Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[DBT]

Statutes are not representative of history.

That's exactly why statues are erected; to represent historical figures, to represent history. That some are inappropriate is an issue...as is how to go about determining which is or is not appropriate and what should be done with those that are not. The mob was not all that careful in their selection process.

I see your point. Mobs are thoughtless and destructive. There's good reason to be alarmed about the destruction. But as long as protesters feel their calls for change are being ignored or thwarted, there will be protests around symbols of oppression like those statues. Anyway, deciding which statues to keep in place and which to move to other settings is going to be pretty easy compared to deciding what to do about Stone Mountain.

I think most people here felt some degree of disapproval when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan . Would blasting the Civil War generals off Stone Mountain be as bad? Perhaps the Stone Mountain carving being so recent makes its loss less of an issue. Or, perhaps it should be left in place to eventually become a treasured part of world heritage, like the carvings of Pharoahs in Egypt.

Personally, I'd rather they were removed. The scar on that mountain will be there for thousands of years, and that's an even better symbol of slavery and white supremacy than 3 guys on horses.

No doubt that some should be removed...but is an unruly mob rampaging in the streets, as opposed to peaceful and legitimate protest, the best way to remove public monuments? I think that there are better ways of going about it.

 

[Arctish]

I see your point. Mobs are thoughtless and destructive. There's good reason to be alarmed about the destruction. But as long as protesters feel their calls for change are being ignored or thwarted, there will be protests around symbols of oppression like those statues. Anyway, deciding which statues to keep in place and which to move to other settings is going to be pretty easy compared to deciding what to do about Stone Mountain.

I think most people here felt some degree of disapproval when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan . Would blasting the Civil War generals off Stone Mountain be as bad? Perhaps the Stone Mountain carving being so recent makes its loss less of an issue. Or, perhaps it should be left in place to eventually become a treasured part of world heritage, like the carvings of Pharoahs in Egypt.

Personally, I'd rather they were removed. The scar on that mountain will be there for thousands of years, and that's an even better symbol of slavery and white supremacy than 3 guys on horses.

No doubt that some should be removed...but is an unruly mob rampaging in the streets, as opposed to peaceful and legitimate protest, the best way to remove public monuments? I think that there are better ways of going about it.

There are better ways. But polite requests to remove those statues have been falling on deaf ears for years. Some states went so far as to make it illegal to move them, so the only way to get rid of the damn things is to topple them.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I see your point. Mobs are thoughtless and destructive. There's good reason to be alarmed about the destruction. But as long as protesters feel their calls for change are being ignored or thwarted, there will be protests around symbols of oppression like those statues. Anyway, deciding which statues to keep in place and which to move to other settings is going to be pretty easy compared to deciding what to do about Stone Mountain.

I think most people here felt some degree of disapproval when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan . Would blasting the Civil War generals off Stone Mountain be as bad? Perhaps the Stone Mountain carving being so recent makes its loss less of an issue. Or, perhaps it should be left in place to eventually become a treasured part of world heritage, like the carvings of Pharoahs in Egypt.

Personally, I'd rather they were removed. The scar on that mountain will be there for thousands of years, and that's an even better symbol of slavery and white supremacy than 3 guys on horses.

No doubt that some should be removed...but is an unruly mob rampaging in the streets, as opposed to peaceful and legitimate protest, the best way to remove public monuments? I think that there are better ways of going about it.

There are better ways. But polite requests to remove those statues have been falling on deaf ears for years. Some states went so far as to make it illegal to move them, so the only way to get rid of the damn things is to topple them.

If I'm black I'm jumping at the chance and chomping at the bit to remove, topple, detonate as many of these monuments to Jim Crow and slavery that I can. If dynamite was still available as it was decades ago they'd likely mostly be gone by now.

 

[DBT]

I see your point. Mobs are thoughtless and destructive. There's good reason to be alarmed about the destruction. But as long as protesters feel their calls for change are being ignored or thwarted, there will be protests around symbols of oppression like those statues. Anyway, deciding which statues to keep in place and which to move to other settings is going to be pretty easy compared to deciding what to do about Stone Mountain.

I think most people here felt some degree of disapproval when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan . Would blasting the Civil War generals off Stone Mountain be as bad? Perhaps the Stone Mountain carving being so recent makes its loss less of an issue. Or, perhaps it should be left in place to eventually become a treasured part of world heritage, like the carvings of Pharoahs in Egypt.

Personally, I'd rather they were removed. The scar on that mountain will be there for thousands of years, and that's an even better symbol of slavery and white supremacy than 3 guys on horses.

No doubt that some should be removed...but is an unruly mob rampaging in the streets, as opposed to peaceful and legitimate protest, the best way to remove public monuments? I think that there are better ways of going about it.

There are better ways. But polite requests to remove those statues have been falling on deaf ears for years. Some states went so far as to make it illegal to move them, so the only way to get rid of the damn things is to topple them.

How many people have politely requested the removal of statues and monuments over the many decades that they were in place?

Many of those present were probably oblivious of the statues or their perceived significance prior to the day of flashpoint. If so many people felt so strongly about it for so long, they had decades of lobbying and peaceful protest to pressure politicians to remove or relocate them.

Yet we heard very little about it until now.

Suddenly what people accepted as they went about their lives must be torn down without debate or due process, mob rule.

 

[Rhea]

How many people have politely requested the removal of statues and monuments over the many decades that they were in place?

Many of those present were probably oblivious of the statues or their perceived significance prior to the day of flashpoint. If so many people felt so strongly about it for so long, they had decades of lobbying and peaceful protest to pressure politicians to remove or relocate them.

Yet we heard very little about it until now.

Suddenly what people accepted as they went about their lives must be torn down without debate or due process, mob rule.

DBT - I think maybe you underestimate the amount of public effort that has been voiced about racists statues over the years in America and the intransigence of the republicans/cnservatives in responding.

The fact that you in Australia have heard very little of it until now does not mean that little has been said, published and pushed about it in America.

There have been DECADES of reasoned voices, petitions, proposals, debates. There have been thousands of peopl involved. But it has been pushed for reasons that are explicit in pushing a public power.

The mob is not sudden, here. Not ill-informed, not capricious.

This is a many decades long outrage that has finally gotten action and a voice that is no longer suppressed. This issue is not whimsical mob movement. This is a response to refusal to address a real problem that causes real harm.


I hear what you are saying bout mobs being undiscplined and unthoughtful.
But confederate statues is not one of those times.

 

[Arctish]

Just to expand on ^this a little bit, this is from the Wikipedia page on Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials:

Laws hindering removals​[edit]

In Alabama (2017), Georgia (early 20th century),[55] Mississippi (2004), North Carolina (2015), South Carolina (2000), Tennessee (2013, updated 2016), and Virginia (1902, repealed 2020), state laws have been passed to impede, or in the cases of Alabama,[56] Georgia, and North Carolina[57] prohibit altogether, the removal or alteration of public Confederate monuments.[58] Attempts to repeal these laws have not been successful, except in Virginia. Alabama's law, the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act, was passed in May 2017, North Carolina's law, the Cultural History Artifact Management and Patriotism Act, in 2015.[59]

All those laws prohibiting the removal of statues honoring Confederates were passed in response to petitions and proposals to put them in museums or give them back to the donors. As you can see, most of the anti-removal laws were put on the books pretty recently.

This fight had been building momentum since the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, and heated up considerably when Dylann Roof murdered nine people in the hopes it would spark a race war. It reached a boiling point with the Unite the Right rally

In the wake of the Charleston church shooting in June 2015, efforts were made across the country to remove Confederate monuments from public spaces and rename streets honoring notable figures from the Confederacy. While often successful, these efforts faced a backlash from people concerned about protecting their Confederate heritage.[7] The August 11–12 Unite the Right rally was organized by Charlottesville native Jason Kessler to protest the Charlottesville City Council's decision to remove the Robert E. Lee statue honoring the Confederate general, as well as the renaming of the statue's eponymous park (renamed to Emancipation Park in June 2017, and again to Market Street Park in 2018).

IMO it would be better if those statues with genuine historical significance went into museums and the others into private hands. We need the public space for honoring people who exemplify values we all can respect.

 

[DBT]

I hear what you are saying bout mobs being undiscplined and unthoughtful.
But confederate statues is not one of those times.

I'm just saying that there should no need to resort to such extremes. If change can't be implemented in a civilized manner in this day and age, what hope for the human race?

What hope can there be when rioting is the necessary pathway to change?

And when change happens, perhaps forced through rioting, does it suit all parties? The right wing takes offense at what the left wing does and vice versa, neither side being satisfied with the outcome.

As for the authorities not taking petitions and peaceful protests into consideration, that's something needs to be addressed,

 

[Ford]

I hear what you are saying bout mobs being undiscplined and unthoughtful.
But confederate statues is not one of those times.

I'm just saying that there should no need to resort to such extremes. If change can't be implemented in a civilized manner in this day and age, what hope for the human race?

What hope can there be when rioting is the necessary pathway to change?

And when change happens, perhaps forced through rioting, does it suit all parties? The right wing takes offense at what the left wing does and vice versa, neither side being satisfied with the outcome.

As for the authorities not taking petitions and peaceful protests into consideration, that's something needs to be addressed,

The Saturday after next, the United States will be celebrating our Independence Day. It is celebrated with fireworks which represent the "bombs bursting in air" from our National Anthem. For most people, it is a day off work and a chance to go out and watch those fireworks and maybe wave the flag, but it is also the commemoration of the beginning of a violent revolution against authority. The Declaration of Independence - signed on July 4th, 1776 - was not a call to implement change in a civilized manner. It was a declaration of war.

I have an ancestor who fought in one of the most famous battles of that war. This is at the heart of our national identity. The idea that once you've taken polite disagreement as far as it can go, you may have to force change. And it might not be pretty.

The problem with those Confederates represented by those statues is that they categorically rejected the nation founded in that revolution. They rejected the notion that "all men are created equal" even though it's a fair criticism to say the Founding Fathers didn't exactly follow that ideal themselves.

An angry mob toppling a Confederate statue is entirely in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of that Declaration we celebrate every July 4th. When our leaders consistently, constantly fail us, oppress us, and refuse to acquiesce that the power ultimately lies with the people, then our very first founding document says "feel free to fuck shit up if that's the only way you can implement change."

 

[DBT]

I hear what you are saying bout mobs being undiscplined and unthoughtful.
But confederate statues is not one of those times.

I'm just saying that there should no need to resort to such extremes. If change can't be implemented in a civilized manner in this day and age, what hope for the human race?

What hope can there be when rioting is the necessary pathway to change?

And when change happens, perhaps forced through rioting, does it suit all parties? The right wing takes offense at what the left wing does and vice versa, neither side being satisfied with the outcome.

As for the authorities not taking petitions and peaceful protests into consideration, that's something needs to be addressed,

The Saturday after next, the United States will be celebrating our Independence Day. It is celebrated with fireworks which represent the "bombs bursting in air" from our National Anthem. For most people, it is a day off work and a chance to go out and watch those fireworks and maybe wave the flag, but it is also the commemoration of the beginning of a violent revolution against authority. The Declaration of Independence - signed on July 4th, 1776 - was not a call to implement change in a civilized manner. It was a declaration of war.

I have an ancestor who fought in one of the most famous battles of that war. This is at the heart of our national identity. The idea that once you've taken polite disagreement as far as it can go, you may have to force change. And it might not be pretty.

The problem with those Confederates represented by those statues is that they categorically rejected the nation founded in that revolution. They rejected the notion that "all men are created equal" even though it's a fair criticism to say the Founding Fathers didn't exactly follow that ideal themselves.

An angry mob toppling a Confederate statue is entirely in keeping with both the spirit and the letter of that Declaration we celebrate every July 4th. When our leaders consistently, constantly fail us, oppress us, and refuse to acquiesce that the power ultimately lies with the people, then our very first founding document says "feel free to fuck shit up if that's the only way you can implement change."

Ok, then, what we see happening is good thing. Human progress in action. That's how it's done, folks. The end justifies the means.

 

[bilby]

That's exactly why statues are erected; to represent historical figures, to represent history.

Nope.

Statues are erected to glorify the people (and their ideals) that the erectors feel should be held up as desirable.

History you get from books, museums, and educational establishments.

Statues are iconography, not history. They tell us about the values that the society that displays them wish to promote; They tell us nothing about the individuals depicted, other than that the society that enshrined them as statues admire those individuals.

Statues might be art; But insofar as they are, there's no justification for placing them in public spaces, rather than in galleries or museums.

The destruction of statues with genuine artistic merit would be a terrible thing - but the removal of mass produced tat (as provided by such renowned artists as the Daughters of the Confederacy) is more in the way of a service to the art of sculpture.

Certainly their removal to museums, galleries, or even landfills, in no way affects the general knowledge of history.

There's exactly ZERO history that is in any way influenced by the presence or absence of statues (apart from the circular meta-history that says 'these are the people admired by the society that erected the statues at the time of their erecting' - and simply recording the fact that a statue once stood is adequate to protect that meta-history).

The idea that removing statues is harmful to history is a LIE. It's a lie told with the intent of persuading the uncaring to support those people who wish to continue to glorify those depicted; And as such is irrelevant to any discussion of whether any given statues should be retained.

The ONLY important question is "do we as a society want to promote the values personified by the person depicted, as values we would like the public to aspire to emulate?".

It's arguable that Churchill is worthy of emulation, at least in his steadfast opposition to Naziism. But the people protecting his statues while making Nazi salutes are clearly not attempting to emulate that aspect of his persona.

The losers of the American Civil War are not worthy of emulation. Statues to these people should be as commonplace as statues of Adolf Hitler, and for the same reasons.

The absence of statues to Hitler has in no way reduced public knowledge of his place in history. Erasing history is a red herring - and one deliberately used to support a cause that's unworthy of support, and whose promoters cannot make a reasonable argument for without exposure as racist scumbags.

We shouldn't be helping such people to mislead the public about the real effects of the actions they oppose. If the best argument they have for not removing the statues is that doing so will 'erase history', then they don't have any good arguments at all.

If they do have a better argument, they should stop burying it under the shit argument, and present their case.

 

[repoman]

So on the other side the Statue of Liberty was hijacked by the immigrant jew Emma Goldman and this iconography has made the lower immigration levels that the rest of the world has difficult for the US to achieve.

A based jew has a different opinion on it

 

[DBT]

That's exactly why statues are erected; to represent historical figures, to represent history.

Nope.

Statues are erected to glorify the people (and their ideals) that the erectors feel should be held up as desirable.

History you get from books, museums, and educational establishments.

Statues are iconography, not history. They tell us about the values that the society that displays them wish to promote; They tell us nothing about the individuals depicted, other than that the society that enshrined them as statues admire those individuals.

Statues might be art; But insofar as they are, there's no justification for placing them in public spaces, rather than in galleries or museums.

The destruction of statues with genuine artistic merit would be a terrible thing - but the removal of mass produced tat (as provided by such renowned artists as the Daughters of the Confederacy) is more in the way of a service to the art of sculpture.

Certainly their removal to museums, galleries, or even landfills, in no way affects the general knowledge of history.

There's exactly ZERO history that is in any way influenced by the presence or absence of statues (apart from the circular meta-history that says 'these are the people admired by the society that erected the statues at the time of their erecting' - and simply recording the fact that a statue once stood is adequate to protect that meta-history).

The idea that removing statues is harmful to history is a LIE. It's a lie told with the intent of persuading the uncaring to support those people who wish to continue to glorify those depicted; And as such is irrelevant to any discussion of whether any given statues should be retained.

The ONLY important question is "do we as a society want to promote the values personified by the person depicted, as values we would like the public to aspire to emulate?".

It's arguable that Churchill is worthy of emulation, at least in his steadfast opposition to Naziism. But the people protecting his statues while making Nazi salutes are clearly not attempting to emulate that aspect of his persona.

The losers of the American Civil War are not worthy of emulation. Statues to these people should be as commonplace as statues of Adolf Hitler, and for the same reasons.

The absence of statues to Hitler has in no way reduced public knowledge of his place in history. Erasing history is a red herring - and one deliberately used to support a cause that's unworthy of support, and whose promoters cannot make a reasonable argument for without exposure as racist scumbags.

We shouldn't be helping such people to mislead the public about the real effects of the actions they oppose. If the best argument they have for not removing the statues is that doing so will 'erase history', then they don't have any good arguments at all.

If they do have a better argument, they should stop burying it under the shit argument, and present their case.

Shit argument? I am arguing for a better way of doing things, a peaceful way.

I oppose the means, mobs in the streets, not necessarily the cause. The mob (beginning as legitimate and peaceful protestors) may have a just cause but go too far. So is violence the best way to achieve a result?

Tipping the balance between reasonable protest and just cause to excess and random destruction, which as pointed out, goes beyond targeting statues that should be removed or relocated to the mob defacing monuments over matter of political correctness. The Abbot bust was defaced, for instance.

Now we may not have liked Abbots politics or the man, he was a crap Prime Minister, but he was not a slave owner, he made no intentional racist remarks...the mob just didn't like his politics. Similarly with Churchill, etc.

The point being is that a mob doesn't show a whole lot of discernment, and that we should be better than that in this day and age.

If that is a shit argument, so be it.

 

[bilby]

That's exactly why statues are erected; to represent historical figures, to represent history.

Nope.

Statues are erected to glorify the people (and their ideals) that the erectors feel should be held up as desirable.

History you get from books, museums, and educational establishments.

Statues are iconography, not history. They tell us about the values that the society that displays them wish to promote; They tell us nothing about the individuals depicted, other than that the society that enshrined them as statues admire those individuals.

Statues might be art; But insofar as they are, there's no justification for placing them in public spaces, rather than in galleries or museums.

The destruction of statues with genuine artistic merit would be a terrible thing - but the removal of mass produced tat (as provided by such renowned artists as the Daughters of the Confederacy) is more in the way of a service to the art of sculpture.

Certainly their removal to museums, galleries, or even landfills, in no way affects the general knowledge of history.

There's exactly ZERO history that is in any way influenced by the presence or absence of statues (apart from the circular meta-history that says 'these are the people admired by the society that erected the statues at the time of their erecting' - and simply recording the fact that a statue once stood is adequate to protect that meta-history).

The idea that removing statues is harmful to history is a LIE. It's a lie told with the intent of persuading the uncaring to support those people who wish to continue to glorify those depicted; And as such is irrelevant to any discussion of whether any given statues should be retained.

The ONLY important question is "do we as a society want to promote the values personified by the person depicted, as values we would like the public to aspire to emulate?".

It's arguable that Churchill is worthy of emulation, at least in his steadfast opposition to Naziism. But the people protecting his statues while making Nazi salutes are clearly not attempting to emulate that aspect of his persona.

The losers of the American Civil War are not worthy of emulation. Statues to these people should be as commonplace as statues of Adolf Hitler, and for the same reasons.

The absence of statues to Hitler has in no way reduced public knowledge of his place in history. Erasing history is a red herring - and one deliberately used to support a cause that's unworthy of support, and whose promoters cannot make a reasonable argument for without exposure as racist scumbags.

We shouldn't be helping such people to mislead the public about the real effects of the actions they oppose. If the best argument they have for not removing the statues is that doing so will 'erase history', then they don't have any good arguments at all.

If they do have a better argument, they should stop burying it under the shit argument, and present their case.

Shit argument? I am arguing for a better way of doing things, a peaceful way.

I oppose the means, mobs in the streets, not necessarily the cause. The mob (beginning as legitimate and peaceful protestors) may have a just cause but go too far. So is violence the best way to achieve a result?

Tipping the balance between reasonable protest and just cause to excess and random destruction, which as pointed out, goes beyond targeting statues that should be removed or relocated to the mob defacing monuments over matter of political correctness. The Abbot bust was defaced, for instance.

Now we may not have liked Abbots politics or the man, he was a crap Prime Minister, but he was not a slave owner, he made no intentional racist remarks...the mob just didn't like his politics. Similarly with Churchill, etc.

The point being is that a mob doesn't show a whole lot of discernment, and that we should be better than that in this day and age.

If that is a shit argument, so be it.

It's certainly not even vaguely related to the claim:

That's exactly why statues are erected; to represent historical figures, to represent history.

Do you withdraw that claim, or are you just hoping nobody noticed that you moved the goalposts to a different continent?

 

[DBT]

Shit argument? I am arguing for a better way of doing things, a peaceful way.

I oppose the means, mobs in the streets, not necessarily the cause. The mob (beginning as legitimate and peaceful protestors) may have a just cause but go too far. So is violence the best way to achieve a result?

Tipping the balance between reasonable protest and just cause to excess and random destruction, which as pointed out, goes beyond targeting statues that should be removed or relocated to the mob defacing monuments over matter of political correctness. The Abbot bust was defaced, for instance.

Now we may not have liked Abbots politics or the man, he was a crap Prime Minister, but he was not a slave owner, he made no intentional racist remarks...the mob just didn't like his politics. Similarly with Churchill, etc.

The point being is that a mob doesn't show a whole lot of discernment, and that we should be better than that in this day and age.

If that is a shit argument, so be it.

It's certainly not even vaguely related to the claim:

That's exactly why statues are erected; to represent historical figures, to represent history.

Do you withdraw that claim, or are you just hoping nobody noticed that you moved the goalposts to a different continent?

No goal posts were moved. The issue has always been about what the monuments or statues represent. A statue of Churchill erected after the war is that of a historical figure in a moment of history. It is a part of history. A period in time. A significant time in the past.

Whether a statue, bust or monument should be defaced by a mob, relocated or destroyed because Churchill was less than perfect is the question.

Statues of confederate generals or officers erected after the war represent historical figures in that period of history, and the only question is should they be relocated preserved as a part of history, or destroyed because they are symbols of a reprehensible period in history, the defenders of slavery.

Whatever is decided should be done through public debate, not rampaging mobs.

That's all. It's not hard to grasp.

 

[DBT]

Protestor discernment in action:

''A statue of Winston Churchill has been sealed inside a protective steel barrier ahead of a massive London race protest which Prime Minister Boris Johnson says has been "hijacked" by extremists.

Construction workers boarded up the heritage-listed 3.5-metre tall bronze monument to the former prime minister overnight amid fears it could be torn down or become a flashpoint for clashes between rival protesters this weekend. ''

''The extraordinary sight has shocked Britain. London Mayor Sadiq Khan also ordered another eight statues to be covered by protective casing while tensions are high. Those statues include tributes to Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, George Washington, and the cenotaph near Downing Street.''

"The statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square is a permanent reminder of his achievement in saving this country - and the whole of Europe - from a fascist and racist tyranny," Johnson said on Friday.

"It is absurd and shameful that this national monument should today be at risk of attack by violent protesters."

Johnson said he understood the "legitimate feelings of outrage at what happened in Minnesota and the legitimate desire to protest against discrimination" and acknowledged Britain had not fully combated racism and discrimination.

"But it is clear that the protests have been sadly hijacked by extremists intent on violence," he said.''

 

[Keith&Co.]

Ok, then, what we see happening is good thing. Human progress in action. That's how it's done, folks. The end justifies the means.

Well, what have the options been?

You kneel, no one talks about WHY you're kneeling, just that you're being oaid to play football.
You block traffic, no one talks about WHY, just that you have no right to inconvenience the commuter.
You strike, you lose job, healthcare, and no one talks about WHY you went on strike, just the business' right to fire you.
You riot, people say the violence delegitimizes any complaint and you should use peaceful protests.
Or, YOU are peaceful, but someone drops your group's name at a violent, and that individual's actions are laid on your shoulders. And only want to talk about the violence. Never use the 'few bad apples' argument for the protestors.
You take your statue bitch to the voters, city hall protects the statue by statute. Or the flag. Or the memorial. And they wanna talk about their heritage, not yours.


Nothing changes as long as either racists are in charge, or people who are honestly trying to be fair allow the racists to fuck the system. They keep moving the narrative from the injustices to the form of protest.

Whether the ends are justified or not, these are the means that are left. And finally change is being achieved. So, those in power have pretty much taught those with the numbers that only direct action works.
Which hopefully will scare some people into being open to the next opportunity for discussion. If, you know, anyone bothers to try discussion first. If the only thing in the toolbox that works is a hammer, you tend to swing the hammer.

 

[DBT]

Ok, then, what we see happening is good thing. Human progress in action. That's how it's done, folks. The end justifies the means.

Well, what have the options been?

You kneel, no one talks about WHY you're kneeling, just that you're being oaid to play football.
You block traffic, no one talks about WHY, just that you have no right to inconvenience the commuter.
You strike, you lose job, healthcare, and no one talks about WHY you went on strike, just the business' right to fire you.
You riot, people say the violence delegitimizes any complaint and you should use peaceful protests.
Or, YOU are peaceful, but someone drops your group's name at a violent, and that individual's actions are laid on your shoulders. And only want to talk about the violence. Never use the 'few bad apples' argument for the protestors.
You take your statue bitch to the voters, city hall protects the statue by statute. Or the flag. Or the memorial. And they wanna talk about their heritage, not yours.


Nothing changes as long as either racists are in charge, or people who are honestly trying to be fair allow the racists to fuck the system. They keep moving the narrative from the injustices to the form of protest.

Whether the ends are justified or not, these are the means that are left. And finally change is being achieved. So, those in power have pretty much taught those with the numbers that only direct action works.
Which hopefully will scare some people into being open to the next opportunity for discussion. If, you know, anyone bothers to try discussion first. If the only thing in the toolbox that works is a hammer, you tend to swing the hammer.

Well, we are heading down a dark road, where it leads nobody knows. Strap in, hope for the best, we may be in for a rough ride.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Ok, then, what we see happening is good thing. Human progress in action. That's how it's done, folks. The end justifies the means.

Well, what have the options been?

You kneel, no one talks about WHY you're kneeling, just that you're being oaid to play football.
You block traffic, no one talks about WHY, just that you have no right to inconvenience the commuter.
You strike, you lose job, healthcare, and no one talks about WHY you went on strike, just the business' right to fire you.
You riot, people say the violence delegitimizes any complaint and you should use peaceful protests.
Or, YOU are peaceful, but someone drops your group's name at a violent, and that individual's actions are laid on your shoulders. And only want to talk about the violence. Never use the 'few bad apples' argument for the protestors.
You take your statue bitch to the voters, city hall protects the statue by statute. Or the flag. Or the memorial. And they wanna talk about their heritage, not yours.


Nothing changes as long as either racists are in charge, or people who are honestly trying to be fair allow the racists to fuck the system. They keep moving the narrative from the injustices to the form of protest.

Whether the ends are justified or not, these are the means that are left. And finally change is being achieved. So, those in power have pretty much taught those with the numbers that only direct action works.
Which hopefully will scare some people into being open to the next opportunity for discussion. If, you know, anyone bothers to try discussion first. If the only thing in the toolbox that works is a hammer, you tend to swing the hammer.

Well, we are heading down a dark road, where it leads nobody knows. Strap in, hope for the best, we may be in for a rough ride.

Pun?

 

[Horatio Parker]

FEDERAL JUDGE LAMBASTS AMENDMENT TO RENAME CONFEDERATE BASES AS “MADNESS,” GETS THOROUGHLY BODIED BY CLERK

Since I am about to be interviewed I thought it would be appropriate to unburden myself in opposition to the madness proposed by Senator Warren: the desecration of Confederate graves,” Silberman wrote.

A clerk replied

In your message, you talked about your ancestors, one that fought for the confederacy and one that fought for the Union. This seems to be a true example of a house divided. However, it is very clear what the Confederacy stood for. In 1861, at the Virginia secession convention, Henry L. Benning (for whom Fort Benning is named) in explaining the reasoning for Georgia’s decision to secede from the United States stated, “[it] was a conviction … that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery…t is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back.” Unfortunately, in this scenario, no matter how bravely your uncle fought for the Confederacy, the foundation of his fight was a decision that he agreed more with the ideals of the Confederacy, than he did with those of the Union. And in the end, he chose the losing side of history.

The judge quickly retreated...

The drowning Silberman lunged for the olive branch. “Thank you for your thoughtful message,” he wrote the clerk in a reply all, saying the other judge’s interpretation was “absolutely correct; my concern was limited to cemeteries.” Silberman didn’t explain why he needed to suggest the Civil War wasn’t really about slavery if he had such a minor objection. Silberman did not immediately respond to a message left at his chambers.

https://theintercept.com/2020/06/15/dc-circuit-confederate-bases-federal-judge/

 

[Worldtraveller]

Then blame the police for inciting mob behavior. That is certainly what happened.

There have been peaceful protests. There have been protests where police appear to have incited violence and there have been protests where the protestors have gone on rampage, apparenty looting and causing destruction for its own sake.

Fuck your both sides-ism.

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf...hUKEwiq_L__0IbqAhWMZs0KHa4jC4IQ4dUDCAg&uact=5