Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[DBT]

Look what Ghandi achieved using peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

If you believe that Ghandi single-handedly brought independence to India, you need to refresh your Indian history.

It wasn't single handed, but it was effective. According to studies, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being more effective than violence.

I'm surprised that some on this forum advocate violence on the streets.

 

[DBT]

Are you saying that the majority of people in a democracy support slavery, banning homosexuality and stoning for adultery?

I'm saying your argument is if a majority of people support slavery, banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery then it should be allowed. Because voting is superior to everything else. I'm also saying that's not a good look.

Don't we have a set of ethical standards as a part of our system which determines both law and socially acceptable behaviour?

Having a bunch of statues that promote slavery that were put up during Jim Crow Era and the Civil Rights Movement is unacceptable behaviour. You seem to think it should be up to a vote. That has been your argument this entire thread. I'm just wondering how far you will go in this belief. You appear to be equivocating. Can't put it any plainer than that.

I made no such argument. We don't live in the bronze age, very few if any support slavery in this day and age. I don't know anyone who supports stoning for adultery. Your objections are unwarranted.

 

[Patooka]

I'm saying your argument is if a majority of people support slavery, banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery then it should be allowed. Because voting is superior to everything else. I'm also saying that's not a good look.



Having a bunch of statues that promote slavery that were put up during Jim Crow Era and the Civil Rights Movement is unacceptable behaviour. You seem to think it should be up to a vote. That has been your argument this entire thread. I'm just wondering how far you will go in this belief. You appear to be equivocating. Can't put it any plainer than that.

I made no such argument. We don't live in the bronze age, very few if any support slavery in this day and age. I don't know anyone who supports stoning for adultery. Your objections are unwarranted.

Okay, what's your objection to these statues being brought down then? And if you don't object, what exactly is your argument?

 

[DBT]

I'm saying your argument is if a majority of people support slavery, banning homosexuality, enforcing the death penalty or stoning as a penalty for adultery then it should be allowed. Because voting is superior to everything else. I'm also saying that's not a good look.



Having a bunch of statues that promote slavery that were put up during Jim Crow Era and the Civil Rights Movement is unacceptable behaviour. You seem to think it should be up to a vote. That has been your argument this entire thread. I'm just wondering how far you will go in this belief. You appear to be equivocating. Can't put it any plainer than that.

I made no such argument. We don't live in the bronze age, very few if any support slavery in this day and age. I don't know anyone who supports stoning for adultery. Your objections are unwarranted.

Okay, what's your objection to these statues being brought down then? And if you don't object, what exactly is your argument?

If it's determined that statues should be relocated or destroyed, I have no objection. It should be clear that the issue lies not in that it should be done or should not be done, but how it is decided, and if decided, how it is to be done.

The issue is the process by which decisions are made.

 

[repoman]

This is partially about demographics. If Japan had let in millions of Chinese and Koreans after WWII there would likely be mass protests to strip many aspects from the Yasukuni Shrine.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I agree with Worldtraveller though. If you pick this moment to say "All lives matter" you are saying it in response to "black lives matter". So what you are saying in effect is that black lives don't matter. Timing is important.

If you genuinely think that black lives matter, since they are included in all lives, then why not just nod and agree, "yes, black lives do matter"? Why the need to point out that all lives matter? What is your objection?

Some of us regard "Black Lives Matter" as a racist position, "All Lives Matter" is the non-racist version thereof.

Sure, but that's delusional. How could the statement "black lives matter" possibly have lower stakes? The implication of it is "hey, black lives also matter". That's what they are saying.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I'm not against openness and transparency. My question was: how are these divisions and conflicts to be handled by society as a whole?

DBT - I am curious, what are your thoughts for the role and responsibility of those who want to keep those statues, knowing they are statues unwanted my most of society?

Do they have a responsibility to understand and make a motion to move the statues to a museum funded privately? Do they have a responsibility to respond to the decades old and century-old complaints?

If most of society wants something gone, it should be removed.

The minority, whoever wants the statues, monuments or whatever to remain, should accept the majority decision in the spirit of democracy.

You have an erroneous view of how our government operates.

And incidentally, ripping statues down, statues to Jim Crow and oppression, is most certainly a form of non-violent protest.

 

[Politesse]

Look what Ghandi achieved using peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

A bitter war between India and Pakistan that continues to this day? His own assassination, and the violent persecution of his followers? An odd case to bring up while you're stumping for the inherent morality of Western European culture.

In any case, Ghandi and his people were peaceful, but they were not and never intended to be obedient. They broke plenty of laws, and did not just sit around waiting for the British aristocracy to kindly decide to let them secede. Nor was every protest against British rule non-violent. The British press seized on Ghandi for the same reason the American press seized on Martin Luther King: people like a hero. But that doesn't mean the more active protests of Malcolm X and Surya Sen did not play a role in making empire too expensive to maintain.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change.

''There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.'

Advantages of Peaceful protest

-Positive solution: It reminds people that even when governed by an oppressive regime, the power still lies with the people.

-More common: On average, peaceful protests attract about 11 times more public participation than armed protest.

-Inspiration: Many activists link their methods to successors such as Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Figures like these serve as inspiration to resistance movements.

-Success rate: From 1900 to 2015, nonviolent campaigns succeeded 51 percent of the time, But violent campaigns succeeded 27 percent of the time.

- low-risk factor: Because peaceful protest is peaceful, there is a lot lower risk factor that you will get hurt if you choise to help protest.

-More organized: Peaceful protests are often more organized because the people participating have a calmer approach to change than their violent counterparts.

And in general, most of the protesting was non-violent. Violence was caused by a minority, sometimes even anarchists and white supremos. The damage was little compared to the Rodney King riots and even less than the 60s riots... and much much much much much less death than the white riots in early 1900s.

 

[Politesse]

Look what Ghandi achieved using peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

If you believe that Ghandi single-handedly brought independence to India, you need to refresh your Indian history.

It wasn't single handed, but it was effective. According to studies, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being more effective than violence.

I'm surprised that some on this forum advocate violence on the streets.

I don't advocate "violence in the streets" for its own sake. But there is, in this case, already violence in the streets. That is exactly what all these folks are protesting. And while you are more upset about some toppled statues than about the loss of human lives, that isn't where the public mindset is at.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It wasn't single handed, but it was effective. According to studies, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being more effective than violence.

I'm surprised that some on this forum advocate violence on the streets.

I don't advocate "violence in the streets" for its own sake. But there is, in this case, already violence in the streets. That is exactly what all these folks are protesting. And while you are more upset about some toppled statues than about the loss of human lives, that isn't where the public mindset is at.

The statues and names we're discussing are certainly monuments to violence erected by the mob. DBT seems to be under the impression that any monument in place is legitimate no matter what it represents or how it was put there.

But as worldtraveler stated earlier, these are not monuents, they're propaganda, thye're not legitimate or even lawful. They are there to enforce Jim Crow.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Isn't that how civil society works?

Civil society didn't erect any of those statues or monuments.

This is an excellent point. While it may have been done with approval of the local government, it wasn't something that was voted on, and I suspect most of the locals were ignorant or not informed about the statues and their installations.

 

[Worldtraveller]

What I said was, statues and monuments can be assessed according to the Democratic process.

People lobby their representative, parliament sits and debates their value, public sentiment, complaints made, etc, etc, and decides their fate....all interested parties have their say and the verdict based on the good of society. A lot of monuments are being taken down through democratic processes now. But if you think any of that would be happening if the people hadn't first torn several down themselves, you're a bit politically naive I think. People in power don't just voluntarily. out of the poor lily white goodness of their heart and no other consideration, suddenly decide to cede the public symbols of their dominance.

Isn't that how civil society works?

Well, no, not really. I mean ideally, sure, but that is not what history shows us actually happening. The democratic process is motivated by blood and fire and fear thereof, just like any other form of imperial governance.

If that's the case, something is fundamentally broken.

A Democracy, by definition, being ''a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives,'' should not entail blood, fire or fear.

Finally, you're starting to get what we've been pointing out for ~500 posts or so. It IS broken, in many important ways. The only way a system like that responds is by forcible change. Sadly, even when the majority supports something, it still takes force/violence to make that change happen.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Look what Ghandi achieved using peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

If you believe that Ghandi single-handedly brought independence to India, you need to refresh your Indian history.

It wasn't single handed, but it was effective. According to studies, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being more effective than violence.

I'm surprised that some on this forum advocate violence on the streets.

I'm going to dig into that link a little more. I would be suspect of some of the studies of what constituted 'change'. Also, there's a lot to control for. How much of non-violent protests were accompanied by violence. How many of those they counted as 'successful' were protests by those who already have most of the social power (white people in the US, for instance)?

More importantly, in this particular instance, years of peaceful protests have only resulted in more marginalization and increased violence against them.

Another counterpoint: If non violence is so effective, why don't the police follow that?

 

[DBT]

If that's the case, something is fundamentally broken.

A Democracy, by definition, being ''a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives,'' should not entail blood, fire or fear.

Finally, you're starting to get what we've been pointing out for ~500 posts or so. It IS broken, in many important ways. The only way a system like that responds is by forcible change. Sadly, even when the majority supports something, it still takes force/violence to make that change happen.

Finally getting it? You missed the point from the start. It was always about the process and the means of determining the fate of public monuments. How many ways do I need to repeat that?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If that's the case, something is fundamentally broken.

A Democracy, by definition, being ''a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives,'' should not entail blood, fire or fear.

Finally, you're starting to get what we've been pointing out for ~500 posts or so. It IS broken, in many important ways. The only way a system like that responds is by forcible change. Sadly, even when the majority supports something, it still takes force/violence to make that change happen.

Finally getting it? You missed the point from the start. It was always about the process and the means of determining the fate of public monuments. How many ways do I need to repeat that?

But these things are as much public monuments as a cesspool is a water garden.

 

[DBT]

It wasn't single handed, but it was effective. According to studies, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being more effective than violence.

I'm surprised that some on this forum advocate violence on the streets.

I'm going to dig into that link a little more. I would be suspect of some of the studies of what constituted 'change'. Also, there's a lot to control for. How much of non-violent protests were accompanied by violence. How many of those they counted as 'successful' were protests by those who already have most of the social power (white people in the US, for instance)?

More importantly, in this particular instance, years of peaceful protests have only resulted in more marginalization and increased violence against them.

Another counterpoint: If non violence is so effective, why don't the police follow that?

Police violence being effective? Unnecessary and inappropriate police violence has caused a few issues lately, if you haven't noticed.

 

[ronburgundy]

Are you saying that the majority of people in a democracy support slavery, banning homosexuality and stoning for adultery? Don't we have a set of ethical standards as a part of our system which determines both law and socially acceptable behaviour?

Only because we're willing to stage a riot every now and then.

I thought we have an understanding of ethics that's built on centuries of thought and philosophical enquiry, universities, law, empathy, etc.

What percentage of the population in the West would support slavery, banning homosexuality or stoning for adultery? Very few people would, I'd wager.

80% of Republicans and a majority of white southerners would and do support monuments built to celebrate slavery, the continued intimidation of an entire race, and treat as heroes those who killed US soldiers to preserve the enslavement of others, all thing that are anti-thetical to democracy and core principles of civilized empathetic society. They also support efforts designed to ensure that blacks are impeded from participating in democracy. That's more than enough to negate any legitimacy of their democratic opinion on the matter of these monuments or any matter related to race.

 

[ronburgundy]

What I said was, statues and monuments can be assessed according to the Democratic process.

People lobby their representative, parliament sits and debates their value, public sentiment, complaints made, etc, etc, and decides their fate....all interested parties have their say and the verdict based on the good of society. A lot of monuments are being taken down through democratic processes now. But if you think any of that would be happening if the people hadn't first torn several down themselves, you're a bit politically naive I think. People in power don't just voluntarily. out of the poor lily white goodness of their heart and no other consideration, suddenly decide to cede the public symbols of their dominance.

Isn't that how civil society works?

Well, no, not really. I mean ideally, sure, but that is not what history shows us actually happening. The democratic process is motivated by blood and fire and fear thereof, just like any other form of imperial governance.

If that's the case, something is fundamentally broken.

A Democracy, by definition, being ''a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives,'' should not entail blood, fire or fear.

The creation of those monuments was via undemocratic blood, fire, and fear and they are designed to celebrate those same undemocratic methods of violence by others. Their removal by undemocratic means is only fitting. And if a majority of voting residents care so little about human rights, democracy, and decency that they would vote to preserve such monuments, then democracy is a failure in that society and efforts by minority segments to oppose it via non-democratic means do nothing to further erode it.

 

[ronburgundy]

Look what Ghandi achieved using peaceful protest and civil disobedience.

If you believe that Ghandi single-handedly brought independence to India, you need to refresh your Indian history.

It wasn't single handed, but it was effective. According to studies, peaceful protest and civil disobedience being more effective than violence.

I'm surprised that some on this forum advocate violence on the streets.

To be clear, destroying statues is not "violence". Also, you seem to have the notion that democracy and violence are distinct methods. Whether an act is violence is completely unaffected by whether it is democratically sanctioned. And many non-democratic acts are not violent. Although these confed monuments were not created via democratic methods, even if they had been, their creation and preservation would still far closer to acts of violence than tearing them down, which is actually an act to end the continual violence the monuments enact against the people toward whom the builders and the subjects of the statues directed countless forms of violence for centuries, methods which the honored subjects killed to defend.