Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Metaphor]

OK, so you don't think direct action against an unjust is ever justified? The only morally defensible if you don't want to live under an oppressive regime that's supported by a majority is to move out of their jurisdiction to a place where people are nicer?

You didn't say it was an oppressive regime. You said there was a statue of Hitler.

Are you now revising this scenario? Does the place I live in actively oppress me? Are there discriminatory laws? What exactly is the scenario here?

Also, anyone who presents asking for asylum who isn't demonstrably personally targeted by their government is a fake refugee that should be sent back without hearing them out?

...what?

 

[Jokodo]

Another thought experiment:

Imagine that a previous legislature passed a constitutional amendment that bans removal of any monuments whatsoever. Repealing that that amendment would require a two third majority in the state legislature.

Imagine that there's an 80% majority for removing the statue in the city council, and a 60% majority in the state legislature.

Imagine further that the statue in question was explicitly and specifically erected at the initiative of known KKK members to demonstrate to the world in general, and to any black people who might be tempted to forget their place in society in particular, to demonstrate that 'even after losing the war, we still have enough influence that we can erect a monument to the defenders of the noble cause of slavery right in your face, with your tax money - do you really think they'll go after us if you die in an unexplained "accident"?'

So just to clarify, your position is that the statue should stay in place until such time as a two-third majority at the state level to repeal the constitutional amendment is reached, and there's nothing anyone can or should be doing about it before then, and anyone who tries should be held criminally responsible?

Show

This isn't so much a though experiment as a thought experiment as the actual history of many of the monuments we're talking about

 

[Jokodo]

OK, so you don't think direct action against an unjust is ever justified? The only morally defensible if you don't want to live under an oppressive regime that's supported by a majority is to move out of their jurisdiction to a place where people are nicer?

You didn't say it was an oppressive regime. You said there was a statue of Hitler.

Are you now revising this scenario? Does the place I live in actively oppress me? Are there discriminatory laws? What exactly is the scenario here?

A statue that celebrates Hitler's achievement of ridding Germany of the Jewish menace, in a public space paid for with public money, is an act of oppression against Germany's remaining Jews. Just like a statue to people whose only claim to fame stems from their involvement in a failed attempt to defend white people's right to own black people is oppressive against black people.

Just in case your problem actually is a lack of compassion, here's a slight variation you might find easier to relate to: Imagine that your city put up a statue honoring a former police president best known for busting the city's gay bars and arresting significant number of gays (at a time when gay sex was already legal) on frivolous charges, with a dedication that reads "to the restorer of decency, by the forever grateful populace", and with a fresh floral wreath at its foot every week. Would you not feel that having to pass that monument every day on your way to work would create an oppressive atmosphere?

Also, anyone who presents asking for asylum who isn't demonstrably personally targeted by their government is a fake refugee that should be sent back without hearing them out?

...what?

I might mistaking you, though I don't think I am. Have you not on previous occasions expressed the notion that most would be refugees have no claim to a refugee status?

 

[Jokodo]

A statue that celebrates Hitler's achievement of ridding Germany of the Jewish menace, in a public space paid for with public money, is an act of oppression against Germany's remaining Jews. Just like a statue to people whose only claim to fame stems from their involvement in a failed attempt to defend white people's right to own black people is oppressive against black people.

Just in case your problem actually is a lack of compassion, here's a slight variation you might find easier to relate to: Imagine that your city put up a statue honoring a former police president best known for busting the city's gay bars and arresting significant number of gays (at a time when gay sex was already legal) on frivolous charges, with a dedication that reads "to the restorer of decency, by the forever grateful populace", and with a fresh floral wreath at its foot every week. Would you not feel that having to pass that monument every day on your way to work would create an oppressive atmosphere?

And no, this isn't yet another scenario. This is the same scenario just with a different target group.

 

[Metaphor]

Another thought experiment:

Imagine that a previous legislature passed a constitutional amendment that bans removal of any monuments whatsoever. Repealing that that amendment would require a two third majority in the state legislature.

Imagine that there's an 80% majority for removing the statue in the city council, and a 60% majority in the state legislature.

Imagine further that the statue in question was explicitly and specifically erected at the initiative of known KKK members to demonstrate to the world in general, and to any black people who might be tempted to forget their place in society in particular, to demonstrate that 'even after losing the war, we still have enough influence that we can erect a monument to the defenders of the noble cause of slavery right in your face, with your tax money - do you really think they'll go after us if you die in an unexplained "accident"?'

So just to clarify, your position is that the statue should stay in place until such time as a two-third majority at the state level to repeal the constitutional amendment is reached, and there's nothing anyone can or should be doing about it before then, and anyone who tries should be held criminally responsible?

In an absurd scenario where a Constitution was amended specifically for the purpose of erecting statues to insult people, I would fund cheap statues, with the 80/60 majority's blessing, that specifically insulted by name and exploited the likeness of anyone voting against repealing the amendment, and I would place them in public places. After all, the amendment bans the removal of any monuments whatsoever. And if they still voted against it, I would increase the public ridicule of them until the amendment was repealed.

 

[Metaphor]

A statue that celebrates Hitler's achievement of ridding Germany of the Jewish menace, in a public space paid for with public money, is an act of oppression against Germany's remaining Jews. Just like a statue to people whose only claim to fame stems from their involvement in a failed attempt to defend white people's right to own black people is oppressive against black people.

Just in case your problem actually is a lack of compassion, here's a slight variation you might find easier to relate to: Imagine that your city put up a statue honoring a former police president best known for busting the city's gay bars and arresting significant number of gays (at a time when gay sex was already legal) on frivolous charges, with a dedication that reads "to the restorer of decency, by the forever grateful populace", and with a fresh floral wreath at its foot every week. Would you not feel that having to pass that monument every day on your way to work would create an oppressive atmosphere?

I would move the fuck out of Germany. If a government was so bent on oppressing me by erecting statues the sole purpose of which is to destroy me mentally, I would not trust my wellbeing in that country's hands. Destroying the statue sure as hell would not destroy the hatred, would it? It would increase the hatred.

 

[Rhea]

Wait. Did you not read the state laws posted for you?
Do you not understand voter suppression and intimidation? And what it meant to black Americans trying to vote?
Do you not understand gerrymanders?

Is that the problem, you don’t understand what we mean but you don’t ask for an explanation?

What state laws prevent a town or city from removing a statue that the majority want removed.

Well it was already posted for you, but summarizing again for those who didn’t want to read the answers to their own asserted false truths...

A gerrymandered district is one that is deliberately carved up to give the minority the power. It is how republicans garner less than half of the votes but end up with 2/3 of the seats in the house legislatures.

Once they do that, the minority - now in power - sets a state rule that prevents any localities from removing or renaming something that was erected to honor the traitorous white supremacists who ruled by violence..

Three different state laws preventing municipalities from making any changes in their own districts were posted for you. You appear to have not read them, while continuing to assert that they don’t exist.

A hateful minority of white supremacists used this legislative trick (it’s been fought in the supreme court and lost so far) to enact laws against the wishes of the majority.

And this was posted to you in this very thread.
But you chose to protect the racist white supremacist traitors who rule by violence and skullduggery instead of reading it.

 

[Rhea]

People can't just erect monuments in public spaces without council or government approval. Normally this allows for objectors or protestors to have their say in preventing the project from being approved. What people put on private property is different issue.

Sure.

Now explain how that worked in Reconstruction South and Jim Crow South.

Doesn't the South allow people to lobby their representative?

NO! What part of violent oppression of voters are you NOT HEARING?????

Or if they feel strongly enough, organize peaceful demonstrations?

NO!!! What part of setting dogs and firehoses and teargas and batons on peaceful demonstrators are you NOT HEARING????

The risk, of course, is that these could be hijacked by extremists of all persuasions.

What part of “the extremists hijacking are the ones with the badges through the decades” are you NOT HEARING???

The idea is to pressure councils to review their monuments, to reflect the wishes of the majority.

What part of voter suppression with violence are you NOT HEARING???

But what if the majority of people in a city want their public monuments or statues to stay?

What if THEY DON’T??

 

[Jokodo]

Another thought experiment:

Imagine that a previous legislature passed a constitutional amendment that bans removal of any monuments whatsoever. Repealing that that amendment would require a two third majority in the state legislature.

Imagine that there's an 80% majority for removing the statue in the city council, and a 60% majority in the state legislature.

Imagine further that the statue in question was explicitly and specifically erected at the initiative of known KKK members to demonstrate to the world in general, and to any black people who might be tempted to forget their place in society in particular, to demonstrate that 'even after losing the war, we still have enough influence that we can erect a monument to the defenders of the noble cause of slavery right in your face, with your tax money - do you really think they'll go after us if you die in an unexplained "accident"?'

So just to clarify, your position is that the statue should stay in place until such time as a two-third majority at the state level to repeal the constitutional amendment is reached, and there's nothing anyone can or should be doing about it before then, and anyone who tries should be held criminally responsible?

In an absurd scenario where a Constitution was amended specifically for the purpose of erecting statues to insult people, I would fund cheap statues, with the 80/60 majority's blessing, that specifically insulted by name and exploited the likeness of anyone voting against repealing the amendment, and I would place them in public places. After all, the amendment bans the removal of any monuments whatsoever. And if they still voted against it, I would increase the public ridicule of them until the amendment was repealed.

You may call it an "absurd scenario", but this is literally what has happened in several states of the USA (with the additional trick that the statues/monuments must be at least 40 years old to qualify for this protection, voiding your tactic).

You would know this had you read what people posted in this thread.

 

[Rhea]

In an absurd scenario where a Constitution was amended specifically for the purpose of erecting statues to insult people, I would fund cheap statues, with the 80/60 majority's blessing, that specifically insulted by name and exploited the likeness of anyone voting against repealing the amendment, and I would place them in public places.

How quaint that you think you would still be alive to place the second one. How quaint that you think they wouldn’t have a loophole to pull down yours while you can’t pull down theirs.

(You are aware, of course, what happened when someone did this with naked staues to ridicule Trump. Do you think those statues are still standing? Oh, look! they didn’t have a permit to erect that. And you need to get the permit from the government. Which is opposing you.)

After all, the amendment bans the removal of any monuments whatsoever. And if they still voted against it, I would increase the public ridicule of them until the amendment was repealed.

How quaint that you think that would be all it takes to get a gerrymandered power-grab unseated is public ridicule.

 

[Jokodo]

A statue that celebrates Hitler's achievement of ridding Germany of the Jewish menace, in a public space paid for with public money, is an act of oppression against Germany's remaining Jews. Just like a statue to people whose only claim to fame stems from their involvement in a failed attempt to defend white people's right to own black people is oppressive against black people.

Just in case your problem actually is a lack of compassion, here's a slight variation you might find easier to relate to: Imagine that your city put up a statue honoring a former police president best known for busting the city's gay bars and arresting significant number of gays (at a time when gay sex was already legal) on frivolous charges, with a dedication that reads "to the restorer of decency, by the forever grateful populace", and with a fresh floral wreath at its foot every week. Would you not feel that having to pass that monument every day on your way to work would create an oppressive atmosphere?

I would move the fuck out of Germany. If a government was so bent on oppressing me by erecting statues the sole purpose of which is to destroy me mentally, I would not trust my wellbeing in that country's hands.

Thereby handing a win to the bigots who want you gone. Isn't that cowardly?

Destroying the statue sure as hell would not destroy the hatred, would it?

It might. Some of the opposition to removing the statues sure is out of a conviction that they represent a good cause, but a lot is pure inertia: Most people oppose change for the sake of change, so until and unless they clearly understand the motivation for the change, they'll defend the status quo by default. But their mind can be changed by pointing out just how much the status quo is hurtful for some people, which they might not have considered up to that point.

It would increase the hatred.

Or not, see above. Also, the presence of public symbols supportive of their bigotry encourages bigots to translate their beliefs into acts. So the removal of those symbols, coupled with a public outcry falling short of what they were hoping for, might actually make them feel more isolated, and thus less likely to act on their hatred.

 

[Rhea]

What Metaphor and DBT are completely failing to understand is that the black people of the south have been trying all these legal, peaceful means for many decades and have gotten broken skulls, lost jobs, incarceration, battered children and death because of it. You don’t get that this is an actual oppressive regime that does not use majority to rule, but uses legal trickery and violence.

That finally the white people who don’t approve are finally moving from “I don’t approve, but I won’t do anything,” into the camp of, “I guess I need to show my hand and work to stop it instead of intoning, ‘oh, they just have to object more peacefully.’ ” And that influx of additional voices, while still running up against the white supremacist minority that has a majority in the legislature, by it’s volume now has the power to say, “if you won’t do it, we will, and we are the actual majority so your violence won’t work any more.”

And honestly, if a couple of pieces of art that should not come down need to be re-made to get the violent-racist pieces of shit down, I think we can recover from that pretty easily. (More easily than we are recovering from the slavery regime in the last 150 years)

 

[Metaphor]

You may call it an "absurd scenario", but this is literally what has happened in several states of the USA (with the additional trick that the statues/monuments must be at least 40 years old to qualify for this protection, voiding your tactic).

You would know this had you read what people posted in this thread.

I find no reference to any Constitution being amended to prohibit the removal of statues. Which state?

 

[Metaphor]

Thereby handing a win to the bigots who want you gone. Isn't that cowardly?

No, any more than fleeing a warzone is cowardly. My parents fled their country of birth; they were not cowards.

It might. Some of the opposition to removing the statues sure is out of a conviction that they represent a good cause, but a lot is pure inertia: Most people oppose change for the sake of change, so until and unless they clearly understand the motivation for the change, they'll defend the status quo by default. But their mind can be changed by pointing out just how much the status quo is hurtful for some people, which they might not have considered up to that point.

So, on the one hand you are saying people's minds can be changed, and on the other you are saying they can't and so the mob has to destroy the statue?

 

[Metaphor]

What Metaphor and DBT are completely failing to understand is that the black people of the south have been trying all these legal, peaceful means for many decades

And they've managed to remove many, many statues and monuments over those decades. Good for them.

 

[DBT]

What Metaphor and DBT are completely failing to understand is that the black people of the south have been trying all these legal, peaceful means for many decades and have gotten broken skulls, lost jobs, incarceration, battered children and death because of it. You don’t get that this is an actual oppressive regime that does not use majority to rule, but uses legal trickery and violence.

That finally the white people who don’t approve are finally moving from “I don’t approve, but I won’t do anything,” into the camp of, “I guess I need to show my hand and work to stop it instead of intoning, ‘oh, they just have to object more peacefully.’ ” And that influx of additional voices, while still running up against the white supremacist minority that has a majority in the legislature, by it’s volume now has the power to say, “if you won’t do it, we will, and we are the actual majority so your violence won’t work any more.”

And honestly, if a couple of pieces of art that should not come down need to be re-made to get the violent-racist pieces of shit down, I think we can recover from that pretty easily. (More easily than we are recovering from the slavery regime in the last 150 years)

It's not about what I 'fail to grasp' - the issue was, and is, about the means by which reform is brought about.

I know what happened in the past, I understand the nature of oppression, inequality and resistence to change by those in control, yet do not support violence as a means to reform.

As pointed out, there are better ways, if there is the will and the drive to organize and act.

Why would anyone support violence, looting and indiscriminate destruction as a means to an end when better options exist, if only there is the will to organize and act?

 

[Rhea]

What Metaphor and DBT are completely failing to understand is that the black people of the south have been trying all these legal, peaceful means for many decades and have gotten broken skulls, lost jobs, incarceration, battered children and death because of it. You don’t get that this is an actual oppressive regime that does not use majority to rule, but uses legal trickery and violence.

That finally the white people who don’t approve are finally moving from “I don’t approve, but I won’t do anything,” into the camp of, “I guess I need to show my hand and work to stop it instead of intoning, ‘oh, they just have to object more peacefully.’ ” And that influx of additional voices, while still running up against the white supremacist minority that has a majority in the legislature, by it’s volume now has the power to say, “if you won’t do it, we will, and we are the actual majority so your violence won’t work any more.”

And honestly, if a couple of pieces of art that should not come down need to be re-made to get the violent-racist pieces of shit down, I think we can recover from that pretty easily. (More easily than we are recovering from the slavery regime in the last 150 years)

It's not about what I 'fail to grasp' - the issue was, and is, about the means by which reform is brought about. I know what happened in the past, I understand the nature of oppression, inequality and resistence to change by those in control, yet do not support violence as a means to reform.

As pointed out, there are better ways, if there is the will and the drive to organize and act.

Why would anyone support violence, looting and indiscriminate destruction as a means to an end when better options exist, if only there is the will to do it?

Because the existence of better options is in dispute, and the severity problem with this method is in dispute.

Once again, lose your straw-man. We are not talking about “violence, looting and indiscriminate destruction as a means to an end.” The people with a greivance about the statuues are not the looters and they are not violent and they are mostly not indiscriminate”

 

[Toni]

What Metaphor and DBT are completely failing to understand is that the black people of the south have been trying all these legal, peaceful means for many decades and have gotten broken skulls, lost jobs, incarceration, battered children and death because of it. You don’t get that this is an actual oppressive regime that does not use majority to rule, but uses legal trickery and violence.

That finally the white people who don’t approve are finally moving from “I don’t approve, but I won’t do anything,” into the camp of, “I guess I need to show my hand and work to stop it instead of intoning, ‘oh, they just have to object more peacefully.’ ” And that influx of additional voices, while still running up against the white supremacist minority that has a majority in the legislature, by it’s volume now has the power to say, “if you won’t do it, we will, and we are the actual majority so your violence won’t work any more.”

And honestly, if a couple of pieces of art that should not come down need to be re-made to get the violent-racist pieces of shit down, I think we can recover from that pretty easily. (More easily than we are recovering from the slavery regime in the last 150 years)

Also lynched and otherwise murdered. Even their kids. Remember Emmett Till and those little girls murdered in that church basement.

Also it's extremely generous to call poorly rendered mass produced likenesses of some Confederate 'art.'

The truth is that for a whole lot of white people, they can afford to just not notice that those monuments made a segment of society uncomfortable and even threatened. Not necessarily because that's what they want. They just don't notice. All they hear and have ever heard are about the bravery of those men and how the South Shall Rise Again!. Hell, lots of places never even call it the Civil War!

 

[Toni]

Another thought experiment:

Imagine that a previous legislature passed a constitutional amendment that bans removal of any monuments whatsoever. Repealing that that amendment would require a two third majority in the state legislature.

Imagine that there's an 80% majority for removing the statue in the city council, and a 60% majority in the state legislature.

Imagine further that the statue in question was explicitly and specifically erected at the initiative of known KKK members to demonstrate to the world in general, and to any black people who might be tempted to forget their place in society in particular, to demonstrate that 'even after losing the war, we still have enough influence that we can erect a monument to the defenders of the noble cause of slavery right in your face, with your tax money - do you really think they'll go after us if you die in an unexplained "accident"?'

So just to clarify, your position is that the statue should stay in place until such time as a two-third majority at the state level to repeal the constitutional amendment is reached, and there's nothing anyone can or should be doing about it before then, and anyone who tries should be held criminally responsible?

In an absurd scenario where a Constitution was amended specifically for the purpose of erecting statues to insult people, I would fund cheap statues, with the 80/60 majority's blessing, that specifically insulted by name and exploited the likeness of anyone voting against repealing the amendment, and I would place them in public places. After all, the amendment bans the removal of any monuments whatsoever. And if they still voted against it, I would increase the public ridicule of them until the amendment was repealed.

In the real South, those statues were not erected to insult anyone. They were erected to oppress black people. They were just too dishonest to call it for what it was: instead it was to revere the Glorious Past! When black people knew their place. And to remind them that even if their place had changed a little bit, they still needed to stay in it. That place right underneath the heels of white people.

 

[DBT]

What Metaphor and DBT are completely failing to understand is that the black people of the south have been trying all these legal, peaceful means for many decades and have gotten broken skulls, lost jobs, incarceration, battered children and death because of it. You don’t get that this is an actual oppressive regime that does not use majority to rule, but uses legal trickery and violence.

That finally the white people who don’t approve are finally moving from “I don’t approve, but I won’t do anything,” into the camp of, “I guess I need to show my hand and work to stop it instead of intoning, ‘oh, they just have to object more peacefully.’ ” And that influx of additional voices, while still running up against the white supremacist minority that has a majority in the legislature, by it’s volume now has the power to say, “if you won’t do it, we will, and we are the actual majority so your violence won’t work any more.”

And honestly, if a couple of pieces of art that should not come down need to be re-made to get the violent-racist pieces of shit down, I think we can recover from that pretty easily. (More easily than we are recovering from the slavery regime in the last 150 years)

It's not about what I 'fail to grasp' - the issue was, and is, about the means by which reform is brought about. I know what happened in the past, I understand the nature of oppression, inequality and resistence to change by those in control, yet do not support violence as a means to reform.

As pointed out, there are better ways, if there is the will and the drive to organize and act.

Why would anyone support violence, looting and indiscriminate destruction as a means to an end when better options exist, if only there is the will to do it?

Because the existence of better options is in dispute, and the severity problem with this method is in dispute.

Once again, lose your straw-man. We are not talking about “violence, looting and indiscriminate destruction as a means to an end.” The people with a greivance about the statuues are not the looters and they are not violent and they are mostly not indiscriminate”

Studies say otherwise. I have posted articles with references and links to research that demonstrate the efficacy of peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience. Why is that research ignored in favour of looting, rioting and idescriminate destruction of property as a means to reform?