Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Jokodo]

I guess we're making progress: you effectively just said that, as long as those statues remain in place, living under them must, for black people, feel like living in a warzone.

No, I didn't effectively just say that. I said that leaving a country where you are not wanted is not cowardly. With regards to the statues, I think most people never thought about them or cared, and that's why some of these statues have remained standing for a hundred years or more.

I am saying no such thing. I'm saying that direct action is sometimes more efficient at bringing a point across than lengthy debates nobody not already involved in the issue listens to (on most issues, that would be the majority. See above on inertia for what that means for the prospects of change).

So, there's no majority now because of people's inherent conservatism, but people will be very quickly convinced of the righteous actions of the mob. That's an empirical question, I suppose.

I suppose it is. Maybe you have forgotten already that you were tge one making an absolute claim?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

And the city of Richmond is taking down its iconic statues to confederate leaders. I never thought I'd see the day. This is super news. It's got to make the right wingeres, the rednecks and the racists fume. Let them fume.

 

[Metaphor]

No, I didn't effectively just say that. I said that leaving a country where you are not wanted is not cowardly. With regards to the statues, I think most people never thought about them or cared, and that's why some of these statues have remained standing for a hundred years or more.



So, there's no majority now because of people's inherent conservatism, but people will be very quickly convinced of the righteous actions of the mob. That's an empirical question, I suppose.

I suppose it is. Maybe you have forgotten already that you were tge one making an absolute claim?

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

 

[Toni]

No, I didn't effectively just say that. I said that leaving a country where you are not wanted is not cowardly. With regards to the statues, I think most people never thought about them or cared, and that's why some of these statues have remained standing for a hundred years or more.



So, there's no majority now because of people's inherent conservatism, but people will be very quickly convinced of the righteous actions of the mob. That's an empirical question, I suppose.

I suppose it is. Maybe you have forgotten already that you were tge one making an absolute claim?

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

A majority opinion has apparently been rendered and carried out.

 

[Jokodo]

No, I didn't effectively just say that. I said that leaving a country where you are not wanted is not cowardly. With regards to the statues, I think most people never thought about them or cared, and that's why some of these statues have remained standing for a hundred years or more.



So, there's no majority now because of people's inherent conservatism, but people will be very quickly convinced of the righteous actions of the mob. That's an empirical question, I suppose.

I suppose it is. Maybe you have forgotten already that you were tge one making an absolute claim?

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

This claim: "Destroying the statue sure as hell would not destroy the hatred, would it? It would increase the hatred."

You didn't even bother to give a rationale fir that "sure as hell".

I said effectively, it might or it might not, and gave reasons. If one of us has made a claim in need of defending, it's you.

It also happens to be the same post where you said that you " would move the fuck out of Germany (why Germany though?). 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. " - basically admitting that a staue can rerepresent a very real act of opression.

But somehow, that only works for statues with a homophobic message/intent, while staues with racist ones are a-ok?

Truth is, you suck at compassion and reason.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Are right wingers going to secede from the Union again?

 

[DBT]

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

A majority opinion has apparently been rendered and carried out.

Never mind the injuries, deaths and unrelated damage to property.

Both the violence and the collateral damage being acceptable, it seems.

A scattergun approach works just fine. All good for the winners, I take it.

 

[Elixir]

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

A majority opinion has apparently been rendered and carried out.

Never mind the injuries, deaths and unrelated damage to property.

Both the violence and the collateral damage being acceptable, it seems.

What a shame if all that right wing extremist arson goes to waste, huh?

 

[Toni]

Are right wingers going to secede from the Union again?

These right wingers are Australian. Let them deal with their own monument problem.

 

[Toni]

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

A majority opinion has apparently been rendered and carried out.

Never mind the injuries, deaths and unrelated damage to property.

Both the violence and the collateral damage being acceptable, it seems.

A scattergun approach works just fine. All good for the winners, I take it.

Do you really not read, understand or believe the links and quotes provided for you that show just how much violence and 'collateral damage' and death and destruction those monuments represent and have helped to inspire, how much suppression and oppression?

Do you really not understand or believe how and why and who paid for these monuments? Or how much is controlled at the state and local level and not at the federal level?

 

[Rhea]

So the fact that you use this phrase again suggests that we need to talk about it.

Earlier in the thread you wrote that you understood that the people wanting these statues gone are not the same people as the looters. Did you change your mind? Are you now deciding to conflate the looters with the statue topplers? Painting all with a broad brush and saying that they are one and the same now? Is that how you see this, or is this deliberate hyperbole? Do we need to step back the argument about whether it is appropriate to do this to discuss WHO is doing this (all over again) or are you bring this up to distract from the points of whether it is appropriate?

Earlier in the thread, I argued that the tearing down of these statues (in almost all cases) was not at all indiscriminate. It is targeted and historically protested. Are you claiming that these people suddenly don’t know what they are doing and why? Why do you think “indiscriminate destruction” perpetrators would have pull straps with them? Pull straps are not normally a tool of indiscrimnate destruction, now are they. That would be hammers and batons. But the presence of pull straps sort of proves that it is not, in fact, indiscriminate, now doesn’t it?

Earlier in the thread many people pointed out to you that toppling these statues is not violence, it is destruction. Are you choosing to use these words in your effort to conflate the person-on-person violence in protests to the people pulling down statues? Even though they are clearly not the same people?

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 statues are not the looters and they are not violent and they are mostly not indiscriminate.

I used the phrase again and again because that is the distinction between my position and whatever the opposition is arguing.

The crowds pulling down or damaging monuments were not peacefully dismantling statues, they were fighting, people were killed, rioting, looting happened. Statues that had nothing to do with the issue were damaged or pulled down.....the mob was on a roll, out of control.

That is the point, not reasonable protest or civil disobedience, not removing inappropriate monuments through due process, but rioting and indiscriminate destruction of property.

That is what separates the two positions.

Which night(s) and which citie(s) are you talking about?
There was not fighting and killing at every statue, and certainly not every statue was unrelated to the issue.
So why are you painting all the activity with the actions of a few?
Why night and which city are you talking about?

 

[Rhea]

What claim? That if there was a clear majority of support to take the statues down, they'd have already been taken down. I still believe that to be true.

A majority opinion has apparently been rendered and carried out.

Never mind the injuries, deaths and unrelated damage to property.

Both the violence and the collateral damage being acceptable, it seems.

Well by comparison to the injuries, death and unrelated damage to property that the statues bth represented and emboldened over the year, maybe everyone is saying, “you got off pretty light on that,”

You never seem to consider the injuries, death and destruction that white supremacy wrought. It doesn’t seem to bother you at atll, you never comment on it.
But you care so much about the statues of the white supremacists who ruled by violence.

It’s weird, I don’t understand it at all.

 

[Metaphor]

This claim: "Destroying the statue sure as hell would not destroy the hatred, would it? It would increase the hatred."

You didn't even bother to give a rationale fir that "sure as hell".

Rationale? Are you kidding?

Let's say there's a church in town that specifically preaches hatred of black people. Do you think burning down that church in the name of black people will increase the parishioners hatred of black people or decrease it?

 

[DBT]

So the fact that you use this phrase again suggests that we need to talk about it.

Earlier in the thread you wrote that you understood that the people wanting these statues gone are not the same people as the looters. Did you change your mind? Are you now deciding to conflate the looters with the statue topplers? Painting all with a broad brush and saying that they are one and the same now? Is that how you see this, or is this deliberate hyperbole? Do we need to step back the argument about whether it is appropriate to do this to discuss WHO is doing this (all over again) or are you bring this up to distract from the points of whether it is appropriate?

Earlier in the thread, I argued that the tearing down of these statues (in almost all cases) was not at all indiscriminate. It is targeted and historically protested. Are you claiming that these people suddenly don’t know what they are doing and why? Why do you think “indiscriminate destruction” perpetrators would have pull straps with them? Pull straps are not normally a tool of indiscrimnate destruction, now are they. That would be hammers and batons. But the presence of pull straps sort of proves that it is not, in fact, indiscriminate, now doesn’t it?

Earlier in the thread many people pointed out to you that toppling these statues is not violence, it is destruction. Are you choosing to use these words in your effort to conflate the person-on-person violence in protests to the people pulling down statues? Even though they are clearly not the same people?

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 statues are not the looters and they are not violent and they are mostly not indiscriminate.

I used the phrase again and again because that is the distinction between my position and whatever the opposition is arguing.

The crowds pulling down or damaging monuments were not peacefully dismantling statues, they were fighting, people were killed, rioting, looting happened. Statues that had nothing to do with the issue were damaged or pulled down.....the mob was on a roll, out of control.

That is the point, not reasonable protest or civil disobedience, not removing inappropriate monuments through due process, but rioting and indiscriminate destruction of property.

That is what separates the two positions.

Which night(s) and which citie(s) are you talking about?
There was not fighting and killing at every statue, and certainly not every statue was unrelated to the issue.
So why are you painting all the activity with the actions of a few?
Why night and which city are you talking about?

It doesn't have to happen in every instance for it to happen. It happened. Mobs went on the rampage.

What rate of death, looting or indiscriminate destruction of property is acceptable? Is toppling, say, three statues worth a single life?

I say there are better ways.

 

[Toni]

This claim: "Destroying the statue sure as hell would not destroy the hatred, would it? It would increase the hatred."

You didn't even bother to give a rationale fir that "sure as hell".

Rationale? Are you kidding?

Let's say there's a church in town that specifically preaches hatred of black people. Do you think burning down that church in the name of black people will increase the parishioners hatred of black people or decrease it?

Somehow, it’s never white churches that are targeted. Black churches. Mosques. Synagogues. Sikh Temples.

Those monuments to white supremacy are very effective at inspiring white peoples to commit acts of violence against non-white and non-‘christian’ people.

 

[Toni]

Which night(s) and which citie(s) are you talking about?
There was not fighting and killing at every statue, and certainly not every statue was unrelated to the issue.
So why are you painting all the activity with the actions of a few?
Why night and which city are you talking about?

It doesn't have to happen in every instance for it to happen. It happened. Mobs went on the rampage.

What rate of death, looting or indiscriminate destruction of property is acceptable? Is toppling, say, three statues worth a single life?

I say there are better ways.

Ok, name one mob thst went on a rampage.

 

[Arctish]

Which night(s) and which citie(s) are you talking about?
There was not fighting and killing at every statue, and certainly not every statue was unrelated to the issue.
So why are you painting all the activity with the actions of a few?
Why night and which city are you talking about?

It doesn't have to happen in every instance for it to happen. It happened. Mobs went on the rampage.

What rate of death, looting or indiscriminate destruction of property is acceptable? Is toppling, say, three statues worth a single life?

I say there are better ways.

EVERYONE IN THIS THREAD IS SAYING THERE ARE BETTER WAYS THAN DEATH, LOOTING, AND THE INDISCRIMINATE DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY!

Jeezy creezy, guys, it's not that hard.

Peaceful change is preferable to change brought about by conflict. <<< We all agree on this point.

We are arguing over what happens when a change doesn't happen despite persistent peaceful efforts and the support of the majority.

 

[repoman]

Tank Man statue in California?

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2019/06/e6b968e409d4-tank-man-statue-unveiled-in-california-on-tiananmen-anniversary.html

How about a Rachel Corrie one in Beverly Hills?

Koreans trying to get a forced labor statue in front of Japanese Consulate

https://english.kyodonews.net/news/2020/07/a6baf290b009-us-house-passes-china-sanctions-bill-over-hong-kong-security-law.html

Tokyo, citing diplomatic protocol, has objected to the erection of the statue in front of the consulate, where a life-size statue depicting a girl representing the "comfort women" already stands.

When the "comfort women" statue was erected in late 2016 by a different civic group, the Japanese government temporary recalled Japan's consul general in Busan along with the Japanese ambassador to South Korea in protest.

Japan says such statues violate the terms of the Vienna Convention, which requires the host state to prevent any disturbance of the peace at a diplomatic mission or impairment of its dignity.

 

[Rhea]

I say there are better ways.

And when they have all been tried for more than a hundred years... what?

Just keep up the statues depicting white supremaciists who ruled by violence and let the violence against the black people continue? That’s your solution?
Let the victims be further victimized, with generations dying unrequited.
Because when asking nicely doesn’t work, there is NO OTHER WAY to stop the oppression (“studies show this is the best way!”)

They are sick and tired of being sick and tired.
They don’t need some guy to say, “you keep asking nicely, and if they haven’t done it in 100 years, wait 100 more. Because we wouldn’t want any statue to be subject to *violence*! That is reserved for you black people. Violene all day long, but you can’t fight back -ever. That’s wrong.

 

[Rhea]

Anyway, I’m over-and-out. My heart can’t take hearing people claim that oppression against black people is fine and should be endured for a hundred more years because stopping it is so ~disruptive~ and ~unpleasant~.

We don’t owe those statues anything. They represent white supremacists who ruled by violence. And if a Harriet Tubman statue went down with them by mistake, I expect she’d just say, “free at last, free at last. Thank god almighty, we are free at last,” and call it a fabulous price.