Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Politesse]

Then it can apply to any mob, white supremacist, KKK, etc, may say "we need our mob on the streets."

Indeed they do and have and are doing.

And do you support the mob when they have views contrary to yours? For example, burning up a Planned Parenthood building, destroying a mosque, toppling statues of anyone who didn't support gay marriage from the get-go (e.g. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton...)

I see them in a very similar light, I guess. Neither entirely supporting nor condemning. I'm a social scientist by profession and training, and though as an individual I hold strong political views on certain things, I am not a blind idealist and understand that I can't simply wish opposing opinions away, or imagine that the same political tools available to some citizens will also by used by others, whether I approve or not.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I'm not really pro-mob anything. And yes, it is optimal to agree to take these things down. It has been 60 years since some of these things went up, and hadn't been taken down.

That's why we need the mob though. You're never going to convince the American public to stop worshiping genocidal maniacs in the public square through rational argument at the town council meeting.

We keep pointing this out. It's like those posters that keep asking the same questions over and over again are not paying attention.

I mean, I get that some of them might have me on ignore, but if they ignore that many people, they might as well go read a novel.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I agree with Worldtraveller though. If you pick this moment to say "All lives matter" you are saying it in response to "black lives matter". So what you are saying in effect is that black lives don't matter. Timing is important.

If you genuinely think that black lives matter, since they are included in all lives, then why not just nod and agree, "yes, black lives do matter"? Why the need to point out that all lives matter? What is your objection?

Some of us regard "Black Lives Matter" as a racist position, "All Lives Matter" is the non-racist version thereof.

And most of the rest of consider you to be racist. So there you have it.

You're not alone in that category, though, if it makes you feel any better.

The company you keep are illustrious personages such as trump, pence, gohmert, a large chunk of the south, the KKK, most of the NRA and the GOP. So as long as you're ok with that....

 

[DBT]

Every group believes themselves to be be on the right side. White supremacists don't feel they are wrong when they take to the streets....

 

[Patooka]

Every group believes themselves to be be on the right side. White supremacists don't feel they are wrong when they take to the streets....

Yeah, it's like that poem:

At first they came for the white supremacists and I said nothing, for I'm not a white supremacists.
Then we lived happily ever after because seriously, fuck those cunts.

Some things just aren't equivalent. Fuck those cunts.

 

[DBT]

Every group believes themselves to be be on the right side. White supremacists don't feel they are wrong when they take to the streets....

Yeah, it's like that poem:

At first they came for the white supremacists and I said nothing, for I'm not a white supremacists.
Then we lived happily ever after because seriously, fuck those cunts.

Some things just aren't equivalent. Fuck those cunts.

Just to be sure, I didn't say that white supremacists are right.

 

[bilby]

Every group believes themselves to be be on the right side. White supremacists don't feel they are wrong when they take to the streets....

Yeah, it's like that poem:

At first they came for the white supremacists and I said nothing, for I'm not a white supremacists.
Then we lived happily ever after because seriously, fuck those cunts.

Some things just aren't equivalent. Fuck those cunts.

Just to be sure, I didn't say that white supremacists are right.

Typically they are far right.

 

[Rhea]

Every group believes themselves to be be on the right side. White supremacists don't feel they are wrong when they take to the streets....

Yeah, it's like that poem:

At first they came for the white supremacists and I said nothing, for I'm not a white supremacists.
Then we lived happily ever after because seriously, fuck those cunts.

Some things just aren't equivalent. Fuck those cunts.

Just to be sure, I didn't say that white supremacists are right.

But you did say that it was better for their racist statues to stare us all in the face, while they crow about having a mandate and control of the public square, for another 60 years waiting for their permission to remove them, rather than tear down their symbols without their permission.

We grew tired of waiting and realized we don’t actually need the racists’ permission to tear down the racist statue. The one their gerrymandered, voter-supressed legislative body has protected all this time.

 

[DBT]

Just to be sure, I didn't say that white supremacists are right.

But you did say that it was better for their racist statues to stare us all in the face, while they crow about having a mandate and control of the public square, for another 60 years waiting for their permission to remove them, rather than tear down their symbols without their permission.

We grew tired of waiting and realized we don’t actually need the racists’ permission to tear down the racist statue. The one their gerrymandered, voter-supressed legislative body has protected all this time.

What I said was, statues and monuments can be assessed according to the Democratic process.

People lobby their representative, parliament sits and debates their value, public sentiment, complaints made, etc, etc, and decides their fate....all interested parties have their say and the verdict based on the good of society.

Isn't that how civil society works?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Isn't that how civil society works?

Civil society didn't erect any of those statues or monuments.

 

[Rhea]

DBT - and everyone - I invite you to get a fresh beer or coffee and read this thorough article from the Smithsonian

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731

Historically, the installation of Confederate monuments went hand in hand with the disenfranchisement of black people. The historical record suggests that monument-building peaked during three pivotal periods: from the late 1880s into the 1890s, as Reconstruction was being crushed; from the 1900s through the 1920s, with the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, the increase in lynching and the codification of Jim Crow; and in the 1950s and 1960s, around the centennial of the war but also in reaction to advances in civil rights. An observation by the Yale historian David Blight, describing a “Jim Crow reunion” at Gettysburg, captures the spirit of Confederate monument-building, when “white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible, master of ceremonies.”

It is a very extensive look at who benefits, and who is harmed by these statues and the “museums” and “parks” that promote the Lost Cause ideology.

Most AMreican taxpayers probably don’t know how many tens of millions of dollars they pay to keep the story of white supremacy alive. I hope more people hear this story - and more of those statues come crashing down and the parks that promote lies are defunded.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

All lives very much matter. Equal Protection under the Constitution. #BLM was pointing out the lack of equal protection for them. #BLM probably should have named it Black Lives Matter Too, but probably figured white people would have been smart enough to understand what #BLM meant.

"All lives matter" is a true statement, but in general, it was being used by white people that don't think blacks are being unfairly targeted by police. So the term while accurate, is being used by idiots and asses, and naive people that don't know the origin of "all lives matter".

Except the supposed problem they are going after is false. Yes, there is a problem with the police, but they're not targeting blacks. If anyone is being targeted it's the poor.

Ah, the old "no race problem here" canard.

The problem is your side treats "no racism here" as proof of racism. You're presenting a non-rebuttable claim--thus utterly worthless.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree with Worldtraveller though. If you pick this moment to say "All lives matter" you are saying it in response to "black lives matter". So what you are saying in effect is that black lives don't matter. Timing is important.

If you genuinely think that black lives matter, since they are included in all lives, then why not just nod and agree, "yes, black lives do matter"? Why the need to point out that all lives matter? What is your objection?

Some of us regard "Black Lives Matter" as a racist position, "All Lives Matter" is the non-racist version thereof.

If all lives really mattered, black lives matter wouldn't be a thing.

You're assuming positions are rationally based on perfect knowledge. That's far from reality.

 

[DBT]

Isn't that how civil society works?

Civil society didn't erect any of those statues or monuments.

No, but it can and should correct its mistakes.

 

[DBT]

DBT - and everyone - I invite you to get a fresh beer or coffee and read this thorough article from the Smithsonian

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731

Historically, the installation of Confederate monuments went hand in hand with the disenfranchisement of black people. The historical record suggests that monument-building peaked during three pivotal periods: from the late 1880s into the 1890s, as Reconstruction was being crushed; from the 1900s through the 1920s, with the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, the increase in lynching and the codification of Jim Crow; and in the 1950s and 1960s, around the centennial of the war but also in reaction to advances in civil rights. An observation by the Yale historian David Blight, describing a “Jim Crow reunion” at Gettysburg, captures the spirit of Confederate monument-building, when “white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible, master of ceremonies.”

It is a very extensive look at who benefits, and who is harmed by these statues and the “museums” and “parks” that promote the Lost Cause ideology.

Most AMreican taxpayers probably don’t know how many tens of millions of dollars they pay to keep the story of white supremacy alive. I hope more people hear this story - and more of those statues come crashing down and the parks that promote lies are defunded.

All of this should be taken into consideration.

 

[Politesse]

Just to be sure, I didn't say that white supremacists are right.

But you did say that it was better for their racist statues to stare us all in the face, while they crow about having a mandate and control of the public square, for another 60 years waiting for their permission to remove them, rather than tear down their symbols without their permission.

We grew tired of waiting and realized we don’t actually need the racists’ permission to tear down the racist statue. The one their gerrymandered, voter-supressed legislative body has protected all this time.

What I said was, statues and monuments can be assessed according to the Democratic process.

People lobby their representative, parliament sits and debates their value, public sentiment, complaints made, etc, etc, and decides their fate....all interested parties have their say and the verdict based on the good of society. A lot of monuments are being taken down through democratic processes now. But if you think any of that would be happening if the people hadn't first torn several down themselves, you're a bit politically naive I think. People in power don't just voluntarily. out of the poor lily white goodness of their heart and no other consideration, suddenly decide to cede the public symbols of their dominance.

Isn't that how civil society works?

Well, no, not really. I mean ideally, sure, but that is not what history shows us actually happening. The democratic process is motivated by blood and fire and fear thereof, just like any other form of imperial governance.

 

[DBT]

What I said was, statues and monuments can be assessed according to the Democratic process.

People lobby their representative, parliament sits and debates their value, public sentiment, complaints made, etc, etc, and decides their fate....all interested parties have their say and the verdict based on the good of society. A lot of monuments are being taken down through democratic processes now. But if you think any of that would be happening if the people hadn't first torn several down themselves, you're a bit politically naive I think. People in power don't just voluntarily. out of the poor lily white goodness of their heart and no other consideration, suddenly decide to cede the public symbols of their dominance.

Isn't that how civil society works?

Well, no, not really. I mean ideally, sure, but that is not what history shows us actually happening. The democratic process is motivated by blood and fire and fear thereof, just like any other form of imperial governance.

If that's the case, something is fundamentally broken.

A Democracy, by definition, being ''a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives,'' should not entail blood, fire or fear.

 

[Jokodo]

This one is going around on Facebook

Whenever I hear white Americans say “my family had nothing to do with slavery so why should I apologize” I think of Willy Brandt.

(...)

Brandt knelt in Warsaw a few years before I was born. But as a descendant of victims, I remember learning about what he did—even as a child. It wasn’t going to erase the past...but it was a start toward reconciliation and building a more just society

As a boy in the early 1980s, I remember my parents had friends in their 40s (close to my age today) who had numbers tattooed on their arms. Holocaust survivors. They were young and vibrant. I remember that. And by that time, their trauma had been recognized by much of the world. It didn’t change their pain and the nightmares of their lived experiences but also they knew that their suffering had been acknowledged. That matters.

(...)

Germany is an imperfect country. I know. I lived there. But the average German knows and understands the details and legacy of the mass murder and persecution their forbears committed. German schoolchildren visit the remains of death camps. There are monuments to the murdered Jews of Europe across the country. There are national days of mourning. You’d be hard pressed to find a public monument to any Nazi. In fact you won’t because they are not allowed.

Now imagine in the US, we have monuments to men who fought a war to preserve the institutionalized terrorization and enslavement of African Americans. Every day, millions of African Americans in cities throughout the US pass those statues. It’s not just a reminder of their oppression. But a reminder of their country’s failure to reckon with the past.

(...)
​

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The Greeks invented democracy at a state level and they owned slaves. So democracy was literally invented by slave owners, a thought that should give us pause and allow us to reflect on the current situation.

It doesn't matter whether "something" is fundamentally broken because we all have our differing opinions of what exactly constitutes that "something" of which we seem to collectively all speak. There isn't any kind of perfect democracy or anything out there that is somehow "broken." We shouldn't get all hung up on whether we're putting a scratch into something that is "perfect" because there isn't anything anywhere that is perfect.

If we had half of Germany's resolve when it cones to these monuments they'd all be gone. They are monuments to white supremacism and institutional slavery. Get them the fuck out of sight forever and stop making them noble.

 

[Toni]

Ah, the old "no race problem here" canard.

The problem is your side treats "no racism here" as proof of racism. You're presenting a non-rebuttable claim--thus utterly worthless.

The problem with this and many of your posts is that instead of pointing out errors in an individual’s position, you assign them a ‘side.’ And then attack ‘their side.’ You would do better to address individual posters and much better: their points. For example, if you have Sara that suggests that poor shire people are equally targeted as poor blacks, then post it. If you can demonstrate that middle and upper class black people do not face threats of danger st the hands of police: do it.

Instead you wave your hand at a ‘side.’ This is not a sports team or a playground game of kickball.