've decided to avoid the question. Again: How does putting a statue in a museum erase history? However I'll be polite and answer you. The statue wouldn't generate hatred when I walk by it unless I already know the history. So there is not much learning to be had here. However, in a museum the statue would be presented alongside a number of other artifacts and supplementary learning materials so that I could have the critical context to understand who this man was and his role in our history. Finally, I would never be angry at a statue, since it is an inanimate object. But I could be upset an a local government for making the poor decision to publicly erect a statue of a reprehensible individual in a manner and place that is inappropriately celebratory. So, will you continue to dodge the question?
1