Again I didn't say that.
Printable View
Again I didn't say that.
Then I'm not seeing what the big hubbub is about. Things change. Get with the program.
No things don't all change. Historical monuments should not change. New ones should go up but old ones should remain.
Yes, we definitely should have kept Stalin and Lenin around. :rolleyes:
And our Adolf-Hitler streets, too, while we were at it.
Can you point to me an Adolf-Hitler street that has been around for 90 years?
I would be against removing historical monuments to Stalin or Lenin that are about a century old. Since we are talking about Virginia it is worth mentioning that there is indeed a Stalin bust in Virginia at the National D-Day Memorial.
Right, so it's about "history". Again. And what exactly makes them so important?
And what's the cut-off date? Are ten years okay? Twenty? Or does it need to be a century?
Nothing makes them so important. Age has made them part of the heritage and fabric of the country - for good or ill.
No, ten or twenty years is modern. I will refer you to my comment earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Ah, so you get to decide what's historical or not. And moving the goalposts as you deem fit. Congratulations.
Good thing your opinion is worthless on this :)
My opinion is my opinion, never said any more or less.
Pre-WWII has been a recognised cut-off for historical for a long time and is not just my opinion though other opinions of course do exist.
I don't care if my opinion is worthless. The entire purpose of the forum is to debate and discuss our opinions and I intend to put my own opinions not somebody else's. If you want to parrot other people rather than posit your own opinion then that is your choice but I wouldn't respect it.
I don't respect your shitty opinions at all, my dear. You're a curmudgeon who would like nothing more than to yell at clouds while the world passes him by because he's too daft to understand that nothing is set in stone. As evidenced by your idolatry of British Exceptionalism.
A lot of monuments are literally set in stone.
Where have I ever idolised British Exceptionalism? I don't think I've ever even used those two words together.
For obvious reasons, that's the joke that's been floating around the library for the past few days.
Meanwhile in Statue Removal: Ukraine Has Removed All 1,320 Statues of Lenin
Removed statues of who? That guy from The Beetles?
I wonder how they dealt with monuments for Ukrainian Soviet Heroes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Glint
This never got a reply.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBladeThe leader of the Civil War is only very loosely analogous to the leader of the Civil War?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
However learnt something interesting today. Famously more Americans died in the American Civil War than all other wars combined, including WWI and WWII. 2% of the then population died in the American Civil War.
The English Civil War led to the death of 4% of the English population.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/video-sho...033820125.html
I wonder how the police would have responded to a black man doing the same.
"discharging a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school"
gtfoh
Shooting at lefties isn't a crime it seems.
No clue but in a lot of situations police have orders to stand down. See Berkeley police response where they allowed the violence to occur. For the record any sort of violent action should be quickly stopped. If the person resits police attempts to subdue them then I'm in favor of a lethal response by the officers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
The guy was shooting a gun in the direction of protesters. If that's not a reason for the police to shoot, I don't know what is.
Probably exactly the same considering from your own article the Police had no idea it had happened and the incident was discovered after reviewing tapes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
An arrest has already been made now.Quote:
Corinne Geller, a spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police, told the newspaper that troopers did not react to the shooting because they couldn’t hear the gun being fired over “the loud volume of the crowd yelling and chanting, drums and music.”
“Had any one of our troopers witnessed that incident they would have immediately acted just as they did for the other four arrests made during the weekend,” Geller told the Times.
...
The video was discovered while ACLU staffers were reviewing footage that staff and volunteers documented at the Charlottesville rally.
So cool :up:
Got a lot of respect for that man. Absolutely believe that engagement and education are better than ostracism.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/sto...s=&from=global
The bright white future :heart:
White people are under attack in America:
http://www.theroot.com/an-astonishin...1815769258/amp
Hope you've stocked up on canned beans Lewk. Be safe.
Uh. . . that's an astonishingly narrow perception of what "under attack" means (in that they insist on looking at it only by literal definition rather than metaphor) and a twisted analysis based on that. Then following it up by saying that they think the country is the source when the question asks "in this country" which means by any individual or group which they perceive is targeted at white people. . .Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I can understand looking at BLM and feeling it is an attack on white people. I think having that attitude is being unfair, that seeking redress isn't the same thing as an attack but. . .the line can be kinda thin between them. Instead your piece decides to show that they're comparatively advantaged which doesn't address the question or sentiment in the least, it's an entirely different topic.
There are certainly many ways to define "attack". I just think it's worrying that almost a third of Americans think they are under attack, regardless of definition. I expect the proportion is higher among white Americans. Even more worrying is the finding that 16% agree that "Marriage should only be allowed between people of the same race."
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...4%202017_0.pdf
Shaun King and his followers' persistence is paying off:
https://twitter.com/ShaunKing/status/909821170903584768
Whose streets?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ng-up-protests
Context:
http://www.freep.com/story/entertain...vie/573925001/
I believe this is known as "dogchanting".
It's practically a syndrome:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/youtub...ing-him-a-nazi
The guy sounds like a crazy psycho. I note his prior arrest for DUI, I wonder how long a sentence behind bars he got for that behaviour that could have killed somebody?
I wouldn't blame conspiracy sites for him committing murder any more or less than I'd blame Grand Theft Auto etc for being responsible for real life violence.
His views are markers. The comparison you make is not valid. As messed up as GTA is, it draws a generally normal crowd. It is also a game, not a vehicle for purposeful indoctrination. Just as jihadist extremist sites can be used to indoctrinate susceptible people, so too can white nationalist extremist sites. Humans learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Meanwhile, in Racistville USA:
https://twitter.com/natalie_allison/...85081073672192
Thread on the latest WLM rally.
Rand's never been able to understand the influence of people over others. Anything from the concept of ignorance as a disease to the idea that the expression of certain views have no justifiable reason to be encouraged or allowed to fester.
I do understand I just think that the proposed treatment - censorship - is worse than the disease. Especially given that tackling such monstrous views head on can be better than festering them underground.
I don't support censoring Islamists either Aimless. Monitoring absolutely and these white extremists should he monitored too. But the state has no duty or right to censor political free speech.
Apparently John Kelly made a speech arguing the pro-Confederacy apologist garbage. Some historians discussing the merits...Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.feee1238344bQuote:
Historians respond to John F. Kelly’s Civil War remarks: ‘Strange,’ ‘sad,’ ‘wrong’
White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly was the guest for the premiere of Laura Ingraham’s new show on Fox News Channel on Monday night. During the interview, he outlined a view of the history of the Civil War that historians described as “strange,” “highly provocative,” “dangerous” and “kind of depressing.”
Kelly was asked about the decision of a church in Alexandria, Va., to remove plaques honoring George Washington and Robert E. Lee.
“I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man,” Kelly said. “He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it’s different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand.”
“That statement could have been given by [former Confederate general] Jubal Early in 1880,” said Stephanie McCurry, a history professor at Columbia University and author of “Confederate Reckoning: Politics and Power in the Civil War South.”
“What’s so strange about this statement is how closely it tracks or resembles the view of the Civil War that the South had finally got the nation to embrace by the early 20th century,” she said. “It’s the Jim Crow version of the causes of the Civil War. I mean, it tracks all of the major talking points of this pro-Confederate view of the Civil War.”
[Kelly calls Robert E. Lee an ‘honorable man’ and says ‘lack of compromise’ caused the Civil War]
Kelly makes several points. That Lee was honorable. That fighting for state was more important than fighting for country. That a lack of compromise led to the war. That good people on both sides were fighting for conscientious reasons. Both McCurry and David Blight, a history professor at Yale University and author of “Race and Reunion: The Civil War in American Memory,” broadly reject all of these arguments.
“This is profound ignorance, that’s what one has to say first, at least of pretty basic things about the American historical narrative,” Blight said. “I mean, it’s one thing to hear it from Trump, who, let’s be honest, just really doesn’t know any history and has demonstrated it over and over and over. But General Kelly has a long history in the American military.”
Blight described Kelly’s argument in similar terms as McCurry — an “old reconciliationist narrative” about the Civil War that, in the past half a century or so has “just been exploded” by historical research since.
The idea that compromise might have been possible was rejected out of hand by McCurry and Blight.
“It was not about slavery, it was about honorable men fighting for honorable causes?” McCurry said. “Well, what was the cause? . . . In 1861, they were very clear on what the causes of the war were. The reason there was no compromise possible was that people in the country could not agree over the wisdom of the continued and expanding enslavement of millions of African Americans.”
There were a number of compromises on slavery that led up to the Civil War, from the drafting of the Constitution to the addition of new states to the Union.
“Any serious person who knows anything about this,” Blight said, “can look at the late 1850s and then the secession crisis and know that they tried all kinds of compromise measures during the secession winter, and nothing worked. Nothing was viable.”
“All of these compromises were about creating a division where slavery already existed and where for a time they conceded that the Constitution shackled them in their ability to attack it,” McCurry said. Before the war, the strategy for dealing with slavery was to contain it. By 1860, she said, the North’s economic success and expanding population and the South’s loss of representation in national politics put slavery at risk. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 allowed Southern slaveholders — who had $4 billion in wealth in the form of enslaved people, McCurry said — to argue that the threat to slavery was imminent.
“In 1861, compromise wasn’t possible because some Southerners just wanted out. They wanted a separate nation where they could protect slavery into the indefinite future,” McCurry said. “That’s what they said when they seceded. That’s what they said in their constitution when they wrote one.”
Kelly’s framework is “also rooted, frankly, in a Lost Cause mentality that swept over American culture in the wake of the war, swept over Northerners,” Blight said, “this idea that good and honorable men of the South were pushed aside and exploited by the ‘fanatical’ — ironically — first Republican Party.”
Blight noted that Lee wasn’t simply defending his home state of Virginia against Northern aggression.
“Of course we yearn for compromise, we yearn for civility, we yearn for some common ground,” he added. “But, look, Robert E. Lee was not a compromiser. He chose treason.”
“The best of the Lee biographies show that Lee was a Confederate nationalist,” Blight said. “He knew what he was fighting for.”
Both historians, though, held particular disdain for the idea that putting state over nation was the essence of the fight.
“My God, where does he get that from?” Blight asked. “That denies the very reason to be, the essential reason for the existence of the original Republican Party, which formed in the 1850s to stop the expansion of slavery and ended up developing a political ideology that threatened the South because they really were going to cordon off slavery.”
“This idea that state came first? No, it didn’t!” he said. “The Northern people rallied around stopping secession! This comment is so patently wrong.”
“It’s one thing to say Lee chose state over country,” McCurry said. “What [Kelly] says is that was his country. That would be news to 350,000 Union war dead.”
The compromise claim is crap, 'tis true. I mean, it's technically true for just about every conflict but there'd been lots of compromises and the continued compromises needed and desired to avert war were become unreasonable.
The rest of the objections. Was Lee an honorable man? Absolutely by the lights of his time and pretty much even by modern lights. Was he fighting for his state and viewed it as the highest identity, over the union of states forming the country? Absolutely and he was far from the only one. That was, indeed, an incredibly common view at the time, even in the north. The North rallied against continuing to exert control. Yes, they wanted to stop secession. That does not in the slightest mean that there wasn't a strong trend even there to identify with the state first. It just meant that against the calculus of state identity, national identity, and their own self-interest in the growing economic superiority of the north over the south, they had a vested interest in preventing the South from exercising their identity with the state. They called themselves the Union rather than just continuing to call themselves the US for a reason. It's because they didn't normally think of themselves as the US or as Americans first in the first place!