UPDATE: Because the first two news sources I had were in error, I originally posted that the event described occurred this week. It did not: it occurred in October of last year.
Just a few hours ago, I was explaining to a usually wise and rational commenter why her willingness to allow periodic purges of statues and memorials honoring those individuals who past members of our society determined were worthy of continuing honor. The figure in question was Robert E. Lee, not one of my personal favorites, but a generally recognized military genius and easily a man whose life and accomplishments included several justifications for permanent memorials. My favorite: Lee personally vetoed the Confederacy’s fallback plan of taking the war to a guerilla stage, extending the conflict indefinitely. It might well have worked, but Lee refused. I’ll happily grant him some perpetual statuary for that. But the self-righteously intolerant practitioners of presentism want Lee cast as a an irredeemable villain, and his statues toppled. There are many reasons why this kind of self-imposed cultural amnesia is offensive, harmful and stupid, but in my exchange with that usually wise and rational commenter, I focused on the slippery slope, writing,
You cannot articulate what the stop is on that slippery slope that doesn’t end with blowing up Mount Rushmore.
Imagine my surprise, not to be proven right, for that occurs often, but to be proven right so quickly by a news report I just read concerning a protest by more than 200 political correctness maniacs inside the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Their goal: take down the statue of former of Theodore Roosevelt—historian, author, scholar, orator, political philosopher, war hero, patriot, cowboy, explorer, public servant, the father of conservationism, the creator of the National Parks system, President and one of progressivism’s founding pioneers—and, of course, one of the Mount Rushmore Four. The protest’s organizers, NYC Stands with Standing Rock and Decolonize This Place, called the statue of the former New York City police commissioner and former New York governor a “stark embodiment of the white supremacy that Roosevelt himself espoused and promoted,” adding in a statement that “The statue is seen as an affront to all who pass it on entering the museum, but especially to African and Native Americans.” The protesters carried signs that read “BLACK LIVES MATTER,” “DECOLONIZE THIS MUSEUM,” and “ABOLISH WHITE SUPREMACY.”
Of course they did.
The news report I first read was wrong in one crucial respect: it told readers that the protest was this week, when in fact it was almost a year ago. It doesn’t matter. The point is that Teddy is on the hit list too. It isn’t just Confederates and slave-holders.
These history-vandals are not benign, sensitive souls seeking only to remove unpleasant memories for those too immature and easily-triggered to view a statue of a flawed and complex man without only being able to recognize his worst moments. They are anti-American descendants of the Jacobins and Western clones of Mao’s cultural revolutionaries, dedicated to remaking the past to compliment their intended future and the ideology, myths, biases and false narratives necessary to achieve it. What they want to do to the cultural history of the United States mirrors the destruction wreaked by ISIS on religious and historical structures. They are cultural cancer, and the rational members of the progressive movement who underestimate where this fervor leads are irresponsible and naive.
These are individuals taught to dislike American values and dishonor American history. They lack the knowledge, humility and respect to appreciate the brilliant, courageous and visionary people who sacrificed so much to make the United States possible, and who gave them the tools of liberty that the vandals abuse today. Are they worse than the white nationals they battled with in Charlottesville? Certainly not worse, probably not as bad, but this is just Rationalization #22 at work. No, they aren’t the worst thing, but they are bad enough. And like their neo-Nazi foes, they are motivated by hate. In their case, it is hatred of American values, history, and culture.
First they came for Jefferson Davis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Southerner, and he was a fool…
Then they came for the General Lee, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an admirer, and disagreed with his iconic status
Then they came for Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt…
I was at the impressive FDR memorial in Washington, D.C. recently. That Roosevelt was a misogynist, a sociopath, and a ruthless, ruthless leader..but he saved the nation, and probably the world. He also locked up Japanese-American citizens for the crime of being Japanese. I found myself wondering how long it would be before the statue-topplers come for him…and what kind of country this will be when our society refuses to honor Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Ethics Alarms 
Roosevelt was a US president. Lee led a traitorous white supremacy movement that started the deadliest war in our nation’s history and then lost. Reasonable people can draw reasonable distinctions between these two men, and can conclude that our nation should honor one and not the other.
Slippery slope arguments are fallacious because they ignore that reasonable people can draw reasonable distinctions, and hold the positions of the most unreasonable people of a group as being of greater significance than those of the reasonable ones.
A question that I have asked before, but remains unanswered: was toppling statues of Hitler “cultural amnesia?” What about the statue of Saddam? Are we to see the scene of Palpatine’s statue being torn down at the end of the special edition of RoTJ as the rebels engaging in ISIS-like destruction?
Sometimes I wonder about you. I really do.
You are denying the applicability of the slippery slope—which is often misused but which is a valid ethical concern in law and ethics–in response to a post that demonstrates it! The Left’s history-deniers did NOT stop with Lee and Davis–the slope has already extended to Jefferson, Wilson, Jackson and others. Did you read the post? How can you say people can make distinctions that they are not making? You are just refusing to acknowledge what is demonstrably going on: this is not a Civil War generals issue, or about the Civil War at all.
How many did these 200 protestors kill?
I hope whatever point you are trying to get to isn’t just a rationalization.
Ok, maybe this will explain. From a serving member of the US Army, who is a military historian (and a personal friend)
” I think the basic disconnect regarding statuary is whether you consider them symbolic speech, like all other art, or whether you consider them history.
I think my dividing line is location. A monument which marks the point at which Pickett’s Division stepped off to attack at Gettysburg is history to me. That should be preserved because you learn something walking from there up that slope to the markers which show where the Federal regiments and artillery batteries were located that you cannot learn any other way. A plantation with house and outbuildings preserved, displaying artifacts and with interpretation by historians, that’s history.
Random generals or soldiers in front of courthouses? They are civic speech and as such subject to the demands of the constituents of that government.”
And regarding civic speech –
Here’s Justin Moore, the Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, speaking with WBTV,
I’m sorta glad that them people got hit and I’m glad that girl died. They were a bunch of Communists out there protesting against somebody’s freedom of speech, so it doesn’t bother me that they got hurt at all.
I think we’re going to see more stuff like this happening at white nationalist events.”
WBTV also reports that The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan praised Fields in a recorded message that plays when you call the group’s headquarters:
Nothing makes us more proud at the KKK than we see white patriots such as James Fields Jr, age 20, taking his car and running over nine communist anti-fascist, killing one [expletive]-lover named Heather Heyer. James Fields hail victory. It’s men like you that have made the great white race strong and will be strong again
“I think my dividing line is location.”
That’s nice. It’s also completely arbitrary and subjective.
Of course, the thing about the whole argument is trying to get to a cookie cutter rule to handle all statues that are of people who at some point in their lives fought for the confederacy OR were slave owners.
I think it’s pretty stupid.
1) If a particular Confederate soldier went on in civilian life to be a solid statesman or contributor to his community or hell, was a scientist or inventor, like John Pemberton.
Texas A&M has a statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross, commemorated due to his efforts as President of Texas A&M, whose claim to fame THERE was saving the school from being shut down by the legislature for becoming a de facto reform school for unruly children of wealthier families by giving it the discipline and steady hand it needed to become the Military School & Morrill Land Grant school it was founded to be.
But Ross’s efforts in the Civil War, were certainly for the South.
What action towards statues of men who happened to also be confederates, whose statues are for OTHER life work?
2) Statues on actual battlefields certainly seem to be under a different consideration as well (though not much, if the statue is more about the individual and less about the actions). This category of statue, commemorating the men FOR their conduct *in the war*, strikes me as a separate class.
There are two broad categories I can think of that I think would require added thought that a mere “tear em all down” rule seems apoplectically juvenile.
(and group #1 I think really opens up a wide continuum of statues)
“Texas A&M has a statue of Lawrence Sullivan Ross…”
Best they leave Sully alone. Many an Aggie (including myself) proposed to their wives under the Proposal Tree next to Sully. The statue has a deep meaning for many Aggies (most of whom don’t know what the man did) due to location on campus.
Ok, maybe this will explain. From a serving member of the US Army ( so shall remain anonymous) who is a military historian (and a personal friend)
” I think the basic disconnect regarding statuary is whether you consider them symbolic speech, like all other art, or whether you consider them history.
I think my dividing line is location. A monument which marks the point at which Pickett’s Division stepped off to attack at Gettysburg is history to me. That should be preserved because you learn something walking from there up that slope to the markers which show where the Federal regiments and artillery batteries were located that you cannot learn any other way. A plantation with house and outbuildings preserved, displaying artifacts and with interpretation by historians, that’s history.
Random generals or soldiers in front of courthouses? They are civic speech and as such subject to the demands of the constituents of that government.”
Sounds plausible, and I’m thinking on it. If the Daughters of the Confederacy convinced the local council to install a statue in the 1920s to uphold White Morality (quoting from the minutes of their meetings, which my friend is busy researching for the hundreds of such statues erected in the South at the time), then the same council can reverse the decision in the 2010s using similar criteria, without offending historical sensibilities.
I’m on record as very strongly supporting the presence of the Stars and Bars and Swastika on military heraldry in historical dioramas. Statues and flags whose sole purpose is to proclaim “We lost the war, but we still hold the state and this county” not so much.
And regarding civic speech –
Here’s Justin Moore, the Grand Dragon for the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, speaking with WBTV,
I’m sorta glad that them people got hit and I’m glad that girl died. They were a bunch of Communists out there protesting against somebody’s freedom of speech, so it doesn’t bother me that they got hurt at all.
I think we’re going to see more stuff like this happening at white nationalist events.”
WBTV also reports that The Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan praised Fields in a recorded message that plays when you call the group’s headquarters:
Nothing makes us more proud at the KKK than we see white patriots such as James Fields Jr, age 20, taking his car and running over nine communist anti-fascist, killing one [expletive]-lover named Heather Heyer. James Fields hail victory. It’s men like you that have made the great white race strong and will be strong again
Freedom of speech. Essential, or we might not know who these people are, and what they stand for. And which otherwise reasonable people are fellow travellers, aiding and abetting them.
Maybe this one too will explain. Not only do I support the University’s decision, I’m saying that the decision wasn’t hard. They had no choice if they are to act according to their own ethical code.
http://mynews4.com/news/local/unr-president-student-who-attended-white-nationalist-rally-cant-be-expelled-or-fired
There is no evidence that this person acted contrary to law. Even if he had, it would have to be pretty serious to warrant any action other than deploring his views. Not him personally, his views.
Even a history class on the Croatian Ustashi should not be personalised so it mentions him and his family history. That’s the kind of nudge nudge wink wink dog whistling we’re supposed to be against on principle.
None of these posts clarifies the point of your initial comment, in fact they don’t seem to clarify any point. So maybe you are trying to make multiple points and intentionally being vague in an attempt to seem profound or brilliant or erudite. Whatever it is you’re pretending to be it isn’t working and mostly looks like rambling.
I thought her points were fairly clear, Tex:
1) We can draw distinctions between monuments intended for educational purposes and monuments intended to send a political message. The intended message of many of the Confederate statues was not just “These guys deserve honor,” which is bad enough to some, but also, as a glance at their history shows, “You are not safe in this state as a black person,” and the government should not keep such messages displayed.
2) White supremacists are praising violence and encouraging more, which they have every right to do, but which we should also be extremely vigilant against.
3) We need to keep defending free speech while still socially condemning white supremacists.
At least, that’s what I got out of her post. It seems lately the conservatives here are making a deliberate effort not to understand what the liberals are saying.
Yeah still not very revelatory over the intent of her initial comment.
“You are not safe in this state as a black person.”
Just saying this isn’t proof, Chris. It is just a convenient imaginary narrative, unless you can point to substance. You might as well claim the Harry Truman statues nd the Iwo Jima monument are coded declarations that the Japanese aren’t safe. Maybe you will.
The statues don’t tell today’s blacks that they aren’t safe. But that’s a convenient excuse to exert political power at the expense of historical integrity.
Do you think it’s a coincidence that most Confederate statues weren’t built until the rise of Jim Crow?
Did you know Robert E. Lee himself opposed erecting monuments to the Confederacy on the basis that it would “keep open the sores of war?”
There are lots of reasons, Chris. As usual, you want to cherry pick to avoid objectivity.
Jack, I can think you’re being obtuse. I think you’re being ill-informed.
There were two spikes of slaveholder monument building.
One was immediately after court decisions validating Jim Crow laws in 1900. The monuments were erected outside courthouses the spike lasted till just before 1933.
The other spike was from 1950, during the fight against segregation that was part of the Civil Rights movement. These monuments were erected outside schools.
All this is well documented. The SPLC has some convenient graphics showing the relationship between political campaigns and putting up such trophies, renaming institutions etc. They also, if you look hard enough, have the minutes of many meetings which led to these happenings, showing beyond doubt their explicitly political rather than historical purpose. Often they were accompanied by purging libraries of insufficiently pro-slavery historical literature, at least in the first wave.
I’m old enough to remember the second wave at least. I suspect you are too.
Starting to dislike the new Android update… Keyboard “correcting” 20 secs after writing, and getting it wrong. My fault though, should wait 20 secs before hitting the post button, this is not the first time it has happened.
First sentence should read ” I CAN’T think you’re being obtuse…”
But as ignorant as I was until some friends gave me a clue as to the timing of the erection of these statues, and the minutes of meetings discussing their erection, yes.
My apologies anyway.
“…There were two spikes of slaveholder monument building…”
Sue,
What gives progressives the right to tell communities what they can and cannot commemorate?
Now we have Spartan saying that we cannot have statues or monuments to anyone who supported slavery.”
Her progressive judgement means we are to now tear down the Washington Monument. 90% of history we would commemorate was about people who ‘supported’ slavery, defined by progressives today as ‘they did not fight it.’ (“If you are not against Trump you are racist”)
Note that Jesus falls into this category, as does the Apostle Paul.
You cannot attribute the actions of an individual to a group. As abhorrent as the actions of the driver were, he did not represent the protesters any more than anyone there did. He needs to take responsibility for his own actions, and he will be held to account for those actions.
Actually, it is. It’s about starting Civil War II.
How can you say people can make distinctions that they are not making?
What part of “reasonable people can make distinctions” did you not understand? Did you really miss the implication that the Roosevelt protesters are not reasonable? It was not subtle. Do you think the distinction I made was not reasonable? Do you think there is widespread agreement on the Left that monuments to US presidents should come down? Do you think there will be? Do you think the fact that NAMBLA has started adopting the language of the gay rights movement means the gay rights movement never should have happened?
These are all questions raised by your comment.
Chris wrote, “What part of “reasonable people can make distinctions” did you not understand?”
Social justice warriors are not, I repeat NOT reasonably thinking people; period! The sooner you fully understand that the better.
The problem is how loose you and yours choose to hypocritically define “reasonable” along social justice warrior ideological lines. The mountains you choose to make your stand on are nothing but piles and piles of rationalizations; you think in rationalizations and you’ve shown over and over again that you will “die” trying to defend a mountain of them.
I am a social justice warrior. I’m also anti fascist.
Am I reasonable, at least sometimes?
I have certainly been called a social justice warrior, and sometimes identify myself that way. Sometimes I think the term should be reserved for the real crazies, like those who think we should tear down statues of American presidents. I think there is a distinction between their position and my belief that we should tear down monuments to Confederate generals. Others here seem to believe there is no such distinction, and I am just as crazy as those people. But those people would call me a Nazi-enabler for simply saying that we shouldn’t pass laws restricting their speech. One man’s extremist seems to be another man’s moderate, and one man’s moderate seems to be another man’s enemy collaborator. This is why we must use reason to draw distinctions.
It isn’t any more or less reasonable to tear down a Robert E. Lee statue than it is to tear down an FDR statue. They are equally reasonable (which is to say, the reasoning for the former, if you accept it, applies equally to the latter.)
FDR literally threw Japanese people into CAMPS. Sure, you can say that Lee was a traitor, but does that make Japanese people feel any better? Check your privilege and respect their feelings.
Wrong. FDR was an American president. We honor all our presidents, even the ones who did bad things, which is nearly all of them. We do not, as a country, have to honor traitors to our country, traitors who did not even want to be a part of our country, traitors whose entire purpose for forming a new country was, in their own words, to uphold white supremacy.
There will be monuments to Trump some day. I will oppose tearing them down. Quote me on that.
That is your arbitrary red line. It only works until progressives start having statues of presidents torn down. And they dividing line THEY are going to use is “owned slaves and was racist.” The thing about arbitrary red lines is there’s no reason for them to stay in place.
Honoring presidents of our country and not traitors to our country is “arbitrary?”
That must be why we have “Adolf Hitler Day” in addition to “President’s Day.”
We’re not dealing with reasonable people.
I would really, really like to honestly state that I am always reasonable.
All I can say is that I honestly make good efforts to be so, and like to think I fail only very rarely. Lack of objectivity forces me to recuse myself from judging that though, I have to rely on others’ opinions.
Well, Sue there are exceptions in every group and and rule. You sound like you are indeed a reasonable person. I guess I would be a better person to remember that fact.
My apologies to you.
The confederacy was a big white supremacy movement? I always thought that there was a bit more to it, and to Lee, than that.
Of course there was. Chris is literally stripping down a complex (and tragic) historical period to support current left-wing narratives.Sadly, he is not alone.
They have to operate this way. Otherwise they run the risk of running out of ways to virtue-signal.
”they run the risk of running out of ways to virtue-signal.”
HeyZeus Alou! We can’t let THAT happen, can you even fathom a world where Lefties (most, not all) are unable to conjure up new ways to weenie-whine?
We have never needed a strong and calming leader more than we need one now. And, there are none to be found in government or academia. This is not the beginning of the slippery slope, when there were capable leaders who could not get elected, this is well into it.
Many rational people on both Left and Right, not interested in waving the bloody shirt or partisan political points scoring, appear to me to be coming around to the idea that the current President should be ignored as an irrelevancy.
Not his actions, but his words, yes. He says a lot of stuff. Listen instead to the words of the Attorney General and SecDef etc. They’re apparently ignoring him. Not ignoring orders, EOs, Presidential memos etc, not his actions, but his words. Full of Sound and Fury, signifying nothing. Neither good nor bad, just irrelevant.
“…Full of Sound and Fury, signifying nothing. Neither good nor bad, just irrelevant.”
I can get behind that sentiment!
I hope that can be done without undermining essential work. As far as most of the substance of what has happened since the new administration I think it’s been good and necessary.
While I’d disagree, your position is at least arguable.
Words like “substance” and “most” would be debated, but at least those are debatable using facts and figures by reasonable people.
Like whether trains ran on time or not.
Love me a slippery slope. And so, I agree with Jack. for two reasons.
1. Air brushing history is a bad idea, therefore slippery slope.
2. Now that statues are coming down (seemingly) all over the country, white nationalists are going to strike back in force. Expect shootings, stabbings, vehicular homicide, bombings… we’re in for a helluva train ride.
Delusional garbage.
Delusions are my specialty, Rich. So’s garbage. Care to post an actual rebuttal?
I provided exactly as much evidence for my claim as you did yours. If you substantiate your claims, I will substantiate my rebuttal.
Can’t, Rich. Jack just appointed me civility cop. I have a badge.
Civility Cops are not appointed, they are born.
Badges?!? We don’t need no stinkin’ badges!
+1 Slickwilly
We need some of that.
Admittedly, I am a bit cranky after constant coverage, so I apologize for being incivil.
However, you have not provided any evidence that “white nationalist” are going to become violent and radicalized, especially over statues. Why should I expect a hell of ride?
That’s ok, Rich. When I get drunk I’m a mess.
I don’t have any evidence to provide. Events, here and across the globe, are moving too quickly for me to process. (Steven Bannon, Barcelona, etc.)
I’m just trying to think like a white supremecist. “So, you’re tearing down statues of my Confederate heroes, all across the country. You Jew scum! You just wait. I’m gonna hit you so hard you’ll cough up your morning matzoh” Or something like that.
Weak, I know.
Rich in CT,
The real “delusional garbage” Mr. Rich is what the social justice warriors are doing and people deluding themselves into thinking that what fattymoon wrote couldn’t happen as a result of the spreading social justice warrior insanity.
Well… A year ago when I said that the punch a Nazi meme would end in deaths, I believe I was called delusional as well. My theory was that someone would either be frustrated at the impotency of punching a Nazi and compensate by punching with a gun, or that someone would punch the wrong Nazi and be shot for their troubles… And that not only happened, it happened within three months of my prediction.
Every time these protests happen, the two sides line up and yell at each other in the largest scale example of a codependent abusive relationship I can think of. What started out with mere words was ratcheted up to molotovs, bottles of piss and bricks, and now we have examples of an especially deranged element getting into a car and committing the kind of attack we expect from terrorists.
If the expectation of more violence is “delusional”… Please, please connect the dots for me. Because I don’t see them.
I see no reason why that should be the peak of the violence. It seems that no one learned the right lessons from this. No one is being even slightly self-reflective. Their lack of personal responsibility has them sharpening their weapons for the next confrontation, and despite the characterization of this as “delusional”, I would bet good money that we’ll see more deaths before the year is out. I’d like nothing better than to be proven wrong, but I don’t understand why anyone would expect anything different, given the fact patterns in play.
I agree that yelling at each is counter-productive. Although people have the right to counter-protest, I certainly won’t be doing so.
If antifa showed up and protested in the classical sense of the term, then I’d be right there beside you. But they don’t, so I’m not. I don’t think that what antifa does is protest. I think that their default position is violent, and that the right to assembly doesn’t extend to a right to riot. The law does not generally protect your ability to break it.
And I don’t think this is a chicken and egg scenario. I think that some of the white supremacists in Charlottesville came bearing shields and clubs alongside their tiki torches not because they were particularly interested in cracking skulls, but because they were interested in being heard. I see no reason to assume that had antifa not started lobbing projectiles at the protesters, that the protesters would have done anything but march around like fools, saying especially foolish things.
I think the left, generally, has been attempting to curb the speech of right leaning groups and people for years, and that this is an extreme but logically inevitable offshoot of the no-platform movement: A group willing to use violence to silence, and another willing to respond with violence in order to be heard.
Is that another Jimmy Kimmel prank?
Nope.
And Chris says we never hear that progressives want to kill whites…
That’s not the first time I’ve seen it, nor the anti-semitism.
It’s apparent that the ultimate objective of the fascist group ‘antifa’ is to spark a violence. They have consistently engaged in violence, intimidation, and vandalism.
I will admit something. I was not aware of the term antifa until this week. That being said, I have not seen any concrete evidence yet of the liberal protestors using violence. I’m not saying they didn’t (my mind is open), but we do know — for a fact — that one guy drove a car into a group of people, killing one and injuring over a dozen.
What?????? Every witness, every neutral observer, said that the antifa group was throwing projectiles, including media reports of “urine bombs.” There were many members of the same group that ran amuck at Berkeley and here during the Inauguration.
There is also – maybe this has already been mentioned by another commenter – a possibility that the driver operated the car as he did, not out of blind hate or rage, but in panic and fear for his life, out of terror of the angry mob that had all but surrounded him. A “flight,” not “fight,” reflex.
I think these 2 videos might be useful in deciding if that were the case. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK7FNCEIfbQ
In the drone footage, you can only really see the maroon van that the assailant hit at speed and forced into the intersection. But in the first video, you see the assailant driving on a less congested roadway toward the protesters at speed.
Who was in the van he hit?
Neither of those is the video I saw. I believe I saw a fragment of the street-level youtube video, after the car drove by at speed, beginning at where it looked like someone swung an object and hit the back of the car. All the videos are inconclusive to me, even the street-level one with the drive-by. For all we know, the driver was “spooked” before he even drove by the first time, and continued in an hightened terrified (feeling terrorized) state, when he sped back past in reverse. If I was on the jury, the most I could vote to convict him on, on the basis of the video, is involuntary manslaughter.
re: Jury – if that was the only evidence presented, sure, I could see that. But trials generally have more evidence and testimony presented. For all we know, he’s confessed fully and won’t even take it to a jury trial.
Send me links to reports of these neutral observers at Charlottesville. I would like to see them. I’m not interested in Berkeley and the Inauguration — I want to see Charlottesville.
Who do you consider a neutral observer?
Taylor Lorenz from The Hill was there, and not only did she report exactly what Jack described, but she recorded an Antifa thug who punched her while recording at the protests. The Hill is relatively neutral, right?
This is a good resource collecting stories of leftist, right-wing and neutral witnesses to the event. One leader of a leftist group admits to chasing the white supremacists out of the park. WaPo reports on antifa throwing ink balloons, though I didn’t see a neutral observer report anything about “pee balloons” despite the fact that I’ve seen conservatives make that accusation.
Forgot the link.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-charlottesville-witnesses-20170815-story.html
Interesting how the media has kept Antifa under wraps, no? I’ve had many of my liberal friends go “What’s Antifa?” after this story broke. These aren’t ignorant people, they read the Times, listen to NPR, watch CNN…
Oh wait.
I follow the stories of the antifa as much as I follow the antics of the extreme right. Neither hold any interest for me.
Come to the left coast. We’ve had left wing violence since the 60’s and it hasn’t abated since. Burned timber companies, burned car dealerships, harrased and firebombed animal research labs, attacks on WTO meetings, and on and on. Starting in November, we’ve had the anti-fa nuts going crazy. They’ve been closing freeways, breaking things, burning things and violently assaulting anyone who disagrees with them.
…but that is the good sort of hate, and you are some sort of -ist or -phobic to even bring it up.
Our leaders like our society are flawed, we remember must remember those flaws as much as those accomplishments that make them famous! Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh both supported Adolf Hitler’s policies at one point. But this has been pushes under the rug. Edison was not exactly a paragon of virtue. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, George Washington could be cruel to the troops under him. But for all their flaws they also did great things. Some of histories greatest heroes were villains, its villains heroes. Our past is as complex as our present, and we are evolving. I was uncomfortable with trans people till I met them.and many of my best customers are trans they are the greatest, but I had to learn to understand. I am glad I did as my life is richer for it. We as a society need to work on getting each other to embrace our differences and our shames. To many want to deny what the civil war was about. It was not States Rights.or history it those our excuses trotted out to deny. States rights a phrase I see used when ever individual rights are trampled. Changing our history does not happen as eventually someone brings the embarrassments of the past to light. I have made a lot of errors in my life but I hope to one day be remembered for what I did right.
There are lessons to be learned from our past and both good and bad.
The first amendment is great as it lets us see the wise and the foolish.
Wiping away the vestiges of the south is dangerous as we may forget the good but we also may forget the evil perpetrated in its name. Fame and Shame often walk the same path, it is up tours to learn to tell the difference!
I’d like to understand what you are saying here:
“To many want to deny what the civil war was about. It was not States Rights.or history it those our excuses trotted out to deny. States rights a phrase I see used when ever individual rights are trampled. Changing our history does not happen. . .
Can you clarify please?
So, your position is that we leave up idols and shrines to people who are primarily used as symbols of white power because otherwise we might need to educate some people on the fact that most of our great leaders were problematic? Well, f**k education of course. If that has to be our stance, we are doomed.
And thanks for the back-handed compliment … I guess. I look forward to reading how you tackle the President’s latest words to calm his troubled nation.
I think you need to prove the assertion that they’re used primarily as symbols of white power. Despite the spotlight that the media loves to shine on white supremacist movements, it bears remembering that despite calling upon about a dozen disparate groups to attend the “Unite The Right” rally, only about 200 tiki torch bearers showed up. This is similar to the occupation the media used to have with the Westboro church… Despite having a membership of less than thirty people at any given time, the media gave them a platform as if in America they were larger than the pope.
There is no such thing as a perfect role model. Bill Clinton was a serial abuser, at least. Bill Cosby was a serial rapist. Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist, Elizabeth Warren took illicit advantage of affirmative action plans. Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.
And that’s not to say “Don’t look at their flaws, for we are all flawed” That’s a rationalization. The point is that we are human, that to be human is to have flaws, and that people can do great things despite their flaws. That sometimes the sum of our achievements overcome the sum of our flaws, and that there is a righteousness in redemption. That having role models is important, and while there aren’t any perfect role models out there, that we should make the best of the ones we have.
And to tie that all up in a bow…. Progressives like to pretend that the civil war was entirely about slavery. This is revisionist. One would be remiss in not saying that slavery played an obvious and major role, but the fact of the matter is that the civil war was, in my opinion, primarily economic in scope. That the immediate emancipation of slaves would bankrupt the south, and that the people who waged war on the North did it more out of concern for their livelihoods than they did out of their love for owning people.
General Lee was on the record as not being especially fond of slavery… From a letter to his wife:
“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former.”
And so to use Lee as some kind of iconic bastion of the institution of slavery is grossly inappropriate by anyone attempting to do so. He was a brilliant tactician, he was an honorable man, and when it was obvious that his army would not be successful, as opposed to dragging on the conflict, he opted to put effort into the reunification of America. Yes, he fought for the wrong side, and that side was the side advocating the continuation of slavery…. But if that’s all you see when you see his statues, if that’s all you think is being remembered…. Then I think that says more about you than it does the rest of us, and is something you have in common with the white supremacists that you don’t have in common with me.
Think on that for a while.
This is the other side of THAT position. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle, but the article is pretty convincing.
Humble Talent:
Despite the spotlight that the media loves to shine on white supremacist movements, it bears remembering that despite calling upon about a dozen disparate groups to attend the “Unite The Right” rally, only about 200 tiki torch bearers showed up.
Either 200 people represent a dangerous movement that must be vigorously opposed–as Jack claimed of the Roosevelt protesters in this article–or they are a tiny insignificant group that should be ignored. Both cannot be true.
If we shouldn’t care much about the 200 white supremacists, then we also shouldn’t care much about the 200 Roosevelt protesters.
Jack:
UPDATE: Because the first two news sources I had were in error, I originally posted that the event described occurred this week. It did not: it occurred in October of last year.
Did the protesters succeed in their aim? If not, that would show that the slippery slope did, at least for a little while, stop at a certain point. I heard nothing about this particular protest when it happened; it doesn’t seem like progressives as a whole want statues of US presidents removed.
“Either 200 people represent a dangerous movement that must be vigorously opposed–as Jack claimed of the Roosevelt protesters in this article–or they are a tiny insignificant group that should be ignored. Both cannot be true.”
First off… It just occurred to me that the the juxtaposition of those two events reinforces my argument that the violence is more prevalent on the left. Have you noticed the difference in “counter protests” between the two events?
Regardless…
I didn’t say we ignore the racists, I just think it’s important to put them into context. The Charlottesville gathering has been billed as America-ending by some of the most extreme over reactors, and the spectrum doesn’t get much more reasonable from there.
I think there’s an ocean of difference between vigorous opposition and firebombing. I also think there’s a material difference between the racists and the statue adversaries… And that is that there seems to be political will to destroying statues. I mean… Really Chris; What do you think is more likely to happen in the next month: lawmakers will pass bills that remove a dozen historical statues, or lawmakers will pass bills that erode human rights?
If you feel that it’s more important to speak out against the white supremacists in Charlottesville… I’ll disagree with your priorities, but I don’t think you’d be doing a bad thing by protesting them. They have bad ideas that deserve opposition. That’s the point of the arena of ideas. But in this case, those bad ideas are so self evidently bad and unpopular that I don’t think that you and people like you need to overreact in response to them.
I think the article refutes a position I don’t hold.
They say that he wasn’t a brilliant tactician because he fought a war in a way that was less likely to win… I think that’s a matter of opinion, at best. Even the most brilliant of commanders make individual mistakes, even cripplingly large ones. But you’ll note that the author, despite attempting to paint Lee’s image as overblown, still couldn’t completely ignore the fact that he had some great successes, more than you’d expect of an anyman magoo-ing his way through war.
They say that his reconciliation efforts were scorned by Grant as belligerent… Ok? I mean, even if you take the word of the general who opposed him as a character witness, the fact of the matter is that he still did it. Many of his supporters wanted him to continue the fight in a guerrilla campaign, and he declined.
And then they say that as opposed to being benevolent, Lee was a cruel slave owner. And that’s true… But it’s not really a refutation of what I said. It’s… hard to put those actions and quotes into context because the realities of the time are so divorced from reality we live today… By today’s standards, even some of most staunch abolitionists would be considered raving racists. It’s inappropriate to judge the actions of people solely on the morals of 2017. There’s no doubt in my mind that Lee was racist, there’s no doubt in my mind that he did horrible things. But the fact of the matter is that whether or not he was cruel, and despite owning slaves, he spoke out against the practice…. Even if the reason he spoke out about it was some kind of misguided racist condescension, he seemed to recognize the inherent evils to the practice. And for that time, that was actually probably a position on the cognitive dissonance scale significantly better than average.
Confederate figure statues are not “primarily used as symbols of white power.” That’s pretty close to a lie, unless for some bizarre reason you believe it. Do you really think Ted Turner’s “Gettysburg” was primarily a symbol of white power? I’ve lived in Alexandria for over 30 years—I never heard or read about any city resident who thought of that statue of the Confederate soldier in the middle of the downtown intersection as celebrating ‘white power.’ The statue celebrates the lonely dedicated, innocent Southern soldiers from THIS STATE who fought for that state and its communities and did what he was ordered to do. He didn’t think he was fighting for slavery. He just wanted to do what he thought was his duty.
When people as smart as you just swallow ideological narratives to distort history, it is very upsetting.
If you see someone displaying a confederate flag on their house, what is your first thought?
Often it means that individual had ancestors who fought in that war, and they are honoring his memory. If you see someone displaying a US flag on their house, what is your first thought? Many progressives think that flag means you’re a racist.
Why do people keep shifting the goal posts here?
I have many relatives that fought in WWII, the Vietnam War, and the Persian Gulf conflicts. I honor their memory (some are still alive) in many ways as do most normal Americans. I would never even consider honoring them in a way that suggests that I believe in the separation of the races. Even if there are legitimate historical reasons for displaying a Confederate flag (and I think I am being overly generous), the fact remains that it became a symbol for racial hatred a long time ago. There is a reason that various groups on the alt-right use the Confederate flag as their badge of honor. So my first thought at seeing a Confederate flag (and obviously I see them often in Virginia) is “Whoa. That person is proudly displaying a symbol of racial hatred outside his house. WTF.”
It’s strange… I doubt very much that the Duke brother’s General Lee was meant as a symbol of white supremacy, so even as late as 1985, I don’t think that the mainstream position on the flag was that it was inherently a symbol of hate.
At what point do you think that changed? And who do you think instigated that change?
And just as a jab: If you think that change was instigated by an outsider, is that not the most insidious form of cultural appropriation? Not only taking cultural icons from a group that is not your own, but soiling it in such a way as to make it unusable by the original culture.
Do you think the (fictional) Duke brothers would have had the Confederate flag on their car if they were Black?
Here’s a thought. Do you think that racism is so ingrained in our culture that it didn’t even occur to White Hollywood in the 1980s that putting a symbol of White Pride on the heroes’ car would matter?
Perhaps? The Dukes of Hazzard still has a huge following, A friend of mine had pictures of Bo and Daisy Duke signed by the actors the last time we went to World of Wheels, and as always, there was still dozens of General Lees, some of which were owned by black people. I have to think that if even in 2017, there are black people willing to overlook the history of the symbol to celebrate a 30 year old TV show, it’s not impossible that 30 years previous, had the Duke brothers been black, that they might have had the same car.
I have to admit, I was in diapers, so I don’t have a whole lot of recollection to fall back on. But I’d have a hard time buying that the General Lee was seen as a symbol of hate. 1980’s sensibilities might have been numb to the undertones of racism, but I have to assume that if the primary purpose of the General Lee was to popularize slavery, that we probably would have seen significant protests previous to 2010.
If anything, the vehicle named General Lee was a symbol of defiance against a corrupt local government. Maybe you could draw a parallel to the Civil War.
Or maybe you could also recall that the villain of that story was a WHITE guy, who wore a WHITE suit, and drove a great big WHITE car.
Racist, my ass.
–Dwayne
Not unheard no. Driving between Fort Polk, LA and Fort Benning, GA I noticed a handful of black guys driving cars with confederate flag stickers in the windows.
Percentage of a percentage levels of odd, yes. But apparantly not unheard of.
My aunt in Virginia flies a confederate flag off her porch, much to the annoyance of us when we visit. And she flies it because it pisses off some (white) neighbors who weren’t particularly kind to her before she flew the flag.
I think it was done as part of an effort to show stereotypes of the rural south, nothing more.
“Do you think that racism is so ingrained in our culture that it didn’t even occur to White Hollywood in the 1980s that putting a symbol of White Pride on the heroes’ car would matter?”
It could also be that hyper-sensitivities weren’t so ingrained in our culture that it didn’t even occur to most America in the 1980s to be offended, and for those it moderately offended, they recognized the incredible power to change the channel lay in their hands, and so chose to change the channel and let other people enjoy what they enjoy while they themselves enjoyed what they enjoy.
Because once you set a precedent of destroying something that becomes disliked enough, almost anything is fair game.
Education is always the key. Erasing the past only allows it to repeat. We need to use the symbols of oppression to keep it from happening like in the 80’s the gay community used the pink triangle which the nazis used. To mark us as a symbol of the oppression we faced in the fight against aids. Leave the symbols but treat them as warnings. Add Placards explaining their deeds. Use it as a teaching moment. Do not bury history force them to face it.
Well, my first thought is a question, not a conclusion – “Why?”
Sort of like how the first verse of The Star Spangled Banner ends.
Is that liberal enough for you? (I know – probably not.)
First thought?
“Oblivious morons” is the first. Because I know a handful of people to whom the flag is merely a statement of defiance. The flag is a statement of historical pride in a *variety* of reasons separate from slavery. And I also know that none of those people harbor any ill will towards their fellow men of any color.
They’re just too abjectly self-focused to recognize that it is offensive to a lot of people.
Then after that if I have a discussion with someone displaying the flag I might get to know their true opinions. Then I might adjust “oblivious morons” to “jerk”, “racist”, “supremacist” or even “genocidal maniac”.
So, “morons” at a minimum. I can get behind that.
Should not write when still groggy in morning. What I meant is. All my life I have watched teachers and others with a southern sense of pride, use the aurgument that the civil war was not about slavery but about states rights. Then I saw my parents use the same aurguments to support blocking abortion and gay rights. THAT the federal government should let these issues on a state level. MY OBVERSATION IS STATES RIGHTS SEEMS TO BE THE CALL TO BLOCK OTHER PEOPLES RIGHTS. Particularly those you in your narrow view see as wrong or evil. What I believe-The Civil war was about slavery, the supression of others peoples rights because you believe their oriention is a choice is foul. On a women’s right to choose what I believe is based on religion there, but we have freedom of religion in this country so my religion beliefs should not be legislated to force a woman who does not share them to live by them.
It took me a long time to reconsile my faith to my sexuality.
Of course, various states flaunting federal drug laws and various locales no longer cooperating with federal enforcement agencies on immigration (“sanctuary cities”) all fall under the heading of states “rights”…
So there’s those two counter arguments to your claim.
Having power is fun.
Being drunk with power (i.e., being part of the dominant power) is funner.
Abusing power (but especially, abusing the people of the abusers’ choice with that power), and putting up new monuments to the latest abusers, is a timeless sport of the penultimate fun.
Only killing off the abuse-ees is more fun.
POWER to the new history-makers!
May their children suffer the power abuses of the next history-makers!
YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! (Pump those fists! Chant those slogans!)
This is artful.
Well done.
These social justice warriors are proving that stupidity has no limitations.
These social justice warriors are have begun their cleansing of anything they consider unclean, you are next. No I’m not joking, none of us have a perfectly clean history or ancestral line – NONE OF US! If you don’t fit the mold these insane people have created in their screwed up participation trophy minds, then you too will be cleansed.
We are heading for a new form of government with insane social justice warriors holding the reigns. There will be two classes of citizens those that fit the mold and those that don’t; if you don’t you fit the mold then you deserve to be shunned and your life should be destroyed, you will be deprived of your rights and driven into the streets. Make sure you don’t associate with anyone that “might” someday be considered unclean; we are heading back to the equivalent of the Salem Witch Trials School of Thinking.
You will be assimilated; resistance is futile.
There is that over the edge enough for a Wednesday morning?
I will match the Star Trek reference with one on my own: SJWs will go the way of the Ikarrans in Babylon 5.
They set killing machines to destroy all but ‘pure Ikarrans… but the defition was ideological and not biological. Thus when the enemy was dead the machines turned on their makers, who were exterminated, since the ‘pure’ rules were impossible to satisfy.
This happens EVERY time Socialists/Communists come to power: they turn on their one and execute the true believers.
That protest against TR was in October of 2016.
Yes, you are right. Three websites directed me to an erroneous source. Thanks. I fixed it.
That the only knock on Teddy?
Not exactly.
He was fascinated with the Progressive Eugenics movement. But in all fairness, who in their right mind wouldn’t run “better, faster, stronger, more human-than-human and the end of disease and handicaps” up the flagpole?
If memory serves, their desire to…um…regulate reproduction and the population wasn’t restricted to a certain segment of humanity, and the case can be made they were far more diabolically hateful, bigoted, discriminatory, elitist, classist, and racist over a far greater spectrum than any fringe group of White Supremicists.
Why? Because they sought a Geater Good, they had the approval of their own consciences.
Not to over-simplify, (reference “White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America” for the rest of the story) but back at the turn of the 20th century, the newly minted Administrative State was coming off a clear victory disabling the evil Corporate Trusts. A goal achieved no longer motivates and, feeling their oats, what to do now? Hey, howse about improving humanity?
Natural selection improved society over time, but a glacially slow pace, could these whiz kids jump start that with “Scientific Selection?”
Perhaps, I mean you could improve flora-n-fauna by selective breeding, am I right? Why not extend those efforts to humans? Heck, what could possibly go wrong?
Roosevelt to Charles B. Davenport (1913):
“Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind…. Any group of farmers who permitted their best stock not to breed, and let all the increase come from the worst stock, would be treated as fit inmates for an asylum…. Some day we will realize that the prime duty, the inescapable duty of the good citizens of the right type is to leave his or her blood behind him in the world; and that we have no business to permit the perpetuation of citizens of the wrong type. The great problem of civilization is to secure a relative increase of the valuable as compared with the less valuable or noxious elements in the population… The problem cannot be met unless we give full consideration to the immense influence of heredity…” (bolds mine)
“Right” types, “Wrong” types? Incuriously, Lefties have no interest in this discussion. Isn’t this similar to what will happen as history is airbrushed/purged of the doings of other “select” luminaries?
Some “nothing left to the imagination” quotes that haven’t been relegated to the virtual guillotine…yet:
http://jonesreport.com/article/09_08/05eugenics.html
Will their statues/awards/recognitions/scholarships be targeted?
If so, in the words of Amity Island Police Chief Martin Brody (Roy Scheider in “Jaws”):
“We’re going to need a bigger boat!”
The whole country was fascinated by eugenics—this was more an 100 years ago. It’s profoundly unfair to slug Roosevelt for being intellectually curious. One thing he had was an open and inquiring mind, and he was willing to accept new ideas. Many of them proved to be bad ones. That’s always the case.
The “stark embodiment of the white supremacy that Roosevelt himself espoused and promoted” was over a 100 years ago, too.
IMHO in the effort to create “a race of thoroughbreds,” the Eugenics Movement took “White Supremacy” up another notch because proponents wanted to rid humanity of a wider swath of humanity, and some of whom they wanted to cull were White.
The more recent attempt to create a “Master Race” by that failed Austrian artist, which drew on eugenic theory, isn’t remembered for its intellectual curiosity.
Could be I feel strongly about this because had these people had their way, and accounting for my less than stellar…um…breeding, I likely wouldn’t be here.
Test
Sorry, Paul…I was out of town and had no access to the blog, and as you know, WordPress doesn’t like you, and holds everything you send in for moderation, even with your new, un-spam filter triggering avatar.
“WordPress doesn’t like you”
To paraphrase Paul Newman’s Ben Quick in the eminently quotable The Long Hot Summer, “WordPress appears to be an outstanding judge of character.”
If there’s a WordPress statue, it’s comin’ down!
Are you getting my email, Jack? I just sent another to test.
Poor Teddy. A man that led black and Southern troops up San Juan Hill to topple ultimately the despotic Spanish government and free Cuba from it’s oppressive yoke. The first environmental President who greatly expanded the National Park Service. The first progressive President who got the pure foods and drugs act passed as well as standing up to the robber barons and fought monopolies tooth and nail. Believe me, if these Resist! jerks ever try to close down Sagamore Hill or remove his statue from anywhere, I will be protesting using Big Stick diplomacy.
And you’ll then be lumped in with the alt-right by the media and he rest of the Left.
Almost as though all these various prods and pokes by the left are intentionally trying to spark extremism.
Other targets do exist, for “anticom” activists to remove:
http://ijr.com/the-declaration/2017/08/948200-since-tearing-offensive-statues-locations-three-lenin-statues-america/
“First they came for Jefferson Davis, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Southerner, and he was a fool…
Then they came for the General Lee, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not an admirer, and disagreed with his iconic status
Then they came for Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt…”
You’re right, but you’re wasting your time, Jack. Passion has overtaken reason here, and those who should be defending free speech and, more importantly, defending reasoned thought instead of rage, are scattering to save their own butts from the mad mobs who are now taking it upon themselves to trash these monuments without waiting and whose supporters in the media are duly trashing anyone who says hey, not so fast.
The other side smells the blood and the smoke, and they see victory just a little closer, unless the government takes decisive action. I am not sure I see it, though.
I thought we were heading for Belfast, but I think we might be headed for the Nika riots instead, where mobs completely lost control, burned down much of Constantinople, and almost drove the Byzantine emperor Justinian into flight. It was only because his wife chided him for possible cowardice and said that it was better to be buried an emperor than live in flight, that he found his spine, had the diplomat Narses bribe a few mob leaders while the generals Belisarius and Mundus rallied the scattered soldiers and police, and finally, broke the riot and eliminated those behind it, restoring order and clearing the way for him to rebuild the city and rewrite the law, which has come down to us as the Code of Justinian.
Donald Trump is no Justinian, and he has no crafty Narses nor valiant Belisarius on his side.
General Narses, being a eunuch, would be prohibited from military service nowadays. He was a “diplomat” only in the sense that Eisenhower was.
Whether he was Belisarius’ equal or superior in military matters is arguable. Certainly they were the two outstanding generals of the time.
Lions commanded by donkeys.
See also Bel Riose in Foundation and Empire. Asimov was many things, but subtle (Belisarius – Bel Riose) he was not.
“General Narses, being a eunuch, would be prohibited from military service nowadays.”
Why would he not be able to serve?
Lack of both testcles is disqualifying for enlistment. As is amputation of the penis or partial amputation that prevents normal micturition.
Never heard that, John… can you source it? Been around the Army all my life and never hear such.
Has anyone here or elsewhere mentioned that this country has lost its damn mind?
Yup, and the SJWs are salivating. They hope for a rush-the-Bastille moment.
I have. In the process I’m losing my own.
For once I am with you, fatty. The country has lost it’s marbles.
Is it easier being an anarchist? Can you stop caring at that point?
I must be tired to entertain the thought!
I do think it may be easier to be an anarchist. There are times, I confess, when I want the entire human race to vanish in a puff of smoke. Give the good earth back to nature. We don’t deserve to live here.
But it’s not just this country that’s lost its marbles. I’m sure we could make a list, yes?
“But it’s not just this country that’s lost its marbles. I’m sure we could make a list, yes?”
Yes, but can we not? I just don’t have the energy nor the patience left today
Nor do I. It was a rhetorical question anyway.
I have spent my afternoon paying bills and cooking dinner. Now I am drinking red wine. Here, Slick, you can have my badge.
NOW I see the badge… and after I used the term Euck Furope, too.
Oh well
Mr. Marshall,
Re: Charlottesville and Bi-Lateral Violence: Neo-Nazis/Supremacists & Antifa/BLM Vigilantes – White Hoods vs. Black Hoods – First Amendment
What if you hosted a riot and nobody came?
Controversial conservative writer David Horowitz poses a similar question thusly in his succinct The Real Race War article below:
“The organizers of the “Unite the Right” demonstration in Charlottesville were repellent racists. But they came to defend a historic monument honoring a complex man and cause, and not to attack it or presumably anyone else. They applied for a permit and were denied. They re-applied successfully in a petition supported by the local ACLU. If they had come to precipitate violence, why would they have gone to the tedious trouble of applying for a permit? Who knows what – if anything – would have happened if that had been the end of the story and no one had showed up to oppose them.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/267598/real-race-war-david-horowitz
Best, Hal
He’s right, of course, but since Horowitz is treated as a right wing zealot, nobody will give him credit for being right.
And because I acknowledge that he is right, I must be a right wing zealot.
So, because lots of counter-protestors came, the white men just happened to break into anti-Semitic and anti-Black songs and chants? These people just suddenly turned evil?
Oh no, Spart… They were always bad people. They would always have gathered around the statue with their Tiki torches, and sung racist folk tunes. Just like the hundreds of other vanishingly small gatherings or racist asshats the country over.
I think the reason that so many left leaning people are having a hard time processing the reason why antifa is actually in the wrong here is because (aside from cognitive dissonance) the left has been trying very hard for the better part of a decade to blur the lines between speech and violence.
But that doesn’t mean the rest of the world has deluded itself alongside you. No amount of speech, even atrocious, vile speech, will ever justify physical violence.
Antifa has a history of coming to right leaning events and attempting to shut the event down with violence. And it seems that the violence they’re willing to dish out is correlated to their dislike of the words being spoken. I’m thinking of Milo’s talk at UC Berkeley, and the Antifa riots burning and breaking on the campus. It’s gotten to the point where if someone on the right wants to exercise their free speech, they need to prepare for violence, because the left will visit it upon them, and the police will not protect them, or if they do, they’ll use safety concerns as a way to shutter the entire event.
I want to point out again, that this is a natural, logical conclusion of the no platform movement. “If protests didn’t shut the Nazis up, pull the fire alarm, if that doesn’t work, phone in a bomb threat, and if that doesn’t work, well… let’s throw rocks. The media will cover for us, and Liberals will carry our water.”
Very few people are saying that the white supremacist groups were correct in their rhetoric. I certainly don’t. Does anyone on here? We just understand that there is a material difference between words and stones.
Heh….
Words and Stones.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Two things of note…
1. Jack appointed me civility cop while he’s gone. I have a badge.
2. Guess what game went on sale today (75% off) on Steam?
http://store.steampowered.com/app/505170/Carmageddon_Max_Damage/
But that’s not Stardew Valley or Life is Strange or The Talos Principal.
I’m so confused.
I’ve played the first two, considering the third. I have close to 300 games on Steam. Do you game, valkygrrl (guessing you do)?
I’ve been known to Omni-slash Sephiroth from time to time. Might have married sexy emo purple-haired semi-bad boy Sebastian in Stardew Valley. Maybe, just maybe, discovered that the cake is a lie. And teamed up with Chloe to solve Rachael Amber’s disappearance.
The Talos Principal is very much like the Truing Test and slightly related to portal and portal 2 being a first person puzzler that has a voice from the sky that doesn’t always act in your best interests.
The cake is NOT a lie! Do as you are told (vague rumblings in the background)
Devil’s Food Cake is a liar.
I have The Orange Box. I really need good ***** when playing Portal. Haven’t done Portal 2 yet.
Oh, my little gamer grrl. Nice to meet someone here who shares the joy of the joystick. I’m about to be a baby dinosaur in Saurian. It’s early access at present. http://store.steampowered.com/app/587450/Saurian/
s/Truing Test/Turing Test
Concerning the Confederate Flag (or more accurately, the Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia) here are the words to a song written shortly after the end of the war:
The Conquered Banner
By Abram Joseph Ryan
FURL that Banner, for ’t is weary;
Round its staff ’t is drooping dreary:
Furl it, fold it,—it is best;
For there ’s not a man to wave it,
And there ’s not a sword to save it, 5
And there ’s not one left to lave it
In the blood which heroes gave it,
And its foes now scorn and brave it:
Furl it, hide it,—let it rest!
Take that Banner down! ’t is tattered; 10
Broken is its staff and shattered;
And the valiant hosts are scattered,
Over whom it floated high.
Oh, ’t is hard for us to fold it,
Hard to think there ’s none to hold it, 15
Hard that those who once unrolled it
Now must furl it with a sigh!
Furl that Banner—furl it sadly!
Once ten thousands hailed it gladly,
And ten thousands wildly, madly, 20
Swore it should forever wave;
Swore that foeman’s sword should never
Hearts like theirs entwined dissever,
Till that flag should float forever
O’er their freedom or their grave! 25
Furl it! for the hands that grasped it,
And the hearts that fondly clasped it,
Cold and dead are lying low;
And that Banner—it is trailing,
While around it sounds the wailing 30
Of its people in their woe.
For, though conquered, they adore it,—
Love the cold, dead hands that bore it,
Weep for those who fell before it,
Pardon those who trailed and tore it; 35
And oh, wildly they deplore it,
Now to furl and fold it so!
Furl that Banner! True, ’t is gory,
Yet ’t is wreathed around with glory,
And ’t will live in song and story 40
Though its folds are in the dust!
For its fame on brightest pages,
Penned by poets and by sages,
Shall go sounding down the ages—
Furl its folds though now we must. 45
Furl that Banner, softly, slowly!
Treat it gently—it is holy,
For it droops above the dead.
Touch it not—unfold it never;
Let it droop there, furled forever,— 50
For its people’s hopes are fled!
Stirring stuff. Reminds me of this.
The People’s Flag is deepest red,
It shrouded oft our martyred dead,
And ere their limbs grew stiff and cold,
Their hearts’ blood dyed its every fold.
Chorus:
Then raise the scarlet standard high.
Beneath its shade we’ll live and die,
Though cowards flinch and traitors sneer,
We’ll keep the red flag flying here.
Look round, the Frenchman loves its blaze,
The sturdy German chants its praise,
In Moscow’s vaults its hymns were sung
Chicago swells the surging throng.
(chorus)
It waved above our infant might,
When all ahead seemed dark as night;
It witnessed many a deed and vow,
We must not change its colour now.
(chorus)
It well recalls the triumphs past,
It gives the hope of peace at last;
The banner bright, the symbol plain,
Of human right and human gain.
(chorus)
It suits today the weak and base,
Whose minds are fixed on pelf and place
To cringe before the rich man’s frown,
And haul the sacred emblem down.
(chorus)
With head uncovered swear we all
To bear it onward till we fall;
Come dungeons dark or gallows grim,
This song shall be our parting hymn.
(chorus)
Both the confederacy and communism were beaten. Good riddance.
In order to do real evil – it is necessary to harness and pervert the human propensity to attempt to do good.
Look at the words of both of those works.
Again, at the risk of being tediously repetitious:
Those who fight monsters should beware that they too don’t become monsters thereby.
I personally wouldn’t feel comfortable around a monument built to honor someone who:
1. Led a military rebellion against his country.
2. Owned slaves.
3. Fought for the freedom to continue to hold slaves, against a government that was working towards banning slavery outright.
4. Helped start a deadly war.
Therefore I say we march on Washington right now, tear down the Washington Monument, and change the name of the place to, I dunno, Bernieburg.
Us Civil War (1861-present)
Ridiculous false equivalence.
It’s not about what you, personally, are comfortable with. It’s about what our nation should honor. We should honor our nation’s founder and first president, regardless of his flaws. We should not honor traitors who fought a war against our nation.
How is this hard? Where is the slippery slope here?
“We should not honor traitors who fought a war against our nation.”
Except you repeatedly have demonstrated *this is NOT* you or the Left’s standard.
The primary reason ALL the arguments coalesce around is that they perpetuated a slave based system.
George Washington did the same.
That’s the slippery slope argument being made, valid or not.
Except you repeatedly have demonstrated *this is NOT* you or the Left’s standard.
Where did I demonstrate that it’s not my standard?
I never made any claim on “the Left’s standard.” Some on the Left clearly think the standard should be that we should remove statues of bad presidents. Given that most here, including Jack, thought the Roosevelt statue story was a recent event rather than a year old, and the group in question was unsuccessful, I don’t think that standard is very widespread on the Left.
The only difference between a traitor (Lee) and a revolutionary (Washington) is that Washington won. The whole “history is written by the winners” thing.
Because us rebels won, slavery persisted much longer than it likely would have had we remained a British colony.
I suppose if that had happened, you would be alright with our British government sending all statues and other reminders of that traitor George Washington and his slave-owning rebel friends straight down the memory hole.
The slope is not even that long: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/08/16/jackson-washington-park-protest-presidents-slave-owners/
Already after George.
After the Lynch School insanity, I wonder if Loretta Lynch is going to change her name.
HA! I thought the same just this week, after re-visiting one of her more memorable exhortations to “more blood in the streets.”
Is it time to nullify the Declaration of Independence?
How many of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves?
How far will the stupidity of the social justice warriors go?
Remember; genius has limitations, stupidity does not.
I wonder if these social justice warriors will smear Thomas Jefferson’s black decedents because their ancestor was a slave owner and then demand that Monticello be leveled and the land returned to the Native Americans with recorded history in that area.
Should they let the Jefferson Memorial crumble into oblivion too? Al Sharpton: Let’s Abandon The Jefferson Monument Because He Owned Slaves
Obviously I think these insane social justice warriors have absolutely no clue where their insanity will take them.
Sharpton’s argument is that the Jefferson Memorial should be privately maintained rather than publicly funded. How libertarian!
Kidding. His argument is bad, and he’s kind of a joke in my circles of the left. Our nation should obviously honor all past presidents, even ones who committed atrocities–which is a lot of them.
Do you know this quote, Mr. Z. I loves this quote. You do too. It’s, like, the best quote ever. It’s free for anyone to use. No charge. I’m going hiking now.
When you are dead, you don’t know that you are dead. It is difficult only for the others. It is the same when you are stupid.
One of my ancestors on my father’s side of the family was an evil Christian promoting the Christian way of life and was also a slave owner, but one of my ancestors on my mother’s side was a full blooded Cherokee that lived through the trail of tears; does one counterbalance the other – am I safe from social justice warrior society cleansing?
Am I part of the slave owners heritage or part of the oppressed Native American heritage?
I’m so culturally confused.
Maybe it’s finally time I self identify as black; that’ll fix everything for me and my family.
I was strongly tempted to have my son claim to be Hispanic on his Federal College grant forms… how would they know? I would have gotten free rides at major universities, with his grades and work experience.
Of course, EA has taught me that this is unethical. And I have to live with myself.