Sounds fine to me.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF A RACIST POST.

How so? And against what race?

I never even mentioned any race in my post.

Kinda like the violent mob that formed and attacked us when we took the legal route you suggest only they didn't like the result? That's who those Confederate statues glorify

Did you know there is a very high powered republican senator who goes by the moniker “Lady L” in their off time? Makes you think!

My goal is to keep museums intact, so we can learn from history and not repeat it. Erasing the negative moments of history does not equal a positive outcome.

There very well may be racists that go into museums and get a chubby seeing pictures of Robert E Lee and the Stars and Bars, saying things like "Mamaw, Papaw, and Johnny Reb forever!" There will be people like them forever, just like there will be people in protests that throw Molotov cocktails and look to cause harm. You will find many idiots in a land of 330 million citizens.

So you're saying that by proxy I'm on the side of rednecks that have hate in their blood for black people? This creates one of those "slippery slopes" I've read about in here. So if you support BLM then you defend the rioters that are destroying people's businesses and livelihoods?

Sounds like you stepped on stage several acts too early then because history is in zero danger of being erased, unless you're dumb enough to think "history" is the glowing Lost Cause portrayal the Daughters of the Confederacy tried to spread across the country

- I faintly knew of the efforts to remove the Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues in Virginia.
- No, I didn't know any of the politicians' names involved, b/c I only really started paying attention to political topics a couple months ago.
- I would've been in favor of whatever the vote decided, because this is a democracy, and the people of Charlottesville get to decide what happens in their town.
- I didn't have a vote, and my opinion, if I had one at the time, wouldn't have mattered. I did think that the Klan and other Alt-Right lunatics fighting with Counter-protesters was highly idiotic.
- I know of no other statues that were removed due to democratic political efforts. I'm sure I could research and find out if there were instances, but I'm answering these questions as honestly as I can just by going off of what I know at this time.

And I really think that democracy does fail if we allow angry mobs to destroy whatever they see fit to destroy. If this were to continue, they may make their way to desecrating some statue or portrait that means a lot to a majority of the American citizens. It's not unfathomable.

A child in the South, seeing all the statues and schools named after Lee and Stonewall, probably thought they won. Although, I suppose in a way they did.

oh wow

Fair enough.

Also, I agree. Mobs shouldn't dictate what happens in a democratic society by using force or destroying property.

For me this hinges on just laws and a fair democratic process however. There exists plenty of civil disobedience I agree with, and some civil disobedience I would even say is an ethical obligation. Still, you might up with the paradox of supporting both the civil disobedience and accepting that it has to be punished (to avoid the slipperiest of slopes).

There is also room for some introspection and understanding where anger comes from. If there were statues outside my local town-hall of turncoats who tortured members of my family on behalf of the Gestapo, then intellectual discussions on democracy be damned. Count me in for some destruction of property.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/us/po...rnd/index.html


No discussion on the white kids in Portland tearing down a statue of George Washington and wrapping the head in the American flag before setting it on fire?

Anyone in here feel like defending this desecration of the father of our country?

No, probably not.

Here's where things get murky. George Washington runs the gamut of good and bad by our standards today. He fought for American Independence and was the Father of our Nation. Super! He also owned slaves and signed into law the Fugitive Slave Act. WTF are you thinking!

It boils down to this: The people in the 18th and 19th century didn't have the same social morals that we do now. We're a huge upgrade. We know the way that the leaders of the United States at its inception treated Native Americans and black people was terrible. It didn't even enter their minds that treating black people as farm equipment was wrong. They are also responsible for creating the greatest country on earth.

I guess we could ask, if George Washington was born in the 1950's and he ran for office as an adult, would he be pro-slavery? He'd get the Christian vote, that's for sure. And his teeth would be in much better shape.

Not sure if he gets off the hook that easy. Opposition to slavery existed in his day too. John Adams was famously opposed to slavery, and it is doubtful his voice was unheard among his peers or that there were not others like him.

Generally speaking though, it is unwise to look at history through a lens that only sees heroes and villains. Still, when Washington is celebrated, it is generally his other accomplishments which are celebrated. He is generally not celebrated for his views on slavery or his willingness to compromise on slavery politically.

It's a bit harder to make a similar argument for someone depicted on top of a horse in full confederate uniform, a uniform representing states who seceded from the Union with eloquent declarations ala:
"For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery." (Georgia)
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery" (Missisippi)
"but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right." (South Carolina)
"She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits" (Texas)
"not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States." (Virginia)

Fugitive Slave Act passed in 1850, and was signed by President Fillmore.

His signing that bill effectively destroyed the Whig Party.

Cuepee's excellent OP could have ended his own thread. He's exactly right on this one.

I would add it is not enough to simply preserve the history of abhorrent ideas in libraries. Things like fascism should be studied in their context and treated seriously. It's important to understand the intellectual underpinnings of abhorrent philosophies like fascism and why those philosophies were attractive to so many people. In fact, I would argue that it is reckless to not study such things.

Why don't they throw their dollar bills into the street in protest?

There was definitely opposition to slavery at the creation of the U.S.A. Without knowing exact numbers, and they don't really matter, let's say it was split 50/50 between abolitionists and pro-slavery people. In this day and age it's probably 99.999% of citizens that are opposed to slavery. I bet even the wildest fringes of the Alt-Right, hell even the remaining 5000 people in the Klan would almost unanimously agree that slavery is wrong.

That's why we should let councils and groups of voters make the decisions w/r/t keeping statues up or tearing them down. Present the good and bad points of these past soldiers & leaders and let the people decide, "Do the bad aspects of their lives outweigh the good?" Through the prism of modern times, you should see the Confederate statues come down. But with people like Washington and Jefferson, it's going to be harder to make a case for removal of their statues. But if the voting public or councils vote to remove their statues/monuments, then so be it.

I was throwing dollar bills at a lady named Jasmine last weekend. She is very much in favor of the Father of our Country. But she seemed to like Andrew Jackson even more, and that made me question her politics.

she is the symbol of the 'happy slave Mom, happy because white people, smarter than her, have given her opportunities to serve and have purpose.

Or so they liked to tell themselves.


Agreed.

The problem is that there are groups who not only paid for and put those statues out to rub it in the face of blacks, but they would never allow even the most contentious of them to be taken down without a fight. They only live in the extremes.

So when you make the only path a fight you should not be surprised when you get it and when it then inflames passions that go to the other extremes.

If a Mob wants to destroy monuments, so be it. Certainly preferable to destroying businesses that employ and serve mostly minorities.

Having said that, if a CounterMob wants to use violence to stop the first mob, that's fine as well, right?

I had more than one classmate named Bobby Lee. Robert E. Lee was a revered figure. He was presented as a good man and a great general whohad honorably fought for «his» peopme, never mind the part of the population that was black, ecauseb they didnt coibtunt. There were lots of schools named for Lee and Jackson, but also for Nathan Bedford Forrest and others youve never heard of. We played football against the Rebels ever year.

No. What is wrong with you? You are generally smarter than that.

Groups cannot arbitrarily decide to defend property, not their own, with deadly violence.

The answer to the first mob destroying property is arrest and the courts, if those in authority see it as chargeable. Remember the courts and US constitution do allow for some levels of civil disobedience as part of protest and it is up to them to determine if something crosses a line, not random other citizens.

Imagine making it defensible for groups to arbitrarily decide that THIS incident of property destruction, not their own, is worthy of a death sentence on the spot for those damaging it.