Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[bilby]

Washington owned slaves. He also ran the Continental Army to victory for independence and stepped down from power on his own after serving 2 terms. His ledger is on the plus side.

By what measure? Did we all agree, at some point, that winning wars is more laudable than liberating the enslaved? In one very important respect, he was a hero. In another very important respect, he was an utter coward to the detriment of many, forsaking his own oft-stated principles out of fear of reprisal. People don't come the two types of "hero" and "villain", and it's not your place nor the place of anyone now living to absolve Washington of his crimes. You'd feel very differently if it were your own daughter being ripped from your arms to be raped by friends of your owner. You would not be like, "Ah, fair's fair, yeah, my girl got raped to death so he could resolve a business deal, but he was a good soldier, so, square's square I guess".

This belief that people can be divided into the good and the evil is utterly nonsensical, yet remains incredibly popular.

There are no 'good guys' or 'bad guys'.

If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

[DrZoidberg]

So [MENTION=65]DrZoidberg[/MENTION] ...

Assume that in the 2021 municipal elections in Denmark, some obscure right-wing party positions itself as the heir to Denmark's Nazi collaborators won in some obscure small town, and started erecting statues to Danish collaborators, to Hitler, obscure 19h century radical antisemites, maybe even to some more mainstream figures but contextualising them as forerunners to Nazism.

Assume they lose the elections in as much of a landslide in 2025 as they won it in 2021.

According to your logic, removing some of those statues would be authoritarian and intolerant, right?

Yes. Cities tend to have plenty of space for statues. There's rarely a need to remove them.

Your logic is beyond repair.

Storage available doesn't even make it onto the list of top 3 most relevant considerations when debating whether a statue should stay or go.

The whole point of a democratic nation is that people are allowed to disagree. We simply have to put up with the fact that other people disagree and that we can't always get what we want. Yes, that means even putting up with opinions we might find offensive. That's the spirit of democracy.

Instead of tearing down a statue of a racist scumbag, I'd say erect a statue of a black civil rights defender, next to it, or also a famous black union soldier. Outnumber the racist statues! Add as much art as possible!

Statues are focal points of hopes and aspirations. To see a statue is enlightening. No matter if you agree or disagree with it's creation.

 

[DBT]

You are right, that is way it ought to be done. No one in this disagrees. Since no one in this thread has advocated mob rule, one wonders what exactly your points have been.

To a degree, mob rule is being supported implicitly rather than explicitly. Hence the debate between several posters, not just me. You can see what is being said in the way of justifying the actions of some protestors.

The protestors do have morality on their side on this one. Doesn't mean it their actions are the preferred way to go. Can you quote any participant who claims that their actions are the preferred way to go?

I said the support appears to be implicit, not explicit. If that was not the case, what is the argument about?

Nobody is arguing that certain statues represent a bad period of history, those that supported slavery , etc or that their fate should not be reviewed and decided.

Now is the time to do that.

The only question is how to determine what is to be done with them. Two principle ways appear to be through democratic process, debate, referendum, etc....and what we see the mob doing, just tearing them down or defacing them.

So who is supporting what? I know that I support the former.

Or is there another option, something I overlooked?

 

[Arctish]

The protestors do have morality on their side on this one. Doesn't mean it their actions are the preferred way to go. Can you quote any participant who claims that their actions are the preferred way to go?

I said the support appears to be implicit, not explicit. If that was not the case, what is the argument about?

Nobody is arguing that certain statues represent a bad period of history, those that supported slavery , etc or that their fate should not be reviewed and decided.

Now is the time to do that.

The only question is how to determine what is to be done with them. Two principle ways appear to be through democratic process, debate, referendum, etc....and what we see the mob doing, just tearing them down or defacing them.

So who is supporting what? I know that I support the former.

Or is there another option, something I overlooked?

I think you're overlooking what happens when the democratic process, debate, referendum, etc. is sabotaged and thwarted by a few well placed obstructionists.

Either the obstructionists win and everything stays the same, or the things people want removed or changed get removed or changed despite them. And when the pressure on the status quo builds to dangerous levels, the release of that pressure can be very dangerous indeed.

I would prefer these things happened peaceably but with the KKK, alt-right, and neo-Nazis rallying around the symbols of white supremacy and most of the younger generation wanting them gone, I don't think peaceable change is likely. And honestly, a few toppled statues is nothing. People being attacked by their ideological foes is much, much worse.

I'd rather see Silent Sam face down in the mud than a protester from any faction in the hospital.

 

[DBT]

The protestors do have morality on their side on this one. Doesn't mean it their actions are the preferred way to go. Can you quote any participant who claims that their actions are the preferred way to go?

I said the support appears to be implicit, not explicit. If that was not the case, what is the argument about?

Nobody is arguing that certain statues represent a bad period of history, those that supported slavery , etc or that their fate should not be reviewed and decided.

Now is the time to do that.

The only question is how to determine what is to be done with them. Two principle ways appear to be through democratic process, debate, referendum, etc....and what we see the mob doing, just tearing them down or defacing them.

So who is supporting what? I know that I support the former.

Or is there another option, something I overlooked?

I think you're overlooking what happens when the democratic process, debate, referendum, etc. is sabotaged and thwarted by a few well placed obstructionists.

Either the obstructionists win and everything stays the same, or the things people want removed or changed get removed or changed despite them. And when the pressure on the status quo builds to dangerous levels, the release of that pressure can be very dangerous indeed.

I would prefer these things happened peaceably but with the KKK, alt-right, and neo-Nazis rallying around the symbols of white supremacy and most of the younger generation wanting them gone, I don't think peaceable change is likely. And honestly, a few toppled statues is nothing. People being attacked by their ideological foes is much, much worse.

I'd rather see Silent Sam face down in the mud than a protester from any faction in the hospital.

Should problems not be addressed as they present themselves?

If the Democratic process is being sabotaged by some divisive self interest party, should that not be addressed and corrected?

If not, this sort of thing is never addressed or corrected, it just rolls on and on with growing bitterness and acrimony.

 

[Arctish]

I think you're overlooking what happens when the democratic process, debate, referendum, etc. is sabotaged and thwarted by a few well placed obstructionists.

Either the obstructionists win and everything stays the same, or the things people want removed or changed get removed or changed despite them. And when the pressure on the status quo builds to dangerous levels, the release of that pressure can be very dangerous indeed.

I would prefer these things happened peaceably but with the KKK, alt-right, and neo-Nazis rallying around the symbols of white supremacy and most of the younger generation wanting them gone, I don't think peaceable change is likely. And honestly, a few toppled statues is nothing. People being attacked by their ideological foes is much, much worse.

I'd rather see Silent Sam face down in the mud than a protester from any faction in the hospital.

Should problems not be addressed as they present themselves? If the Democratic process is being sabotaged by some divisive self interest party, should that not be addressed and corrected? If not, this sort of thing can never be corrected, it just rolls on and on.

It should be, but I don't think it always will be.

I think we're going to see disagreements turn into disputes and disputes turn into fights from time to time. We're nowhere near the kind of social harmony that will defuse these kinds of situations before people get the hacksaws and the tiki torches out. And frankly, I think a few statues have to fall before for the anti-statue crowd will be taken seriously and their complaints heard.

No one paid much attention when protesters cut off the right foot of that statue of Juan de Oñate. That was a missed opportunity, but I'm not so sure having more people paying attention would have been enough to convince the people behind its installation to reconsider. It's only now after someone's been shot that people are finally listening to the anti-statue protesters and seriously considering their argument that glorifying that man is an affront to humanity.

 

[laughing dog]

The protestors do have morality on their side on this one. Doesn't mean it their actions are the preferred way to go. Can you quote any participant who claims that their actions are the preferred way to go?

I said the support appears to be implicit, not explicit. If that was not the case, what is the argument about?

Nobody is arguing that certain statues represent a bad period of history, those that supported slavery , etc or that their fate should not be reviewed and decided.

Now is the time to do that.

The only question is how to determine what is to be done with them. Two principle ways appear to be through democratic process, debate, referendum, etc....and what we see the mob doing, just tearing them down or defacing them.

So who is supporting what? I know that I support the former.

Or is there another option, something I overlooked?

In other words, you were complaining about nothing.

 

[Jokodo]

Your logic is beyond repair.

Storage available doesn't even make it onto the list of top 3 most relevant considerations when debating whether a statue should stay or go.

The whole point of a democratic nation is that people are allowed to disagree.

And no-one is suggesting otherwise. What you don't get is that having public space occupied by publicly funded and maintained statues etc. whose explicit purpose is to offend part of the population isn't "people being allowed to disagree". It is the state shoving a fist into the face of people whose interests it is supposed to defend.

What you do with your own money, on your own time, in your own home or backyard, is a whole other story.

We simply have to put up with the fact that other people disagree and that we can't always get what we want. Yes, that means even putting up with opinions we might find offensive. That's the spirit of democracy.

Changing things when the public perception of them changes is also the spirit of democracy. I'm old enough to remember when their used to be ashtrays in the hallway outside the lecture halls of universities. Then the perception of what is and what isn't an acceptable setting for lighting a cigarette changed, so we removed those ashtrays. We didn't build a new series of universities, like the old ones but without smoking indoors.

What you're advocating is the spirit of an unchangeable divine order, not democracy.

Instead of tearing down a statue of a racist scumbag, I'd say erect a statue of a black civil rights defender, next to it, or also a famous black union soldier. Outnumber the racist statues! Add as much art as possible!

...and build a new university without smoking in the hallway next to the one that allows smoking everywhere except in the lecture halls themselves?

Statues are focal points of hopes and aspirations. To see a statue is enlightening. No matter if you agree or disagree with it's creation.

Well that's just metaphysical woo.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Your logic is beyond repair.

Storage available doesn't even make it onto the list of top 3 most relevant considerations when debating whether a statue should stay or go.

The whole point of a democratic nation is that people are allowed to disagree. We simply have to put up with the fact that other people disagree and that we can't always get what we want. Yes, that means even putting up with opinions we might find offensive. That's the spirit of democracy.

The disagreement involved waging a war in the face of said democracy. You are making an argument that we need to be tolerant of glorifying anti-democratic attempts to usurp our democracy... otherwise it wouldn't be democratic. That makes no sense!

 

[Worldtraveller]

This has to the most stupid defense I've heard.

Give them time.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You know, if 50% + 1 vote of people wanted a statue of Josef Fritzl, I would still say it is a bad thing and that it should not go ahead. I guess I'm a fascist then because it fucking baffles me that I would have to explain why it would be a bad thing. Fuck your semantics, these statues are equivalent to candy striping Auschwitz and claiming it's still historically accurate.

We'll discuss Captain fucking Cook and other strawman examples once we get on the same page that it is bad idolizing the founder of the fucking Klan, thank you kindly.

So you are against democracy? That's literally what you are saying. So then why should anyone respect your opinion?

We're starting to forget how democracy works and why it is important. Hitler wasn't even a hundred years ago. Yet we forget. This world is fucked.

Lots of things that are legal or voted into law are morally reprehensible. Democracy is far from perfect. That's why it's good to have things like charters (in the US, the Bill of rights and similar 'guarantees' in writing). Very often, the democratic majority is very, very wrong.

I don't think Jimmy or Patooka are the ones with limited understanding here.

 

[Worldtraveller]

You're essentially (one of) the idiot(s) at the back of the BLM protest yelling "all lives matter". Seriously.

No manners, hurling insults in the security of your anonymity makes you a coward and an ignorant prick.

You've earned the responses you get.

I'm sure you feel the same. But you're pulling the classic right wing 'he was rude' while not facing the actual points. aka 'tone trolling'. Look it up if you have to. Meanwhile, you're actually directly violating the rules of the forum. Well done. Not gonna report it, because your infantile trolling and name calling really is more a sign that you can't face the light.

So...good for you. Just little further, and you'll be goose stepping with the best of them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*SPROING!!!*

I never initiate it. Nor did I this time or the other times Worldtaveller chose to engage with ad Homs. His attitude is provocative, yet if I dish it back it becomes a holier than though moment.

But you are right, I should not have responded in kind, in future I'll refer such posts to the moderators.

I think it is awesome that we have such a familiarity with one another that such a vague reference is easily picked up. We need to chill the heck out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Meanwhile, The Onion doing its best to keep up.

SIOUX FALLS, SD—Wielding assault rifles and chanting “smarter than the average bear” as they gathered around the cartoon character, heavily armed fans reportedly guarded a statue of Yogi Bear Wednesday on the off chance that he turned out to have supported the confederacy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And no-one is suggesting otherwise. What you don't get is that having public space occupied by publicly funded and maintained statues etc. whose explicit purpose is to offend part of the population isn't "people being allowed to disagree". It is the state shoving a fist into the face of people whose interests it is supposed to defend.

What you do with your own money, on your own time, in your own home or backyard, is a whole other story.

We simply have to put up with the fact that other people disagree and that we can't always get what we want. Yes, that means even putting up with opinions we might find offensive. That's the spirit of democracy.

Changing things when the public perception of them changes is also the spirit of democracy. I'm old enough to remember when their used to be ashtrays in the hallway outside the lecture halls of universities. Then the perception of what is and what isn't an acceptable setting for lighting a cigarette changed, so we removed those ashtrays. We didn't build a new series of universities, like the old ones but without smoking indoors.

What you're advocating is the spirit of an unchangeable divine order, not democracy.

Instead of tearing down a statue of a racist scumbag, I'd say erect a statue of a black civil rights defender, next to it, or also a famous black union soldier. Outnumber the racist statues! Add as much art as possible!

...and build a new university without smoking in the hallway next to the one that allows smoking everywhere except in the lecture halls themselves?

Statues are focal points of hopes and aspirations. To see a statue is enlightening. No matter if you agree or disagree with it's creation.

Well that's just metaphysical woo.

What's the problem with being offended? That's what I don't get? How damn fragile do you think black people are? Life is hard for everyone. It's one of the given things in life. Racists are people to. They are also the losers of history. What do you think we are gaining by rubbing their noses in their loss?

The smoking is a good example. Today harassing smokers is, socialy acceptable. They are treated like second class citizens. I have never smoked. But the way we treat smokers today makes me feel uneasy. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

 

[abaddon]

It's like Half-Life hijacked DrZoidberg's account.

An RLM movement, anyone?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And no-one is suggesting otherwise. What you don't get is that having public space occupied by publicly funded and maintained statues etc. whose explicit purpose is to offend part of the population isn't "people being allowed to disagree". It is the state shoving a fist into the face of people whose interests it is supposed to defend.

What you do with your own money, on your own time, in your own home or backyard, is a whole other story.



Changing things when the public perception of them changes is also the spirit of democracy. I'm old enough to remember when their used to be ashtrays in the hallway outside the lecture halls of universities. Then the perception of what is and what isn't an acceptable setting for lighting a cigarette changed, so we removed those ashtrays. We didn't build a new series of universities, like the old ones but without smoking indoors.

What you're advocating is the spirit of an unchangeable divine order, not democracy.



...and build a new university without smoking in the hallway next to the one that allows smoking everywhere except in the lecture halls themselves?

Statues are focal points of hopes and aspirations. To see a statue is enlightening. No matter if you agree or disagree with it's creation.

Well that's just metaphysical woo.

What's the problem with being offended? That's what I don't get? How damn fragile do you think black people are? Life is hard for everyone. It's one of the given things in life. Racists are people to. They are also the losers of history. What do you think we are gaining by rubbing their noses in their loss?

The smoking is a good example. Today harassing smokers is, socialy acceptable. They are treated like second class citizens. I have never smoked. But the way we treat smokers today makes me feel uneasy. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

Comparing treason with smoking? This isn't about offending. It is about one of the only specific crimes raised in the Constitution, being committed against the Constitution. Take the race issue completely out of it, and it is beyond repugnant. Include the race issue, and the idea that people are defending the heritage of statues erected in honor of people who violated our Constitution and should have been executed for it, in the face of civil rights movements or specific counter attempts by whites to keep blacks 'in their place' is indefensible.

 

[Jokodo]

And no-one is suggesting otherwise. What you don't get is that having public space occupied by publicly funded and maintained statues etc. whose explicit purpose is to offend part of the population isn't "people being allowed to disagree". It is the state shoving a fist into the face of people whose interests it is supposed to defend.

What you do with your own money, on your own time, in your own home or backyard, is a whole other story.



Changing things when the public perception of them changes is also the spirit of democracy. I'm old enough to remember when their used to be ashtrays in the hallway outside the lecture halls of universities. Then the perception of what is and what isn't an acceptable setting for lighting a cigarette changed, so we removed those ashtrays. We didn't build a new series of universities, like the old ones but without smoking indoors.

What you're advocating is the spirit of an unchangeable divine order, not democracy.



...and build a new university without smoking in the hallway next to the one that allows smoking everywhere except in the lecture halls themselves?

Statues are focal points of hopes and aspirations. To see a statue is enlightening. No matter if you agree or disagree with it's creation.

Well that's just metaphysical woo.

What's the problem with being offended? That's what I don't get? How damn fragile do you think black people are? Life is hard for everyone. It's one of the given things in life. Racists are people to. They are also the losers of history. What do you think we are gaining by rubbing their noses in their loss?

What are we gaining by rubbing minority's noses in the pervasive racism of our society past and present?

The smoking is a good example. Today harassing smokers is, socialy acceptable. They are treated like second class citizens. I have never smoked. But the way we treat smokers today makes me feel uneasy. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

I do/did smoke, but if you (smoker or non-smoker) have to wade through a curtain of heavy smoke to reach the lecture hall, that is hurting someone. However, that's not even the point. The point is that we, as a democratic society, change our rules all the time. And we do it by changing, replacing, removing existing institutions, not by erecting a parallel institution next to the old one that has got to remain unchanged in perpetuity because we have to show respect to those stuck in the yesterday.

 

[Jarhyn]

What's the problem with being offended? That's what I don't get? How damn fragile do you think black people are? Life is hard for everyone. It's one of the given things in life. Racists are people to. They are also the losers of history. What do you think we are gaining by rubbing their noses in their loss?

What are we gaining by rubbing minority's noses in the pervasive racism of our society past and present?

The smoking is a good example. Today harassing smokers is, socialy acceptable. They are treated like second class citizens. I have never smoked. But the way we treat smokers today makes me feel uneasy. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

I do/did smoke, but if you (smoker or non-smoker) have to wade through a curtain of heavy smoke to reach the lecture hall, that is hurting someone. However, that's not even the point. The point is that we, as a democratic society, change our rules all the time. And we do it by changing, replacing, removing existing institutions, not by erecting a parallel institution next to the old one that has got to remain unchanged in perpetuity because we have to show respect to those stuck in the yesterday.

Reminds me of Intel. x86 is running into a wall of complexity, as are many of Intel's other ventures, all because of their resistance to deprication.

The thing is, to become better, faster, more useful, to improve overall utility, at some point you have to flush all the bad ideas that didn't work great.

The same is true for society. Eventually you have to actually tear down the old because it's too much of a fucking boondoggle in the present to play nice with others. You MIGHT find a way to keep it around, but at what cost?

 

[Jokodo]

And no-one is suggesting otherwise. What you don't get is that having public space occupied by publicly funded and maintained statues etc. whose explicit purpose is to offend part of the population isn't "people being allowed to disagree". It is the state shoving a fist into the face of people whose interests it is supposed to defend.

What you do with your own money, on your own time, in your own home or backyard, is a whole other story.



Changing things when the public perception of them changes is also the spirit of democracy. I'm old enough to remember when their used to be ashtrays in the hallway outside the lecture halls of universities. Then the perception of what is and what isn't an acceptable setting for lighting a cigarette changed, so we removed those ashtrays. We didn't build a new series of universities, like the old ones but without smoking indoors.

What you're advocating is the spirit of an unchangeable divine order, not democracy.



...and build a new university without smoking in the hallway next to the one that allows smoking everywhere except in the lecture halls themselves?

Statues are focal points of hopes and aspirations. To see a statue is enlightening. No matter if you agree or disagree with it's creation.

Well that's just metaphysical woo.

What's the problem with being offended? That's what I don't get? How damn fragile do you think black people are? Life is hard for everyone. It's one of the given things in life. Racists are people to. They are also the losers of history. What do you think we are gaining by rubbing their noses in their loss?

The smoking is a good example. Today harassing smokers is, socialy acceptable. They are treated like second class citizens. I have never smoked. But the way we treat smokers today makes me feel uneasy. If they are not hurting anyone else, what's the problem?

It seems like toy whole argument is built on the premise that offending white racists is bad and should be avoided - while away the same time you insists that blacks need to grow a thicker skin.

If that's not a racist double standard, what is?