Tag: statues

As an Iowa boy, I’m familiar with cow-tipping. At the risk of Flyover-Country-splaining, cow-tipping is when people push a cow over so she falls. I’ve never done it, but from what I’ve heard it’s a fun activity, or at least it’s a fun activity for Iowans because we’re just now getting actual entertainment here.

Lately, though, people have taken to statue-tipping because they’re upset with the racism in our history. Some Leftists on Twitter have even offered suggestions on how to topple statutes or, in one case, the Washington Monument. As humorous as this seems, allow me to take it to Orwellian heights while attempting to sprinkle in a bit of humor along the way.

As the debate over whether statues of Confederate generals deserve to be preserved rages right now, there is an underlying issue that’s a bit tougher to overcome, although the Left finds it easy to disregard. I’m talking about American history. Like it or not, our past is full of incidents that make us look like David Duke, but it’s still our history. We fought a civil war at least in part on racial issues, and although the Confederacy lost, it’s hard for me to get past the notion they are still part of American history.

“But we’re not trying to erase history,” Leftists love to say. “History will still be taught.” Except it’s not being taught well in today’s public schools, thanks to people who agree with taking down statues of people they find objectionable. The Founding Fathers, for example, aren’t being taught as seriously because they owned slaves and, thus, aren’t worthy of study or consideration (according to Leftists). Yet, without one of these slave-owners, we might not have expressed our independence from England, nor would we likely have had a Constitution. Instead of teaching these perspectives, the Founding Fathers are being “memory-holed.”

George Orwell is holding on Line 1, kids.

This is not to elevate the Confederacy to Founding Fathers status. Instead, it’s to underscore just how important it is to consider the impact imperfect people have had on our nation. If we pretend Thomas Jefferson didn’t exist because he owned slaves (as well as getting freaky-deaky with at least one of them), we erase the positive impact he had. With Confederate generals, that argument is a much harder sell, but the point remains. When we erase history on the basis of current sensibilities, we do a grave disservice to the past, present, and future.

And that’s where the Left gets it completely wrong.

Toppling a statue of a Confederate general may be righteous in the Left’s eyes, but it doesn’t address the underlying issues that caused the statue to be erected in the first place, nor does it eliminate any good that person did. Like it or not, Robert E. Lee was a military strategist. Even if he was on the losing side, that can’t be taken away from him, no matter how many statues you wreck or history lessons you don’t teach in school. Now what? You’ve pretty much destroyed public property for nothing. Brilliant!

Now, here’s where the Left’s logic about offensive statues will come back to bite them in the backside. As with any movement, eventually the winds of change will make it obsolete and the ideals of said movement can be used to justify actions never intended by the movement to be done. Put another way, the statues you topple today may get erected again and other statues you like will get toppled tomorrow, and you have only yourselves to blame. Congratulations! You’ve not only accomplished nothing, but you’ve opened the door for others to take the same actions that will accomplish nothing. But hey, at least you owned the Right, right?

This next part is a bit of a tangent, but it relates to the matter at hand because it shows how little the Left knows about history and how little they regard context. Some of the same folks who like to topple statutes are trying to get Huckleberry Finn banned because of its frequent use of the n-word. Of course, these morons haven’t taken the time to either a) read the book, or b) understand the reason why the word was used. Mark Twain used the language of the time (of which he was familiar) to expose the idiocy of the racism shown in the book. Of the characters, Jim was by far the most noble while the white characters (including Huck for a time) were irredeemable. That’s a context you miss if you’re just looking for the n-word. Not to mention, this was tried back in the 1990s and it failed. As my old high school history teacher used to say, “Those who do not learn from history get to take it again next semester.”

It appears a lot of Leftists skipped that class the second time around as well as the first.

Other Leftists are arguing the removal of these statues on the basis of them not being art. May I introduce you to the Right and their attempts to remove the works of Robert Mappelthorpe back in the late 80s and early 90s? You guys are going to get along great!

The thing about art is it’s subjective, and the thing about being an adult is you’re not required to like everything and you can ignore what you don’t like. Hear that, Leftists? You don’t have to like everything and you can ignore it. If you get upset over a statue, first of all you have much bigger problems than just the statue, and second of all you can walk away. Tearing down monuments you don’t like is a childish solution to a non-problem. If you want to tackle racism, do it, but don’t do it by acting like a child.

That’s why the toppling of statues today (even people like Ulysses S. Grant who fought in the aforementioned Civil War) is, to borrow a Leftist term, problematic. And why it’s extremely humorous to me.