The use of “historical “statues and of the so called “libertarians”
The statues debate in the USA and here is most illuminating. We hear plenty of arguments that the Confederate statues and of the British Imperialists are historical objects and therefore should be preserved. The problem is that the statues were erected after the Civil War and during the period of the huge pink maps. The Klu Klux Klan and the modern alt right exist to remind the liberated black population just who is still in charge. They exist as a sub text and as an illustration of power. I would have no problems with statues like this being in a museum but they cannot be neutral historical objects when associated with modern society. Nor can they exist outside of political assumptions.
However as so many know the modern ” libertarian” mistakes an adjective of a noun as a political motivation , ithas no analysis of power or an understanding of it. Right wing and certain others who claim this title often have no k oeledge of history and frequently have no analysis of themselves except in a rather adolescent narcissistic way. Nothing exciting outside of themselves, collective history, oppression and the power of institutions goes uncomprehended. Its a wonderful theory for those who have no awareness . It’s a wonderful theory for a President who never grew up with a thin skin and a large ego. It’s a great theory for Nigel Farage and it ignores all experience, knowledge and self awareness. Like Modern Utilitarianism it is best used to describe a political philosophy but simply as an adjective. As a noun used by the far right it is an excuse for the large corporations and their own selfishness..it’s no more than anarchism for rich, powerful people and for corporations…it’s a simple ignorant excuse for selfishness and a justification for the ststus quo….why is it that those who champion the statues of a vile historical past know least about it? I think I know…it was when those troublesome reformers knew their place and kept quiet.. eh guys?