• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread Tearing Down Statues Associated With Racial Injustice

And exactly what I said was going to happen has happened.

The Left's "Which statue is good enough" cause purity and the Right's "No statue can be taken down until we mathematically show the exact evil a statue must represent before it can be taken down" hairsplitting have achieved perfect balance.
 
Cainkane1 said:
It isn't hard at all. We do tend to obey the law.
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry, no one is buying this charade.

We’ve all seen Trump openly celebrate criminality and his supporters cheer him on.

We’ve all seen Trump supporters defy state-mandated health and safety orders during the pandemic.

Trump supporters care about as much for the rule of law as they do for things like science and empathy.
 
johnny karate said:
Yeah sorry, no one is buying this charade.

We’ve all seen Trump openly celebrate criminality and his supporters cheer him on.

We’ve all seen Trump supporters defy state-mandated health and safety orders during the pandemic.

Trump supporters care about as much for the rule of law as they do for things like science and empathy.
Click to expand...

I think you're ignoring the inherent paradox here, though. Most of the Trump supporters I've seen seem truly to believe they are acting in their interest - supporting things that will make America great, the rule of law and order, moral rectitude and so forth. That you consider their principles to be based on lies, error and prejudice does not mean they don't believe them. People often vote against their better interests, whether by deception or principle. I certainly do!

I am not ready to suggest that such supporters are not sincere believers in the principles they and their leaders mouth, just because they are so enamored of the flag-waving rhetoric that they support a lawless, mendacious immoralist who is more likely to destroy our country than to make it great.

Saying I sincerely hope that Cainkane, and other canines present and past will see defeat in November is not to say I wouldn't feel reasonably safe sitting down with them for a beer.
 
Another Columbus statue toppled by vandals. For those keeping score, and one more statue to the "not Confederate" side.
 
johnny karate said:
I’ll step forward and volunteer to “own all of it”.

In general, I don’t care all that much about statues and vandalism.

In the current state of the world, I laugh in the face of all the hand-wringers and concern trolls who pretend this is a problem of any significance.

So now that I’ve “owned all it”, what horrible and inevitable consequence have I failed to foresee?
Click to expand...

I have a feeling, based on previous history, that you aren't going to be very receptive to an honest answer to your question. I think your mind is pretty made up and not really amenable to reconsideration You have your set of concerns, and statues don't make the list, except for the ones you want destroyed, and no one else's concerns really matter. However, I'll give it a shot anyway.

There are right wing Libertarians I know of who don't think there should be anything at all like public parks. All property should be commercial. If people want what is offered by parks, they can pay a fee to enjoy parks. Those people not interested in park land can skip the fee.

I disagree. I think it is a good idea to have public spaces, but as soon as you have a public space, someone is going to want to decorate it. However, different people have different tastes in decoration. Not everyone can win. So, how to decide which sorts of decoration go into a park? It seems to me that's what elected governments are for. I want parks, and exactly which sort of parks and how they are decorated is the function of government officials in charge of parkland to decide, on behalf of the people, and mindful of the people's desires.

And the concept of decorating public spaces isn't exclusive to parks. There are decorations, artwork, monuments, and the like in town squares, traffic circles, public buildings and all sorts of publicly owned spaces.

By taking away that decision from government officials and effectively giving any crowd willing to destroy the chosen decorations a veto power, it makes it very difficult for the government to provide any sort of parks or decorations, because any minority of dissenting people can destroy the work of those who sought to improve the appearance of the city or other public space.

Another line of argument against your position has to do with the past and how it is remembered. Is there anything at all that happened in the past worth reminding people about? i don't mean just in a history book in a classroom, but presenting it to people in such a way as to suggest a common approval from the community, a sort of official endorsement?

Frankly I think a lot of young people act as if there is nothing. The relics of the past, whether generals or elk, are just boring old stuff from before they were born, and they don't think that there is anything worth venerating about any time that occurred before their birth. This attitude creates a very selfish group of people, and creates people unlikely to learn from history. I don't think statue destruction actually causes that attitude. I think it's more of a reflection. However, tolerating that statue destruction I think contributes to the attitude.

In general, I think statue destruction is less of a cause than a symptom. So, the consequences of statue destruction will not be severe. Rather, the statue destruction is actually a consequence of the sort of attitude that puts my interests, my concerns, or, if truth be told, my impulses, above the concerns of my community. I think we see that run rampant in our world today, and it isn't limited to either left wing or right wing politicians and their supporters. It's equally bad for both.

I think communities, whether municipalities or nations, are fundamentally stronger if we work toward common goals, instead of placing personal desires and whims ahead of community interests. Statue destruction doesn't create that selfish attitude, but it does reflect that selfishness, that feeling that I am more important than the rest of the community, and so I need not wait for their approval in destroying a public display at which I take offense. I think in opposing statue destruction by the mob, and requiring the approval of the civic authorities before destroying public decorations is a step toward restoring a sense of pride in community, rather than the first person priorities so prevalent in our modern society.
 
Last edited:
By the way, I shouldn't really have to repeat myself, but not everyone reads entire threads, and not everyone who does pays attention, so it's no big deal to repeat myself. What I'm about to say, you've heard before if you have followed the thread.


Sometimes, there are, occasionally, exceptions to the rule of waiting for authorities to act in the public interest. Sometimes, government does not respond to the clear will of the people. In such cases, I still do not condone the destruction of public property, i.e. toppling statues, but I am at least sympathetic to the mob. In practice, that means I shed no tears for the destruction of a Jefferson Davis monument, because I think many similar monuments are erected specifically to work against a portion of the public interest, specifically to intimidate black people and deprive them of their rights. Such actions are inimical to the functioning of the kind of democracy that I think should be fostered, and represent a breakdown of that function. In other words, majority rule isn't always the ideal way to steer a government. However, it is the default position, and in almost all cases, it is best to leave public decorations to the majority will. The exceptions should be few and far between.
 
johnny karate said:
A concern for some kind of vague threat of mob rule isn’t particularly compelling, and smacks of disingenuous right wing propaganda being pushed by the likes of Fox News.

I’ll give you an example of what a significant and specific threat actually looks like: All of our lives and wellbeing put at risk by right wingers refusing to comply with basic health and safety protocols during a pandemic. There’s a legitimate connection between the conduct of these people and an actual, tangible threat.

“Statue vandalism = A descent into anarchy” is a stupid and vacuous argument.

Do better.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the fifteen to twenty million racist Nazis participating in the Boy George riots?
 
Meadmaker said:
By the way, I shouldn't really have to repeat myself, but not everyone reads entire threads, and not everyone who does pays attention, so it's no big deal to repeat myself. What I'm about to say, you've heard before if you have followed the thread.


Sometimes, there are, occasionally, exceptions to the rule of waiting for authorities to act in the public interest. Sometimes, government does not respond to the clear will of the people. In such cases, I still do not condone the destruction of public property, i.e. toppling statues, but I am at least sympathetic to the mob. In practice, that means I shed no tears for the destruction of a Jefferson Davis monument, because I think many similar monuments are erected specifically to work against a portion of the public interest, specifically to intimidate black people and deprive them of their rights. Such actions are inimical to the functioning of the kind of democracy that I think should be fostered, and represent a breakdown of that function. In other words, majority rule isn't always the ideal way to steer a government. However, it is the default position, and in almost all cases, it is best to leave public decorations to the majority will. The exceptions should be few and far between.
Click to expand...

Yet the statues were never ".. best to leave public decorations to the majority will."
 
JoeMorgue said:
I don't care what anyone's ancestor did to anyone else's ancestor. I am not culpable for what some dead white man who shared my DNA and my last name did a hundred or two hundred or a thousand years ago. That's why the whole "Oh why my ancestors didn't own slaves, my family didn't come here until the 1920s!" thing is just so goddamn droll to me. Did you personally own slaves? No? That's the only distinction that matters.

I get that this puts me at some weird crossroads but there's a huge difference between trying to fix the actual lingering effects of slavery and colonialism that are actually happening to people now in the real which (which the discussion we are having has to do in order to be anywhere near intellectually honest) and playing the "You owe me because 200 years ago your great great great grandaddy did something to my great great great grandaddy" card.

America needs to address the current problems of racism that slavery and colonialism are still causing. But slavery and colonialism aren't sins we should just be expected to pay for forever with our ledger never moving from red to black especially since all the slaves, all the slave-owners, all the colonialist, are all dead.

Trying to pretend racism and colonialism doesn't inform racism today is bigoted nonsense. But that's context to actual problems being faced today being done by people who are still alive to other people who are still alive. Constant little call backs to stuff people who are dead generations over did to other people who are dead generations over is nonsense
Click to expand...

The point being made is that the descendants of those who did own slaves are enjoying the economic benefits of that ownership.
 
bruto said:
I wonder about that too, but one must remember that it's quite likely that none of her supposedly black ancestors was actually purely black either. After all, if she were being characterized by race she'd be counted as "black" too. I think part of the point here is that there is no "us versus them" dividing line, because the prevalence of rape in the culture of enslavement was so widespread.

I am not sure what "the DL" means here, but would contend that enslavement taints consent to the extent that it cannot really be considered a useful word, especially if the offspring of a union are enslaved.

As to the possibility of infidelities in a background, there is, of course, that possibility for everyone, but remember too that her background as a southerner likely puts those ancestors in a segregated world where consent is also at least a little bit tainted, and carries with it the unpleasant odor of presumption in which it is hinted, if not presumed, that infidelity among her sort, and ignorance of one's family circumstances, is more likely than unlikely.
Click to expand...

I saw a programme on TV that in the USA you can be white-skinned and your family has been for generations and yet still be labelled 'black' on your birth certificate because of a past ancestor.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Yes, excluding black units and troops from the Paris liberation parade was very welcoming by the French even when the Free french Army had black colonial units that fought their way to Paris and were involved in the liberation of the city.
Click to expand...

How kind of the French to volunteer their Algerian troops as cannon fodder.
 
Cainkane1 said:
Tearing down something that doesn't belong to you is wrong on its face. If a statue or anything else needs removing people should go through proper legal channels.
Click to expand...

As I recall, one of the problems was, the police were unable to prosecute because it needed an 'owner' who had been deprived of said statue.
 
And I see that Donald Trump thinks statues are a winning political issue for him. His "Garden of Heroes" is an interesting concept.

I doubt it will work. I think people will see it as what it is: A cheap stunt. I think his electoral problem is his incompetence, and this will do nothing to make people feel that he is competent. I think it will go on the list of other recent publicity stunts that mostly result in eye rolling. On the other hand, I find it disturbing that he has been handed the issue at all. I take some comfort in the fact that I think he's bungling it.
 
Delphic Oracle said:
I must have missed the part where these Budhha statues were put up to reinforce Muslim inferiority and the decades of reasonable petitions being ignored to have them altered or moved to a more appropriate site to acknowledge that pain. I have also somehow overlooked the fact that pulling statues down with some ropes and chains obliterates it as effectively as explosive charges, preventing any human from ever gazing upon the artistic magnificence of it again.

I am ashamed of my ignorance, thank you for helping me to see the truth.
Click to expand...
:D :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom