Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[DBT]

Yes. If a majority of people want a statue to come down, it should happen.

If a majority of people vote to re-institute poll taxes and separate-but-equal, should that happen?

Tearing down a monument to oppression is like walking across a bridge and being set upon by police, dogs and water cannon because you are black and fighting for your civil rights. Who's violating who?

Most people accept the need for taxation, roads, schools, pensions, etc....the taxpayer benefits. If there was no benefit, I'm sure that people would protest.

The most effective form of protest being peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience, not rioting, looting, fighting on the streets and indiscriminate destruction of property.

 

[Toni]

Yes.

These statues glorify those that committed heinous crimes against the US and its constitution. They were symbols erected to remind African Americans where they stood in the South (not to ignore racism in the north) and that any attempt to seek elevated status would not be tolerated. People that didn't abide by this were murdered without any consequence.

Okay luv. The Emancipation Memorial, paid for voluntarily by former slaves, was erected to remind black people that they were subhuman.

You can't possibly be capable of a post so obtuse.

Clearly you are not familiar with Metaphor.

Jimmy: meet Metaphor. He's exactly as he presents himself in his posts.

 

[DBT]

Your assumptions about what I think and say is mistaken. I have made it clear that this issue is about peaceful resolution rather than rioting, looting and indiscriminate destruction, that I support the former.

The question is, why are some on this forum supporting violence?

Every day that those statues stand supports violence.
Tearing down a statue is not violence. It is destruction, but not violence.

Violence comes in many forms:


Economic Violence. This type of violence is two-faced. ...

Political and institutional violence. More in Home. ...

Sexual or gender violence. ...

Cultural Violence. ...

Religious violence. ...

Cyber-bullying. ...

Information violence.

''Violence is one of those epidemics that doesn’t respect limits or borders. Unfortunately, there are many types of violence, and you can find it everywhere in the world. From the way that someone asks you for or demands something, to the most bloody wars that take hundreds of lives. Even if you don’t directly participate in the latter, you are a witness, which affects you on many levels.Sometimes it seems like we are genetically designed to be aggressive. However, violence (a form of aggressiveness) is cultural. We learn and reproduce it and, in turn, teach and validate it. But just as you can learn it, you can unlearn it and stop the cycle.

“Violence is the fear of other’s ideals.”

-Mahatma Gandhi-

To stop the cycle, one of the most important steps is to identify the different ways that violence manifests itself. Next, we will talk about the most common types of violence.''

 

[DBT]

Your assumptions about what I think and say is mistaken. I have made it clear that this issue is about peaceful resolution rather than rioting, looting and indiscriminate destruction, that I support the former.

The question is, why are some on this forum supporting violence?

Why are you ignoring that >99% of the protestors are not engaged in rioting, looting, or indiscriminate destruction? Even if a statue is forcefully removed without state sanction, that is not indiscriminate.

Those who protest peacefully are not the problem. I support peaceful protest. I have said that in numerous posts.

 

[Toni]

Yes. If a majority of people want a statue to come down, it should happen.

If a majority of people vote to re-institute poll taxes and separate-but-equal, should that happen?

Tearing down a monument to oppression is like walking across a bridge and being set upon by police, dogs and water cannon because you are black and fighting for your civil rights. Who's violating who?

A statue is not slavery. A statue does not violate anybody's rights.

I'm stealing this a bit from someone else but:

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?

Germany also has a notorious past but they have adopted a good policy regarding their horrific mistake in their attempts to annihilate those considered undesirable: Jews, gypsies, gay people, mentally and physically disabled, etc. School children in Germany visit former camps. They are taught their history and the mistakes of their history.

We should do the same here. We had policies and laws in place right up until the 50's and 60's that allowed that black people and Native Americans (and in wartime, Japanese Americans, and to a much lesser extent, German and Italian Americans) and Catholics and Jews to be treated as less than full citizens. That is a shameful legacy but it should not be hidden. It should be discussed openly and honestly.

You say you are against 'mob rule.' What if the mob is the electorate? Until the 1960's, there were actual mobs wearing robes --and also lawmakers who served to disenfranchise voters they deemed undesirable, to limit the education of those they deemed 'less than,' to restrict the neighborhoods and schools and hospitals that the outgroups could utilize. Now, it's much more subtle: pay attention to the current primary election cycle where some states are eliminating polling places and attempting to enact voting measures that severely restrict the opportuntiy to vote for very carefully selected groups.

Sometimes it's the mob who is sitting in the chairs at the legislature and courts.

 

[laughing dog]

Yes. If a majority of people want a statue to come down, it should happen.

If a majority of people vote to re-institute poll taxes and separate-but-equal, should that happen?

Tearing down a monument to oppression is like walking across a bridge and being set upon by police, dogs and water cannon because you are black and fighting for your civil rights. Who's violating who?

Most people accept the need for taxation, roads, schools, pensions, etc....the taxpayer benefits. If there was no benefit, I'm sure that people would protest.

The most effective form of protest being peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience, not rioting, looting, fighting on the streets and indiscriminate destruction of property.

First of all, civil disobedience simply means that a citizen refuses to obey a law and is willing to pay the consequence for that action. So pulling down a statue can be an act of civil disobedience.

Second, your claim is clearly counterfactual. The case of many of these statues, peaceful demonstration over the years accomplished nothing. Peaceful demonstration was not effective, but the mob was.

Perhaps you meant "preferable" instead of effective.

 

[Metaphor]

Indeed, it’s much like how wrong it was for Harriet Tubman to help slaves run away from their “owners”. She had no right.

Of course she did. Slavery violates human rights.

I notice you completely ignored discussion of the REASON why people want the statues gone. The article went into great detail about the harm they cause, caused and continue to cause. But as long as you completely ignore that, you can say, “what harm is it to leave it up - like art?”

The reason is irrelevant. Statues don't enslave people. If statues upset people, then the upset people and their sympathisers, if they form a 'clear majority' will have the statues taken down like any public property should be taken down.

Violent mobs are not any kind of way to take down public property.

 

[laughing dog]

Violent mobs are not any kind of way to take down public property.

That is counterfactual. Clearly they an effective way to take down public property. Come on, please stop making grandiose "principled" statements that are false.

 

[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.

You say you are against 'mob rule.' What if the mob is the electorate? Until the 1960's, there were actual mobs wearing robes --and also lawmakers who served to disenfranchise voters they deemed undesirable, to limit the education of those they deemed 'less than,' to restrict the neighborhoods and schools and hospitals that the outgroups could utilize. Now, it's much more subtle: pay attention to the current primary election cycle where some states are eliminating polling places and attempting to enact voting measures that severely restrict the opportuntiy to vote for very carefully selected groups.

Sometimes it's the mob who is sitting in the chairs at the legislature and courts.

Antidemocratic practises should be opposed. A violent mob taking down statues is an antidemocratic force. It is an unelected gang using force to get what it wants. If these people actually had the support of a 'clear majority', the statues would have been gone 70 years ago.

 

[Metaphor]

And exactly how would that be done? Taxes are not paid by an itemized list where you can choose where your taxes go.

I mean if a clear majority of Americans didn't want the statues, the statues would be gone.

That's how my posts in this started. Somebody made the statement that the mobs were just enacting a 'fairly clear majority's wishes.

Exactly. But the problem is a racist minority that has significant power and money keep these things in place despite the wishes of the majority.

Really? So, racist city council members keep getting elected despite the electorate not wanting them to be elected?

Some of these states have enacted laws to prevent the removal of statues despite the wishes of the community. I don't know if any were put into state constitutions, but it is legal protection of oppressive imagery.

What states and what laws prevent which statues from being taken down by an electorate that no longer wants them up?

The whole idea of removing such statues peacefully and democratically is ideal, but we are not living in an ideal world, and some of these states are further from ideal than others. When every civil path to correcting an injustice is repeatedly blocked then uncivil actions become the only options. The goal should be justice, not necessarily civility. A society can be quite civil under a totalitarian regime where there are no rights, and many advances in rights and justice came from people not being civil.

So, this mob up until this moment, and you, and everyone who has been alive in the past 70 years, have been racist co-conspirators and complicit, because they didn't tear down these statues. New technology has not been developed that enables mobs to better tear down statues.

Mobs are irrational and mobs don't make good decisions. Mobs should not be tearing down public property just because they don't like it.

 

[DBT]

Most people accept the need for taxation, roads, schools, pensions, etc....the taxpayer benefits. If there was no benefit, I'm sure that people would protest.

The most effective form of protest being peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience, not rioting, looting, fighting on the streets and indiscriminate destruction of property.

First of all, civil disobedience simply means that a citizen refuses to obey a law and is willing to pay the consequence for that action. So pulling down a statue can be an act of civil disobedience.

Second, your claim is clearly counterfactual. The case of many of these statues, peaceful demonstration over the years accomplished nothing. Peaceful demonstration was not effective, but the mob was.

Perhaps you meant "preferable" instead of effective.

Civil disobedience as a form of protest entails failure to comply, which does not mean take to the streets and damage property....which is the antithesis of peaceful demonstration.

 

[Toni]

Most people accept the need for taxation, roads, schools, pensions, etc....the taxpayer benefits. If there was no benefit, I'm sure that people would protest.

The most effective form of protest being peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience, not rioting, looting, fighting on the streets and indiscriminate destruction of property.

First of all, civil disobedience simply means that a citizen refuses to obey a law and is willing to pay the consequence for that action. So pulling down a statue can be an act of civil disobedience.

Second, your claim is clearly counterfactual. The case of many of these statues, peaceful demonstration over the years accomplished nothing. Peaceful demonstration was not effective, but the mob was.

Perhaps you meant "preferable" instead of effective.

Civil disobedience as a form of protest entails failure to comply, which does not mean take to the streets and damage property....which is the antithesis of peaceful demonstration.

If you have followed the Minneapolis demonstrations then it should be clear to you that it is not the demonstrators who provoked violence or destruction. I have followed other demonstrations less closely but I would be surprised if the same did not hold with most or all of the other recent demonstrations. Indeed, there have been numerous videos of police in full riot gear... starting the riots by attacking peaceful protesters.

Which, I suppose was their way of demonstrating just how much they are needed.

 

[DBT]

Civil disobedience as a form of protest entails failure to comply, which does not mean take to the streets and damage property....which is the antithesis of peaceful demonstration.

If you have followed the Minneapolis demonstrations then it should be clear to you that it is not the demonstrators who provoked violence or destruction. I have followed other demonstrations less closely but I would be surprised if the same did not hold with most or all of the other recent demonstrations. Indeed, there have been numerous videos of police in full riot gear... starting the riots by attacking peaceful protesters.

Which, I suppose was their way of demonstrating just how much they are needed.

Some did the right thing, others did not. Legitimate peaceful protest was at times hijacked by extremists.

 

[Rhea]

Idescriminate damage of property, looting and rioting was reported, videos shown on the news. Statues were damaged in several countries. Some had nothing to do with slavery in the US. Crowds were fired up, in the US looting was a part of their behaviour, fighting in the streets, people were killed.

That's no strawman.

But why do you lump those things together as if they are a single act? They are not. That’s what makes it a straw man.
You take the people deliberately and on purpose adressing the ongoing oppression of these statues of traitorous people who promoted the human bondage of their countrymen, and you say it was shown on the news with looters. Sure you know that these are not the same groups of people?

Most of the statues being targeted are not at all indescriminate.
(Some of the looting and arson is also not indescriminate, but rather the deliberate work of provocateurs - with a very VERY different agenda than the statue topplers)
Most - the VAST majority - of the protests and protestors are not even chaotic, let alone violent.

But “what you see on the news” lets you conclude they all one and the same?
Maybe you are not being fed the reality of the protests because that’s not especially flamboyant for the news.

The statue topplers and the looters are not the same people.
I’m surprised this is not obvious to you.

 

[DBT]

Idescriminate damage of property, looting and rioting was reported, videos shown on the news. Statues were damaged in several countries. Some had nothing to do with slavery in the US. Crowds were fired up, in the US looting was a part of their behaviour, fighting in the streets, people were killed.

That's no strawman.

But why do you lump those things together as if they are a single act? They are not. That’s what makes it a straw man.
You take the people deliberately and on purpose adressing the ongoing oppression of these statues of traitorous people who promoted the human bondage of their countrymen, and you say it was shown on the news with looters. Sure you know that these are not the same groups of people?

Most of the statues being targeted are not at all indescriminate.
(Some of the looting and arson is also not indescriminate, but rather the deliberate work of provocateurs - with a very VERY different agenda than the statue topplers)
Most - the VAST majority - of the protests and protestors are not even chaotic, let alone violent.

But “what you see on the news” lets you conclude they all one and the same?
Maybe you are not being fed the reality of the protests because that’s not especially flamboyant for the news.

The statue topplers and the looters are not the same people.
I’m surprised this is not obvious to you.

But I do separate peaceful protest and civil disobedience and unnecessary violence, extremists who hijack peaceful demonstration for their own purposes. I have said that.

Considering this, I have to assume that those arguing are supporting violent demonstration and indiscriminent destruction of property.

 

[Rhea]

But I do separate peaceful protest and civil disobedience and unnecessary violence, extremists who hijack peaceful demonstration for their own purposes. I have said that.

Good, then you can get back on topic, which is the removal of monuments, not the burning of stores or looting of stores.
Glad we could get you back on track and stop bring up the straw man.

Considering this, I have to assume that those arguing are supporting violent demonstration and indiscriminent destruction of property.

You assume incorrectly. You assume a straw man or three.
The destruction of statues portraying traitorous white spremacists is not indesciminate. So you can lose that straw-man, too.
We already agreed above that we are not talking about the violent ones, who are not the same as those deliberately targeting the removal of statues of traitorous white supremacists that were erected to send a message of domination to the black population.

 

[DBT]

But I do separate peaceful protest and civil disobedience and unnecessary violence, extremists who hijack peaceful demonstration for their own purposes. I have said that.

Good, then you can get back on topic, which is the removal of monuments, not the burning of stores or looting of stores.
Glad we could get you back on track and stop bring up the straw man.

Considering this, I have to assume that those arguing are supporting violent demonstration and indiscriminent destruction of property.

You assume incorrectly. You assume a straw man or three.
The destruction of statues portraying traitorous white spremacists is not indesciminate. So you can lose that straw-man, too.
We already agreed above that we are not talking about the violent ones, who are not the same as those deliberately targeting the removal of statues of traitorous white supremacists that were erected to send a message of domination to the black population.

So what is the dispute precisely about? If we all support peaceful demonstration and peaceful civil disobedience and we all denounce extremists who hijack peaceful demonstration, we all reject fighting, looting and indiscriminate destruction of property....what exactly is the problem?

 

[Rhea]

I mean if a clear majority of Americans didn't want the statues, the statues would be gone.

You keep saying that. As if you do not understand the gerrymander, the difficulty voting, the intimidation and th electorral college.

For example, a clear majority of Americans wanted Hillary Clinton as president.
BUT IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY.

Really? So, racist city council members keep getting elected despite the electorate not wanting them to be elected?

Goodness. You need to read some US history/
YES. See voter supression, intimidation, gerrymandering and did I mention intimidation - magnified by the presence of these statues of white spuremacist traitors and the message it sends that, “yeah, you think we lost the war, but whose statues are up in the town square, huh?”

Some of these states have enacted laws to prevent the removal of statues despite the wishes of the community. I don't know if any were put into state constitutions, but it is legal protection of oppressive imagery.

What states and what laws prevent which statues from being taken down by an electorate that no longer wants them up?

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.


You take away th franchise of the oppressed through bureaucratic hurdles and violence. You get to rule as a minority.


This is what we’ve been fighting against all this time. It’s why we are trying to get rid of te eletoral college, it’s why idiot ballot spoilers are such a problem. I realize you have the privilege of being in a country with mandatoryy voting. Ours deliberately does not have it. The GOP is doing everything they can to NOT let the majority of voices be heard. And they have been doing this to black voters for centuries.

So, this mob up until this moment, and you, and everyone who has been alive in the past 70 years, have been racist co-conspirators and complicit, because they didn't tear down these statues. New technology has not been developed that enables mobs to better tear down statues.

Mobs are irrational and mobs don't make good decisions. Mobs should not be tearing down public property just because they don't like it.

This is written as if all of the answers given to you have been deliberately ignored.
Sigh.

You have the answer to this. It’s a straw man that relies on failing to care what the people on the ground are saying. It supports the “keep the statues for intimidation - because we can” bunch.

I find those people reprehensible.
I can see that you think they are clever.

 

[Rhea]

Good, then you can get back on topic, which is the removal of monuments, not the burning of stores or looting of stores.
Glad we could get you back on track and stop bring up the straw man.




You assume incorrectly. You assume a straw man or three.
The destruction of statues portraying traitorous white spremacists is not indesciminate. So you can lose that straw-man, too.
We already agreed above that we are not talking about the violent ones, who are not the same as those deliberately targeting the removal of statues of traitorous white supremacists that were erected to send a message of domination to the black population.

So what is the dispute precisely about? If we all support peaceful demonstration and peaceful civil disobedience and we all denounce extremists who hijack peaceful demonstration, we all reject fighting, looting and indiscriminate destruction of property....what exactly is the problem?

You tell me. The statues should come down. It’s fine if it is done by the people, since the white supremacists have use tricks and intimidation to keep them up.

I’m glad you’re no longer arguing against this.
Congratulations, welcome to the humane side of the argument.

 

[Metaphor]

You keep saying that. As if you do not understand the gerrymander, the difficulty voting, the intimidation and th electorral college.

For example, a clear majority of Americans wanted Hillary Clinton as president.
BUT IT DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY.

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

Goodness. You need to read some US history/
YES. See voter supression, intimidation, gerrymandering and did I mention intimidation - magnified by the presence of these statues of white spuremacist traitors and the message it sends that, “yeah, you think we lost the war, but whose statues are up in the town square, huh?”

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?

You have the answer to this. It’s a straw man that relies on failing to care what the people on the ground are saying. It supports the “keep the statues for intimidation - because we can” bunch.

I find those people reprehensible.
I can see that you think they are clever.

I think if a 'clear majority' of people in a city wanted a statue gone, it would be gone, and it would be gone without an unelected mob illegally destroying it.