American Politics thread: No Nazis Allowed
-
-
How are they so different that I can't make a "this person condemned/condoned slavery" comparison?
And before you say anything, I know both situations are slavery and both situations are bad, but there has to be a noted difference here. In Ancient Times, a lot of slaves were prisoners of war, with the rationale of the people in charge being "Well, they tried to kill us, so they deserve a prison sentence. Might as well make them work during it" etc.
Whereas The Transatlantic slave trade was "Black people are inferior to us… I know! Make them work for us!"
Both are reprehensible, but in very different ways. One is more a question of what constitutes a cruel and unusual punishment, IE where have you gone too far, vs treating another race of human beings as animals purely because of their race.
-
@Monkey:
No it fucking wasn't.
You can't lecture me about the context behind my own statements.
@Monkey:
Robo, when someone bolds a section of something, what is their purpose in doing so?
Apparently to misquote me by removing half of the statement.
For the record, Jesus was a racist who fully accepted slavery as a normal part of life. However, he did realize that racism was wrong and renounced it (although he never renounced slavery).
You can argue that slavery was different back then, but there's a whole parable about how Jesus learned to not hate foreigners.
-
You can't lecture me about the context behind my own statements.
You made Cyan's post?
Apparently to misquote me by removing half of the statement.
You can argue that slavery was different back then
So then you did make the assumption, because you seem rather half-accepting of the facts that Rin expanded on.
-
@Monkey:
So then you did make the assumption, because you seem rather half-accepting of the facts that Rin expanded on.
I was aware that slavery has taken many different forms throughout history, if that's what you mean. I don't see much point in arguing which forms were better or worse, when we really have no idea how bad slavery was at its worst thousands of years ago.
Plenty of people have argued that most American slave owners were kind and reasonable to their victims, but they've been rightly called on that bullshit millions of times over. Acceptance or tolerance of any form of slavery enables its worst possible atrocities.
-
For the record, Jesus was a racist who fully accepted slavery as a normal part of life. However, he did realize that racism was wrong and renounced it (although he never renounced slavery). Buddha also condemned slavery.
It is possible for people to realize these things are morally wrong and stand against them, even living in a society that completely endorses them and accepts them. …We do need to take into account that even if historical figures realized that these things were wrong, openly condemning these facts of colonial life may not have been possible for obvious social reasons (clearly this doesn't apply to people who owned slaves).
I guess my point is that actions speak louder than words, but if you're going to condemn historical figures using the lens of modern morality, you'll be condemning quite a few religious figures. Muhammed owned slaves and personally participated in the enslavement process.
Ok…and?
Do you expect me to change my mind about slavery because major religious figures were involved in or at least didn't condemn the form of slavery in their time? Yes, it was a different type of slavery and not equivalent to the trans-Atlantic slavery, and the point still stands that slavery was and is still wrong.
Anyone involved in it was doing wrong. Did you think invoking religious figures would give slavery some kind moral high ground? But more to the point, and this one I really want you to answer…Do you think I shouldn't be condemning people involved in slavery because of the religious figures you pointed out there?
But they're dead now. They've been dead for a long time. There's no way to make them atone for what they participated in. But this comes back to the same argument for why removing confederate statues doesn't "Erase History".
Books and museums still exist. Documentaries and academic institutions still exist. Statues in-and-of themselves aren't there to teach, they are there to stand as a symbol and represent something.
None* of the founding fathers really evoke slavery at first thought. The iconography of them is "George Washington, Revolution War General and First president!" "Benjamin Franklin,
President, inventor and statesman!", "John Hancock, first to sign the Declaration of Independence", "Thomas Jefferson*, Writer of the Declaration of Independence" etc etc.Their iconography doesn't evoke slavery as the first thought to the vast majority of the people and indeed, none of the monuments or statues erected of them were put up for that reason at all.
The confederacy was entirely about slavery. The statues and monuments were put up specifically to evoke slavery. The first thing pretty much anybody thinks when looking at anything confederate is "Slavery".
If it weren't, pop culture jokes like this wouldn't work:
If you want to argue that this doesn't matter, and that they were slave owners and that makes them bad and the public's perception shouldn't be any different then fine. Go on an information campaign and try to get the whole of America to look at monuments of our founders and have Slavery be the first thing that comes to their mind, but at moment that is not what the reality is.
So, this really is a false equivalency, at least from an iconography standpoint.*I would argue that if you asked 1000 people to say the first thing that pops into their head about Thomas Jefferson, the majority would say something not slavery related, like the Declaration of Independence, or being 3rd president etc BUT, you would also get way more mentions of slavery for him than his contemporaries thanks in no small part to the rumors that he slept with, and sired children with one of his slaves. It's fair to say however that with Jefferson' the topic isn't as cut and dry as the rest. This may make him a hypocrite, but when it came to policy, he claimed to be staunchly opposed to slavery and tried several times to ban it. He got a few successes too that slowed the international trade. He had a mountain of excuses for why he only freed a portion of his slaves, some of which seem decent enough like believing they needed to give them proper educations they had been denied as property before freeing them, to…. assuming a Race War would break out if they were all freed at once...
The point is, Jefferson has the biggest ties to slavery out of the bunch, but his is the kind that is still hotly debated back and forth by historians to this day whereas… pretty much any historian worth their salt will still say the confederacy was 100% bad.
This isn't an issue of whether or not you think of slavery when [insert name] pops into your head.
This is a matter of whether 'it's excessive to hold slavery against major figures before the abolitionist movement'. Like, well, you know, give the guys a break. They just owned a couple of people ya know? Just 18th century men being 18th century men. I'm sure they made up for owning slaves in the end….right? So you just can't hold it against them.
That's some bullshit.
And I'm not talking about tearing down their monuments celebrating their great achievements. I'm talking about when it comes to their history it should not be considered taboo or "excessive" to speak out against the fact that our founding fathers were slave owners.
In fact, why can't we hold that against them? Why can't we condemn that? It is far better than brushing past that ugly history of our founding fathers while at the same time condemning confederate generals who owned slaves and fought to keep that system running. That's hypocrisy.
You don't need to create a false equivalency to acknowledge our founding fathers weren't perfect.
It's not only excessive like you said but actively detrimental to the progress recently made.
See above response.
Only to add that recognizing the faults of our founding fathers and removing confederate statues are 2 separate issues. Just because Trump is attempting to conflate the two does not mean we should do the same. Instead we should be honest and realistic.
-
Ok…and?
Do you expect me to change my mind about slavery because major religious figures were involved in or at least didn't condemn the form of slavery in their time? Yes, it was a different type of slavery and not equivalent to the trans-Atlantic slavery, and the point still stands that slavery was and is still wrong.
Anyone involved in it was doing wrong. Did you think invoking religious figures would give slavery some kind moral high ground? But more to the point, and this one I really want you to answer…Do you think I shouldn't be condemning people involved in slavery because of the religious figures you pointed out there?
No, I'm just cynically tying religion into this because it frankly bothers me that these people get a free pass.
When have I ever said anything that would make you think I'd defend slavery?
-
No, I'm just cynically tying religion into this because it frankly bothers me that these people get a free pass.
When have I ever said anything that would make you think I'd defend slavery?
I guess my point is that actions speak louder than words, but if you're going to condemn historical figures using the lens of modern morality, you'll be condemning quite a few religious figures. Muhammed owned slaves and personally participated in the enslavement process.
Religions getting free passes on morally questionable things has been centers of conflicts for centuries. This is nothing new. This is such a wide reaching, out there comparison. The point isn't looking to condemn historical figures with our modern morality. It's about the morality then! Were there plenty of influence to be gained in the North if the South were to lose it's driving economic force and possible votes(due to AAs heading north)? Of course. The fact of the matter is that it isn't a matter of just stating "hey these people fought to own other people" it's "these people in relatively modern history compared to religious events, tore our current nation in half over their right to own people and they are idolized because of that fact.
The reason these people admire them is because of their position on slavery and the confederacy. For the most part, the questionable moral aspects of multiple religions are ignored by the majority of their followers in developed countries. People aren't wanting to keep a statue of Stonewall Jackson up because he inspired a message of hope and love. He didn't feed the hungry or clothe the poor. Do you understand how drastic a comparison you're trying to make here, how the only connection here is "people in the past that are recognized did some shitty stuff in retrospect".
-
This isn't an issue of whether or not you think of slavery when [insert name] pops into your head.
Actually, the only reason we're talking about this is because there is a push to take down Confederate monuments right now and Trump tried to pull a false equivalency to try to deflect.
That context frames this entire discussion right now. So yes, I do think it's very relevant to the conversation what the iconography of these people means.
When your average person looks at a statue of George Washington out in the open, unless they're a history buff, they probably won't think "Man, he sure was a terrible human being and any worthwhile contributions he may have made to history literally don't matter because he owned slaves". They'll think "He's the first president! Revolutionary War!"
Any confederate monument WILL automatically evoke slavery, and these things are in the public sphere.
So yes, I do feel in that context, the iconography of these figures matters.
This is a matter of whether 'it's excessive to hold slavery against major figures before the abolitionist movement'. Like, well, you know, give the guys a break. They just owned a couple of people ya know? Just 18th century men being 18th century men. I'm sure they made up for owning slaves in the end….right? So you just can't hold it against them.
Ok, I don't think anybody in this thread is trying to make the argument that we can't look back and judge these people for their actions. They participated in slavery and that is morally wrong and shouldn't just be ignored… but it feels like you're going too far in the opposite direction, at least from the way you're wording it.
It feels like you're trying to say not a single one of our founding fathers had a single redeeming quality about them, and anything good they may have done in their lives literally does not matter because they owned slaves and are automatically worse than Hitler as a result.
The fact that some people are trying to bring up is that When people think of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin etc history says they have done some good things that they are remembered for as well, while the confederates don't rate as highly on anyone's lists.
Jefferson actually got legislation passed that stopped the US from participating in the international slave trade, which crippled the entire institution. It smacks of hypocrisy since he continued to own slaves and that is still awful when viewed alone, but if we are comparing him to Robert E. Lee, Lee did NOTHING good while Jefferson did SOME good despite both men doing bad. That's all we're saying is that the equivalency doesn't stack up.
And I'm not talking about tearing down their monuments celebrating their great achievements. I'm talking about when it comes to their history it should not be considered taboo or "excessive" to speak out against the fact that our founding fathers were slave owners.
In fact, why can't we hold that against them? Why can't we condemn that? It is far better than brushing past that ugly history of our founding fathers while at the same time condemning confederate generals who owned slaves and fought to keep that system running. That's hypocrisy.
You're the only one saying anyone is advocating for any of that. Someone jump up to correct me if I'm wrong, but I've yet to see a single person in here say it's unreasonable in general to actually discuss these topics.
You don't need to create a false equivalency to acknowledge our founding fathers weren't perfect.
Only to add that recognizing the faults of our founding fathers and removing confederate statues are 2 separate issues. Just because Trump is attempting to conflate the two does not mean we should do the same. Instead we should be honest and realistic.
The issue with the statues is the entire issue right now. Had that not been a thing, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. People are inevitably going to be viewing the issue through that lens and will be comparing the Founding Fathers to the Confederacy, and I'm sorry, but I CAN name good things the Founding Fathers did, including making some progress towards abolishing slavery despite the inherit hypocrisy, while I can't name a single "Good" thing the confederacy did for anybody.
It's not unreasonable to simply hold that view I don't think.
-
As long as I'm concerned the existence of Jesus is still up to debate, since most(like 99%) stuff about him comes from the bible(super non-reliable).
-
And I'm not talking about tearing down their monuments celebrating their great achievements. I'm talking about when it comes to their history it should not be considered taboo or "excessive" to speak out against the fact that our founding fathers were slave owners.
Yeah no disagreements here.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
So while Trump is talking up the importance of historical monuments and his fears of revisionism, let's take a good long gander here.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trumps-golf-course-plaque-honors-fake-civil-war-battle-w498383 -
Religions getting free passes on morally questionable things has been centers of conflicts for centuries. This is nothing new. This is such a wide reaching, out there comparison. The point isn't looking to condemn historical figures with our modern morality. It's about the morality then! Were there plenty of influence to be gained in the North if the South were to lose it's driving economic force and possible votes(due to AAs heading north)? Of course. The fact of the matter is that it isn't a matter of just stating "hey these people fought to own other people" it's "these people in relatively modern history compared to religious events, tore our current nation in half over their right to own people and they are idolized because of that fact.
The reason these people admire them is because of their position on slavery and the confederacy. For the most part, the questionable moral aspects of multiple religions are ignored by the majority of their followers in developed countries. People aren't wanting to keep a statue of Stonewall Jackson up because he inspired a message of hope and love. He didn't feed the hungry or clothe the poor. Do you understand how drastic a comparison you're trying to make here, how the only connection here is "people in the past that are recognized did some shitty stuff in retrospect".
While it's true that devout racists generally don't use our founding fathers' ownership of slaves to support their views, they do commonly use religious texts.
-
@Monkey:
Yeah no disagreements here.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
So while Trump is talking up the importance of historical monuments and his fears of revisionism, let's take a good long gander here.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trumps-golf-course-plaque-honors-fake-civil-war-battle-w498383"How would they know that? Were they there?" Trump challenged local historians in 2015
bhaahaahahahahaaa oh god
-
@Monkey:
Yeah no disagreements here.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
So while Trump is talking up the importance of historical monuments and his fears of revisionism, let's take a good long gander here.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trumps-golf-course-plaque-honors-fake-civil-war-battle-w498383Trump's invoking a typical creationist argument… to prove something that "happened" during the CIVIL WAR.
Someone should shout "Were you there?" at every Trump speech from here on out.
-
While it's true that devout racists generally don't use our founding fathers' ownership of slaves to support their views, they do commonly use religious texts.
And? Your argument that we should scrutinize religious figures as much as confederate soldiers and you bringing this argument up now -once again- comes off as underplaying the issue here. I know you've said you condemn everything that happened, but why are you making these comparisons?
Pieces of shit use cherry picked words from text translated 3 times from debatable documents centuries ago to further some uneducated point of view all the time, and have for centuries. This is nothing new, and something that hasn't changed. Why are you bringing up a comparison of religious figures of varying degrees of historical legitimacy to modern historical and local pieces of shit?
If your entire point of comparison really is "people look up to people despite bad things they did" then you're only pointing out something that's been around as long as there has been people. This conversation in this thread has been about the statues of confederate soldiers that fought for the right to own people. We're talking about statues that people walk by every day and can legitimately say "my ancestors weren't free men because of these individuals". There is a direct, non debatable fact involved in this. That is not the same as whatever point you're trying to make about some religious equivalent.
And also, I highly beg to differ on your statement that racists more commonly use religion to support their views compared to the founding fathers. Modern racism -for the most part- isn't in line with the views of the founding fathers, because that was the point in history where they still legally weren't people. Again, you're making very false and unfair equivalencies of radically different time periods and contexts.
Outside of groups like the Westboro Baptists Church, there aren't many devout religious groups really highlighting openly racist talking points. Modern Racism usually comes down to "I feel disenfranchised by the fact that these minority groups are getting ahead because I feel that isn't fair because X reasons". Whether that is a gross misunderstanding of something like affirmative action, the welfare system, economic inequality or anything else. It usually boils down to some absurd argument that they believe a minority group is unfairly given greater opportunity just because of their skin color, and it's unfair that white people don't get some sort of "help", while ignoring all the factors of why these groups need certain programs. Then they'll look at things like arrest rates that are systemically harsher on minorities and say "hey, see minorities are overwhelmingly those that commit crime, see they're uncivilized and violent. They have to fix their community.
You may have individuals of that nature fall into the christians that go to church every sunday, and see that blend in. Of course if you have a church and town that's 99% white and their local government feeds into these false facts about people of color then you're going to have some of these religious institutions have racist members that will try to use it to rationalize their prejudice.
You can just turn on Fox News and see that the racism isn't about religion. It's about picking what to be pissed about to play to a base, and if that base loves Jesus and hates black people, well you just got a stew brewing.
Honestly, I don't think you understand what the problem is here Robo. This isn't people getting pissed because people did bad stuff in the past. It's people getting pissed because this is the actual equivalent to having statues of Nazi commanders in the streets of modern 2017 Germany and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors having to walk passed people congregating at it because it represents German pride.
If you honestly think that religious statues are in any way relevant to anything being discussed in these last few pages, you're only confirming that you don't understand even a little bit about why this is an issue in the first place.
-
Modern Racism usually comes down to "I feel disenfranchised by the fact that these minority groups are getting ahead because I feel that isn't fair because X reasons". Whether that is a gross misunderstanding of something like affirmative action, the welfare system, economic inequality or anything else. It usually boils down to some absurd argument that they believe a minority group is unfairly given greater opportunity just because of their skin color, and it's unfair that white people don't get some sort of "help", while ignoring all the factors of why these groups need certain programs. Then they'll look at things like arrest rates that are systemically harsher on minorities and say "hey, see minorities are overwhelmingly those that commit crime, see they're uncivilized and violent. They have to fix their community.
To me, this is really not very representative of real 'racism'. Idk, maybe I'm a little more lenient on the whole thing since I'm don't live in America, but I would say that 'resentment towards treatment of a certain minority group due to perceived unfairness in their treatment by the government compared to yours', even if its not entirely accurate that they're treated 'better', should not be conflated with 'racism'.
It's a slippery slope, doing that. Do you really want to put somewhat justified annoyance at a perceived unfairness on the same level as 'black people are inferior' type race realism, or even just 'I don't like black people, they make me feel uncomfortable', or 'I don't want to associate with people from X-race for no good reason', or even just 'I have a bias against black people for no real reason, I just tend to treat them worse' which still permeates many parts of the world?
Give you an example, I just found out my uncle (southern italy here) genuinely hates black people. Refers to them as negroes, doesn't want his daughter dating them, thinks they're mentally inferior, the whole nine yards. That's racism, clearcut, it still exists. Same shit the white nationalists in America think.
If he were to tell me 'I have resentment against economic migrants that come from Africa into Italy, straining our emergency services and making our city full of black people illegally selling stuff on the beach and in the streets', I'd be a lot less concerned about the kind of person he is. Because it wouldn't be about their race, it'd be about the surrounding situation, which just happens to concerns mostly people who are black. Now, perhaps in this imaginary situation he wouldn't care as much if the economic migrants from Africa were white, but I'd have to assume he'd be open to the possibility of equally resenting white economic migrants entering the country illegally, because in this case his reasoning isn't just 'I don't like them because they're black'.
So yeah. Uh. I disagree with this conception of 'Modern Racism'. If there are genuine justifications for feeling a certain way, which aren't related to race in particular, I don't think you can call it Racism (capital R) in good faith.
Maybe I'm now going to be told I'm racist? I don't know, I just wanted to put my feelings about this upfront because your paragraph just doesn't sit right with me given the "real" racism I'm surrounded with here in Italy. Feels like you're diluting the gravity of the term if you start applying it to what you refer to as 'Modern Racism'.
-
Steve Bannon did an interview with The American Prospect. In it he speaks candidly about North Korea, China, conflict within the Trump administration, and racism.
-
And? Your argument that we should scrutinize religious figures as much as confederate soldiers and you bringing this argument up now -once again- comes off as underplaying the issue here. I know you've said you condemn everything that happened, but why are you making these comparisons?
I'm not underplaying the issue of confederate-inspired racism, I'm drawing attention to the parallel issue of racism spread by and defended by religion. Some of Trump's biggest supporters were churches, and many of them agreed with the racist shit he said during the campaign.
Of course if you have a church and town that's 99% white and their local government feeds into these false facts about people of color then you're going to have some of these religious institutions have racist members that will try to use it to rationalize their prejudice.
You're describing large parts of America, including where I grew up. Members and preachers commonly use the Bible to justify their hate and fear of a few key racial groups. Obviously you and I have had very different experiences in terms of Christianity and racism, if you don't see that as a major problem.
Honestly, I don't think you understand what the problem is here Robo. This isn't people getting pissed because people did bad stuff in the past. It's people getting pissed because this is the actual equivalent to having statues of Nazi commanders in the streets of modern 2017 Germany and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors having to walk passed people congregating at it because it represents German pride.
If you honestly think that religious statues are in any way relevant to anything being discussed in these last few pages, you're only confirming that you don't understand even a little bit about why this is an issue in the first place.
I never said anything about destroying religious statues, and I can't deny that the destruction of historical artifacts (which could be used to educate people about the post-confederate south and how slavery defenders became martyrs there) bothers me.
Honestly… I think you're the one who's mistaken here. People have been pissed about the statues and flags for years, but nothing was done because they were seen as part of a collective southern heritage. Then all of a sudden they started attracting violent Nazis, who assaulted and murdered people. Those people who formerly defended confederate flags and statues now recognize that they've become metaphorical horcruxes that keep the Nazi Voldemort alive, and their desire to drive Nazi scum from their communities is greater than their nostalgia for the past.
If it weren't for the Nazis, nothing would have changed.
-
I'm not underplaying the issue of confederate-inspired racism, I'm drawing attention to the parallel issue of racism spread by and defended by religion. Some of Trump's biggest supporters were churches, and many of them agreed with the racist shit he said during the campaign.
No, once again you're bringing something that is not comparable into a relevant topic. You said it bothers you that religious people get a "free pass" when it comes to being looked at through an objective lense on morally acceptable things. You specifically mentioned the piece about Mohammad and slavery. Religion has been heavily scrutinized over these things. It's a corner stone of many religious institutions to just not acknowledge these things to not cast a bad shadow on it's modern followers. This is nothing new, but not comparable to the conversation everyone else has been having about Charlottesville.
You're describing large parts of America, including where I grew up. Members and preachers commonly use the Bible to justify their hate and fear of a few key racial groups. Obviously you and I have had very different experiences in terms of Christianity and racism, if you don't see that as a major problem.
So you're saying you've found that the majority of racists people you've encountered just so happen to be members of the largest ethnicity and largest religion in the United States?
Of course! As I said, racists people use fucked up rational of all sorts of variety ranging from a fully incorrect wealth equality thing, to just hating someone because for some fucked up reason they think skin color actually effects something of importance to them. Racist people are racist. Racist people like to find excuse for their racism. White supremacy racism will no doubt, have many large sections of people that belong to the largest religion in the United States. Therefore, you have large numbers of racists…...that happen to hide it behind a fucked image of christianity.
So I'll say it again, not the same thing as this whole discussion of the Confederacy. It's just not comparable.
I never said anything about destroying religious statues, and I can't deny that the destruction of historical artifacts (which could be used to educate people about the post-confederate south and how slavery defenders became martyrs there) bothers me.
Honestly… I think you're the one who's mistaken here. People have been pissed about the statues and flags for years, but nothing was done because they were seen as part of a collective southern heritage. Then all of a sudden they started attracting violent Nazis, who assaulted and murdered people. Those people who formerly defended confederate flags and statues now recognize that they've become metaphorical horcruxes that keep the Nazi Voldemort alive, and their desire to drive Nazi scum from their communities is greater than their nostalgia for the past.
If it weren't for the Nazis, nothing would have changed.
This did not happen "all of a sudden". You say in your own post, this has been an issue for years. Neo Nazi's didn't "suddenly" show up here. KKK didn't "suddenly" show up here. They've been the ones volunteering for campaigns of politicians who wanna keep their "southern pride". They're the police officers that pull over a black person without reasonable suspicion because they know that it's one word against the other and theirs holds power. They're the ones who have been going to Trump rally's because they believe in his hate rhetoric. They're the ones that punched protesters after Trump said he'd pay the legal fees.
This wasn't "all of a sudden", this is just the time they felt emblazoned enough by their President to wear their fancy clothes at their torch night on the town.
Nothing has changed in the arguments. They didn't stay just because "southern pride". They stayed because the politicians who win that area are playing up a racist base that statistically votes in larger numbers.
And again, what does this entire point have to do with religion and what's going on. I'm an Atheist. My honest personal opinion is that religion is something that will continue to significantly decrease as information and scientific knowledge is continuously spread, and that like most of history it is still used to control/rationalize whatever anybody wants.
However your comparison is just you trying to make a false comparison. What did you originally mean by them being given "free passes" as compared to the confederate issue? Because as I've said, there's a huge difference between faiths that people use to rationalize multiple things, and racists statistically have a good chance to do that in the US, and memorials to a group that really wanted to own people.
-
Actually, the only reason we're talking about this is because there is a push to take down Confederate monuments right now and Trump tried to pull a false equivalency to try to deflect.
That context frames this entire discussion right now. So yes, I do think it's very relevant to the conversation what the iconography of these people means.
When your average person looks at a statue of George Washington out in the open, unless they're a history buff, they probably won't think "Man, he sure was a terrible human being and any worthwhile contributions he may have made to history literally don't matter because he owned slaves". They'll think "He's the first president! Revolutionary War!"
Any confederate monument WILL automatically evoke slavery, and these things are in the public sphere.
So yes, I do feel in that context, the iconography of these figures matters.
Once again, the fact that a statue evokes the thoughts of slavery isn't the issue here. Everyone here already agrees those statues should be removed and of course I'm talking about people on this board. It's pretty unanimous.
The issue I'm talking about is in response to this exact quote,
"Take with a grain of salt, since as a chubby white guy, but to be it seems excessive to hold slavery against any major figures from before the abolitionist movement really set in."
The quote comes off as pretty dismissive and unnecessarily forgiving. I'm not responding to someone saying, 'I think it's excessive to remove monuments to the founding fathers'. That's different. Sgamer already made it clear he doesn't think our founding fathers and confederate generals are equally contempt. I agree. Never took issue with that. I'm simply not ok with any dismissive attitude towards the sins of our history being glossed over.
I'm sorry but everything you're telling me up there is unnecessary. I already know. I've made it clear that Donald Trump is conflating the 2 issues and I know you'd agree. The context of the overall discussion and Donald Trump's idiotic false equivalency is not something I was in disagreement about. I only disagreed with the notion that holding our forefathers responsible for slavery was excessive.
Ok, I don't think anybody in this thread is trying to make the argument that we can't look back and judge these people for their actions. They participated in slavery and that is morally wrong and shouldn't just be ignored… but it feels like you're going too far in the opposite direction, at least from the way you're wording it.
It feels like you're trying to say not a single one of our founding fathers had a single redeeming quality about them, and anything good they may have done in their lives literally does not matter because they owned slaves and are automatically worse than Hitler as a result.
It's impossible for you to arrive at that conclusion unless you didn't read my post. Because I surely said I'm "not" talking about taking down their monuments celebrating their great achievements.
But, then again, you quoted me so….I'm still confused as to how you arrived at that conclusion.
And, as I said above, what I was responding to came off as dismissive to what our founding fathers were involved in. Nothing to do with calling our founding fathers irredeemable.
The fact that some people are trying to bring up is that When people think of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin etc history says they have done some good things that they are remembered for as well, while the confederates don't rate as highly on anyone's lists.
Jefferson actually got legislation passed that stopped the US from participating in the international slave trade, which crippled the entire institution. It smacks of hypocrisy since he continued to own slaves and that is still awful when viewed alone, but if we are comparing him to Robert E. Lee, Lee did NOTHING good while Jefferson did SOME good despite both men doing bad. That's all we're saying is that the equivalency doesn't stack up.
Right…ok. I don't know why you're telling me this though because, I repeat, I too am saying there's a false equivalency in comparing the two.
I repeat, Donald Trump is conflating the 2 issues!!!
You're the only one saying anyone is advocating for any of that. Someone jump up to correct me if I'm wrong, but I've yet to see a single person in here say it's unreasonable in general to actually discuss these topics.
Nope, I'm not saying anyone is advocating for that. I asked Sgamer if he was dismissing our founding fathers wrongs because of the time they were born in. He said, 'kinda yeah' while, at the same time, saying he's not equating our founding fathers to the confederates (something I agree with).
I responded and it was basically over at that point until….
And it's not like I was arguing for removing the founding father's monuments which you seem to think I am. I don’t know, honestly, I don't think you disagree with me on any of this. I just had a simple disagreement with what was said about how we should remember our founding fathers. That's it.
The issue with the statues is the entire issue right now. Had that not been a thing, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. People are inevitably going to be viewing the issue through that lens and will be comparing the Founding Fathers to the Confederacy, and I'm sorry, but I CAN name good things the Founding Fathers did, including making some progress towards abolishing slavery despite the inherit hypocrisy, while I can't name a single "Good" thing the confederacy did for anybody.
It's not unreasonable to simply hold that view I don't think.
Yeah, there's really no need to apologize about that because I too can name good things about our founding fathers…
You know, just because someone says our founding fathers participated in something terrible doesn't mean they're also saying they're the shitiest people whoever shitted.
If that were true, I would have said the opposite of what I said, and said, 'Tear down those monuments!'
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
No, I'm just cynically tying religion into this because it frankly bothers me that these people get a free pass.
When have I ever said anything that would make you think I'd defend slavery?
Nope, that's exactly what I thought you were trying to do.
Nothing to do with you trying to defend slavery.
Everything to do with me knowing you were just trying to get a shot in on these religious figures because of course you would do that, lol.
-
This did not happen "all of a sudden". You say in your own post, this has been an issue for years. Neo Nazi's didn't "suddenly" show up here. KKK didn't "suddenly" show up here. They've been the ones volunteering for campaigns of politicians who wanna keep their "southern pride". They're the police officers that pull over a black person without reasonable suspicion because they know that it's one word against the other and theirs holds power. They're the ones who have been going to Trump rally's because they believe in his hate rhetoric. They're the ones that punched protesters after Trump said he'd pay the legal fees.
This wasn't "all of a sudden", this is just the time they felt emblazoned enough by their President to wear their fancy clothes at their torch night on the town.
Nothing has changed in the arguments. They didn't stay just because "southern pride". They stayed because the politicians who win that area are playing up a racist base that statistically votes in larger numbers.
And again, what does this entire point have to do with religion and what's going on. I'm an Atheist. My honest personal opinion is that religion is something that will continue to significantly decrease as information and scientific knowledge is continuously spread, and that like most of history it is still used to control/rationalize whatever anybody wants.
However your comparison is just you trying to make a false comparison. What did you originally mean by them being given "free passes" as compared to the confederate issue? Because as I've said, there's a huge difference between faiths that people use to rationalize multiple things, and racists statistically have a good chance to do that in the US, and memorials to a group that really wanted to own people.
They weren't previously perceived as violent or terrorists, that's the sudden change I'm referring to.
Nope, that's exactly what I thought you were trying to do.
Nothing to do with you trying to defend slavery.
Everything to do with me knowing you were just trying to get a shot in on these religious figures because of course you would do that, lol.
I mean… is it really wrong of me to do that? They've earned the criticism.
-
The mention of Stonewall Jacksona little while back reminded me, some of his descendants wrote an open letter to the mayor and to the Monument Avenue Commission of Richmond, VA. In short, they think it's time for these statues to go, too. Even when at least one of the ones in Richmond is their ancestor.
-
I mean… is it really wrong of me to do that? They've earned the criticism.
I'm not saying whether it's wrong or right. Not judging here.
You just do you, Robo.
-
They weren't previously perceived as violent or terrorists, that's the sudden change I'm referring to.
Yes they were. They were when the Bundy ranch fiasco went on, they were when protesters clashed at UC Berkeley over alt right speakers. If you wanna get into systemic racism as a whole you have cases like Trayvon Martin, the probably over a dozen at this point number of police brutality kills, where there is often little done if anything. The difference this time isn't the violence or death, it's the fact that this was the point where these home grown extremists thought "we can be open about it, the President has our back. And in that sense, they were right. They brought their guns just like the Bundy family did, waved them around police officers just like they did, with little consequence(completely violating open carry regulation).
This wasn't them "all of a sudden" getting violent and popping up, it's not extraordinary for a woman dying. It's a big event this time because it's the culmination of a number of bad elements in this country coming to head with imagery that puts an undeniable "bad guy" label on them. Now it isn't "oh my Uncle John is pretty racist, but he's just some 40 year old guy in Florida, what does he matter". Now it's "Oh shit I checked out this Charlottesville thing on the news and Uncle John is wearing a swastika".
It's all about imagery, but this has been going on for years.
I mean… is it really wrong of me to do that? They've earned the criticism.
Yeah this tells me everything I need to know. You don't use a discussion about a relevant current event and turn it into this false equivalency of how we may not be looking into how religion is bad like we currently are socially with confederate sympathizers.
-
Yeah this tells me everything I need to know. You don't use a discussion about a relevant current event and turn it into this false equivalency of how we may not be looking into how religion is bad like we currently are socially with confederate sympathizers.
-
As long as I'm concerned the existence of Jesus is still up to debate, since most(like 99%) stuff about him comes from the bible(super non-reliable).
The existence of the gods are up to debate. Jesus of Nazareth is not.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
A plaque dedicated to Petain at NY will be removed. also other things among that
-
Again, your point? These are the same people that want to deny healthcare. The evangelical far right has been a thing for years. And it's a thing that is prominently in red states. As I said, racist people can be christian, and non christians. Based on the part of the country where those evangelicals are, they have a huge population of followers, and a huge group that will vote for whichever candidate is evangelical enough.
You're using the most die hard Trumpists that can persuade a base of evangelicals to vote as your example of how we've been giving religion a "free pass" ?
You went from using Christians -a very broad range of religion in the country- and Evangelicals, pretty much the most far right religion when it comes to how they vote. These are the same people that pretty much killed Trumpcare by demanding more people not get healthcare.
So this still isn't anymore relevant to your original post, which was comparing thousands of years-old Mohamed and slavery being over looked as compared to how people don't want statues of people that literally owned their ancestors just two centuries ago.
You know, in recent years I really kind of was prepared for seeing actual people decide to wear Nazi gear. My Highschool at this really awesome teacher named Mr. Hughs who taught a senior elective on Genocide. So the class covered more than just the holocaust. However, the holocaust section was interesting because of where our school was. Long Island actually had a decent number of Nazis living on it during the party's rise. Full on Hitler youth groups. My teacher actually had one of the few street signs of streets that were named "Hitler street", because that was actually a thing.
Seeing racists people and the irrationality behind it in 2017 just seems like a sad evolution of that. Just horrible information passed down from generation to generation. You see people flying down the highways with Confederate flags and "Don't tread on me" flags hanging out their Jeeps. In New York. There's no reason to have southern pride, it's not even an area where schools teach of the "war of northern aggression". It's not about religion, it's not about anything valid. It's a result of being spoonfed this idea that only Republicans have the answers, and the conservative bubble that has electoral college power decides the results of an election. You have the minority of voters with their racists ideals seeing their candidate win an election in a system that plays labels and outright lies to manipulate their religious, poor, white base.
-
To me, this is really not very representative of real 'racism'. Idk, maybe I'm a little more lenient on the whole thing since I'm don't live in America, but I would say that 'resentment towards treatment of a certain minority group due to perceived unfairness in their treatment by the government compared to yours', even if its not entirely accurate that they're treated 'better', should not be conflated with 'racism'.
It's a slippery slope, doing that. Do you really want to put somewhat justified annoyance at a perceived unfairness on the same level as 'black people are inferior' type race realism, or even just 'I don't like black people, they make me feel uncomfortable', or 'I don't want to associate with people from X-race for no good reason', or even just 'I have a bias against black people for no real reason, I just tend to treat them worse' which still permeates many parts of the world?
Give you an example, I just found out my uncle (southern italy here) genuinely hates black people. Refers to them as negroes, doesn't want his daughter dating them, thinks they're mentally inferior, the whole nine yards. That's racism, clearcut, it still exists. Same shit the white nationalists in America think.
If he were to tell me 'I have resentment against economic migrants that come from Africa into Italy, straining our emergency services and making our city full of black people illegally selling stuff on the beach and in the streets', I'd be a lot less concerned about the kind of person he is. Because it wouldn't be about their race, it'd be about the surrounding situation, which just happens to concerns mostly people who are black. Now, perhaps in this imaginary situation he wouldn't care as much if the economic migrants from Africa were white, but I'd have to assume he'd be open to the possibility of equally resenting white economic migrants entering the country illegally, because in this case his reasoning isn't just 'I don't like them because they're black'.
So yeah. Uh. I disagree with this conception of 'Modern Racism'. If there are genuine justifications for feeling a certain way, which aren't related to race in particular, I don't think you can call it Racism (capital R) in good faith.
Maybe I'm now going to be told I'm racist? I don't know, I just wanted to put my feelings about this upfront because your paragraph just doesn't sit right with me given the "real" racism I'm surrounded with here in Italy. Feels like you're diluting the gravity of the term if you start applying it to what you refer to as 'Modern Racism'.
No, that is still an equally bad racist comment because they are still being referred to by the colour of their skin. If they were refugees from a white-majority country, would they not be referred to as their nationality? "I don't like these French refugees". "I don't like these Austrian refugees", etc. In Europe, don't people refer to people according to their nationality, not their race?
So for someone who is used to referring to people by their nationality to then refer to a group of people by the colour of their skin, yes it is racist. Africa is a continent. Every country has a different culture and language. They are not all the same because they're black, they are not all black to begin with.
-
Mitt Romney speaks out about President Trump's effect with his words after Charlottesville
I'm going to post the content here since clicking the link means potentially dealing with the comments and they're… What you'd expect...
I will dispense for now from discussion of the moral character of the president's Charlottesville statements. Whether he intended to or not, what he communicated caused racists to rejoice, minorities to weep, and the vast heart of America to mourn. His apologists strain to explain that he didn't mean what we heard. But what we heard is now the reality, and unless it is addressed by the president as such, with unprecedented candor and strength, there may commence an unraveling of our national fabric.
The leaders of our branches of military service have spoken immediately and forcefully, repudiating the implications of the president's words. Why? In part because the morale and commitment of our forces–made up and sustained by men and women of all races--could be in the balance. Our allies around the world are stunned and our enemies celebrate; America's ability to help secure a peaceful and prosperous world is diminished. And who would want to come to the aid of a country they perceive as racist if ever the need were to arise, as it did after 9/11?
In homes across the nation, children are asking their parents what this means. Jews, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims are as much a part of America as whites and Protestants. But today they wonder. Where might this lead? To bitterness and tears, or perhaps to anger and violence?
The potential consequences are severe in the extreme. Accordingly, the president must take remedial action in the extreme. He should address the American people, acknowledge that he was wrong, apologize. State forcefully and unequivocally that racists are 100% to blame for the murder and violence in Charlottesville. Testify that there is no conceivable comparison or moral equivalency between the Nazis--who brutally murdered millions of Jews and who hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat--and the counter-protestors who were outraged to see fools parading the Nazi flag, Nazi armband and Nazi salute. And once and for all, he must definitively repudiate the support of David Duke and his ilk and call for every American to banish racists and haters from any and every association.
This is a defining moment for President Trump. But much more than that, it is a moment that will define America in the hearts of our children. They are watching, our soldiers are watching, the world is watching. Mr. President, act now for the good of the country.
-
Republican Tennessee Senator Bob Corker said yesterday that not only is Fearless Leader unfit for the Presidency, but unless he makes some significant changes to how he conducts himself, he is a threat to the nation. Wow.
-
They won't impeach him or agree to censure him but they'll throw that shade.
-
Again, your point? These are the same people that want to deny healthcare. The evangelical far right has been a thing for years. And it's a thing that is prominently in red states. As I said, racist people can be christian, and non christians. Based on the part of the country where those evangelicals are, they have a huge population of followers, and a huge group that will vote for whichever candidate is evangelical enough.
You're using the most die hard Trumpists that can persuade a base of evangelicals to vote as your example of how we've been giving religion a "free pass" ?
You went from using Christians -a very broad range of religion in the country- and Evangelicals, pretty much the most far right religion when it comes to how they vote. These are the same people that pretty much killed Trumpcare by demanding more people not get healthcare.
So this still isn't anymore relevant to your original post, which was comparing thousands of years-old Mohamed and slavery being over looked as compared to how people don't want statues of people that literally owned their ancestors just two centuries ago.
You know, in recent years I really kind of was prepared for seeing actual people decide to wear Nazi gear. My Highschool at this really awesome teacher named Mr. Hughs who taught a senior elective on Genocide. So the class covered more than just the holocaust. However, the holocaust section was interesting because of where our school was. Long Island actually had a decent number of Nazis living on it during the party's rise. Full on Hitler youth groups. My teacher actually had one of the few street signs of streets that were named "Hitler street", because that was actually a thing.
Seeing racists people and the irrationality behind it in 2017 just seems like a sad evolution of that. Just horrible information passed down from generation to generation. You see people flying down the highways with Confederate flags and "Don't tread on me" flags hanging out their Jeeps. In New York. There's no reason to have southern pride, it's not even an area where schools teach of the "war of northern aggression". It's not about religion, it's not about anything valid. It's a result of being spoonfed this idea that only Republicans have the answers, and the conservative bubble that has electoral college power decides the results of an election. You have the minority of voters with their racists ideals seeing their candidate win an election in a system that plays labels and outright lies to manipulate their religious, poor, white base.
I concede that my own feelings on religion are clouding my perspective on this issue, and Christianity is one of of the less relevant factors here.
-
Friday's a good day for firings. Bannondorf is out!
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a57093/bannon-fired/
Nazis + KKK will not appreciate the mixed messages.
-
Mitt Romney speaks out about President Trump's effect with his words after Charlottesville
I'm going to post the content here since clicking the link means potentially dealing with the comments and they're… What you'd expect...
I never thought I would say this, but this is the second time that Romney has been right on the money.
-
Remember when Romney was desperate to get Trump's endorsement in 2012 and then was even more desperate to become Trump's SoS?
-
@CCC:
Friday's a good day for firings. Bannondorf is out!
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a57093/bannon-fired/
Nazis + KKK will not appreciate the mixed messages.
Ding ding, the Nazi's dead! Or fired, at least.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Romney does a good job of sounding presidential himself, I'll give him that. Even if he does fall in line like other Republicans as usual.
-
The thing that makes me nervous about Bannon getting fired: Wasn't it being suggested at one point that he WANTED to be fired? If so, a guy we dislike just got exactly what he wanted
-
I suppose there's a chance that now that he'd been fired, it thereby "proves" the persecution that he and like minded people are "experiencing".
-
-
The thing that makes me nervous about Bannon getting fired: Wasn't it being suggested at one point that he WANTED to be fired? If so, a guy we dislike just got exactly what he wanted
….Except in this case what he wanted (if being fired was what he wanted) is something almost everyone wanted (and got). The only question is will it lead to Bannon's fans throwing Trump and Republicans under the bus and whether Trump will pull his "he's a nice guy" routine eventhough he apparently wasn't high on Bannon for petty reasons.
-
No, that is still an equally bad racist comment because they are still being referred to by the colour of their skin. If they were refugees from a white-majority country, would they not be referred to as their nationality? "I don't like these French refugees". "I don't like these Austrian refugees", etc. In Europe, don't people refer to people according to their nationality, not their race?
They would be, and would still be treated with the expected prejudice that Afro-Samurai is trying real hard to deny lol. It just wouldn't be racial per say.
See: Polish, Romanians and Bulgarians in the UK. -
"A great many of these young men have an interest in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary sociology—
they like to think of themselves as “alpha males,” as though they were living in a chimpanzee troop —
but it never occurs to them to consider their own status as rejects and failed men in that context.Online fantasy lives notwithstanding, random girls do not want to have sex with them.
How do we know this? Because they are carrying tiki torches in a giant dork parade in Charlottesville.
There’s no prom queen waiting at home.
If we credit their own sociobiological model, they are the superfluous males who would have been discarded, along with their genetic material, by the pitiless state of nature.
The fantasy of proving that they are something else is why they dream of violence and confrontation.
They are the products of the soft liberal-democratic society they hold in contempt —
and upon which they depend, utterly. James Alex Fields Jr. is angry at the world, and angry at his mother, probably for the same reason.What does an angry white boy want? The fact that they get together to play dress-up —
to engage in a large and sometimes murderous game of cowboys and Indians — may give us our answer.
They want to be someone other than who they are. That’s the great irony of identity politics:
They seek identity in the tribe because they are failed individuals.
They are a chain composed exclusively of weak links.
What they are engaged in isn’t politics, but theater: play-acting in the hopes of achieving catharsis.
Their online personas — knights, Vikings, reincarnations of Charles Martel —
will be familiar enough to anybody with a Dungeons and Dragons nerd in his life.
But sometimes, role-playing around a card table isn’t enough: Sometimes, you need a stage and an audience.
In the theater, actors and audience both can forget ourselves for an hour or two.
Under the soft glow of the tiki torches, these angry white boys can be something else — for a night." -
When you're bashing in the skull of the white people with telltale decent looking teeth in the UK, that's not prejudice, it's well…. gosh! I'm surprised! But it turns out this is called economic anxiety!
-
Fuck is he talking about?
Also "many sides"
“The Obstructionist Democrats make Security for our country very difficult. They use the courts and associated delay at all times. Must stop!,” he continued.
He later brought the courts into the mix, writing, “Radical Islamic Terrorism must be stopped by whatever means necessary! The courts must give us back our protective rights. Have to be tough!”Am I hearing this? Is he basically complaining that his critics have rights?
-
"A great many of these young men have an interest in evolutionary psychology and evolutionary sociology—
they like to think of themselves as “alpha males,” as though they were living in a chimpanzee troop —
but it never occurs to them to consider their own status as rejects and failed men in that context.Online fantasy lives notwithstanding, random girls do not want to have sex with them.
How do we know this? Because they are carrying tiki torches in a giant dork parade in Charlottesville.
There’s no prom queen waiting at home.
If we credit their own sociobiological model, they are the superfluous males who would have been discarded, along with their genetic material, by the pitiless state of nature.
The fantasy of proving that they are something else is why they dream of violence and confrontation.
They are the products of the soft liberal-democratic society they hold in contempt —
and upon which they depend, utterly. James Alex Fields Jr. is angry at the world, and angry at his mother, probably for the same reason.What does an angry white boy want? The fact that they get together to play dress-up —
to engage in a large and sometimes murderous game of cowboys and Indians — may give us our answer.
They want to be someone other than who they are. That’s the great irony of identity politics:
They seek identity in the tribe because they are failed individuals.
They are a chain composed exclusively of weak links.
What they are engaged in isn’t politics, but theater: play-acting in the hopes of achieving catharsis.
Their online personas — knights, Vikings, reincarnations of Charles Martel —
will be familiar enough to anybody with a Dungeons and Dragons nerd in his life.
But sometimes, role-playing around a card table isn’t enough: Sometimes, you need a stage and an audience.
In the theater, actors and audience both can forget ourselves for an hour or two.
Under the soft glow of the tiki torches, these angry white boys can be something else — for a night."Hillary should have said this instead of "basket of deplorables".
-
@Serra:
I suppose there's a chance that now that he'd been fired, it thereby "proves" the persecution that he and like minded people are "experiencing".
That's not really something worth worrying about. They already have loads of "proof" (people hating them/firing them for being Nazis).
When you're an open and avid defender of racism, people just naturally hate you.
-
@CCC:
Friday's a good day for firings. Bannondorf is out!
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a57093/bannon-fired/
Nazis + KKK will not appreciate the mixed messages.
This is great. Now if only we could get rid of Sessions.
Edit: Hey Bannon leaving could actually be better than I thought.
@The:
Some White House officials also said Friday they expect some of Bannon’s allies inside the administration to exit with him. Bannon works closely with a number of White House officials, including national security aide Sebastian Gorka and assistant Julia Hahn.
-
lol some doofus of some sort from North Carolina came on CNN talking down historical consensus on slavery being the cause of the Civil War being wrong because because guess what, no one attempted to abolish slavery nationally leading up to the Civil War. So how could Civil war be about abolition??? TAKE THAT HISTORIANS.
Also he got cut off the air early because he was being such an insulting moron to the anchor, and also stated that Lincoln was comparable to Hitler.
-
Didn't Linclon want to abolish slavery only after a few years into the war ?