• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

 
 
 
J842P said:
Politesse said:
Not under the Geneva Convention rules. What standard are you employing?
Click to expand...
LOL the Geneva convention!


The standard is whatever the strongest powers in the international community say they are, obviously. As of now, that is The United States, Russia, China. And I guarantee you, Sherman would not have been tried let alone convicted of war crimes if something similar occurred in the United States today. Maybe if the equivalent of the Confederacy had somehow gained the allegiance of Russia and China. But even then, I doubt it.
Click to expand...
All of the above are signatories to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, so they are not irrelevant to the question of "what the strongest powers claim they are".

If you're saying "might makes right, whatever the law says", then I agree with you pragmatically but not ethically. So why bother talking ethics at all, if what you're really saying is, "it is impossible for the man with the biggest gun to do wrong"? True, in the sense that no one will stop him. But obviously morally bankrupt. Obviously we all know that Sherman was not in fact tried for war crimes, and that the victorious status of his faction is the reason why. That has no bearing on whether what he did was right.
 
laughing dog said:
DBT said:
laughing dog said:
Perhaps stop the hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

Defence is hypocracy? Someone attacks and you lay down and take it? You do that because it would be hypocracy to use violence under any circumstances?
Click to expand...
This really should not be this hard to grasp. It is hypocrisy to decry techniques that are not conducive to discussion while simultaneously using techniques that are not conducive to discussion.
Click to expand...

You may decry the use of violence, see it as abhorrent, yet be forced to use violence in the course of self defense. Doing so does not put you into the same class as your attacker. You fail to see a distinction between offense and defence.
 
Politesse said:
DrZoidberg said:
Politesse said:
He would certainly be considered a war criminal by modern standards. You're not allowed to target civilian livelihoods.

His actions paled in comparison to the horrific acts we took in WWII, but most things do look small compared to nuclear holocaust so that isn't setting much of a damn standard.
Click to expand...

Until the Geneva convention was agreed to every general was a war criminal. Because that's how wars were fought. Official sanctioned raping and looting was a way for kings to pay their troops. It was a major shift when this stopped
Click to expand...

So there was outrage at the time about what Sherman had done, and it violated such international law as existed at the time. And it would be even more illegal and outrageous now. But you're claiming that at some point in the past, it was hunky dory, and this absolves him?
Click to expand...

No. What I'm saying is that not being able to separate symbols of national unity and pride on one hand from individual actions taken is retarded. The American civil war was the first truly post industrial war. To win an industrial age war you needed other strategies than for a late medieval war. He wasn't wrong. In order to win a post industrial war you need to crush your enemies industrial capacity. The early industrial era was a world of cottage industries. So... sucks to be... anybody. In the absense of bomber planes, they needed other tactics. He just did what he needed to do. And it worked.

That age was highly tribal. So anything goes regarding how to treat your enemies. If they're your enemy you can do what you want with them. Including civilians. That was universally accepted. But in a civil war, who's in your tribe? I think that's why he was seen as such a horrible person today. He excluded Southerners from the American tribe and saw them as Them. Effectively making himself an enemy to any reconstruction and reconciliation efforts. After the war he needed to be villified, by both sides. For the sake of unity.

At the same time as the American civil wars were the wars of colonial conquest in Africa. The list of absolutely mindblowing atrocities is very long in those wars. Nobody in Europe had any problem with that. Rather the opposite. China was simultaneusly being carved up by the west. The method of conquest was to sail a dreadnought up a river and just anihilate anything within range of fire, which was very long. Something like 10 kilometers. Military targets, civilians... anything. Until the Chinese gave in to the latest rediculous demand. The Sepoys rebellion in India was crushed with incredible brutality. And how about all those Indian wars in USA? Nobody gave a shit about civilian casualities, of the other side, back then. It was seen as completely acceptable. No, Sherman didn't violate any sacred military code back then.

The American civil war was in a breaking point in history. The first Geneva convention came about in 1849 as a result of European wars. They all saw how the weapons were developing. Post industrial weapons were just so effective, that without rules of conduct to protect civilians there would be nothing and nobody for victors to rule over. But it wouldn't be until after WW2 it became a popular opinion. At the time of the American civil war people in general just wanted to see their enemies burn.
 
Politesse said:
J842P said:
Politesse said:
Not under the Geneva Convention rules. What standard are you employing?
Click to expand...
LOL the Geneva convention!


The standard is whatever the strongest powers in the international community say they are, obviously. As of now, that is The United States, Russia, China. And I guarantee you, Sherman would not have been tried let alone convicted of war crimes if something similar occurred in the United States today. Maybe if the equivalent of the Confederacy had somehow gained the allegiance of Russia and China. But even then, I doubt it.
Click to expand...
All of the above are signatories to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, so they are not irrelevant to the question of "what the strongest powers claim they are".

If you're saying "might makes right, whatever the law says", then I agree with you pragmatically but not ethically. So why bother talking ethics at all, if what you're really saying is, "it is impossible for the man with the biggest gun to do wrong"? True, in the sense that no one will stop him. But obviously morally bankrupt. Obviously we all know that Sherman was not in fact tried for war crimes, and that the victorious status of his faction is the reason why. That has no bearing on whether what he did was right.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing whether it is moral or not. I'm arguing whether something or not is a crime. A crime is some interdiction on an action that is enforced by some authority. It isn't a crime for the same reason it isn't a crime for an absolute monarch to break some nominal law in their monarchy.

To get at my point directly, I am not convinced that the whole idea of "war crimes" is coherent in the international sphere. Of course, a government can enforce laws on their own soldiers. But if they choose not to, then it isn't illegal.

As to the morality. Well, that is a tricky question in times of war.

I am inclined to say that most of what occurs in war is immoral.

I don't buy that destroying the opponent's capital is more immoral than destroying their soldiers. So burning down a field is immoral, or somehow more immoral or immoral in a different way, than shooting a bunch of 14, 15, and 16 year-old boys with canister shot? Just because these boys have had guns thrust into their hands?

But again, it's all very tricky. Figuring out what's a crime is much easier.
 
DBT said:
laughing dog said:
This really should not be this hard to grasp. It is hypocrisy to decry techniques that are not conducive to discussion while simultaneously using techniques that are not conducive to discussion.
Click to expand...

You may decry the use of violence, see it as abhorrent, yet be forced to use violence in the course of self defense. Doing so does not put you into the same class as your attacker. You fail to see a distinction between offense and defence.
Click to expand...
No, I realize the offense and defense distinction in this context is irrelevant. Here is an example. A calls discussant B an "shiteating gibbonfaced moronic cunt". B can ignore the insult, take the high road and continue with a mature response to move the discussion forward. But B is rightly insulted, so B feels better to reply that "you are reprehensible, unmannerly cad". Neither A nor B are making it possible to further discussion forward. And it is certainly hypocritical of B to complain about A engaging in unfruitful discussion.

Moreover, there is a similarity here between the way the mob that decry "feels" and the way you feel. In the USA with confederate statutes and Bristol, England, the mob is frustrated by years of failure to have the statutes either reflect the true history or be removed. The Floyd killing is the flashpoint that frustrates them enough so that instead of redoubling the civilized efforts, they erupt and pull down the statutes - something I suspect most members of the mob would agree violates their general principles.

You (like B in my example) know better but your frustration and feeling of indignation leads you to respond in an admitted unproductive manner that violates your stated general principles.
 
For those not familiar with the facts in question, Washington ordered a genocide on the Haudenosaunee/"Iroquois" population on the 4th of June, 1779. He already had a reputation among the Haudenosaunee as a brutal Indian fighter well before that time. Despite being technically on the side of the Haudenosaunee in his early military career, they were aghast at his policies in war, which really tells you something if you know a bit about their own definitely-not-pacifist reputation in the region. His great-grandfather John Washington had earned the name Conotocaurius, "Devourer of Towns", upon massacring a peace delegation in his own military days, and Washington took up the name and the mantle with glee, often signing missives to the Haudenosaunee by the name Conotocaurius as a clear taunt and threat. During the later stages of the Revolution, the conflict had turned into a civil war within the confederation, and many Americans thirsted for revenge against all of the peoples (most of them) who had allied with the British, which included four of the member states of the Haudenosaunee. He happily turned on his former allies, ordering that as many of them be killed as possible without respect to age or sex, and their fields burned. This included those peoples who were allied with the US; Iroquois people were all to be slaughtered for the guilt of the few. Hundreds died and forty towns were burned to the ground, the fields salted. In his own words, "What lead can not do will be done by hunger and winter". By the end of the Sullivan campaign, the few living Iroquois left in the area were enslaved and given to the settler population as menial laborers. A harried remnant of survivors fled north to British controlled Canada, and central upstate New York was immediately colonized by whites and used as a staging ground for further invasions of the Ohio river valley, the northern Appalachians, and the Great Lakes.

I'm sure all of this can be learned though osmosis by looking at the statue.
 
Politesse said:
I'm sure all of this can be learned though osmosis by looking at the statue.
Click to expand...

Weird how erecting statues did nothing to spread this info, but lighting it aflame has....

Kinda like how all those years of black history month taught me nothing i didn't already know, but 'defund the police!' is how i learned EMTs were invented in black neighborhoods.
 
Keith&Co. said:
Politesse said:
I'm sure all of this can be learned though osmosis by looking at the statue.
Click to expand...

Weird how erecting statues did nothing to spread this info, but lighting it aflame has....

Kinda like how all those years of black history month taught me nothing i didn't already know, but 'defund the police!' is how i learned EMTs were invented in black neighborhoods.
Click to expand...

Everyone suddenly knows about Juneteenth this year, too! I approve.

Flames aren't the best political tool from a moral standpoint, not least because they never seem to reach the right mansions, but they do grab people's attention.
 
Isn't it interesting how when Iraqis pulled down Sadam's statue, US conservatives cheered and celebrated it as a great sign of achievement and progress without a single conservative voice saying "That's wrong. Sadam is a major part of History that shouldn't be erased and forgotten." That's b/c all such excuses they give for Confed statues are complete dishonest lies. Their motive is to continue to honor the losing side b/c they wish they would have won and agree with what they fought for.
 
ronburgundy said:
Isn't it interesting how when Iraqis pulled down Sadam's statue, US conservatives cheered and celebrated it as a great sign of achievement and progress without a single conservative voice saying "That's wrong. Sadam is a major part of History that shouldn't be erased and forgotten." That's b/c all such excuses they give for Confed statues are complete dishonest lies. Their motive is to continue to honor the losing side b/c they wish they would have won and agree with what they fought for.
Click to expand...

To say nothing of the destruction of a section of Babylon to build a helipad for our invasion.
 
Toppling Saddam, arsehole that he was, sure did a lot of good for Irag and world, love, peace and harmony to follow. How much is right or wrong, black or white?
 
. .
.
Stay away from ad homs and swipes.
There’s a good discussion to be had - please add to it, don’t detract from it.

Address the argument, not the person.
 
Are we still discussing toppling statues or are we just waving our fannies now?
ronburgundy said:
Isn't it interesting how when Iraqis pulled down Sadam's statue, US conservatives cheered and celebrated it as a great sign of achievement and progress without a single conservative voice saying "That's wrong.
Click to expand...
Did they though? I remember that and saw the odd propaganda signs you see. Few people in the images, a lot of repeated short video clips. I was never really sold that Iraqi's knocked over the statue and it was a convoluted PR piece for the W Admin for saving the Iraqis.

Regardless, Hussein is a derail as Hussein led Iraq. The confederate statues of Jefferson Davis... there is no Confederacy, there never was a Confederacy. No one ever recognized it. So we have the guy who was the President of nothing and he has a statue. At least Hussein was a dictator of a plot of land that people recognized as a plot of land he was in charge of.
 
Actually, had mythical Jesus been a man of his world he would have been very dark skinned, a bit of curl to his hair, short, with dark eyes.
 
You mean like most of his disciples, and the shepherds, Marie (but just not a man), and Joseph or at least for the tiny period he is in the story?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom