Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Metaphor]

No, this is, in a small way akin to Harriet Tubman leading slaves out of the South.

Sure luv. Keep making the analogy between individual slaves escaping and violent mobs destroying public property. It was so convincing the first time you made it and it gets more convincing with each repetition

 

[laughing dog]

it is pretty clear you do not give a fuck about clarity of thought.

It is only clear that laughing dog in particular has selective aphasia. laughing dog imagines that 'x is not any way to do y' means 'y cannot be done via means x', because he can't help himself when he scores what he imagines to be a slam-dunk gotcha moment.

Since you have no logical response, you are now resorting to mind-reading and imputations.

Imaginary? When you allow and approve mobs to destroy public property, we're not on a slippery slope. We're at the bottom of the slide and your legs are fucking broken from impact.

Hysterical rhetoric is not an argument.

 

[laughing dog]

This is a perfect example of sloppy thinking and ad homs that frame your arguments. I have never argued that these mob represent the clear majority. You are babbling nonsense.

Somebody upthread said the actions of the mob represent the will of a fairly clear majority. I didn't say it was you.

Your hysterical rhetoric was
"Let the mob burn down the entire United States, starting with Wendy's. Let the mob be judge, jury and executioner in your brave new world. Let the mob do whatever it fucking wants to public and private property, because it represents the clear majority and you have personally been fucking complicit your entire life, and now you can assuage your impotence and ineptitude by approving the actions of crazed young people destroying public property with abandon. " Please pay attention to what you actually write.

Because if they did, in fact, represent a fairly clear majority, then the statues would have been gone 70 years ago, and not by mobs.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Clear majorities do not always prevail in the US system. That has been explained numerous times to you by a number of posters.

 

[Metaphor]

Your hysterical rhetoric was
"Let the mob burn down the entire United States, starting with Wendy's. Let the mob be judge, jury and executioner in your brave new world. Let the mob do whatever it fucking wants to public and private property, because it represents the clear majority and you have personally been fucking complicit your entire life, and now you can assuage your impotence and ineptitude by approving the actions of crazed young people destroying public property with abandon. " Please pay attention to what you actually write.

I can see what I wrote, laughing dog. I do not ascribe any beliefs or utterances to you, except your feelings of guilt.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. Clear majorities do not always prevail in the US system. That has been explained numerous times to you by a number of posters.

None have explained to me why if a town or city had a clear majority that opposed a statue why the statue would remain. None. Not a single person. Some people have talked about the electoral college as if the fucking President erects and maintains statues across every city in America. Some people have talked about nebulous 'state laws' that prevent a clear majority from removing them, but are silent on the name and operation of these laws.

So, if you indeed believe that these mobs represent a clear majority, either this clear majority has arisen extremely recently, or it's been there the whole time. If it's extremely recent, it means that the status quo was acceptable before for a long time, and a chance for a civil removal of statues has not been given. If it's been there the whole time, if a clear majority of people opposed these statues for 70 years, then you need more than statue removal via mob. You need to burn your Constitution and start over.

 

[Rhea]

Wait. Did you not read the state laws posted for you?
Do you not understand voter suppression and intimidation? And what it meant to black Americans trying to vote?
Do you not understand gerrymanders?

Is that the problem, you don’t understand what we mean but you don’t ask for an explanation?

 

[Metaphor]

Wait. Did you not read the state laws posted for you?
Do you not understand voter suppression and intimidation? And what it meant to black Americans trying to vote?
Do you not understand gerrymanders?

Is that the problem, you don’t understand what we mean but you don’t ask for an explanation?

What state laws prevent a town or city from removing a statue that the majority want removed.

 

[DBT]

People can't just erect monuments in public spaces without council or government approval. Normally this allows for objectors or protestors to have their say in preventing the project from being approved. What people put on private property is different issue.

Sure.

Now explain how that worked in Reconstruction South and Jim Crow South.

Doesn't the South allow people to lobby their representative? Or if they feel strongly enough, organize peaceful demonstrations? The risk, of course, is that these could be hijacked by extremists of all persuasions. The idea is to pressure councils to review their monuments, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

But what if the majority of people in a city want their public monuments or statues to stay?

 

[Arctish]

Wait. Did you not read the state laws posted for you?
Do you not understand voter suppression and intimidation? And what it meant to black Americans trying to vote?
Do you not understand gerrymanders?

Is that the problem, you don’t understand what we mean but you don’t ask for an explanation?

What state laws prevent a town or city from removing a statue that the majority want removed.

That information has been posted at least twice in this thread.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...Military-Bases&p=801574&viewfull=1#post801574

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...Military-Bases&p=806464&viewfull=1#post806464

 

[Toni]

People can't just erect monuments in public spaces without council or government approval. Normally this allows for objectors or protestors to have their say in preventing the project from being approved. What people put on private property is different issue.

Sure.

Now explain how that worked in Reconstruction South and Jim Crow South.

Doesn't the South allow people to lobby their representative? Or if they feel strongly enough, organize peaceful demonstrations? The risk, of course, is that these could be hijacked by extremists of all persuasions. The idea is to pressure councils to review their monuments, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

But what if the majority of people in a city want their public monuments or statues to stay?

I just checked your profile and I think you are in Australia. I didn't know and perhaps I am wrong. I was operating under the impression that you are American and understand the different levels of government and were familiar with US history and understood what Jim Crow and Reconstruction were. I thought perhaps you read some of the links upthread that detail the history of most of such monuments and statues. I think I was wrong and I apologize.

It is not necessarily true that petitioning the local government (city or town) is going to get a statue taken down or moved. Those statues and monuments were erected mostly by small local civics groups or by wealthy donors and local governments (and universities) are loathe to seem ungrateful to wealthy donors.

As for majority rules? Well, in the South, a great majority of the electorate (white men) were very much in favor of keeping black people slaves. We had a war about it. They lost.

As I wrote upthread: Imagine you are a Jew in Germany and every day you must pass a statue of Hitler on your way to work or school. How would that make you feel? Would it make you feel better or worse if Jews were a minority and the majority of non-Jews had no problem with that statue of Hitler? Should that statue of Hitler remain? Remember: Hitler was elected! He had a great deal of support!

That's a little of what it is like to be black in the US and to have to see every day those statues. I grew up in the North but I've been in parts of the south and was shocked even as a young girl at the way confederate generals were honored by street names and statues. My son was stationed at Fort Bragg and we had lots of conversations about the US penchant for naming military bases for Confederate generals and what a horrible idea that was. It sends the wrong message to white people and frankly, those statues were specifically installed to suppress black people, to remind them of slavery and that those who sought to keep them in slavery were the real heroes.

But if that is too broad for you, try this (and yeah, I know most on this board are atheist but still, I think you might get it). Again, paraphrasing from something read elsewhere:

What do you think most people would think if Christian Churches started having lots of statues and images of Satan in the church? Satan is prominently featured in the bible and is an important part of Judeo/Christian beliefs. But erecting statues of Satan might be sending a message that the Church doesn't really support.



Germany removed all those statues of Hitler and Himmler, etc. because it was the right thing to do. Statues are erected to honor heroes and leaders. Why should Confederate leaders and soldiers, who were, btw, traitors to the United States of America be honored? Revered?

 

[Metaphor]

Wait. Did you not read the state laws posted for you?
Do you not understand voter suppression and intimidation? And what it meant to black Americans trying to vote?
Do you not understand gerrymanders?

Is that the problem, you don’t understand what we mean but you don’t ask for an explanation?

What state laws prevent a town or city from removing a statue that the majority want removed.

That information has been posted at least twice in this thread.

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...Military-Bases&p=801574&viewfull=1#post801574

https://talkfreethought.org/showthr...Military-Bases&p=806464&viewfull=1#post806464

So, three states have prohibitive laws - but these states do not represent the majority of 'toppled' statues, and some of the laws were enacted recently, indicating a recent attempt at preserving the statues against the turning tide in the public. Nor could these laws not be overturned if there was a clear majority that wanted them overturned. That wikipedia page is also chock a block full of Confederate monuments that already have been removed without a mob doing the removing. And, of course, in America and elsewhere, statues that have nothing to do with the Confederacy are being defaced and toppled. Churchill, some guy who opposed Hitler, has not been spared.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't the South allow people to lobby their representative? Or if they feel strongly enough, organize peaceful demonstrations? The risk, of course, is that these could be hijacked by extremists of all persuasions. The idea is to pressure councils to review their monuments, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

But what if the majority of people in a city want their public monuments or statues to stay?

I just checked your profile and I think you are in Australia. I didn't know and perhaps I am wrong. I was operating under the impression that you are American and understand the different levels of government and were familiar with US history and understood what Jim Crow and Reconstruction were. I thought perhaps you read some of the links upthread that detail the history of most of such monuments and statues. I think I was wrong and I apologize.

I'm aware of the history, but I am working under the assumption that the people of the united states have the right to lobby their representatives in all states.

State governments being united in the sense that allows representation for all its citizens, allows peaceful protest, allowing minorities their voice in councils or federal parliament. If not, perhaps that should be addressed.

 

[repoman]

I will repeat something I posted well upthread.

If there was a non racially (probably religion instead) motivated secessionist civil war in the 1820s that the New England state started and lost...

A. Would there even have been statues made of the losing "New England Confederacy" military or civilian generals made by the locals? Not because they had other great life achievements and fought as a young recruit, but explicitly for their role in the war,

B. Would there be call now to remove these statues because of treasonous actions, or would it be chalked up to a whimsical old timey quarrel?

 

[Politesse]

Doesn't the South allow people to lobby their representative? Or if they feel strongly enough, organize peaceful demonstrations? The risk, of course, is that these could be hijacked by extremists of all persuasions. The idea is to pressure councils to review their monuments, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

But what if the majority of people in a city want their public monuments or statues to stay?

I just checked your profile and I think you are in Australia. I didn't know and perhaps I am wrong. I was operating under the impression that you are American and understand the different levels of government and were familiar with US history and understood what Jim Crow and Reconstruction were. I thought perhaps you read some of the links upthread that detail the history of most of such monuments and statues. I think I was wrong and I apologize.

I'm aware of the history, but I am working under the assumption that the people of the united states have the right to lobby their representatives in all states.

State governments being united in the sense that allows representation for all its citizens, allows peaceful protest, allowing minorities their voice in councils or federal parliament. If not, perhaps that should be addressed.

My god, you've almost figured it out.

Now, baby steps...

What do you do if you don't have any assurance whatsoever of equal representation without recrimination?

 

[DBT]

I'm aware of the history, but I am working under the assumption that the people of the united states have the right to lobby their representatives in all states.

State governments being united in the sense that allows representation for all its citizens, allows peaceful protest, allowing minorities their voice in councils or federal parliament. If not, perhaps that should be addressed.

My god, you've almost figured it out.

Now, baby steps...

What do you do if you don't have any assurance whatsoever of equal representation without recrimination?

My goodness, sarcasm, yet based on what you say here, you still have not understood what I have been saying all along. Go back and check what I said about lobbying state or council representatives, peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

 

[Arctish]

I will repeat something I posted well upthread.

If there was a non racially (probably religion instead) motivated secessionist civil war in the 1820s that the New England state started and lost...

A. Would there even have been statues made of the losing "New England Confederacy" military or civilian generals made by the locals? Not because they had other great life achievements and fought as a young recruit, but explicitly for their role in the war,

B. Would there be call now to remove these statues because of treasonous actions, or would it be chalked up to a whimsical old timey quarrel?

I suppose it would depend on whether subsequent generations revered them or disdained them.

Consider the Battle of Liberty Place Monument, a monument to the violent insurrection of 1874 by the White League in Louisiana. The insurrection was suppressed but less than twenty years later the ex-Confederates and white supremacists were firmly in control. Those fellows wanted to honor the paramilitary that attempted to overthrow the government, reestablish white rule, and end the attempt to elevate the status of blacks to full and equal citizenship, so they built them a really nice obelisk on a plinth.

The next generation went even further and added an inscription:

"McEnery and Penn having been elected governor and lieutenant-governor by the white people, were duly installed by this overthrow of carpetbag government, ousting the usurpers, Governor Kellogg (white) and Lieutenant-Governor Antoine (colored). United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state."

Of course, not everyone wanted that monument to exist but with Jim Crow laws and the KKK operating openly in Louisiana, it stayed up for over 100 years. But eventually the voting rights of blacks were recognized, the composition of the city government changed, and the movement to take it down prevailed.

 

[Jokodo]

Statues tend to belong to cities, do they not? City councils are responsible for allowing them or removing them, not the President.



So voters are being suppressed in city council elections, and if they weren't being suppressed, the statues would have been gone 70 years ago?

Be better at math. The state laws, passed by the gerrymandered state legislatures using voter suppression.
I know you’re a smart guy. Is this concept really news to you? This is how America - specifically the conservatives, and especially the white supremacists - does this.

What laws? Name the laws that prevent a city removing a statue it doesn't want. If there are such laws they are bad laws. But are there such laws?

Yes, there are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Memorial_Preservation_Act

The Alabama Memorial Preservation Act of 2017 (Ala. Code § 41-9-230 through 237, AL Act 2017-354, Senate Bill 60) is an act of law in the U.S. state of Alabama which requires local governments to obtain state permission before moving or renaming historically significant buildings and monuments that date back 40 years or longer.[1]

The origin of the bill is the 2015 attempt by the city of Birmingham, which is 71% black,[2] to remove the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument, erected in 1905. The law was ultimately unsuccessful in keeping the monument erect, as the monument was taken down by the city in June 2020, during the George Floyd protests.

 

[Jokodo]

No, this is, in a small way akin to Harriet Tubman leading slaves out of the South.

Sure luv. Keep making the analogy between individual slaves escaping and violent mobs destroying public property. It was so convincing the first time you made it and it gets more convincing with each repetition

A slave that is no longer a slave is an instance of destruction of property. As per the definition of "slave".

 

[Jokodo]

Imagine you are Jewish and living in Germany. How would you feel about statues of Hitler on display in the public park where your children play? Or that you pass each day as you go to school or work or whatever?

I imagine it would be awful. I also imagine that no such statue exists in Germany because a clear majority of Germans would not allow it.

And if they did?

It's a though experiment. The question isn't whether such statues exist on public display in Germany. The question is about your moral judgment of those statues' staying in place if that were what a majority of German voters (or a majority of a gerrymandered legislature) wanted.

 

[Metaphor]

Imagine you are Jewish and living in Germany. How would you feel about statues of Hitler on display in the public park where your children play? Or that you pass each day as you go to school or work or whatever?

I imagine it would be awful. I also imagine that no such statue exists in Germany because a clear majority of Germans would not allow it.

And if they did?

It's a though experiment. The question isn't whether such statues exist on public display in Germany. The question is about your moral judgment of those statues' staying in place if that were what a majority of German voters (or a majority of a gerrymandered legislature) wanted.

What do you want me to say? I would not become part of a mob to destroy it, and I would not encourage people to join a mob to destroy it. If the city I lived in did not care for the feelings I had and it bothered me too much, I would move to a city that didn't have such a statue.

 

[Jokodo]

And if they did?

It's a though experiment. The question isn't whether such statues exist on public display in Germany. The question is about your moral judgment of those statues' staying in place if that were what a majority of German voters (or a majority of a gerrymandered legislature) wanted.

What do you want me to say?

I want you to make an honest attempt to answer the questions you were asked instead of shifting the topic to some irrelevancies.

I would not become part of a mob to destroy it, and I would not encourage people to join a mob to destroy it. If the city I lived in did not care for the feelings I had and it bothered me too much, I would move to a city that didn't have such a statue.

OK, so you don't think direct action against an unjust is ever justified? The only morally defensible if you don't want to live under an oppressive regime that's supported by a majority is to move out of their jurisdiction to a place where people are nicer?

Also, anyone who presents asking for asylum who isn't demonstrably personally targeted by their government is a fake refugee that should be sent back without hearing them out?

Right wingers were never big on consistency, I guess.