And as far as Napoleon is concerned, he lived in a period were conquering swaths of land was more or less seen as normal. The Napoleonic Wars grew out of the Revolutionary Wars, and those were started, partially, by European Monarchies to contain democratic France. Sure, Napoleon pushed that to the extreme. Equally true is that it was the British Empire that pushed all of the Alliances against Napoleon. That is not nearly as clean cut as WW2 concerning the bad guys.
The only country that really has discussions about statues is the US. And those statues came up as part of a dedicated, racist-motivated propaganda program from the loosing side decades after the war. I don't see any Napoleon statues in the UK for example, or Rommel ones in Germany.
I mean the issue is dictating isn't it? I think the congressional setup in America makes a lot of sense generally speaking, though it's not without faults.
> he lived in a period were conquering swaths of land was more or less seen as normal.
So do we do historical revisionism or not? When do we draw the line? Do we shame people for killing and enslaving Native Americans when that's what people did at the time? I honestly find this strangely confusing.
> The only country that really has discussions about statues is the US. And those statues came up as part of a dedicated, racist-motivated propaganda program from the loosing side decades after the war. I don't see any Napoleon statues in the UK for example, or Rommel ones in Germany.
Not sure I follow this comparison all that much. The South lost and erected statues in the southern states. It's not really all that comparable to Napoleon statues in the UK. At least not that I can see.
A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?
I'm not really here to defend statues or whatever, but I just don't follow the logic in who we decide was a bad man.
> A civil war is different in the regard, that the defeated party is part of the same nation. So yes, I think the better analogy would be Napoleon statues in the UK. Or Wellington ones in France. And aren't there some of these statues on federal property as well?
These are comparable to the US civil war?
I’m really surprised that he isn’t more often seen in a bad light. He started a gigantic war, mobilized millions to expand an empire, crowned himself emperor, etc…
When do we draw the line? I think as a society we are very hypocritical and nonsensical in who we venerate. People were having serious discussions about how “offensive” the Lincoln Memorial was… yet nobody is clamoring for removing statues of Napoleon? I’m just not following the logic in any of this.
> Ah, the "a republic isn't a democracy" trope. That debunked so often, I won't even go there here.
Debunked in what way? The founding fathers (to their shame in my view) were explicit in creating a republic system and gave only certain people such as landowners and men the right to vote. Republicanism is a form of democracy, but it stands in stark contrast to what the person you are replying to is talking about which is a “might makes right” 51-49 wins kind of democracy, which if you look at Congress the founders set up explicitly to counteract. Now, the OP may be making a mistake in terminology, but it’s very clear that the founders were against simple majority. Frankly, I have to say I am too, because a 51-49 kind of country quickly falls apart. You can see elements of that at play today.