Should the confederate statues be torn down?

[Forestluv]

6 minutes ago, Epikur said:

The US is founded by taking land from others. The legitimation was because we are are stronger, because god wants it, because we have a superior culture because we don't care anyway. 

Yes, that is how it started. And then began the experiment of the United States. From my POV, that experiment will fail if we don’t get right with minorities. The U.S. is getting internally torn apart. In the next generation, white people will be the majority minority. We need to adapt to that reality or we tare ourselves apart. 

The recent ruling on LGBTQ helps. The removal of many confederate monuments helps. Yet much more work needs to be done.

[Epikur]

4 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Yes, that is how it started. And then began the experiment of the United States. From my POV, that experiment will fail if we don’t get right with minorities. The U.S. is getting internally torn apart. In the next generation, white people will be the majority minority. We need to adapt to that reality or we tare ourselves apart. 

The recent ruling on LGBTQ helps. The removal of many confederate monuments helps. Yet much more work needs to be done.

If the white people in the US lose their drive things might get very challenging too.

The white people seem to lose their energy to engage domestically and and globally.

Globally the chinese might just take over. How would you envision China being  the world super power and the US becomes as strong as France?
 

[Forestluv]

Just now, Epikur said:

If the white people in the US lose their drive things might get very challenging too.

The white people seem to lose their energy to engage domestically and and globally.

Globally the chinese might just take over. How would you envision China being  the world super power and the US becomes as strong as France?
 

To me, this is misplaced sympathy.

This is one of the arguments the confederates used. “If we free the slaves, whites will feel discouraged and lose their drive. And we won’t have any more free labor. How can we compete with other countries without free slave labor?”. . . This is a weak argument on ethics.

As well, this puts the welfare of whites on top. It uses the frame “If white people can’t oppress others, they may lose their drive”. This is not a good justification. It’s like saying “If Daddy can’t smoke meth and beat his kids anymore, then he could lose his drive”. 

We shouldn’t be putting the welfare of white people higher than the welfare of brown and black people. All Lives Matter. . . Remember?

[Epikur]

10 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

To me, this is misplaced sympathy.

This is one of the arguments the confederates used. “If we free the slaves, whites will feel discouraged and lose their drive. And we won’t have any more free labor. How can we compete with other countries without free slave labor?”. . . This is a weak argument on ethics.

As well, this puts the welfare of whites on top. It uses the frame “If white people can’t oppress others, they may lose their drive”. This is not a good justification. It’s like saying “If Daddy can’t smoke meth and beat his kids anymore, then he could lose his drive”. 

We shouldn’t be putting the welfare of white people higher than the welfare of brown and black people. All Lives Matter. . . Remember?

Yes I know what you mean and that sounds right and good but you have the case that sometimes if you want to help a organisation or let's say a company you don't want to give the CEO or the most productive members what they are worth otherwise you might destroy the company.

Democratisation sounds good on paper in realitiy it's quite a mess. I made that thread about epistocracy. 

It reminds me always of Vaush's pet project the worker coops and the democratization of the work place. It does not sound realtistic at all. So you might be careful if you want to sacrifice a working system.






 

[Forestluv]

8 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Yes I know what you mean and that sounds right and good but you have the case that sometimes if you want to help a organisation or let's say a company you don't want to give the CEO or the most productive members what they are worth otherwise you might destroy the company.

Democratisation sounds good on paper in realitiy it's quite a mess. I made that thread about epistocracy. 

It reminds me always of Vaush's pet project the worker coops and the democratization of the work place. It does not sound realtistic at all. So you might be careful if you want to sacrifice a working system.

Economic systems is different. The theme of the thread is about confederate statues coming down. Those confederate statues honor the fight for slavery. That is a very different dynamic than things like wether organic food coops are sustainable in a city. 

[Epikur]

1 hour ago, Serotoninluv said:

Economic systems is different. The theme of the thread is about confederate statues coming down. Those confederate statues honor the fight for slavery. That is a very different dynamic than things like wether organic food coops are sustainable in a city. 

 You want to have a just society? Why not go full in? Why stop at a random red line?

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

 You want to have a just society? Why not go full in? Why stop at a random red line?

It’s not a random red line. It’s a grey area. For example, the confederate monuments are clear-cut. They were built decades after the Civil War to honor those that fought for slavery and to send a white supremecy message to the public. I say take them all down. Put them in museums and battlefields. Yet there is also a grey area like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. These monuments are not honoring them for the slaves they owned. These monuments are honoring them for contributions they made to the country like writing the Bill of Rights. That is a very different situation. It’s not a random line. 

[Bodigger]

We have statues of many important people who, in todays standards, have said very non-pc things.  Such as, people who have spoken out about homosexuality being a mental disorder.  These statues will most likely come down in the future.  Why, because it bothers a few people or, like here in the Wisconsin capitol, ignorance.  

I always thought that it was not as important how we grow into this world, but how we leave it.  These days, it seams, it is not important how many good things someone does, but the few missteps along the way are what we are remembered for.  I would think we would be more careful, for this now applies to us, and the people of the future.  Without missteps, slips, and falls, there will be little, or very slow growth.

Maybe it is best for the collective if some of these statues come down, or moved.  The decision is best when it is made by the collective.

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

We have statues of many important people who, in todays standards, have said very non-pc things.  Such as, people who have spoken out about homosexuality being a mental disorder.  These statues will most likely come down in the future.  Why, because it bothers a few people or, like here in the Wisconsin capitol, ignorance.  

Ahhh, the slippery slope argument once again. . . The confederate statues were erected decades after the Civil War ended, during periods in which black people were gaining rights: the Reconstruction era, Jim Crow era and Civil Rights era. These monuments honor confederate men for their efforts in fighting to preserve slavery. Slavery is not “non-pc”. 

As well, these statues do not bother “a few people”. They bother entire ethnic races of people. Over 100 million people. Now, the majority of people want them to come down. Also notice whose “bothering” matters. In equality, the feelings of white people are not placed higher than the feelings of black people. It is a white privilege to say “Us white people want to erect statues of slave traders that fought for slavery and we don’t care how people of color feel about it”

And it’s important to consider what the person is being honored for. Erecting a statue of Thomas Jefferson to honor him for the Bill of Rights is very different than erecting a stature of a confederate general to honor him for fighting to continue slavery. 

If a statue was erected to honor a man for his homophobia, of course it should come down. That is very different than honoring a man for a great achievement, like discovering a cure cancer, and then finding out he had homophobic views. Those two situations are very different and conflating the two muddies the water.

And of course there will be excesses. If a statue was erected to honor someone who discovered a cure for cancer, of course it would be silly to tare it down for one ignorant comment he made about homosexuality. 

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

I would think we would be more careful, for this now applies to us, and the people of the future.  Without missteps, slips, and falls, there will be little, or very slow growth.

Lol. Read up on confederates like Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest and Sir Francis Drake. These were brutal, cruel men. They are not men who made worthy contributions with a few “missteps”. They brutalized, traded and fought to oppress black people as slaves. That is what their life mission and they shouldn’t be honored for it. It would be like erecting a statue of Jeffrey Dahmer and saying he made a few “missteps”. 

[Forestluv]

45 minutes ago, Husseinisdoingfine said:

Yes, tear them all down the people represented many whom had ties to the KKK and they represented betraying the Union and a backwards past

Indeed. Nathan Bedford Forrest’s life achievements were 1) Founder of a highly profitable slave trading business, 2) Confederate general to preserve slavery, 3) Founding father of the KKK and 4) The first grand wizard of the KKK. Those are his life achievements he is being honored for with monuments. 

Not only does the state of Tennessee have statues honoring this man, they also have a Nathan Bedford Forrest Holiday every July in which the governor is required to honor. 

[Lyubov]

 

It's old but this is still a classic

[Forestluv]

22 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

 

It's old but this is still a classic

Oh my. . . 1:45 - 2:00. . . “Do you know how much a slave cost back then?”. . . Look at his expression. . . There is an awkward gap of silence in which his buddy starts singing a confederate song to get things back into the racist happy zone. There is a 7 second period in which the man with the brown beard is sooo close to having an awakening. That is what being on the edge of an awakening looks like. Yet, after 7 seconds of being groundless, he regains his grounding by singing the confederate song. Yet also notice how his heart isn’t in it. There is no pep in his voice, no animation in his body. He walks away dejected as his buddy finishes the song by himself. 

During those 7 seconds, imagine everything that man would have had to surrender to have the awakening. He wold have needed to surrender his identity, his ideology and his life purpose. . . I’m curious if a seed was planted in him that moment. Did he ever reflect on that moment? Did he ever watch the video again? Did his views begin to evolve or was he still able to maintain his previous ideology?

[Bodigger]

Perhaps I was not clear enough when I wrote;

1 hour ago, Bodigger said:

Maybe it is best for the collective if some of these statues come down, or moved.  The decision is best when it is made by the collective.

Removing statues of government property should be done by city council members, county board, state representatives, with the peoples input.  I have mentioned in other threads that the representation in major cities is 85-95% Democrat, and I have heard very little about these statues in which @Serotoninluv  is discussing until recent weeks.  Where was the talk about this, or the representation over the past decades? 

Now there is talk about tearing down statues of Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and many others.

In the capitol of Wisconsin, a statue of Lady Forward and Hans Christian Heg were ripped down and thrown in the lake.  Hans Christian Heg was an abolitionist Colonel for the Union and killed in combat.  WTF....and we don't think that a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. will come down some day for his words regarding homosexuality.  @Serotoninluv  How would you feel if some anti-war people ripped down the Soldiers and Sailors statues, or anti-spiritual people tore down the Spirit of Detroit statue, without debate or concord?  I can hear you now...…"Well, that's different".  Don't be concerned, I still, and always will, LOVE YOU.

[TrustTheProcess]

@Bodigger If there is a statue of someone whose primary accomplishment was related to slavery or genocide, they should not be venerated. 

Stage green is having a field day with this and are taking it a bit far going after Jefferson, washington, etc, but confederate soldiers and columbus are actually a different story. 

[Forestluv]

33 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

I have heard very little about these statues in which @Serotoninluv  is discussing until recent weeks.  Where was the talk about this, or the representation over the past decades? 

This gets sooo tiring. . . These discussions have been ongoing for many years. You just have noticed until recent weeks. 

The tide of the debate turned after Charlottesville and some Confederate monuments came down. The tide has again turned after George Floyd and more Confederate monuments have come down. As people wake up, more and more statues are coming down. 

33 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Removing statues of government property should be done by city council members, county board, state representatives, with the peoples input. 

Of course, that is how the vast majority of statues of been coming down over the years. Only a few have been torn down by communities.

33 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

Now there is talk about tearing down statues of Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and many others.

As I wrote, there are grey areas. Just because there are grey areas doesn’t mean that the statues honoring slavery shouldn’t come down. A common tactic of diversion is to direct focus to the grey areas. This takes attention away from the clear margins. The confederate statues honor men for brutal, cruel slave-trading and fighting to continue slavery. These should come down. Lincoln, Washington and Jefferson is a totally different dynamic. That is the distinction you are not seeing. 

33 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

we don't think that a statue of Martin Luther King Jr. will come down some day for his words regarding homosexuality. 

Are you really not seeing this distinction? Martin Luther King Jr. statues are honoring him for his work and achievements in Civil Rights, not for his comments about homosexuality. The confederate statues are honoring men for white supremacy and fighting to continue slavery. Consider Nathan Bedford Forrest. His life achievements were 1) Founder of a highly profitable slave trading business, 2) Confederate general to preserve slavery, 3) Founding father of the KKK and 4) The first grand wizard of the KKK. Those are his life achievements he is being honored for with monuments. That is a completely different situation than Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, MLK etc. 

33 minutes ago, Bodigger said:

@Serotoninluv  How would you feel if some anti-war people ripped down the Soldiers and Sailors statues, or anti-spiritual people tore down the Spirit of Detroit statue, without debate or concord?  

LOL. You keep trying to conflate, yet that won’t work with me because I can see the distinction. 

The Spirit of Detroit statue represents human unity, that we are all in this together. Can you really not see the difference between the Spirit of Detroit statue and a Nathan Bedford Forrest statue?

The debate about taking down confederate statues have been going on for years. . . 

A more accurate question would be: How would you fell about taking down a stature honoring Jeffrey Dahmer? There had been 5 years of debate about the statue and it still stood and then the community got so fed up looking at this disgusting statue, they said “enough is enough” and tore it down. I would understand this frustration. If my community had been trying to remove a Jeffrey Dahmer statue for 5 years and our city council refused to act, and it got torn down? I’d probably smile and sleep a bit better that night. It should never have been erected in the first place.

Also consider why these statues were erected. They were erected during DECADES after the civil war ended, during periods in which black people were gaining rights: The Reconstruction era, the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights era. They are statues of white supremacy to honor white supremacists that fought to preserve slavery. 

[Lyubov]

2 hours ago, Serotoninluv said:

Oh my. . . 1:45 - 2:00. . . “Do you know how much a slave cost back then?”. . . Look at his expression. . . There is an awkward gap of silence in which his buddy starts singing a confederate song to get things back into the racist happy zone. There is a 7 second period in which the man with the brown beard is sooo close to having an awakening. That is what being on the edge of an awakening looks like. Yet, after 7 seconds of being groundless, he regains his grounding by singing the confederate song. Yet also notice how his heart isn’t in it. There is no pep in his voice, no animation in his body. He walks away dejected as his buddy finishes the song by himself. 

During those 7 seconds, imagine everything that man would have had to surrender to have the awakening. He wold have needed to surrender his identity, his ideology and his life purpose. . . I’m curious if a seed was planted in him that moment. Did he ever reflect on that moment? Did he ever watch the video again? Did his views begin to evolve or was he still able to maintain his previous ideology?

haha interesting take. I guess it started to dawn on him that regardless of his family not owning a slave that the flag he carries is a symbol of a slave state and he's just bullshitting himself trying to reason out of it. 

[Bodigger]

@louhad  and @Serotoninluv, I have no problem removing statues and monuments of the many people you have described.  It is the manner of how they are being removed in which I am questioning.  When people act on emotion rather than intellect we make poor decisions.  I am disappointed in the State of Tennessee and the Republicans for not removing the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue.  I see the distinction but when people act on emotion rather than intellect we make poor decisions.  My concern is when others don't see the distinction.  This is why I stated the following;

20 hours ago, Bodigger said:

In the capitol of Wisconsin, a statue of Lady Forward and Hans Christian Heg were ripped down and thrown in the lake.  Hans Christian Heg was an abolitionist Colonel for the Union and killed in combat.  

Mayor Kathy Sheehan of Albany, NY signed an executive order to remove the statue of Major General Philip Schuyler, who was in the American Revolution and a U.S. Senator.  He was a slave owner so he needs to go.

City council President Susan Dabaja had the statue of late Mayor, Orville Hubbard removed for his racist views.

The city of Philadelphia removed a statue of the late Mayor, Frank Rizzo for his controversial statements.

California is removing a statue of Columbus which stands in the capitol. 

My question is, if government lived with these statues for decades and can have these statues removed with the stroke of a pen, why did this not take place years ago.  I am thinking......WOKE maybe, but more for political reasons.

 

[Forestluv]

6 hours ago, Bodigger said:

@louhad  and @Serotoninluv, I have no problem removing statues and monuments of the many people you have described.  It is the manner of how they are being removed in which I am questioning.  When people act on emotion rather than intellect we make poor decisions.  I am disappointed in the State of Tennessee and the Republicans for not removing the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue.  I see the distinction but when people act on emotion rather than intellect we make poor decisions.  My concern is when others don't see the distinction. 

Of course it is preferable to remove the statues via the governing body. Yet can you not see the frustration when the political officials don’t do there jobs and the statues remain year after year? You mention that you are disappointed in the State of Tennessee and the Republicans for not removing the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue. Actually, there are many of them as well as a state holiday. Imagine being a black person and having statues honoring this despicable person. I’m not even black and it would both me if my public parks had statues honoring sadistic man that brutalized innocent people. Imagine how that community feels. At what point would your “disappointment” turn to “frustration”? Two years of dealing with this? Five years? At what point does frustration turn to “enough is enough”? . . It’s much easily to simply be “disappointed” and tell others to continue waiting if one doesn’t have to deal with it and doesn’t have to carry the burden. Yes, removing the statues via the proper channels is best and most of them are being removed that way. However, I understand the extreme frustration community members are feeling. If that statue was in my local park, I would feel the same way. And if my city council failed to act year after year, I could see a boiling point in which I join my community to take down the sadistic statue ourselves. I can’t see myself actually pulling it down. Yet I could see myself in the crowd watching and feeling relieved when it came down. 

[lmfao]

@Lindsay If a statue of slave owner Jim is hanging around and Tyrone gets pissed off seeing it in his local area, and I was chilling with him, I'd be like fuck yeah destroy the statue if you want.

But if it becomes a public affair and dumb ass movement, then no I don't think so. 

Edited July 3, 2020 by lmfao

[Lyubov]

Quote

The chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is calling for the removal of the Mount Rushmore National Memorial, arguing that it is carved in an area that is considered sacred land to Natives.

"Nothing stands as a greater reminder to the Great Sioux Nation of a country that cannot keep a promise of treaty then the faces carved into our sacred land on what the United States calls Mount Rushmore," said Harold Frazier, chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, where the memorial is located.

"The United States of America wishes for all of us to be citizens and a family of their republic yet when they get bored of looking at those faces we are left looking at our molesters," Frazier wrote in a statement on June 29.

Frazier is just the latest in a slew of Native leaders who have spoken out the monument, which features the faces of four former presidents: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln.

In June, Oglala Sioux President Julian Bear Runner said Mt. Rushmore is a "great sign of disrespect," noting he believes it should be "removed."

Both the Oglala and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe -- which is home to four bands of Sioux Natives -- are part of the Great Sioux Nation.

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/native-tribal-leaders-are-calling-for-the-removal-of-mount-rushmore/ar-BB16grwI?ocid=spartan-dhp-feeds

I support this

Edited July 3, 2020 by Lyubov