GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by doodle » Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:59 pm

The Confederate army fought for the expansion and preservation of the subjugation of a race of people. Whether that was the only factor that led to the war is not relevant. The individuals in charge of that movement should not be eulogized in front of public buildings or in schools. Their histories should be reserved to the realm of museums.

Whatever the facts are regarding the veracity of systemic racism in our society and amongst the police, that is a separate issue. I do think that the facts have unfortunately been heavily ignored by the left...and that is disingenuous and dangerous to the honest dialogue that is necessary if we are to move forward with dealing with the issue of race in America. None of this however justifies the honoring of a brutal legacy of our past.
User avatar
Lonestar
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:56 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Lonestar » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:12 am

doodle wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:10 pm
stuper1 wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:14 pm
doodle wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:23 am
I think at the root of all of this is that many people don't want to live in a truly 'diverse' society.. I understand that. I know that a great deal of cultural diversity can create tension. But let's be scientific about this and discuss our honest beliefs about the functionality of the American melting pot rather than fighting these proxy wars over civil war statues and Confederate flags. I think a great many people on this forum probably would agree with Jared Taylor from American Renaissance's perspective on race relations namely that they don't want to live in a country where they (white men) are the racial minority or their western European culture takes a backseat or has to share the stage with other cultures.
I'm going to pick a couple countries at random to make a very simple point. Let's say that a guy is born in say Spain, grows up there, and still lives there. He is Spanish through and through. He likes Spanish culture. He's never really known anything else. Then, over time a bunch of people start coming to live in Spain from say Korea. Maybe a whole bunch of them move to the town where the first guy lives. Nobody asked him if he wanted to live next to a bunch of foreigners. Is it surprising that he wouldn't like that? Does that make him a racist? Maybe he loves to go to other countries, even Korea, to experience their cultures and expand his thinking. However, when he gets home, he wants to live in Spanish culture. Is he a bigot?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because people like the familiar doesn't mean that they are full of racial hatred. White people have built some wonderful societies. The fact that they are comfortable in those societies and want to maintain those societies is not surprising. When a bunch of people from another culture start moving in, and things start changing, it's not a surprise that the first people don't like it. Does that make them racists or bigots? No, it just means they like what they have built and what they are used to.
Fair enough. The problem with the United States though given this particular view is that much of it was built on the backs of immigrant and slave labor. So unlike many of the racially pure countries of the world, our foundation was a nation of great diversity. Of course there were many indentured white slaves as well at one time but given the color of their skin they could at least at some future point move into a position of assimilation. So looking at the reality of where we are now, how does one deal with the fact that more than 40 million Americans have to live in a society which glorifies the legacy of past generals and war heros who were fighting to maintain a system which brutalized and raped these people of their human dignity? This is an issue that I don't think you as part of the racial majority can understand...at least not viscerally. And yes, this won't solve racial tension, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
"And yes, this won't solve racial tension, but it's at least a step in the right direction"

Burning down neighborhoods and looting is a step in the right direction? The vast majority of the good folks living in those areas would probably not agree with you. They now have no Target, pharmacy, grocery store, clothing stores at which to shop.

Another difficult sell on your premise is going to be convincing those small business owners, mostly minorities, that the destruction of their businesses, a lifelong work in progress, is necessary because it's a step, not a solution. The owners I saw interviewed stated they had invested every penny they had plus years of hard work, only to see it disappear overnight. I guess they are just collateral damage.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by stuper1 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:18 am

You say they SHOULD not be eulogized. That is a very reasonable position. That is your opinion.

Are you the sole arbiter that gets to decide this question? Is anybody else allowed to have a contrary opinion?

Do we have a public process for deciding questions like this?

Actually, we have a multitude of such processes. Each state gets to decide which statues should rest on state ground. If you don't like the statue there, then follow the rule of law and go get a bill passed to get the statue removed. Each local government would also have the right to decide whether statues could rest on property owned by them. If you don't like the statue there, go to the local government and find out the process to get the statue removed.

That's how things are done in a civilized society. If you don't want to live in a civilized society, then move somewhere else. Guess what, the rule of law SHOULD be followed. It's there for a reason, to keep us out of mob rule and anarchy.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by doodle » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:18 am

Lonestar wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:12 am
doodle wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:10 pm
stuper1 wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:14 pm
doodle wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:23 am
I think at the root of all of this is that many people don't want to live in a truly 'diverse' society.. I understand that. I know that a great deal of cultural diversity can create tension. But let's be scientific about this and discuss our honest beliefs about the functionality of the American melting pot rather than fighting these proxy wars over civil war statues and Confederate flags. I think a great many people on this forum probably would agree with Jared Taylor from American Renaissance's perspective on race relations namely that they don't want to live in a country where they (white men) are the racial minority or their western European culture takes a backseat or has to share the stage with other cultures.
I'm going to pick a couple countries at random to make a very simple point. Let's say that a guy is born in say Spain, grows up there, and still lives there. He is Spanish through and through. He likes Spanish culture. He's never really known anything else. Then, over time a bunch of people start coming to live in Spain from say Korea. Maybe a whole bunch of them move to the town where the first guy lives. Nobody asked him if he wanted to live next to a bunch of foreigners. Is it surprising that he wouldn't like that? Does that make him a racist? Maybe he loves to go to other countries, even Korea, to experience their cultures and expand his thinking. However, when he gets home, he wants to live in Spanish culture. Is he a bigot?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because people like the familiar doesn't mean that they are full of racial hatred. White people have built some wonderful societies. The fact that they are comfortable in those societies and want to maintain those societies is not surprising. When a bunch of people from another culture start moving in, and things start changing, it's not a surprise that the first people don't like it. Does that make them racists or bigots? No, it just means they like what they have built and what they are used to.
Fair enough. The problem with the United States though given this particular view is that much of it was built on the backs of immigrant and slave labor. So unlike many of the racially pure countries of the world, our foundation was a nation of great diversity. Of course there were many indentured white slaves as well at one time but given the color of their skin they could at least at some future point move into a position of assimilation. So looking at the reality of where we are now, how does one deal with the fact that more than 40 million Americans have to live in a society which glorifies the legacy of past generals and war heros who were fighting to maintain a system which brutalized and raped these people of their human dignity? This is an issue that I don't think you as part of the racial majority can understand...at least not viscerally. And yes, this won't solve racial tension, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
"And yes, this won't solve racial tension, but it's at least a step in the right direction"

Burning down neighborhoods and looting is a step in the right direction? The vast majority of the good folks living in those areas would probably not agree with you. They now have no Target, pharmacy, grocery store, clothing stores at which to shop.

Another difficult sell on your premise is going to be convincing those small business owners, mostly minorities, that the destruction of their businesses, a lifelong work in progress, is necessary because it's a step, not a solution. The owners I saw interviewed stated they had invested every penny they had plus years of hard work, only to see it disappear overnight. I guess they are just collateral damage.
Where the hell did I advocate for burning and looting businesses? I feel like I'm having a debate in an insane asylum. I'm saying that defending and eulogizing the Confederate legacy on public buildings is bad policy. Nowhere have I condoned the activity of a group of criminals set on destroying property.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by doodle » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:22 am

stuper1 wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:18 am
You say they SHOULD not be eulogized. That is a very reasonable position. That is your opinion.

Are you the sole arbiter that gets to decide this question? Is anybody else allowed to have a contrary opinion?

Do we have a public process for deciding questions like this?

Actually, we have a multitude of such processes. Each state gets to decide which statues should rest on state ground. If you don't like the statue there, then follow the rule of law and go get a bill passed to get the statue removed. Each local government would also have the right to decide whether statues could rest on property owned by them. If you don't like the statue there, go to the local government and find out the process to get the statue removed.

That's how things are done in a civilized society. If you don't want to live in a civilized society, then move somewhere else. Guess what, the rule of law SHOULD be followed. It's there for a reason, to keep us out of mob rule and anarchy.
And I advocated for mobs tearing them down? I'm saying that the GOP defending the Confederate legacy is strangely ironic but more importantly divisive and bad policy. If you want to erect a Confederate statue on your front lawn go ahead...I don't see how anyone can justify naming a high school after Robert e Lee.
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by stuper1 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:36 am

This whole thread started off on the wrong foot because you said that the GOP is defending the Confederate legacy.

My interpretation is that the GOP is saying that mobs shouldn't be tearing down statues because there is a legal process that should be followed if statues are to come down. You apparently interpret that as the GOP defending Confederates. All the GOP is doing is saying that mobs shouldn't rule.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by doodle » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:46 am

Not only statues...Trump just recently decried the renaming of military installations named after Confederate generals. He's been defending this Confederate legacy since the beginning of his term. This is not about mobs tearing down statues.
User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by shekels » Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:54 am

doodle wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:46 am

I'm saying that the GOP defending the Confederate legacy is strangely ironic but more importantly divisive and bad policy. If you want to erect a Confederate statue on your front lawn go ahead...I don't see how anyone can justify naming a high school after Robert e Lee.


Not only statues...Trump just recently decried the renaming of military installations named after Confederate generals. He's been defending this Confederate legacy since the beginning of his term. This is not about mobs tearing down statues.
I would like to know what schools were named Robert E Lee RECENTLY.
Most of these schools were named Years ago along with the Statues were erected and placed Years ago.
To most people it is HISTORY, we let history be history.
So History is what I believe that people defend, no Slavery..

You seem to work Trump into the debate quite often, We know you Hate Trump or Dislike Trump and Fervently disagree with Trump,We get it.
What in the Grand scheme does this have to do with Trump when Obama turned down renaming bases also.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by doodle » Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:34 am

shekels wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:54 am
doodle wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:46 am

I'm saying that the GOP defending the Confederate legacy is strangely ironic but more importantly divisive and bad policy. If you want to erect a Confederate statue on your front lawn go ahead...I don't see how anyone can justify naming a high school after Robert e Lee.


Not only statues...Trump just recently decried the renaming of military installations named after Confederate generals. He's been defending this Confederate legacy since the beginning of his term. This is not about mobs tearing down statues.
I would like to know what schools were named Robert E Lee RECENTLY.
Most of these schools were named Years ago along with the Statues were erected and placed Years ago.
To most people it is HISTORY, we let history be history.
So History is what I believe that people defend, no Slavery..

You seem to work Trump into the debate quite often, We know you Hate Trump or Dislike Trump and Fervently disagree with Trump,We get it.
What in the Grand scheme does this have to do with Trump when Obama turned down renaming bases also.
Love how you love to work Hillary and Obama into debates. They are not relevant to the moment today...events change things. Will this solve the issue of race relations in America? Absolutely not. Is it the right thing to do as a society? Absolutely. It's a good faith concession. Public spaces shouldn't commemorate people who advocated things antithetical to a just and free society. A native American shouldn't have to attend a high with a statue of William Sherman out front and an African American shouldn't attend an institution commemorating the man who fought for preserving their bondage...it is tasteless....but what should I expect from a Trump supporter, your ability to evaluate acceptable decent behavior is obviously compromised.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Xan » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:07 am

Mostly the Native Americans were on the Confederate side. What does that do to your calculus? Also, blacks aren't necessarily a unified bloc on this either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHqa2uFw2Vc

Anybody have any confirmation on whether or not this is true? That the bill to rename military bases also requires the destruction of monuments to war dead?
https://www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-de ... cemeteries
User avatar
Lonestar
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:56 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Lonestar » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:09 am

doodle wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:18 am
Lonestar wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:12 am
doodle wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:10 pm
stuper1 wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:14 pm
doodle wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:23 am
I think at the root of all of this is that many people don't want to live in a truly 'diverse' society.. I understand that. I know that a great deal of cultural diversity can create tension. But let's be scientific about this and discuss our honest beliefs about the functionality of the American melting pot rather than fighting these proxy wars over civil war statues and Confederate flags. I think a great many people on this forum probably would agree with Jared Taylor from American Renaissance's perspective on race relations namely that they don't want to live in a country where they (white men) are the racial minority or their western European culture takes a backseat or has to share the stage with other cultures.
I'm going to pick a couple countries at random to make a very simple point. Let's say that a guy is born in say Spain, grows up there, and still lives there. He is Spanish through and through. He likes Spanish culture. He's never really known anything else. Then, over time a bunch of people start coming to live in Spain from say Korea. Maybe a whole bunch of them move to the town where the first guy lives. Nobody asked him if he wanted to live next to a bunch of foreigners. Is it surprising that he wouldn't like that? Does that make him a racist? Maybe he loves to go to other countries, even Korea, to experience their cultures and expand his thinking. However, when he gets home, he wants to live in Spanish culture. Is he a bigot?

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that just because people like the familiar doesn't mean that they are full of racial hatred. White people have built some wonderful societies. The fact that they are comfortable in those societies and want to maintain those societies is not surprising. When a bunch of people from another culture start moving in, and things start changing, it's not a surprise that the first people don't like it. Does that make them racists or bigots? No, it just means they like what they have built and what they are used to.
Fair enough. The problem with the United States though given this particular view is that much of it was built on the backs of immigrant and slave labor. So unlike many of the racially pure countries of the world, our foundation was a nation of great diversity. Of course there were many indentured white slaves as well at one time but given the color of their skin they could at least at some future point move into a position of assimilation. So looking at the reality of where we are now, how does one deal with the fact that more than 40 million Americans have to live in a society which glorifies the legacy of past generals and war heros who were fighting to maintain a system which brutalized and raped these people of their human dignity? This is an issue that I don't think you as part of the racial majority can understand...at least not viscerally. And yes, this won't solve racial tension, but it's at least a step in the right direction.
"And yes, this won't solve racial tension, but it's at least a step in the right direction"

Burning down neighborhoods and looting is a step in the right direction? The vast majority of the good folks living in those areas would probably not agree with you. They now have no Target, pharmacy, grocery store, clothing stores at which to shop.

Another difficult sell on your premise is going to be convincing those small business owners, mostly minorities, that the destruction of their businesses, a lifelong work in progress, is necessary because it's a step, not a solution. The owners I saw interviewed stated they had invested every penny they had plus years of hard work, only to see it disappear overnight. I guess they are just collateral damage.
Where the hell did I advocate for burning and looting businesses? I feel like I'm having a debate in an insane asylum. I'm saying that defending and eulogizing the Confederate legacy on public buildings is bad policy. Nowhere have I condoned the activity of a group of criminals set on destroying property.
My apologies. I took your sentence out of context. I was just venting.
User avatar
doodle
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4658
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by doodle » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:39 am

Xan wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:07 am
Mostly the Native Americans were on the Confederate side. What does that do to your calculus? Also, blacks aren't necessarily a unified bloc on this either:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHqa2uFw2Vc
This "gotcha" debate style is like wrestling an octopus. We are no longer debating the issue but simply looking for any countervailing hypocrisy to toss into the scuffle to make it appear as if rational decisions are impossibly complex. The native Americans were in a fight for their survival. They would have allied themselves with an alien species hell bent on destroying the human race if it would have helped with their immediate chances of self preservation. To bring them into the mix to discredit the issue under discussion is nonsense....as for that video, Dave Chapelle did a piece on Clayton Bixby the black white supremacist...what can I say...I have a gay friend who votes for Evangelical Christian's who think his lifestyle will send him straight to hell. Some people don't have all the chairs at the table.
User avatar
shekels
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 520
Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:01 am

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by shekels » Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:25 am

doodle wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:34 am
shekels wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:54 am
doodle wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:46 am

I'm saying that the GOP defending the Confederate legacy is strangely ironic but more importantly divisive and bad policy. If you want to erect a Confederate statue on your front lawn go ahead...I don't see how anyone can justify naming a high school after Robert e Lee.


Not only statues...Trump just recently decried the renaming of military installations named after Confederate generals. He's been defending this Confederate legacy since the beginning of his term. This is not about mobs tearing down statues.
I would like to know what schools were named Robert E Lee RECENTLY.
Most of these schools were named Years ago along with the Statues were erected and placed Years ago.
To most people it is HISTORY, we let history be history.
So History is what I believe that people defend, no Slavery..

You seem to work Trump into the debate quite often, We know you Hate Trump or Dislike Trump and Fervently disagree with Trump,We get it.
What in the Grand scheme does this have to do with Trump when Obama turned down renaming bases also.
Love how you love to work Hillary and Obama into debates. They are not relevant to the moment today...events change things. Will this solve the issue of race relations in America? Absolutely not. Is it the right thing to do as a society? Absolutely. It's a good faith concession. Public spaces shouldn't commemorate people who advocated things antithetical to a just and free society. A native American shouldn't have to attend a high with a statue of William Sherman out front and an African American shouldn't attend an institution commemorating the man who fought for preserving their bondage...it is tasteless....but what should I expect from a Trump supporter, your ability to evaluate acceptable decent behavior is obviously compromised.
I mentioned Obama not Hillary.
Why? Obama had EIGHT YEARS to address the issue that You Blame Trump for....
When you disgrace yourself and resort to impugn someone I consider that to be a Troll..
Without responding to the R.E.L. subject I will just ignore you and not be Trolled further.
Good Day.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Mountaineer » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:59 am

Simonjester wrote: i don't think doodle is arguing in bad faith or trolling. he is arguing from emotions and feeling, he has said several time that he often agrees regarding Trumps actual policy's, the thing is "You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into" and our ugly history feels bad - tearing down the reminders (by mob or legal process, feels good) it is a tough jump to remove the dissidence between that.. and the fact that preserving history has value..

some things i think are important to the debate
- the feelings are largely driven by media and propaganda, lots of feelings based voters out there, close enough to be a majority some times..
-beware of projection and division. there are a large number of feelings based solutions that get proposed by people who cannot admit to themselves there own subtle racism, and project it out onto everyone else..
- government actions driven by feelings always generate the worst sort of unintended consequences.
- often those consequences are the exact type of division and resentment toward "Others" that they propose to solve..
Simonjester, this is one of the best posts I've seen for a while on the subject. But, I tend toward the rational vs. the emotional. ;)

My opinions re. tearing down the statues and other violent means of expressing oneself by those who are not able to maintain self-control:
1. I am not a proponent of rewriting history.
2. My feelings are not easily hurt; I tend to subscribe to the "live and let live" view - I am only somewhat in charge of myself and almost zero incharge of anyone else. I am the only one I can change.
3. I'm thinking if I am living in a city/state/country/society where I'm the minority view on circumstances I have two rational choices: 1. suck it up and make the best of my situation, or, 2. leave and go somewhere that better aligns with my values/ethics/morals/beliefs.
4. I recognize we are all sinners and that sin has been dealt with once and for all. The best thing I can do is love God and love neighbor and ask for mercy when I fall short. What I see going on in the news is certainly not loving neighbor.

Enough on the topic from me. Thanks again for your post.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4959
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Mountaineer » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:42 pm

Simonjester wrote: thanks mountaineer
here is a quote that seems like it is up your alley

Edmund Burke
“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites… in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”
Spot on! Nothing better than a Whig with a wig. O0

Thanks for the Burke quote. Caused me to read up on him again.

.
DNA has its own language (code), and language requires intelligence. There is no known mechanism by which matter can give birth to information, let alone language. It is unreasonable to believe the world could have happened by chance.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Xan » Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:18 pm

You know what Doodle, you may be right. Maybe it is just in bad taste for people who don't like these symbols/statues etc to have to see them on public property. Maybe I've been reluctant to give an inch because a mile will be taken. (As if my opinion matters, which it doesn't, but arguing about things we can't do anything about is a big part of what we do here!)

If removing Confederate imagery actually does help people who don't like it be less angry at the world, then maybe doing so is worthwhile. And, perhaps moving statues away from the public square would at least preserve the statues themselves from vandalism and destruction.

Note that I'm really not willing to give an inch in terms of removing imagery, names, etc from cemeteries, museums, and perhaps other things like that.

My real concerns with giving this inch are:
* What replaces these things? Will we now need to look at statues of Malcolm X and commemorations of the Black Panthers?

* What about collateral damage? For example, there was a school in town named after Sidney Lanier. He was a musician, poet, and author, a teacher, church organist, eventually a professor of literature at Johns Hopkins. Oh and he was a private in the CSA army during the war, so now the school has to be renamed. Does this make any sense?

* What about gratitude? For example, the University of Texas has many things named after Major George Washington Littlefield. Littlefield was on the Board of Regents and was the University's largest donor. Probably the school would exist without him, but it wouldn't be what it is today. He fought in the war and so now he has to be memory-holed.

* When will it ever be enough? In Britain they've vandalized and had to cover up a statue of Winston Churchill. If we take down Confederate statues, will everything will be taken down that doesn't fit with the political winds of the day? I mean for the British to turn on Churchill, who I don't think it's a stretch to say literally personally saved them just 75 years ago... This is scary stuff.
User avatar
Lonestar
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 7:56 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Lonestar » Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:25 pm

Xan wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:18 pm
You know what Doodle, you may be right. Maybe it is just in bad taste for people who don't like these symbols/statues etc to have to see them on public property. Maybe I've been reluctant to give an inch because a mile will be taken. (As if my opinion matters, which it doesn't, but arguing about things we can't do anything about is a big part of what we do here!)

If removing Confederate imagery actually does help people who don't like it be less angry at the world, then maybe doing so is worthwhile. And, perhaps moving statues away from the public square would at least preserve the statues themselves from vandalism and destruction.

Note that I'm really not willing to give an inch in terms of removing imagery, names, etc from cemeteries, museums, and perhaps other things like that.

My real concerns with giving this inch are:
* What replaces these things? Will we now need to look at statues of Malcolm X and commemorations of the Black Panthers?

* What about collateral damage? For example, there was a school in town named after Sidney Lanier. He was a musician, poet, and author, a teacher, church organist, eventually a professor of literature at Johns Hopkins. Oh and he was a private in the CSA army during the war, so now the school has to be renamed. Does this make any sense?

* What about gratitude? For example, the University of Texas has many things named after Major George Washington Littlefield. Littlefield was on the Board of Regents and was the University's largest donor. Probably the school would exist without him, but it wouldn't be what it is today. He fought in the war and so now he has to be memory-holed.

* When will it ever be enough? In Britain they've vandalized and had to cover up a statue of Winston Churchill. If we take down Confederate statues, will everything will be taken down that doesn't fit with the political winds of the day? I mean for the British to turn on Churchill, who I don't think it's a stretch to say literally personally saved them just 75 years ago... This is scary stuff.
Xan,

You make a great point. Yes, everyone has some issues in their lives that would offend another person. We all look at history from a different perspective, but the resume of any notable person will reveal a reason to question if they are truly "monument worthy". With this in mind, have we reached a point that it would be better to have no statues or monuments, as well as no buildings or streets named after individuals? This is starting to fall into the category of political correctness. We must build a world that offends no person. Or, am I exaggerating the original topic of this thread?
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by stuper1 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:56 pm

A comment on an article posted at unz.com:

As a white, whenever I am accused of bathing in my “white privilege” I respond with the following: Yes, I am privileged, because to be a member of the race that created Western Civilization and much of the modern world, brought the majority of the planet’s people out from under extreme subsistence poverty, eradicated many diseases, invented science, abolished slavery for the first time in human history, and established that the individual has worth, has given me a sense of pride in my self, culture and civilization. I glory in that privilege and feel honored to be be a recipient of its blessings.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by vnatale » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:45 pm

Xan wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:18 pm

* When will it ever be enough? In Britain they've vandalized and had to cover up a statue of Winston Churchill. If we take down Confederate statues, will everything will be taken down that doesn't fit with the political winds of the day? I mean for the British to turn on Churchill, who I don't think it's a stretch to say literally personally saved them just 75 years ago... This is scary stuff.
The British actually turned on Churchill 75 years ago when they did not re-elect him in July 1945, one month prior to World War II ending.

Vinny
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Libertarian666 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:24 am

Lonestar wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 10:25 pm
Xan wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 9:18 pm
You know what Doodle, you may be right. Maybe it is just in bad taste for people who don't like these symbols/statues etc to have to see them on public property. Maybe I've been reluctant to give an inch because a mile will be taken. (As if my opinion matters, which it doesn't, but arguing about things we can't do anything about is a big part of what we do here!)

If removing Confederate imagery actually does help people who don't like it be less angry at the world, then maybe doing so is worthwhile. And, perhaps moving statues away from the public square would at least preserve the statues themselves from vandalism and destruction.

Note that I'm really not willing to give an inch in terms of removing imagery, names, etc from cemeteries, museums, and perhaps other things like that.

My real concerns with giving this inch are:
* What replaces these things? Will we now need to look at statues of Malcolm X and commemorations of the Black Panthers?

* What about collateral damage? For example, there was a school in town named after Sidney Lanier. He was a musician, poet, and author, a teacher, church organist, eventually a professor of literature at Johns Hopkins. Oh and he was a private in the CSA army during the war, so now the school has to be renamed. Does this make any sense?

* What about gratitude? For example, the University of Texas has many things named after Major George Washington Littlefield. Littlefield was on the Board of Regents and was the University's largest donor. Probably the school would exist without him, but it wouldn't be what it is today. He fought in the war and so now he has to be memory-holed.

* When will it ever be enough? In Britain they've vandalized and had to cover up a statue of Winston Churchill. If we take down Confederate statues, will everything will be taken down that doesn't fit with the political winds of the day? I mean for the British to turn on Churchill, who I don't think it's a stretch to say literally personally saved them just 75 years ago... This is scary stuff.
Xan,

You make a great point. Yes, everyone has some issues in their lives that would offend another person. We all look at history from a different perspective, but the resume of any notable person will reveal a reason to question if they are truly "monument worthy". With this in mind, have we reached a point that it would be better to have no statues or monuments, as well as no buildings or streets named after individuals? This is starting to fall into the category of political correctness. We must build a world that offends no person. Or, am I exaggerating the original topic of this thread?
It is impossible to build a world that offends no person.
Just as one example, I'm offended by this attempt to erase history.
But of course that isn't the intent. The intent is to frighten people into censoring themselves to avoid being accused of thoughtcrime.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by I Shrugged » Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:55 pm

Simonjester wrote: isn't it amazing/scary how much of what the left is up to has been cribbed directly from dystopian novels...

its like they read them and said YAY A HOW TO MANUAL...
Yes, great point. And the left's agenda is scarily like Mao's, and Pol Pot, et al. I see the whole woke culture as being very Maoist. It's frightening that people buy into that kind of thing so easily. You micro-aggressed me, so now you have to be cancelled and sent to reeducation camp.

And that is happening! The camp is not the same thing as Mao's, but you can sense that there are those who wish it could be so.
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4392
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Xan » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:39 pm

One other thought on who gets to define what symbols mean.

People (particularly NFL players, it seems) who refuse to stand for the national anthem say that it's about police brutality, not about the flag or the anthem. And it seems that media which write about it swallow that entirely. Somebody points out that the protestors are being disrespectful to the flag, and then the media will write things like "even though the protestors have clearly said that the protests are not about the flag or the anthem".

It doesn't even make a lick of sense: their protest may be aimed against police brutality, but their mechanism of protest is to disrespect the flag. Yes, we all hear you SAY that you don't mean to disrespect the flag, but that's actually what you're doing.

So the principle must be that the person taking the action gets to define what it means, with no input from the people observing.

Yet, when somebody flies a Confederate flag and somebody else takes offense, it's the other way around. It's entirely up to the person observing the action who gets to define what it means, with no input from the people acting.

Clearly the actual principle is that the media will pick who gets to define the meaning depending on what story they want to push.
flyingpylon
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1102
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 9:04 am

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by flyingpylon » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:00 pm

Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:39 pm
One other thought on who gets to define what symbols mean.

People (particularly NFL players, it seems) who refuse to stand for the national anthem say that it's about police brutality, not about the flag or the anthem. And it seems that media which write about it swallow that entirely. Somebody points out that the protestors are being disrespectful to the flag, and then the media will write things like "even though the protestors have clearly said that the protests are not about the flag or the anthem".

It doesn't even make a lick of sense: their protest may be aimed against police brutality, but their mechanism of protest is to disrespect the flag. Yes, we all hear you SAY that you don't mean to disrespect the flag, but that's actually what you're doing.

So the principle must be that the person taking the action gets to define what it means, with no input from the people observing.

Yet, when somebody flies a Confederate flag and somebody else takes offense, it's the other way around. It's entirely up to the person observing the action who gets to define what it means, with no input from the people acting.

Clearly the actual principle is that the media will pick who gets to define the meaning depending on what story they want to push.
It’s the group with the highest combined “grievance score” that gets to decide.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by Libertarian666 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:13 pm

flyingpylon wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:00 pm
Xan wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:39 pm
One other thought on who gets to define what symbols mean.

People (particularly NFL players, it seems) who refuse to stand for the national anthem say that it's about police brutality, not about the flag or the anthem. And it seems that media which write about it swallow that entirely. Somebody points out that the protestors are being disrespectful to the flag, and then the media will write things like "even though the protestors have clearly said that the protests are not about the flag or the anthem".

It doesn't even make a lick of sense: their protest may be aimed against police brutality, but their mechanism of protest is to disrespect the flag. Yes, we all hear you SAY that you don't mean to disrespect the flag, but that's actually what you're doing.

So the principle must be that the person taking the action gets to define what it means, with no input from the people observing.

Yet, when somebody flies a Confederate flag and somebody else takes offense, it's the other way around. It's entirely up to the person observing the action who gets to define what it means, with no input from the people acting.

Clearly the actual principle is that the media will pick who gets to define the meaning depending on what story they want to push.
It’s the group with the highest combined “grievance score” that gets to decide.
After the fascists get enough power, it's the ones with the most muscle that get to decide.
Simonjester wrote: i am surprised the MSM hasn't chosen to rename themselves the "ministry of truth". to counteract trumps calling them fake news, especially now that they are supporting the rewriting of history...
stuper1
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 7:18 pm

Re: GOP defending Confederate legacy?

Post by stuper1 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:26 pm

Somebody on this forum the other day was claiming that Trump displays fascist tendencies.

Isn't it the leftists that are displaying the fascist tendencies these days? Say one word wrong and you will be "cancelled".
Post Reply