It has become chic to be righteously indignant about the past

[rodheadlee]

I just don't understand that tear down statues and tear down this and tear down that because you're mad about the past. They want to tear down all the El Camino Real Bells because to the Amah Mutsun it represents a  bad past history.

Well if they tear down the Bells how is anyone going to learn about their past history? Do you think people driving 70 miles an hour down the freeway are going to stop and read a sign?

I guess I just don't get it. We should learn from the past and look to the Future.

Edited December 22, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Tacenda]

34 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I just don't understand that tear down statues and tear down this and tear down that because you're mad about the past. They want to tear down all the El Camino Real Bells because to the Amah Mutsun it represents a  bad past history.

Well if they tear down the Bells how is anyone going to learn about their past history? Do you think people driving 70 miles an hour down the freeway are going to stop and read a sign?

I guess I just don't get it. We should learn from the past and look to the Future.

As long as they put up that information, yes I agree wholeheartedly. Such as the monument at the Mountain Meadows Massacre site in Utah I visited this year. 

[ksfisher]

55 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I just don't understand that tear down statues and tear down this and tear down that because you're mad about the past. They want to tear down all the El Camino Real Bells because to the Amah Mutsun it represents a  bad past history.

Well if they tear down the Bells how is anyone going to learn about their past history? Do you think people driving 70 miles an hour down the freeway are going to stop and read a sign?

I guess I just don't get it. We should learn from the past and look to the Future.

How would you feel if there was a statue glorifying the leaders of the mob that killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith outside of Carthage Jail?  I would bet that members of the church visiting the site would find it offensive and ask for it to be removed.

If something is glorifying things that hurt people I think it's probably best to make a change.

On the other hand, I don't think we need to go rooting around in the past looking for things to offend us.

Edited December 22, 2021 by ksfisher

[ksfisher]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

As long as they put up that information, yes I agree wholeheartedly. Such as the monument at the Mountain Meadows Massacre site in Utah I visited this year. 

The MMM site is a memorial.  I think this is in a different class than say a statue of a confederate leader.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rodheadlee said:

I just don't understand that tear down statues and tear down this and tear down that because you're mad about the past. They want to tear down all the El Camino Real Bells because to the Amah Mutsun it represents a  bad past history.

Well if they tear down the Bells how is anyone going to learn about their past history? Do you think people driving 70 miles an hour down the freeway are going to stop and read a sign?

I guess I just don't get it. We should learn from the past and look to the Future.

Putting that kind of stuff in a museum is probably a good compromise.   Then the history is preserved but the bad act or person isn't being celebrated.

[Chum]

9 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I just don't understand that tear down statues and tear down this and tear down that because you're mad about the past. They want to tear down all the El Camino Real Bells because to the Amah Mutsun it represents a  bad past history.

Well if they tear down the Bells how is anyone going to learn about their past history? Do you think people driving 70 miles an hour down the freeway are going to stop and read a sign?

I guess I just don't get it. We should learn from the past and look to the Future.

Our society is emotionally stronger and more mature; we're about ready to recognize more of our (sometimes horrific) mistakes. Have we have grown to the point where we're capable of learning a more complete+realistic version of our history and how that shaped us? I hope so. Owning the whole of our past seems to be the only path not repeating the worst of it.

As far as some controversial statues go, they were created to advance a curated version of history that minimizes or omits historical abominations and bad choices. We may be strong enough to no longer need curation.

Can curated statures help advance a stronger understanding of the past? I believe so, if they're offered in a way that lead us toward understanding difficult scenarios and outcomes. The challenge with curated statues is they don't do that well from a place of isolated prominence.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Putting that kind of stuff in a museum is probably a good compromise.   Then the history is preserved but the bad act or person isn't being celebrated.

Concur! There needs to be a placard stating what atrocities the person did. And maybe the accomplishments too, but both need to be put in. 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Concur! There needs to be a placard stating what atrocities the person did. And maybe the accomplishments too, but both need to be put in. 

Hopefully you won't see yours on display some day 🙂

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, Chum said:

Our society is emotionally stronger and more mature; we're about ready to recognize more of our (sometimes horrific) mistakes. Have we have grown to the point where we're capable of learning a more complete+realistic version of our history and how that shaped us? I hope so. Owning the whole of our past seems to be the only path not repeating the worst of it.

As far as some controversial statues go, they were created to advance a curated version of history that minimizes or omits historical abominations and bad choices. We may be strong enough to no longer need curation.

Can curated statures help advance a stronger understanding of the past? I believe so, if they're offered in a way that lead us toward understanding difficult scenarios and outcomes. The challenge with curated statues is they don't do that well from a place of isolated prominence.

Societies need to learn to tell the difference between history and propaganda.  Historical stuff should usually stay in place but propaganda stuff needs to go.  It can go to a museum but it doesn't need to be a part of the scenery.  

We can see this especially illustrated in regards to confederate army statues, most of which were put up by a private organization, in states that didn't even exist when the Civil War was fought.  Those were not put up for historical reasons but to try to make the confederate cause seem more legitimate and glorious than it actually was.

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Hopefully you won't see yours on display some day 🙂

I'd deserve it if I did horrific things such as those listed here in this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_removed_during_the_George_Floyd_protests

And I'm sure these people did some good, but not all.

[ksfisher]

36 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'd deserve it if I did horrific things such as those listed here in this wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_removed_during_the_George_Floyd_protests

And I'm sure these people did some good, but not all.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might have done some good.  Maybe.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, ksfisher said:

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson might have done some good.  Maybe.

Touche!

I didn't read through all of them, my bad.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Touche!

I didn't read through all of them, my bad.

I think that just goes to show (them being included) that their’s good and bad in all of us.  We shouldn’t glorify the bad, but we don’t have to dispose of the baby when the proverbial bathwater is thrown out.  Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, they weren’t perfect and held up some ideals and institutions that we’ve moved on from.  But, they helped us along the path to moving on.

I wonder how many of today’s heroes will be looked on as undesirable 200 years from now.  Maybe we’ll have moved on from looking down on people by then.

[Kenngo1969]

I think it's a fallacy to suggest that, in order to merit recognition, or, possibly, to merit veneration or emulation, one must be (or that one must have been) perfect.  Who would meet that standard?  Who possibly could meet it?  Only one Man.  Consider the following when it comes to judging well-known figures from history.  Relevant in this connection are the following:

• "Judg[ing] not [unrighteously] that ye be not judged.  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged.  And with what measure ye mete, it shall be meted to you again" is a standard that applies (or that should apply) no less to historical figures than it does to the real, live, flesh-and-blood human beings (emphasis on human? ) with whom we interact every day (see Matthew 7:1-2). 
• So is the command to be charitable (see 1 Corinthians 13:2, Moroni 7:45, 47-48). 
• So is the command that only he or she who is sinless oneself should cast the first stone (see John 8:1-7). 
• So is the notion that we should say not, "Lord, I thank thee that I am not as other [past] men [and women]," but, rather, should say, "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner" (see Luke 18:9-14).  

I think it is the height of presentist hubris to suggest (or to assume) that we are so enlightened that there is nothing that people from the past can teach us, or that the only things such people can teach us is what not to do and how not to do it.  

Edited December 23, 2021 by Kenngo1969

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

How would you feel if there was a statue glorifying the leaders of the mob that killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith outside of Carthage Jail?  I would bet that members of the church visiting the site would find it offensive and ask for it to be removed.

If something is glorifying things that hurt people I think it's probably best to make a change.

On the other hand, I don't think we need to go rooting around in the past looking for things to offend us.

If they put up a neutral plaque telling what happened, I'd be fine. 

The Mission Bells simply mark the El Camino Real/ the Kings Highway. If we are going to get rid of everything with the word mission in it then we got a lot of work to do and they better change the name of those tortillas called mission tortillas.

[rodheadlee]

8 hours ago, Chum said:

Our society is emotionally stronger and more mature

I totally disagree with that statement.

I just spent two and a half hours on the freeway with a bunch of immature people. I'll get with you later on the rest of it.

Edited December 23, 2021 by rodheadlee

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

I totally disagree with that statement.

I just spent two and a half hours on the freeway with a bunch of immature people. I'll get with you later on the rest of it.

Millions of immature people aren't enough to negate overall societal growth. Acting in concert they may slow the approach to certain emotional waypoints - but not forever.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Chum said:

Millions of immature people aren't enough to negate overall societal growth. Acting in concert they may slow the approach to certain emotional waypoints - but not forever.

Are we really stronger or better off as a society when, too often, a person who has a differing opinion or perspective than someone else, or an opinion or perspective that differs from another that seems, generally, to prevail within a certain group (or even overall), rather than simply being labeled as someone with a differing perspective, the person, instead, is labeled "bad," "wrong," "evil," "morally bankrupt," "mentally deficient," "unintelligent," and on and on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam? Are we really better off when professors feel the need to put "trigger warnings" on syllabi and when the powers-that-be in higher education must watch their step when considering whom to invite to visit campus, lest, at a minimum, those people be shouted down (in an arena where the free exercise of ideals is supposed to reign supreme, no less?), or, worse, people who disagree with that person will foment unrest, violence, and possibly worse?

I wonder.

[rodheadlee]

14 hours ago, Chum said:

Millions of immature people aren't enough to negate overall societal growth. Acting in concert they may slow the approach to certain emotional waypoints - but not forever.

We may be more technically advanced and more permissive but it's debatable if we're more mature. If we were more mature we wouldn't have thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at each other.

[Chum]

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are we really stronger or better off as a society

Yes

9 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

when, too often, a person who has a differing opinion or perspective than someone else, or an opinion or perspective that differs from another that seems, generally, to prevail within a certain group (or even overall), rather than simply being labeled as someone with a differing perspective, the person, instead, is labeled "bad," "wrong," "evil," "morally bankrupt," "mentally deficient," "unintelligent," and on and on, ad infinitum and ad nauseam? Are we really better off when professors feel the need to put "trigger warnings" on syllabi and when the powers-that-be in higher education must watch their step when considering whom to invite to visit campus, lest, at a minimum, those people be shouted down (in an arena where the free exercise of ideals is supposed to reign supreme, no less?), or, worse, people who disagree with that person will foment unrest, violence, and possibly worse?

If the argument is that society shouldn't acknowledge and wrangle with it's unwanted history, because unliked things happen when we own up - that's our weakness doing it's thing. We don't have to engage with and empower our weakness. We can let it go.

[Chum]

31 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

We may be more technically advanced and more permissive but it's debatable if we're more mature.

New strength to face our own atrocities strongly indicates growth in wisdom and maturity.  However, it is the nature of growth to occur unevenly.

Overt animosity is seeing some renewed permissiveness. History teaches it will run out of hosts eventually, hopefully before new atrocities are sown. 

Technology might be a factor but it's kind of indirect.

49 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

If we were more mature we wouldn't have thousands of nuclear missiles pointed at each other.

We are pointing fewer missiles. Not strictly progress but maybe recognition.

[Kenngo1969]

31 minutes ago, Chum said:

Yes

If the argument is that society shouldn't acknowledge and wrangle with it's unwanted history, because unliked things happen when we own up - that's our weakness doing it's thing. We don't have to engage with and empower our weakness. We can let it go.

I don't know exactly how that's responsive to what I wrote.  And I'm not sure what you mean when you say we don't have to "engage with and empower our weakness."  I "engage with my weakness[es]" all the time; I'm not sure how else to overcome them.  Disagreement or misunderstanding notwithstanding, I wish you well.

 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know exactly how that's responsive to what I wrote. 

You brought up stuff you don't like.

I offer that facing up to terrible, systemic wrongs is a long process full of stuff we won't like. It's expected; growth is often uncomfortable.

In the face of unpleasantness, weakness might compel us to react poorly. But we don't need to. We can stand outside of that weakness. Eventually, it will move on.

[Kenngo1969]

Again, I'm not sure how that's responsive to what I wrote.  Perhaps you believe I am one of those benighted souls who doesn't "get it."   That's fine.  (You wouldn't be the first.)  I always thought that the best way to combat an idea that is "bad," "wrong," "evil," and so forth is with a better idea rather than by simply preempting expression.  That seems, to me, to be the very raison d'etre of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: It acknowledges all of the "bad" in the world, of course, but seeks to combat it with (much) better ideas.  I'm not at all sure how shouting down (or worse) viewpoints with which we disagree amounts to "progress" or is indicative of further enlightenment, but I'm sure I'm completely alone in that.  So be it.

[Chum]

40 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

And I'm not sure what you mean when you say we don't have to "engage with and empower our weakness."  I "engage with my weakness[es]" all the time; I'm not sure how else to overcome them.

I see a good faith, nuanced question here but I only have a moment.

I'll use anger as an example: When we are angry (reasonably or not) in response to someone else's actions we are engaged with our anger. Early on, we may have an opportunity to withdraw from the anger. We can step aside or let it flow around us.

note: I probably make that sound effortless but I couldn't do it at all until one day I did.