Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Metaphor]

Yes or no, no evasion, please and thank you.

Can you answer that?

And if your anwer is "no", please be explicit about how the reasoning you used to arrive at a "no" doesn't carry over to the topic of this thread.

The answer is no. Statues don't enslave people or violate their rights. They are at the level of public art installations. A vote of the majority's tastes is all that is necessary for a statue to stay or go.

Slavery can't be justified by public vote because slavery is a fundamental violation of human rights.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Yes, democracy has is its limits. But whether a statue violate's anybody's rights depends on the specific structure of rights, not your view of morality. A clearer statement is "A statue does not violate what I think are anybody's rights".

Well sure, but that's implied with any statement about morality and rights.

That is nonsense. There are plenty of statements about rights that are based on enumerated rights in law.

[
I reckon the people portrayed in a lot of statues were awful homophobes in their time, but I am not persecuted by seeing those statues.

So what? in the USA, these statues are homages to traitors and those who fought to preserve slavery (a violation of human rights). The statues were not erected right after the Civil War, but in the 1920s -1950 to help remind those uppity blacks of the "good old days".


I will not even bother to comment on the your implied moral equivalence of presumed homophobes with traitors and slavers.

 

[Rhea]

The carefully and deliberately cultivated culture of fear that was perpetuated on black citizens of America is not just a surprise to Metaphor, but is denied by Metaphor.

We get it. We get it.

 

[Rhea]

Metaphor.

Did you read this, all of it? What do you think?

DBT - and everyone - I invite you to get a fresh beer or coffee and read this thorough article from the Smithsonian

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731

Historically, the installation of Confederate monuments went hand in hand with the disenfranchisement of black people. The historical record suggests that monument-building peaked during three pivotal periods: from the late 1880s into the 1890s, as Reconstruction was being crushed; from the 1900s through the 1920s, with the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, the increase in lynching and the codification of Jim Crow; and in the 1950s and 1960s, around the centennial of the war but also in reaction to advances in civil rights. An observation by the Yale historian David Blight, describing a “Jim Crow reunion” at Gettysburg, captures the spirit of Confederate monument-building, when “white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible, master of ceremonies.”

It is a very extensive look at who benefits, and who is harmed by these statues and the “museums” and “parks” that promote the Lost Cause ideology.

Most AMreican taxpayers probably don’t know how many tens of millions of dollars they pay to keep the story of white supremacy alive. I hope more people hear this story - and more of those statues come crashing down and the parks that promote lies are defunded.

 

[Metaphor]

That is nonsense. There are plenty of statements about rights that are based on enumerated rights in law.

Felt like some petty squawking tonight? Got it all out yet? I doubt it.

So what? in the USA, these statues are homages to traitors and those who fought to preserve slavery (a violation of human rights). The statues were not erected right after the Civil War, but in the 1920s -1950 to help remind those uppity blacks of the "good old days".

I didn't even say the statues should stay. I just have the, apparently incredibly fringe belief, that mobs should not decide what should happen to public property via mob vigilante action.

I will not even bother to comment on the your implied moral equivalence of presumed homophobes with traitors and slavers.

Yeah, except for that one. Oy gevalt.

 

[Metaphor]

Metaphor.

Did you read this, all of it? What do you think?

DBT - and everyone - I invite you to get a fresh beer or coffee and read this thorough article from the Smithsonian

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/costs-confederacy-special-report-180970731

Historically, the installation of Confederate monuments went hand in hand with the disenfranchisement of black people. The historical record suggests that monument-building peaked during three pivotal periods: from the late 1880s into the 1890s, as Reconstruction was being crushed; from the 1900s through the 1920s, with the rise of the second Ku Klux Klan, the increase in lynching and the codification of Jim Crow; and in the 1950s and 1960s, around the centennial of the war but also in reaction to advances in civil rights. An observation by the Yale historian David Blight, describing a “Jim Crow reunion” at Gettysburg, captures the spirit of Confederate monument-building, when “white supremacy might be said to have been the silent, invisible, master of ceremonies.”

It is a very extensive look at who benefits, and who is harmed by these statues and the “museums” and “parks” that promote the Lost Cause ideology.

Most AMreican taxpayers probably don’t know how many tens of millions of dollars they pay to keep the story of white supremacy alive. I hope more people hear this story - and more of those statues come crashing down and the parks that promote lies are defunded.

If American taxpayers don't want to pay for public statues, they will stop paying for them. But a vigilante minority has no right to tear down public property it does not like, any more than a vigilante mob has the right to tear down a public art installation it doesn't like.

What I find incredible is that up until March 2020, some 'clear majority' of people wanted these statues gone, but nobody did anything for 70 years. Was there a Constitutional impediment to the removal of these statues? Did this mob take a straw poll of citizens to prioritise which public statues should be torn down?

But, if you can't trust a mob to do rational and sensible things, who can you trust?

 

[laughing dog]

I didn't even say the statues should stay. I just have the, apparently incredibly fringe belief, that mobs should not decide what should happen to public property via mob vigilante action.

Now who is petty squawking? The issue is that sometimes mobs get it right. And when they do, it is not a big deal for people who really know nothing about the situation to get their knickers in a twist to squawk about.

Yeah, except for that one. Oy gevalt.

More petty squawking.

 

[Metaphor]

Now who is petty squawking?

It was you laughing dog. You do it all the time.

The issue is that sometimes mobs get it right. And when they do, it is not a big deal for people who really know nothing about the situation to get their knickers in a twist to squawk about.

Eh, if you are happy to see mobs impose their will by force in America, I'm not going to suffer all that much, except perhaps in my exposure to the American stock market.

 

[Jokodo]

I reckon the people portrayed in a lot of statues were awful homophobes in their time, but I am not persecuted by seeing those statues.

That may well be so, but the statues were not erected to celebrate their homophobia. They were erected to celebrate their dedication for a noble cause, which unfortunately didn't prevail, and as a signal that the ones fighting on the losing side may not have won the war, but continue to be in power at the local level.

The cause, in case you forgot, was to defend white Southerners' right to keep black Southerners as slaves, and most of the monuments were specifically and explicitly erected in response to black Southerners' demand for full participation. They say loud and clear "No, we're not going to treat you as humans, that unfortunate episode when the North interfered in our internal affairs notwithstanding" - and they were built to say just that.

 

[Rhea]

If American taxpayers don't want to pay for public statues, they will stop paying for them. But a vigilante minority has no right to tear down public property it does not like, any more than a vigilante mob has the right to tear down a public art installation it doesn't like.

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

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?”

I get how that part is not meaningful to you.
And I’m not surprised, it’s hard to understand the pervasive culture of fear to which they contribute if you have never been around it. But, like gravity, that historical truth doesn’t cease to exist because you can’t see it or don’t believe it.

 

[Jokodo]

If a majority of people want to keep a statue in a city, then that is sufficient moral justification to keep it, because statues do not enslave people and they are more a matter of taste than anything else.

Actually, some US states have laws specifically designed to prevent cities from deciding they want to get rid of a statue: They require such decisions to be made at the state level, even when the statues are on city grounds, for no other reason than hoping to be able to outvote the more progressive city dwellers with a rural majority.

 

[Jokodo]

We hear you advocate on and on! for the rights of the statue.
Luckily for our friends who continued to be affected by the presence of the statues, we care more about our fellow citizens who are suffereing violence that is emboldened by these statues than we care about the statues or the traitors and violent white supremacists who erected them.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this emboldening like the patriarchal ether? Everywhere and ever present?

What evidence would you accept? You have been handed numerous lengthy quotes about when, how, by whom, and for what (often explicitly stated!) reason those statues have been erected, which you continue to ignore.

At this point, I'm hard pressed to believe that a lack of evidence is at the root of your refusal to accept reality.

 

[laughing dog]

Now who is petty squawking?

It was you laughing dog. You do it all the time.

I think the screen name Metaironic better suits you.

Eh, if you are happy to see mobs impose their will by force in America, I'm not going to suffer all that much, except perhaps in my exposure to the American stock market.

Happy, no. Bothered in this case, no. Nice to see that this is really all about you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Curious, what in the heck would you know about that? Are you learned in 19th and 20th century US history? A lot of these statues and symbols are put up in the early 20th century along side the rise of KKK and like movements and in the 1950s, when the Civil Rights movement begins to move forward. Their message was unmistakable.

Really?

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.

 

[ZiprHead]

Now who is petty squawking?

It was you laughing dog. You do it all the time.

The issue is that sometimes mobs get it right. And when they do, it is not a big deal for people who really know nothing about the situation to get their knickers in a twist to squawk about.

Eh, if you are happy to see mobs impose their will by force in America, I'm not going to suffer all that much, except perhaps in my exposure to the American stock market.

They were imposed on black people by force.

 

[bilby]

I got the vague impression that it could, just possibly, be something like:

Yes that's where I repeated that there probably are statues that should be relocated or destroyed, that the issue here is how to go about achieving that aim, determining what should stay, what should be moved, what should destroyed, ie, peaceful protest and/or civil disobedience pressuring councils/government to assess and act, without rioting, looting, fighting in the streets and indiscriminate destruction.

And yet you recognise that those peaceful approaches should have worked already.

And they have not.

So...

 

[marc]

[
If American taxpayers don't want to pay for public statues, they will stop paying for them.

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

What I find incredible is that up until March 2020, some 'clear majority' of people wanted these statues gone, but nobody did anything for 70 years.

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.

Was there a Constitutional impediment to the removal of these statues?

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.


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.

 

[bilby]

We hold a similar view on the issue, it appears. Arguing against rioting, looting and indiscriminate destruction of public monuments. Which is not to say that some should not be removed, only how to determine what goes and what stays. In other words, how to go about it.

Yes, you also seem to think that the sensitivities of hardcore racists who don't want it rubbed in their face that their opinion that blacks should be slaves - and want everybody to pay for the upkeep of public symbols to represent that position - no longer attain a majority should count at least as much as the sensitivities of black people who don't want to be forced to pay for symbols of their own oppression.

We got that.

I'm raising a particular question pertinent to a particular claim Metaphor made, though.

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?

Firstly, nobody here is supporting indescriminate destruction, that's your strawman.

Secondly, I for one strongly support violence in the name of improving the life of the oppressed. And I strongly suspect that you do too, you just define oppression differently; for you, it excludes the flaunting of racist sentiments by white Americans over their black compatriots.

But I suspect it doesn't exclude the invasion by Imperial Japan of the south Pacific region (for example). Violence is sometimes necessary, to avoid subjugation. And a certain amount of "collateral damage" is acceptable when violence is used to liberate people from their oppressors.

Perhaps you are a total pacifist who abhors any violence of any kind in any situation. Perhaps you would have campaigned against the use of military force against Imperial Japan in the 1930s and '40s. Or against the Third Reich at that time. But I suspect not - which means your absolutist stance is a sham. Violence can be the best option, in at least some circumstances; So the question is not whether it's acceptable as a response to oppression, but whether the current oppression rises to the level where violence is OK.

In other words, your position is "these protestors are not sufficiently oppressed as to warrant violence". But that's really not your call to make, is it? Given that the oppression in question doesn't harm you in the slightest.

You are dressing up dismissiveness towards a serious problem that doesn't personally affect you, as a moral and upstanding guardianship of peace and good order.

This is a very common tactic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and leads to the question "Are you complicit, or merely being duped?".

 

[Worldtraveller]

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.

Get used to lowering your standards.

 

[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?

Firstly, nobody here is supporting indescriminate destruction, that's your strawman.

Secondly, I for one strongly support violence in the name of improving the life of the oppressed. And I strongly suspect that you do too, you just define oppression differently; for you, it excludes the flaunting of racist sentiments by white Americans over their black compatriots.

But I suspect it doesn't exclude the invasion by Imperial Japan of the south Pacific region (for example). Violence is sometimes necessary, to avoid subjugation. And a certain amount of "collateral damage" is acceptable when violence is used to liberate people from their oppressors.

Perhaps you are a total pacifist who abhors any violence of any kind in any situation. Perhaps you would have campaigned against the use of military force against Imperial Japan in the 1930s and '40s. Or against the Third Reich at that time. But I suspect not - which means your absolutist stance is a sham. Violence can be the best option, in at least some circumstances; So the question is not whether it's acceptable as a response to oppression, but whether the current oppression rises to the level where violence is OK.

In other words, your position is "these protestors are not sufficiently oppressed as to warrant violence". But that's really not your call to make, is it? Given that the oppression in question doesn't harm you in the slightest.

You are dressing up dismissiveness towards a serious problem that doesn't personally affect you, as a moral and upstanding guardianship of peace and good order.

This is a very common tactic of totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, and leads to the question "Are you complicit, or merely being duped?".

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.