Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Arctish]

Anyway, I’m over-and-out. My heart can’t take hearing people claim that oppression against black people is fine and should be endured for a hundred more years because stopping it is so ~disruptive~ and ~unpleasant~.

We don’t owe those statues anything. They represent white supremacists who ruled by violence. And if a Harriet Tubman statue went down with them by mistake, I expect she’d just say, “free at last, free at last. Thank god almighty, we are free at last,” and call it a fabulous price.

I just got a mental image of George Washington's ghost watching his statue being toppled by descendants of his slaves and saying "Fair enough".

 

[Lion IRC]

Its true. Violent mobs are an effective way of getting things done.
https://www.history.com/topics/holocaust/kristallnacht

View attachment 28420

No one is saying it's the preferred method.

Not unless you are.

Are you?

"effective" was the word used.

...Clearly they an effective way to take down public property.

The #BLM folks don't get bragging rights for that discovery.

 

[Arctish]

"effective" was the word used.

...Clearly they an effective way to take down public property.

The #BLM folks don't get bragging rights for that discovery.

Well, it is an effective way of getting things done. Not everything, of course, but some things. Mobs can accomplish in a single night what petitions and protests failed to do for generations.

And just to reiterate in case someone tries to deliberately misunderstand, effective ≠ preferred.

 

[DBT]

"effective" was the word used.

...Clearly they an effective way to take down public property.

The #BLM folks don't get bragging rights for that discovery.

Well, it is an effective way of getting things done. Not everything, of course, but some things. Mobs can accomplish in a single night what petitions and protests failed to do for generations.

And just to reiterate in case someone tries to deliberately misunderstand, effective ≠ preferred.

I wonder what could happen if right wing extremists decide to bypass peaceful resolution and take action into their own hands, defending their own beliefs (no matter how wrong they happen to be).

After all, mobs of people who rampage on city streets appear to achieve satisfying results.....?

 

[DBT]

Which night(s) and which citie(s) are you talking about?
There was not fighting and killing at every statue, and certainly not every statue was unrelated to the issue.
So why are you painting all the activity with the actions of a few?
Why night and which city are you talking about?

It doesn't have to happen in every instance for it to happen. It happened. Mobs went on the rampage.

What rate of death, looting or indiscriminate destruction of property is acceptable? Is toppling, say, three statues worth a single life?

I say there are better ways.

Ok, name one mob thst went on a rampage.

Here's two;

''Wisconsin’s governor activated the National Guard on Wednesday to protect state properties after a night of violence that included the toppling of two statues outside the state Capitol, one of which commemorated an abolitionist Civil War hero.

Protesters also attacked a state senator, threw a Molotov cocktail into a government building and attempted to break into the Capitol Tuesday night, only to be repelled by pepper spray from police stationed inside.''

''House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) on Wednesday said Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should condemn protesters after a statue of St. Junipero Serra was torn down in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park.

“Given that today is the Feast Day of Saint Junipero Serra, her condemnation of mob violence would be especially timely,” McCarthy said in a statement. “Today should be a day for celebration. Instead, we’ve recently seen a violent leftwing mob tear down the statue of St. Serra in Speaker Pelosi’s district in San Francisco, California."

A statue of Serra, an 18th century Franciscan priest who was canonized by Pope Francis in 2015, was pulled down by protesters on June 19, along with statues of Francis Scott Key and Ulysses S. Grant. A statue of Miguel de Cervantes was spray painted that same day.

Deaths:

MINNEAPOLIS — Among those killed as protests over the death of George Floyd have roiled American cities in the past week are a retired police captain, a beloved owner of a barbecue restaurant, and a former star football player known as “Mr. Indianapolis.”

As of Monday, June 8, an informal tally shows 17 people have died in incidents stemming from the unrest following Floyd’s May 25 death — though details in some of the cases remain murky.

 

[Arctish]

Well, it is an effective way of getting things done. Not everything, of course, but some things. Mobs can accomplish in a single night what petitions and protests failed to do for generations.

And just to reiterate in case someone tries to deliberately misunderstand, effective ≠ preferred.

I wonder what could happen if right wing extremists decide to bypass peaceful resolution and take action into their own hands, defending their own beliefs (no matter how wrong they happen to be).

No need to wonder, Just look it up. There are plenty of examples.

You could start with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

After all, mobs of people who rampage on city streets appear to achieve satisfying results.....?

No one is saying it's the preferred method. But when the choice is take direct action or live with the way things are, and people are fed up with the way things are, they're going to take direct action.

It's best to not let situations deteriorate to such a degree that people take to the streets in protest but it happens. Entrenched power does not yield easily or often enough to ensure that change is always peaceful.

And like I said before, a few toppled statues is nothing. I'd rather see the prettiest statue face down in the mud than a protester of any faction in the hospital.

 

[DBT]

No need to wonder, Just look it up. There are plenty of examples.

You could start with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

After all, mobs of people who rampage on city streets appear to achieve satisfying results.....?

No one is saying it's the preferred method. But when the choice is take direct action or live with the way things are, and people are fed up with the way things are, they're going to take direct action.

It's best to not let situations deteriorate to such a degree that people take to the streets in protest but it happens. Entrenched power does not yield easily or often enough to ensure that change is always peaceful.

And like I said before, a few toppled statues is nothing. I'd rather see the prettiest statue face down in the mud than a protester of any faction in the hospital.

Not being 'the preferred method' doesn't mean that violent upheaval is not being supported.

The associated violence and wrongful destruction of property is being brushed aside in favour of the desired result: collateral damage is being accepted.

Collateral damage is being accepted even when studies show that it is not necessary, that their are peaceful alternatives for achieving results.

That being the case, it could be assumed that some on this forum condone violence.

 

[Arctish]

No need to wonder, Just look it up. There are plenty of examples.

You could start with the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.

After all, mobs of people who rampage on city streets appear to achieve satisfying results.....?

No one is saying it's the preferred method. But when the choice is take direct action or live with the way things are, and people are fed up with the way things are, they're going to take direct action.

It's best to not let situations deteriorate to such a degree that people take to the streets in protest but it happens. Entrenched power does not yield easily or often enough to ensure that change is always peaceful.

And like I said before, a few toppled statues is nothing. I'd rather see the prettiest statue face down in the mud than a protester of any faction in the hospital.

Not being 'the preferred method' doesn't mean that violent upheaval is not being supported.

The associated violence and wrongful destruction of property is being brushed aside in favour of the desired result: collateral damage is being accepted.

Collateral damage is being accepted, yes. But that doesn't mean there's no limit to the amount of collateral damage people will accept, or that everyone agrees where to draw the line. And it doesn't mean the thing that caused the collateral damage wasn't worthwhile in and of itself.

The Stonewall riot caused collateral damage. Was the rights of gay men not to be harassed and mistreated by the police any less of a worthy cause because some property was damaged?

Collateral damage is being accepted even when studies show that it is not necessary, that their are peaceful alternatives for achieving results.

That being the case, it could be assumed that some on this forum condone violence.

Oh, I agree. There's a couple of posters who positively celebrate it, and a couple more who appear to be really picky about which instances of violence they condemn. We even have a guy who thinks deliberately driving into a crowd of people is reasonable if you disagree with the reason they're marching in the road.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

An overwhelming majority of Americans favor limiting the number and types of guns and amount /types of ammunition private citizens can possess. They also want high capacity semi-automatic weapons banned. They want weapons purchased for home defense to stay in people's homes unless being transported under lock and key to a gun range, gunsmith's repair shop, or to be sold by a licensed dealer. They do not want loaded guns being carried around in public by people with absolutely no training in how to handle them safely.

Meaningful change should have happened decades ago, but a small and influential segment of society has blocked every attempt. So now what? Should the people who want change simply give up? Should they continue to use tactics that have proven to be utterly ineffective? Or should they ratchet things up a notch and increase the pressure on the entrenched power that is obstructing reform?

[Citation needed]

That's not what most people support.

 

[Arctish]

An overwhelming majority of Americans favor limiting the number and types of guns and amount /types of ammunition private citizens can possess. They also want high capacity semi-automatic weapons banned. They want weapons purchased for home defense to stay in people's homes unless being transported under lock and key to a gun range, gunsmith's repair shop, or to be sold by a licensed dealer. They do not want loaded guns being carried around in public by people with absolutely no training in how to handle them safely.

Meaningful change should have happened decades ago, but a small and influential segment of society has blocked every attempt. So now what? Should the people who want change simply give up? Should they continue to use tactics that have proven to be utterly ineffective? Or should they ratchet things up a notch and increase the pressure on the entrenched power that is obstructing reform?

[Citation needed]

That's not what most people support.

Gallup

Pew Research Center

More links available if you start a thread on this topic. I won't contribute to a derail of this one.

 

[Jokodo]

This claim: "Destroying the statue sure as hell would not destroy the hatred, would it? It would increase the hatred."

You didn't even bother to give a rationale fir that "sure as hell".

Rationale? Are you kidding?

Let's say there's a church in town that specifically preaches hatred of black people. Do you think burning down that church in the name of black people will increase the parishioners hatred of black people or decrease it?

It won't mellow the hardened parishioners, granted.

It *can* however, under certain circumstances, draw a spotlight on just how hateful that church and thus isolate them from broader society and decrease their influence.

It doesn't always go that way. Often it gies as you say. But not universally, not "sure as hell".

That is, unless you live in a monochromous world with no fence sitters, no people whose tentative position is mostly informed by ignorance etc, where every last person who isn't already a BLM activist is a hardened Klan member - in that universe your universal claim makes sense.

Do you think we live in such a world? And what does that make you?

 

[DBT]

Not being 'the preferred method' doesn't mean that violent upheaval is not being supported.

The associated violence and wrongful destruction of property is being brushed aside in favour of the desired result: collateral damage is being accepted.

Collateral damage is being accepted, yes. But that doesn't mean there's no limit to the amount of collateral damage people will accept, or that everyone agrees where to draw the line. And it doesn't mean the thing that caused the collateral damage wasn't worthwhile in and of itself.

The Stonewall riot caused collateral damage. Was the rights of gay men not to be harassed and mistreated by the police any less of a worthy cause because some property was damaged?

Collateral damage is easy for some to accept when it is someone else's family member killed, someone else's property destroyed, someone else's car burnt, someone else's business looted....then it's 'all a part of the good fight.'

 

[Jokodo]

Not being 'the preferred method' doesn't mean that violent upheaval is not being supported.

The associated violence and wrongful destruction of property is being brushed aside in favour of the desired result: collateral damage is being accepted.

Collateral damage is being accepted, yes. But that doesn't mean there's no limit to the amount of collateral damage people will accept, or that everyone agrees where to draw the line. And it doesn't mean the thing that caused the collateral damage wasn't worthwhile in and of itself.

The Stonewall riot caused collateral damage. Was the rights of gay men not to be harassed and mistreated by the police any less of a worthy cause because some property was damaged?

Collateral damage is easy for some to accept when it is someone else's family member killed, someone else's property destroyed, someone else's car burnt, someone else's business looted....then it's 'all a part of the good fight.'

https://www.ajc.com/blog/politics/g...ause-democrat-missing/wI2hOiINAe2LLD59qEpNrJ/

A sitting Republican Georgia lawmaker threatened (or, as he later explained himself, "warned") a former colleague that she would be disappeared in the swamps if she kept going after confederate statues by legal means.

This was in 2018, not some distant history. The guy is still in office today.

But I guess death threats are a lesser problem compared to burnt cars, because reasons.

 

[Metaphor]

That is, unless you live in a monochromous world with no fence sitters, no people whose tentative position is mostly informed by ignorance etc, where every last person who isn't already a BLM activist is a hardened Klan member - in that universe your universal claim makes sense.

Do you think we live in such a world? And what does that make you?

I think we live in a world where a lot of people had no particular opinion on the statues, but some of those people might be less sympathetic to their removal, and the people who removed it, when a mob has decided to do it versus a civic response to community majority.

 

[Jokodo]

That is, unless you live in a monochromous world with no fence sitters, no people whose tentative position is mostly informed by ignorance etc, where every last person who isn't already a BLM activist is a hardened Klan member - in that universe your universal claim makes sense.

Do you think we live in such a world? And what does that make you?

I think we live in a world where a lot of people had no particular opinion on the statues, but some of those people might be less sympathetic to their removal, and the people who removed it, when a mob has decided to do it versus a civic response to community majority.

See my last post for some of the responses people get when they try to remove them in a "civic" fashion.

There's one side in this issue that has been using violence to get what they want for decades, and it's not the ones who want the statues removed.

ETA: Besides, we also live in a world where "people with no particular opinion" on a topic tend to default to supporting the status quo, because why not? It's true, some of them might be instinctively less sympathetic when they see mob action. Others might be triggered to inform themselves on why people are so upset about those statues that they actually come to form their own, fact-based opinion on the issue, in a way that wouldn't have happened if the issue was instead civilly discussed in the state legislature during a session no-one takes notice of.

It is not possible to know a priori and for all cases which of these two groups is going to be larger, which is why your universalist statement is not tenable.

ETAA: You didn't say "some people might" in the post I objected to. You said it would "sure as hell" increase overall hatred. Are you revoking that claim as too strong now?

 

[Arctish]

Not being 'the preferred method' doesn't mean that violent upheaval is not being supported.

The associated violence and wrongful destruction of property is being brushed aside in favour of the desired result: collateral damage is being accepted.

Collateral damage is being accepted, yes. But that doesn't mean there's no limit to the amount of collateral damage people will accept, or that everyone agrees where to draw the line. And it doesn't mean the thing that caused the collateral damage wasn't worthwhile in and of itself.

The Stonewall riot caused collateral damage. Was the rights of gay men not to be harassed and mistreated by the police any less of a worthy cause because some property was damaged?

Collateral damage is easy for some to accept when it is someone else's family member killed, someone else's property destroyed, someone else's car burnt, someone else's business looted....then it's 'all a part of the good fight.'

Who the f**k is dismissing someone's death as nothing more than collateral damage?

Seriously, do you think people are actually saying that Heather Heyer's death was acceptable or is this just hyperbole?

 

[Arctish]

That is, unless you live in a monochromous world with no fence sitters, no people whose tentative position is mostly informed by ignorance etc, where every last person who isn't already a BLM activist is a hardened Klan member - in that universe your universal claim makes sense.

Do you think we live in such a world? And what does that make you?

I think we live in a world where a lot of people had no particular opinion on the statues, but some of those people might be less sympathetic to their removal, and the people who removed it, when a mob has decided to do it versus a civic response to community majority.

See my last post for some of the responses people get when they try to remove them in a "civic" fashion.

There's one side in this issue that has been using violence to get what they want for decades, and it's not the ones who want the statues removed.

Indeed.

This is from 2017 when the City of New Orleans, following the democratic process, decided to remove the Battle of Liberty Place obelisk and statues of three Confederate generals:

The first designated contractor on the job quit early on after receiving death threats. The owner’s Lamborghini later was torched in his company’s parking lot.

Landrieu and other city officials also said there had been posts on social media including the mayor’s home address, and they referred to online comments made in advance of a protest by the group Take 'Em Down NOLA suggesting the rally would be within range of sniper fire.

One contractor received a call from someone threatening to kill him and his son and rape his wife, Landrieu said. The city also has received calls and emails from members of the Ku Klux Klan, he said.

The monuments were removed by city employees and contractors working at night and hiding their faces because that's what it took to keep them safe.

White supremacists have had their way for 150 years, with their monuments and statues honoring some of the worst characters in American history prominently displayed across the country. They have preserved their 'heritage' of white supremacy through murder, terrorism, and suppressing the vote of minorities. But now that their precious statues are falling, it's the liberals and progressives with pry bars and tow straps that are destroying civil society?

 

[Arctish]

Good video here at the Washington Post: a look at the history of the statues being attacked by protesters worldwide

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, I didn't effectively just say that. I said that leaving a country where you are not wanted is not cowardly. With regards to the statues, I think most people never thought about them or cared, and that's why some of these statues have remained standing for a hundred years or more.



So, there's no majority now because of people's inherent conservatism, but people will be very quickly convinced of the righteous actions of the mob. That's an empirical question, I suppose.

I suppose it is. Maybe you have forgotten already that you were tge one making an absolute claim?

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

Hussein was supported by a minority of the people, and he had statues.

 

[Metaphor]

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

Hussein was supported by a minority of the people, and he had statues.

So, the United States of America is comparable to the repressive dictatorship of Iraq from 1979? Yeesh. I was planning to visit the US next year, but that gives me pause.