Charlottesville

[dualstow]

Watched it last night, Desert. Good speech.
Someone sent me the Vice video this morning, too, which I look forward too. Vice is always good.

One more video, one which many of you have probably already seen. New Orleans is one of my favorite cities. Here's the mayor of NO talking about history and monuments:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/na ... 5d3e51692a

I beg you all to watch this one. He makes so many good points.

[Cortopassi]

Both videos were great, and I need to start watching Vice.

I have one question for all that I am having a hard time resolving in my mind. I only heard bits of what Trump discussed yesterday. The part that stuck with me was the talk of the statues, and when he got to talking about Washington and Jefferson owning slaves, and should we pull statues of them down as well?

From one perspective, that would almost seem to make sense. From another, that would seem to be rewriting and sanitizing history and how people lived back then.

Interested in any thoughts on this.

[dualstow]

@Corto: It was one of those few times I agreed with Trump, since he was implying that no, it would be going to far to pull Jefferson. (I was actually typing something along similar lines to moda just now in the Durham thread).

Leave a statue up, piss people off.
Take a statue down, piss other people off.

[MWKXJ]

I'm mostly talking about using all this as an excuse to tear down any Confederate statue or memorial, which I find to be very sad. Fine, racism is a bad idea. The North was just as racist. So why tear down these statues?

Why is it sad to remove statues of traitors that defended the horrific practice of slavery that resulted in innumerable deaths, the fracturing of families, and terrible human abuse? I don't understand that reaction at all.

If only the puritans, abolitionists, and social justice zealots of the North would---just once---let loose the wrath of their righteousness upon their own sins rather than upon those of their neighbors...

The number of persons engaged in the slave-trade, and the amount of capital embarked in it, exceed our powers of calculation. The city of New York has been until of late the principal port of the world for this infamous commerce; although the cities of Portland and Boston are only second to her in that distinction.

"The Slave-Trade in New York", Continental Monthly, January 1862

They drag the Negro from his native shore,
Make him a slave, and then his fate deplore;
Sell him in distant countries, and when sold,
Revile the buyers, but retain the gold:
Dext'rous to win, in time, by various ways,
Substantial profit and alluring praise,
By turns they grow rapacious and humane,
And seize alike the honor and the gain:
Had Joseph's brethren known this modern art,
And played with skill the philanthropic part,
How had bold Judah raved in freedom's cause,
How Levi cursed the foul Egyptian laws,
And Issachar, in speech or long report,
Brayed at the masters found in Pharaoh's court,
And taught the king himself the sin to hold
Enslaved the brother they had lately sold,
Proving that sins of traffic never lie
On knaves who sell, but on the dupes that buy.

"The Hireling and the Slave", William J Grayson, 1856

[WiseOne]

These statues, whatever they symbolize to different people, are a piece of history and also works of art. Destroying them because of an opinion or movement du jour is sad and short-sighted. Perhaps it's good to have a reminder of past events, whether or not they are something to be proud of.

If every statue or memorial can be pulled down because someone, somewhere, at some point in time is offended, we'd have none left given enough time. And museums would be conspicuously empty.

[moda0306]

I'm mostly talking about using all this as an excuse to tear down any Confederate statue or memorial, which I find to be very sad. Fine, racism is a bad idea. The North was just as racist. So why tear down these statues?

Why is it sad to remove statues of traitors that defended the horrific practice of slavery that resulted in innumerable deaths, the fracturing of families, and terrible human abuse? I don't understand that reaction at all.

If only the puritans, abolitionists, and social justice zealots of the North would---just once---let loose the wrath of their righteousness upon their own sins rather than upon those of their neighbors...

The number of persons engaged in the slave-trade, and the amount of capital embarked in it, exceed our powers of calculation. The city of New York has been until of late the principal port of the world for this infamous commerce; although the cities of Portland and Boston are only second to her in that distinction.

"The Slave-Trade in New York", Continental Monthly, January 1862

They drag the Negro from his native shore,
Make him a slave, and then his fate deplore;
Sell him in distant countries, and when sold,
Revile the buyers, but retain the gold:
Dext'rous to win, in time, by various ways,
Substantial profit and alluring praise,
By turns they grow rapacious and humane,
And seize alike the honor and the gain:
Had Joseph's brethren known this modern art,
And played with skill the philanthropic part,
How had bold Judah raved in freedom's cause,
How Levi cursed the foul Egyptian laws,
And Issachar, in speech or long report,
Brayed at the masters found in Pharaoh's court,
And taught the king himself the sin to hold
Enslaved the brother they had lately sold,
Proving that sins of traffic never lie
On knaves who sell, but on the dupes that buy.

"The Hireling and the Slave", William J Grayson, 1856

Yeah, if only those darned abolitionists would look at themselves in the mirror...

But you're right to a large degree. We should all look in the mirror more. Rather than blaming others for our personal or moral failures, or anxiously waiting for society to conform to a way we want it to be.

[I Shrugged]

I've never been interested in seeing Mt. Rushmore. I guess I better see it before it is blown up.
As I read somewhere else today, what about the Roman Coliseum? Slaves were abused there. Slave owners were entertained there. Blow it up too.

[dualstow]

uh-oh, this is getting out of hand.

[Maddy]

Does anyone remember the episode from the Waltons where JohnBoy publishes excerpts from Hitler's Mein Kampf in an effort to bring the attention of his small rural community to what is going on in Nazi Germany? The town's response, to JohnBoy's horror, is to hold a public book-burning--a misguided attempt to eliminate an evil by burying all consciousness of it. JohnBoy's desperate, agitated response to the community is extremely apropos to the present discussion.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5cjx2h (Skip to 48:50)
Please watch it-- It couldn't be said better.

[dualstow]

I guess that was moda's problem with the Orwellian meme.
Orwell was writing about suppressing freedom of thought and erasing memory, but in Charlottesville the history books remain. And videos, and web pages...

[Maddy]

No, it is totally different. There is no attempt to bury history here. There is a fundamental difference between eliminating statues that glorify the Confederacy, and eliminating history. We have holocaust museums, but we don't have statues of Hitler. We can retain books, museum exhibits, etc. We don't need to publicly glorify the defenders of slavery.

But it's not just about the statues, Desert. It never is. As we speak, there are school districts around the country that have removed from their libraries copies of certain classic pieces of literature that do nothing more than portray the dominant values of an era deemed politically troubling. There is quite clearly a movement afoot to rewrite history and to remove from public consciousness certain inconvenient truths. The statues are just this week's target.

[ochotona]

I'm all for erecting plaques on every Confederate "hero" statue listing the name, gender, and year of birth of every shackled, enslaved human possessed by their household. Please no one start about how the life of slaves wasn't that bad, etc.

[Maddy]

I don't know what "classic books" you're referring to. Please list the titles. . .

Is this proof enough?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... harper-lee
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... 31a5a72c1c

[dualstow]

That is troubling.

I don't know what "classic books" you're referring to. Please list the titles. . .

Is this proof enough?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ ... harper-lee
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ed ... 31a5a72c1c

[dualstow]

If the past is any guide, banned titles become the cool things to read.
Even so, I don't like it.

[Maddy]

Oh gosh, what will school kids do without those classics. I think the poor little kiddos will survive without learning the "N-lover" language in print. That will have to be taught at home now.

Seriously: are you really losing sleep over young children not reading this stuff?

What's worth losing sleep over is the loss of their freedom to read them. Which has a lot to do with their freedom to think for themselves and to come to their own conclusions about the lessons of history.

[Maddy]

If the past is any guide, banned titles become the cool things to read.
Even so, I don't like it.

The kids can read it whenever they want. There's a difference between freedom and indoctrination. Just because a book ceases to be required reading doesn't mean it's unavailable. Go to Amazon or the library. I think we'll still be able to find the N word when we need to.

Not really, because Amazon is pulling titles. Just earlier this year, virtually all items with confederate themes were delisted.

I could go on, but that's not really the point. Once you've decided that it's all right to make it difficult, or even inconvenient, for people to discover certain truths, you've begun down a very dangerous and slippery slope.

[Maddy]

Next time, the roles will be reversed, and different people will be upset for different reasons . . .

You'd think that certain folks would have learned that lesson, considering the vast number of civil liberties that were trampled over the last decade based upon the utmost conviction that the political winds could never change.

[Maddy]

I am very confident that you'll be able to find Robert E. Lee images and racist language whenever you need it. I will bet you a whole shit ton of money on that. Place your bet. This is just right-wing fear mongering. Left wingers are just as good at it, but on this forum, we only hear from the right. So what do you think ... when will the slippery slope prevent my 10 year old son from reading racist language? What year?

Most people would regard "To Kill a Mockingbird," "Huckleberry Finn" and "The Diary of Ann Frank" as having a good deal more literary and historical significance than your statement would imply. Those books were not put on library shelves because they served a pornographic-like craving for racist images and language.

[Maddy]

Well, this seems like a reasonable place to sign off. It's well past my bedtime. Thanks for the discussion--I always enjoy it.

[Mountaineer]

The kids can read it whenever they want. There's a difference between freedom and indoctrination. Just because a book ceases to be required reading doesn't mean it's unavailable. Go to Amazon or the library. I think we'll still be able to find the N word when we need to.

Not really, because Amazon is pulling titles. Just earlier this year, virtually all items with confederate themes were delisted.

I could go on, but that's not really the point. Once you've decided that it's all right to make it difficult, or even inconvenient, for people to discover certain truths, you've begun down a very dangerous and slippery slope.

yeah, like trying to read a Bible in school?

Seriously though, I don't buy the slippery slope argument here. I am very confident that you'll be able to find Robert E. Lee images and racist language whenever you need it. I will bet you a whole shit ton of money on that. Place your bet. This is just right-wing fear mongering. Left wingers are just as good at it, but on this forum, we only hear from the right. So what do you think ... when will the slippery slope prevent my 10 year old son from reading racist language? What year?

Probably can't read the Bible in public schools because it contains the word "slave", 181 times in the NIV. Will the Bible be next on the remove from classics list because it contains nasty stories? Surely we would not want our little darlings exposed to such hideous ideas; we must create more snowflakes to offset global warming.

On a serious note, I do not think one can fully understand and appreciate good unless they also understand evil. And, evil will never be eliminated by man, no matter how hard some try to create heaven on earth by getting rid of things they perceive as evil (e.g. statues, or books, or flags in this case). Much better to spend our energy focused on the real solution to the problem, i.e. what has already been done to solve the problem versus what we humans need to do.

[Mountaineer]

Here are a a couple of articles about the type of people who attend protest gatherings, and why (perhaps Trump on rare occasions?) does not rise to the bait as often as many would like. Many conservatives continue to be duped by rabble rousers (on either side) who have an agenda of their own:

This video captures in one little example the broad experience of conservatives who try to "come together" with progressives to express horror at hatred and violence and mourn the victims of it. It quickly becomes clear that the progressives are there to express horror at conservatism generally, meaning that unrepentant conservatives are not welcome.
http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/st ... g-yaf-cap/

If you’re not familiar with the “Peanuts” football gag, well, shame on you, you culturally illiterate buffoon. But, as a gesture of goodwill, let me describe it for you: Lucy van Pelt grabs a football and urges Charlie Brown to kick it. Charlie Brown desperately wants to kick the football, so despite his reservations over Lucy’s intentions, he sprints towards the ball and swings his leg in the air. But, just as she’s done every time, Lucy yanks the ball away at the last second and Charlie Brown falls flat on his back. Just as he suspected, she didn’t actually want him to kick the football. She just wanted to use the football as a ruse to humiliate him.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/08/16/pea ... supremacy/

[farjean2]

yeah, like trying to read a Bible in school?

Probably can't read the Bible in public schools because it contains the word "slave", 181 times in the NIV. Will the Bible be next on the remove from classics list because it contains nasty stories? Surely we would not want our little darlings exposed to such hideous ideas; we must create more snowflakes to offset global warming.

I would be very much in favor of teaching the Bible in public schools as long as it could be done without religious proselytizing or watering down what it actually says. I'd say to use the KJV but it probably wouldn't pass obscenity codes (like David going into a village to kill everyone that pisses against the wall).

Christians probably ought not to be in favor of this however, because I believe the more people know about what the "Good Book" actually says, the more likely they are to reject it. You really need to hide it from the kids until they are older and you can get them indoctrinated with religious teachings before they take a serious look at it (if they ever do - which most don't).

(Correction: In the KJV it says "pisseth", not "pisses". I think modern translations simply say "men" but the Bible is much more colorful when you translate it literally.)

[Maddy]

Just for the record, the above wasn't my quote.

[Mountaineer]

Just for the record, the above wasn't my quote.

The misattribution happens easily when quoters do not give the full quote - In my opinion, it is better to quote a whole post, including all the sub posts even if it gets messy, so all can see the correct context; otherwise all sorts of mischief can happen and who know what all those bots who are cruising our forum do with that incorrect information. However, I'm guilty of not following my own guidance sometimes.