U.S. Politics

[magnkarl]

This all reminds me a bit of the street fights we saw in Germany in the 20's and early 30's. Sturmabteilung against Roter Frontkämpferbund. Lots of people got killed in violent brawls in the street and it ultimately led to Hitler getting into power because he promised he'd end the violence. Nothing good comes from vigilante violence against violent people. The American state needs stricter laws on hate speech and a president who's not hand in hand with either end of the extreme political spectrum.

[NurembergVillan]

Why they're not really statues offering historical insight.

[magnkarl]

Quote

‘Sanitizing History’: Condoleezza Rice Slams Attempts to Remove Slave Owners’ Monuments

https://www.mediaite.com/online/sanitizing-history-condoleezza-rice-slams-attempts-to-remove-slave-owners-monuments/

Quote

“When you start wiping out your history — sanitizing your history — to make you feel better, it’s a bad thing,” Rice said.

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by magnkarl

[Rodders]

And I would agree that attempts to wipe out some emblems of history and not replace those monuments with other means of informing historical education would be a bad thing.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's worth pointing out that the group who disagreed with the statue coming down, proceeded to march on Charlottesville with Nazi flags and assault rifles.

This isn't about people being upset about a statue coming down and history being erased.

You don't mobilise with Nazi flags and assault rifles if you're upset about an erasure of history.

Which makes any sort of defence against the removal of such statues completely nonsensical. 

It's also worth pointing out that marching with Nazi flags and assault rifles is legal in America. 

Americans pointing at Trump with glee when it is the entire society that has a problem, e.g., the back patting that went on after electing Obama, as if that solved (as opposed to denoting iterative progress) something.

[villakram]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

It's a totally nonsensical point.

Your argument is to compare those who want it pulled down to ISIS.

Completely absurd.

In your posts about this, I'm yet to see any condemnation of the neo-nazis in Charlottesville.

All you've done is make a vague point about who the real 'bad guys' are, and compare those who want the statue down to ISIS.

Pretty worrying.

So we are to publicly say that Nazi's are bad? See the post approx. above your one quoted regarding the self evident nature of this.

I don't mean to pick on you, but we have to be careful in these discussions least we simply ostracize those who have similar opinions but don't need to jump up and down about it. There's an interesting and very necessary debate occurring, trying to shut it down (and that's what these things lead to) via claims of moral superiority is a well worn and dangerous path.

[mjmooney]

[blandy]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

It's an issue alright. I for one think that leaving statues up of people like Lee should serve as a reminder that slavery was horrible. Tearing them down only leads to idolism. If we're tearing down slave related statues in the US we also need to look at a lot of statues in London, Bristol, Manchester, Dublin and all the ports that shipped said slaves to America.

Forgetting history by wiping all trace of even horrible events (like tearing down statues at Oxford), is the wrong way to go IMO. There should have been a placard or description below Lee's statue about his bad deeds.

Some of the most thought invoking monuments around the world are negatively inspired. The burnt out cathedral spire that stands inside Hamburg to commemorate the 40.000 kids, elderly and women dying in allied bombing or Dachau concentration camps are good examples. 

I agree with this point. Although it's not really much of a deal in the scheme of things.

Maybe I've got some information wrong, but I thought in the case of this Charlotteville thing a decision was taken, based on sensitivities, views etc to remove a statue of Gen. Lee. Then what happened was a bunch of far right Nazis and KKK and white supremacists decided to demonstrate against that.

Unsurprisingly normal people took exception to having the far right nazis, racists and swastika carriers marching though their town.

A nazi drove his car into a crowd of normal people objecting to the nazis, murdering a young woman and injuring many others.

Donald Trump said there were good people on both sides. This is laughable. Nazis aren't good people, nor are the KKK or white supremacists. They're atrociously vile.they are not good people.

Whether or not some normal people protesting are scruffy, lefty, a bit vandally..whatever. Is completely irrelevant. It's a Smokescreen. Unequivocally nazis are bad. No yes, but... No "well the antifa..." KKK bad, Nazis bad. End.

.

[maqroll]

7 hours ago, Chindie said:

He won't be. £10 to VT.

Deal. Prepare to die. I mean lose.

[blandy]

2 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

In Manchester, whilst yes it was a city that facilitated the slave trade, the only statue pertaining to someone who touched that "industry" is Abraham Lincoln who, from memory, wasn't that into it.

In Liverpool, which was a major slave trading centre (and in Bristol too, I think) there are stone records of slavery all over the place - on buildings and such like.

I don't think necessarily that a move to eradicate all traces of these terrible things ever having happened is necessarily the best way to deal with it. The point that we need, perhaps to be reminded of the sins of our predecessors is not a bad one.

How you exactly draw the line between some idiots celebrating it and the rest of us respectfully being aware of past horrors is a dificult thing to define, but like MagnKarl, I don't think wiping it all out is any better a solution than leaving everything in place.

 

[edit] I've caught up now _ I was a few pages behind when I wrote this. Others have said it better. soz]

[magnkarl]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

In Liverpool, which was a major slave trading centre (and in Bristol too, I think) there are stone records of slavery all over the place - on buildings and such like.

I don't think necessarily that a move to eradicate all traces of these terrible things ever having happened is necessarily the best way to deal with it. The point that we need, perhaps to be reminded of the sins of our predecessors is not a bad one.

How you exactly draw the line between some idiots celebrating it and the rest of us respectfully being aware of past horrors is a dificult thing to define, but like MagnKarl, I don't think wiping it all out is any better a solution than leaving everything in place.

I went to South Carolina in the 80's with my son. We went to past one of said monuments. He asked me what it's about and it gave me an opportunity to explain the Civil War, slavery and why the confederates deserved to lose. That is what a statue should be about. Not walking around with your KKK buddies in a bed-sheet or pulling it down like a bunch of irrational kids. 

[PompeyVillan]

If African Americans and other minorities were not institutionally marginalised then perhaps they'd be willing to see an old statue as a part of history.

However, it isn't part of history, it's a reminder of both historical and contemporary oppression. 

As ever, context is key. 

[magnkarl]

3 minutes ago, PompeyVillan said:

If African Americans and other minorities were not institutionally marginalised then perhaps they'd be willing to see an old statue as a part of history.

However, it isn't part of history, it's a reminder of both historical and contemporary oppression. 

As ever, context is key. 

So, as someone who's Jewish I should be angry about Germany every time I go there? If you go to Nuremberg the Nazi congressional rally grounds are still there, golden ball room and all.

General Lee fought for a country that no longer exists over 160 years ago. There's being victimised currently and then there's your ancestors being victimised. The statue isn't contemporary at all. 

USA in its current format beat Robert E Lee and his country.

[Rodders]

Have a look at the **** racial killings in the states. The history is still very **** present whereas the third reich ended 72 years ago and germany is led by a democratic state.  Again if there was racial harmony in the states now, then the old monuments would maybe be viewed more tolerably as a distasteful monument to the past. It's hardly surprising rgat in such volatile and tense times where blacks are often on the end of institutional abuse or killings that such monuments evoke more heightened emotions.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I went to South Carolina in the 80's with my son. We went to past one of said monuments. He asked me what it's about and it gave me an opportunity to explain the Civil War, slavery and why the confederates deserved to lose. That is what a statue should be about. Not walking around with your KKK buddies in a bed-sheet or pulling it down like a bunch of irrational kids. 

You could achieve exactly the same education, and considerably more thoroughly, just by talking to them, or by giving them a book, or by watching educational TV shows. The primary function of statues is not education. Against the extremely minor and easily-replaced benefit you get from discussing issues raised by a statue on the rare occasion you come across one, is the feeling that many people have that it's pretty uncool to celebrate people who fought to keep their ancestors in chains. Some of those people actually live in South Carolina, rather than holidaying there.  

[PompeyVillan]

6 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

So, as someone who's Jewish I should be angry about Germany every time I go there? If you go to Nuremberg the Nazi congressional rally grounds are still there, golden ball room and all.

General Lee fought for a country that no longer exists over 160 years ago. There's being victimised currently and then there's your ancestors being victimised. The statue isn't contemporary at all. 

USA in its current format beat Robert E Lee and his country.

I think you misunderstood me. Black and minority people in many parts of USA feel persecuted. Their oppression didn't end 160 years ago, it's ongoing as far as many are concerned. 

The statue is a reminder of that, to them. If they felt fairly treated, the statue could be accepted as a part of history. 

[HanoiVillan]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

It's probably true to say that every single individual who has had a statue erected, anywhere in the world, however laudable their achievements, has some black mark against them, a skeleton in their closet. Cromwell and Churchill are classic examples. Arguably, we ought to abandon the cult of celebrity and grow out of the practice of putting up statues at all. But in the meantime, where do we draw the line? Do we take down ALL statues, just to be on the safe side? Damned if I know. 

Why do we need to decide what to do with every statue in the world? Or decide on a line in the sand? Why not just deal with them on a case by case basis?

We don't need to create an Iron Rule of Statues. 

[maqroll]

6 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

We don't need to create an Iron Rule of Statues. 

We need a statute of statues.

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, maqroll said:

We need a statute of statues.

I've heard that at least one southern state is making one, but I don't know the statues statutes' status. 

[bickster]

The decision to remove the statue was a democratic decision reached by the local council. I've seen people claiming that Antifa were trying to tear it down, they weren't. They were just opposing a demonstration by the nazi sympathisers, who were opposed to that democratically reached decision.