He did not do this routinely How would you know? He got up at dawn and thought until noon and then walked 10 miles (brisk 2 hour walk)? You made this up completely for views
Ha ha, maybe at the end of life I'll be punished for not writing down the many great thoughts I've had while walking, I can remember moments where ideas I wanted to delve into came to me, but I can't remember what those ideas were centered on 😂 Starting when I wake up, I'll adopt the habit of recording thoughts.
Wholeheartedly agree. Whatever would be think about in such a world! As long as our answers are as complex and nuanced as our questions, we are doing well for ourselves.
Feng Shi often states that people should not use abstract art in their houses or it will lead to mental instability. Abstract is fine in a gallery, according to mt Feng Shi studies.
I'm surprised this video's comments isn't full of 1st world privileged college students who've never lived under a communist regime defending his actions and claiming this is just white supremacist propaganda. You have to love those "that wasn't real communism/socialism types.
Daily reminder that Christianity definitively crushed and defeated the very pagan ideals he loved. Apparently slaves were stronger than their master's.
Humans have amazing immune systems that function beautifully and very adequately when the body has the nutritional tools/armaments to do so. In spite of all the ‘progress’ of modernity, mental health is lost in the mix of science when brain health is ignored. Brain health is also predicated by good nutrition.
This is a very pertinent point! Our physiological health is predicated immensely upon the health of our gut and brain, both dictated by things as simple as diet, sleep and exercise.
Basically my routine, but add in: cooking, cleaning, and keeping kids from [unaliving] each other. Plus change out: "two hour walk in the woods", to: "2 hour walk in the urban sprawl".
I tend to think of the masters as grandiose narcissists, having an inflated sense of self-importance, a constant need for admiration, and a lack of empathy for others. Of course, this is all in degrees. Also, their road to a utopia is often a road to hell.
You modern day morons don't know anything about the world you're in. You don't understand grid layouts, street names, or the purpose of courthouses, churches and statues. They are magical spells for the people's protection. You idiots have given yourselves over to many monsters including fallen angels. And they aren't coming for you, they already have ahold of you.
I understand it has its controversy. More to the point, I used a leftist/ Nietzschean type theory of power to describe Christianity in the context of the West - a religion most contemporary leftists would argue is not academically persuasive. Sort of using leftism against itself in a way.
Not that it matters, but I'm not a Catholic, nor really am I attempting to 'defend' Christianity in a normative sense. This comes from an earnest attempt at intellectual honesty! I'm simply trying to defend the thesis that both Christian dualism and several other Christian presuppositions, as an inheritance of the Persians, has thoroughly soaked the institutions of the West - spanning right from the latest days of the Roman Empire until now. If you think that my reasoning is shotty then please tell me why and I'll do my best to provide additional commentary, or hear any alternative perspectives. Thanks!
Did you not listen to the video. It's the idea that human life has inherent value. That's the cornerstone according to the video. Whether you agree with it or not is another deal but he did define it for his purposes
People who only see history through their modern lense and don't want anything to with it on a deeper than just surface-level SHOULDN'T TOUCH HISTORY! You can't even argue with them. They are activists, not historians. They want to know enough to have a purpose, but not enough to understand the deepness and conplexity of it. I am disgusted by these people and their disrespect over anything that doesnt make them feel important. Big surprise: you ARE NOT IMPORTANT, and history DOESN'T BELONG TO YOU. So stop misusing it for your own agendas.
That's ironic since these statues were built specifically to spread misinformation about history as opposed to educate about history at a deeper level, were built by activists, were not part of the history which they celebrate, and serve the primary purpose of making a shamed group of people feel more important than they are.
It's a new Iconoclasm. Oddly, a secular one. Iconoclasms always end up regretted. There's not much real debate amongst art historians about this topic. Obviously, the objects have value and should be preserved. If they can be moved until they are depoliticized, they probably should be.
The assumption you're making is that they used to not be politicized but recently have become so. That ignores the purpose behind their construction. They were built decades after the events on which they celebrate by or through the influence of a political organisation called the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Their goal was to justify the celebration of their husbands and fathers who did not receive the hero's welcome that Union troops did. They did this by promoting a myth that framed the US as instigators, exaggerated US political and military cruelty, and sanitized the southern cause as being that of preserving antebellum gentile freedoms as opposed to the near universal concern of the planter class of preserving slavery. This is known as the Lost Cause myth, and the efforts of the United Daughters of the Confederacy and other Confederate apologists implanted this notion as a reaction against the expansion of the rights of freed slaves during and after reconstruction. The Lost Cause changes the fundamental truths about this era to prop up a set of political ideologies counter to historical fact. The critics of these obviously romanticized depictions of CSA leaders, conversely, are operating from the perspective of historical fact and the correction of the course of public conscious back on the track of objectivity rather than mythos. These statues are cheaply made and have a malicious intention, not to mention they cannot be used as any semblance of urban education since they serve the sole purpose of associating those they depict with a righteous cause. We have a wealth of material culture, primary sources, and the work of historians to go off of to not forget these events. However, I believe it is up to the residents of a location if they want the statues to stay or not. Overwhelmingly, locals want the statues gone. The pushback seems to be mostly protesters from outside descending on the statues like they're making a pilgrimage, and politicans at higher levels of government blocking these actions.
It should be the choice of the locals where the statue is located if they want it in their community or not, and overwhelmingly these communities are deciding that these statues do not belong. The vast majority of the defense of these statues comes from outsiders who descend of these monuments like they're making a pilgrimage and politicians at higher levels of government.
Simple, If it is SO PROBLEMATIC just chuck it in a museum. It is historical artwork of a different time, we need to understand the wrongdoings of that era, not wash it away.
These hunks of metal are worthless and not from the time in which they celebrate, but from times when a romanticized idea of history was worshipped in order to cover up the truth. They have no place in a museum. As for the idea that destroying them erases history, our primary means of learning about these eras does not come from statues which unapologetically glorify figures with little to no context about who they were. We have primary sources and the work of historians and archeologists to help us understand these time periods outside the blatantly misinformative narrative these statues area part of.
@@benjaminashbaugh6761most people wouldn't go into a library if their life depended on it. Having history physically existing in our cities is more important than you think. What would the archaeologists you've mentioned do if older civilisations thought the same? Cities are naturally an expression of their history, statues are one Part of that. Erasing the image of people you don't like just makes the selective view of history, which is already a huge problem, even worse. There are individual cases where it can debated; but making all of these statues collectively evil is nothing a historically concious person would ever approve.
You've got it twisted. People do understand the wrongdoings of that era which is exactly why they're being torn down. They were erected by people who didn't think they did anything wrong.
@@hypergiant1990 It is still, technically, cultural heritage and mostly was made by a collective fund (like the united daughters of the confederacy), people cared about these men (its basically only men) a whole lot. Put it in a museum.
@@muscledavis5434 But people read articles, they watch pop history snippets on RU-vid, they watch documentaries or period fiction. They consume media that influences their understanding of the past, and the only thing that an equestrian pose of general Lee could ever communicate is that the depicted person was part of a righteous cause which is obviously untrue. It serves to romanticize, and there are better expressions of history in urban spaces than intentionally misinformative ones. As for archeology, much of it involves finding defaced and destroyed statues which adds a layer of context in itself. Other civilizations did do this. In fact, the patriots in New York tore down a statue of King George. Were they a riotous mob that destroyed property? Yeah, and they're celebrated for being integral to the formation of the US. Archeology is more about material culture which is far beyond just digging up depictions of people. When those depictions are found, they are almost universally assumes to be romanticization, and so serve to tell us nothing about who that person was but rather how that person or their followers wanted them to be seen. What's more valuable is evdience of how the average person lived, testaments to specific occurrences or the lives of specific people, and actual human remains. We have these materials in abundance, and can show them off in museums and report on them in magazines. More people will see them, and more education will certainly be gleaned from them, than any statue of a loser slaver in the square of a southern town that was built decades after the events in which they depict for the explicit purpose of resisting the civil rights movement. But I believe it should always be up to the residents of the area where the statue is if they want it or not. Overwhelmingly, locals want them removed, and overwhelmingly, the resistance to this removal comes from outsiders descending on the statue like they're taking a pilgrimage and politicans at higher levels of governmen blocking the actions.
I find it Ironic that America celebrates freedom fighters, even honoring the native Americans for their resistance, yet can't bring itself to honor the black freedom fighters that fought against their oppressors, like Nat Turner. They even honor the seditious traitors to the Union. You would think taking down monuments and statues of the confederacy would be a no brainer in a country like this. I mean, what's the punishment for treason again?
The removal of these statues has little to do with a sense of morality. It's more of a grab for political power if anything. For if morality was involved, they'll know people of the past weren't perfect and lived in a different political climate. They'll often state they'll perverse it but majority of the time they destroy it. The biggest problem is it'll lead into a cascading effect where all history will be "corrected".
Wow, I like how a southern statue comes across as Western. Just because it pertains to a bunch of losers of a certain civil war doesn't mean the whole institution is in ruins. The West would have been better off if there had never been a confederacy. I mean just look at how Brazil is doing and all the real complainers moved down there.
A southern statue does not come to define the West, but it is Western in that it was constructed within the broader context of Western history, applying Western principles and philosophies. Nothing is in ruin, I'm not nearly that alarmist. However, there is an obvious and ostensible reckoning taking place across Western societies. Navigating this course with respect to both perspectives is of supreme import, at least in my view.
“Western” is way too generalized. Paints The West as the antagonist in whatever narrative you are portraying. There are both good and evil western figures. That’s like saying - “Should we topple Arab sites?” what are you talking about? Get specific
But whether it is art either for recognition or celebration is the million-dollar question! That question would have a different answer to looking at wholly, uncontroversially, historical art.
