The terrible thing that's happened in america

[Jambo-Jimbo]

In 1924? In 1924 in the South the black population was still effectively seen as subhuman by the majority of the ruling class, whether it offended 'them' wouldn't have been relevent. If anything pissing off 'blacks or Yankees' would have been a bonus.

 

Well this is true, many probably still think along similar lines today.

[ZeroHour]

The idiot driving into the crowd.....on the news...

 

 

I studied american civil war at Edinburgh university as part of my degree, back in the day. Trying to destroy statues of General Robert E Lee, is like the Taliban destroying the great statues in Afghanistan.

 

He was a great general and soldier, distinguished at west point... And seen as a hero of the south....

 

I am naturally, predetermained to be a Yankee with my Irish american roots, but the cr?eping neo facist liberalism makes my skin crawl.

 

I am clearly opposed to Trump-ism...but why tear down an american generals statue, unless to cause division and hate...

I agree entirely. It's a whitewashing of history and attempt to strip southerners of their heritage.

 

I'm no Scottish nationalist but i'd never dream of trying to bulldoze monuments of their heros such as William Wallace & Robert the Bruce.

[ZeroHour]

Wasn't the decision to remove Lee's statue taken before the Trump regime?

 

Let's face it, the Confederates lost, they were the "bad guys", and despite any honour that Lee may quite rightly deserve, he represents a regime that backed slavery.

 

So, I can understand why monuments to that regime should no longer exist. But that's my less than extensively researched argument on it.

 

In the fall out, trump was hardly equivecobal in his criticism of the terror attack. Because that's what it was, right?

For many in the South the civil war was about standing up to what they seen as a tyranny in the North that was killing their states with high taxation etc. They were certainly on the wrong side of history but there's no need to censor it.

[Peebo]

As I wasn't around in 1924 I can't possibly answer if the statue caused offence back then or not and neither can you I'd presume.

I wasn't around then either. I have been around enough to know that the offence felt is not a new phenomenon that has suddenly appeared.

 

However I'd suggest that if it were likely to have caused offence back in 1924, it wouldn't have been erected in the first place, possibly.

Erm, yes, possibly. Meanwhile, in the real world...

 

But it's not just this one statue, there are others which campaigners are trying to or have succeeded to have removed, statues, street names, buildings are all under fire from the campaigners, Yale had to change the name of one of it's collages because it was originally named after a Pre-Civil War Southern Politician named John Calhoun who was a supporter of slavery. In Princeton demands by campaigners to have the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs renamed because the former President held views that some consider as being racist. Next they'll want his name removed as ever being a US President.

 

In the UK recently we had a similar case (without the violence) concerning a statue of Cecil Rhodes at the Oriel Collage in Oxford, campaigners wanted the statue removed because in their eyes it was a symbol of British Colonialism and the abuse of the native population of what became known as Rhodesia.

Whilst they wanted the statue of Cecil Rhodes removed as it caused them offence, the very same students were obviously quite happy to sit in the building that was partly paid for by Rhodes, hypocrisy of the highest order, because if the statue of Cecil Rhodes caused offence then so would the building paid for by Cecil Rhodes cause offence as well, but I didn't see them rushing to sit outside in the rain to do their studies.

 

In nearly every village, town and city in the entire World there are statues, monuments or buildings named after someone who will cause offence to somebody, somewhere.

If the name of such things is changed through a fair process that reflects the will of the constituents (that can easily be neither intolerant or hateful), then I'm not sure what the problem is, or if it is really anyone else's business. People are, of course, entitled to pass comment or raise objection to that.

 

As for the removal of Woodrow Wilson from presidential history, I'd suggest you are getting a bit carried away.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

I wasn't around then either. I have been around enough to know that the offence felt is not a new phenomenon that has suddenly appeared.

 

 

Erm, yes, possibly. Meanwhile, in the real world...

 

 

If the name of such things is changed through a fair process that reflects the will of the constituents (that can easily be neither intolerant or hateful), then I'm not sure what the problem is, or if it is really anyone else's business. People are, of course, entitled to pass comment or raise objection to that.

 

As for the removal of Woodrow Wilson from presidential history, I'd suggest you are getting a bit carried away.

 

I agree the offence to some is nothing new, however where does it all stop?  That is what I'm more concerned about.

 

The danger is that once you remove one statue of Robert E. Lee then you have to remove every statue of Robert E. Lee, if one statue causes offence then by definition every statue of Robert E. Lee causes the same offence to the same people, and therefore has to be removed, then where does that lead you too, who's next, what's next.

Hence the Woodrow Wilson comment, where does it stop, when will the campaigners be happy, when someone is removed from history?

[Peebo]

I agree the offence to some is nothing new, however where does it all stop? That is what I'm more concerned about.

 

The danger is that once you remove one statue of Robert E. Lee then you have to remove every statue of Robert E. Lee, if one statue causes offence then by definition every statue of Robert E. Lee causes the same offence to the same people, and therefore has to be removed, then where does that lead you too, who's next, what's next.

Hence the Woodrow Wilson comment, where does it stop, when will the campaigners be happy, when someone is removed from history?

Nah, it can easily stop after that. Nothing has to be removed - you are making that up, just like you are fantasising about people wanting others "removed from history" (whatever that means). Different people or bodies will be responsible for different statues etc. in different venues. The statue is not being removed as a result of a Federal decree, or Presidential order, for example.

[John Findlay]

Perhaps we should just keep the bits of history we like and airbrush the bits we don't. Sorry there are those that do that now.

[Peebo]

Perhaps we should just keep the bits of history we like and airbrush the bits we don't. Sorry there are those that do that now.

Or maybe people just decide themselves if they are comfortable with statues in places that they control.

[Ibrahim Tall]

Perhaps we should just keep the bits of history we like and airbrush the bits we don't. Sorry there are those that do that now.

TBH, you're exaggerating with the 'airbrush' comments. If anything it could be argued retaining the statues, monuments and flags is itself airbrushing history as it's offering a degree of legitimacy to what was a pretty dark period of American history.

 

Did removing the Swastika or Nazi era statues from post-war Berlin and Germany air brush that part from its history? Or the removal of statues of Lenin, Stalin etc in Eastern Europe? No, everyone's is still well aware of the history and removing them is not an attempt to whitewash or rewrite the past they're just conscious that it's no longer appropriate to publicly display them outside of a museum etc.

[Peebo]

TBH, you're exaggerating with the 'airbrush' comments. If anything it could be argued retaining the statues, monuments and flags is itself airbrushing history as it's offering a degree of legitimacy to what was a pretty dark period of American history.

 

Did removing the Swastika or Nazi era statues from post-war Berlin and Germany air brush that part from its history? Or the removal of statues of Lenin, Stalin etc in Eastern Europe? No, everyone's is still well aware of the history and removing them is not an attempt to whitewash or rewrite the past they're just conscious that it's no longer appropriate to publicly display them outside of a museum etc.

Absolutely spot on.

[Seymour M Hersh]

Both sides are groups of intolerant lunatics and Trump was correct to condemn them all.

[Cade]

The kind of violent, neo-nazi, white supremacist protests that the removal of the statue has triggered only goes to prove that removing it is the right choice in the first place.

[deesidejambo]

Both sides are groups of intolerant lunatics and Trump was correct to condemn them all.

+1

 

The interesting irony is that in 1984 the people were forced into thinking a certain way by continued airbrushing of history.

 

The second irony is that by leaving the statue in place it provides a reason to discuss what happened in the 1800s whether you like it or not.  History should be learned from, warts and all, not hidden.

 

But back on message - I personally am offended by the Statue of Wellington in Edinburgh as I am 1/16th French.  Can I get it removed?

 

I have a friend who lost an arm in an accident and wont to to the Diggers because its called the "Athletic Arms".   Can we make it change its name to stop him being offended?

[Peebo]

+1

 

The interesting irony is that in 1984 the people were forced into thinking a certain way by continued airbrushing of history.

 

The second irony is that by leaving the statue in place it provides a reason to discuss what happened in the 1800s whether you like it or not. History should be learned from, warts and all, not hidden.

 

But back on message - I personally am offended by the Statue of Wellington in Edinburgh as I am 1/16th French. Can I get it removed?

 

I have a friend who lost an arm in an accident and wont to to the Diggers because its called the "Athletic Arms". Can we make it change its name to stop him being offended?

I'm intrigued. When people come out with analogies like this Diggers one, are they actually trying to be sensible?

[deesidejambo]

I'm intrigued. When people come out with analogies like this Diggers one, are they actually trying to be sensible?

 

You see the world through your perspective, as we all do. 

 

Its simple - anyone has the right to be "offended".  I am personally offended by the Green Brigades song about Rigby.

 

However for every person who is "offended" there are others who are not, or don't care, or are offended by the offender.

 

It could be argued that by trying to eradicate or rename remnants from the past, be there parks, statues, or whatever, we are imposing todays values over historical ones, the risk being that th historical reasoning is lost, whether it be offensive or not.

 

How far do you then take it?  Should Britain apologise for colonising New Zealand as some have asked?    Should the USA apologise for Hiroshima?  Should Japan apologise for war crimes?   Should the BBC apologise for sexism in Are You Being Served?

 

Of the many ironies I see in this issue. I'll add that those who espouse "inclusivenes" or "respectful others" then dont apply these same aspects to those who they dont like.

 

A funny example was in the Eurovision Song Contest this year, where one of the "fans" said the competition is about love and respect for everyone, whoever they are - except the Russians!  Get the irony?

[Peebo]

You see the world through your perspective, as we all do.

 

Its simple - anyone has the right to be "offended". I am personally offended by the Green Brigades song about Rigby.

 

However for every person who is "offended" there are others who are not, or don't care, or are offended by the offender.

 

It could be argued that by trying to eradicate or rename remnants from the past, be there parks, statues, or whatever, we are imposing todays values over historical ones, the risk being that th historical reasoning is lost, whether it be offensive or not.

 

How far do you then take it? Should Britain apologise for colonising New Zealand as some have asked? Should the USA apologise for Hiroshima? Should Japan apologise for war crimes? Should the BBC apologise for sexism in Are You Being Served?

 

Of the many ironies I see in this issue. I'll add that those who espouse "inclusivenes" or "respectful others" then dont apply these same aspects to those who they dont like.

 

A funny example was in the Eurovision Song Contest this year, where one of the "fans" said the competition is about love and respect for everyone, whoever they are - except the Russians! Get the irony?

I'll take that as a yes, then!

 

Of course everyone has their own perspective on things. Mine is that different things will offend different people. If that results in a group of people deciding to remove a statue from land they collectively control, I'm fine with it. I can understand why that City may have taken that step, but it's not really any of my business nor something I need to understand.

 

Seems a bit of a leap to then start talking about demands for apologies for historic wrong-doing, but there seems to be a bit of a trend on this thread for such leaps as people try to advance whatever point it is they are making.

[Boris]

I agree entirely. It's a whitewashing of history and attempt to strip southerners of their heritage.

I'm no Scottish nationalist but i'd never dream of trying to bulldoze monuments of their heros such as William Wallace & Robert the Bruce.

 

 

As an analogy, that doesn't really work.

 

 

For many in the South the civil war was about standing up to what they seen as a tyranny in the North that was killing their states with high taxation etc. They were certainly on the wrong side of history but there's no need to censor it.

So slavery is cool then? Let's face it, that's what these "fine southern gents" are really all about. White supremacy. Perhaps harsh on Lee himself, but it's not about him per se, is it?

[luckyBatistuta]

I think the "fact" it is only causing offence now is only in your mind!

I suggest any efforts to take it down in 1924 would have resulted in more than one death. And it certainly wouldn't have been a course of action decided through democratic channels!

Where does this end?

 

Are we going to see Mount Rushmore being chipped away at?

 

Are we going to see the Andrew Jackson statue come down and other US president's statues?

[Peebo]

Where does this end?

Where does what end?

 

Are we going to see Mount Rushmore being chipped away at?

Seems unlikely. Has anyone suggested this?

 

Are we going to see the Andrew Jackson statue come down and other US president's statues?

Unsure. Again, are there are plans, or proposals? Probably more likely than Mt. Rushmore, a national memorial, being defaced since there will be loads of statues of ex-Presidents across the country. Some may sit on land where the authorities in charge and their constituents, or private owners, may decide to take one down.

[luckyBatistuta]

The removal of statues that are offensive to people because of history. Not read it anywhere about Rushmore, but i reckon it's offensive to some. What happens if the Native American Indians start creating a fuss and wanting statues of presidents to be removed.

[Peebo]

The removal of statues that are offensive to people because of history. Not read it anywhere about Rushmore, but i reckon it's offensive to some. What happens if the Native American Indians start creating a fuss and wanting statues of presidents to be removed.

What happens? Nothing will happen, unless perhaps it's a statue on a reservation that they actually have the power to remove.

 

People are simply making up absolutely horseshit examples here. If people think that the City of Charlottesville was wrong in its decision to proceed with the removal, fair enough. But this idea that it will lead to an avalanche of statues and monuments being removed simply because they are "offensive to some" is ****ing laughable. And suggests people really don't quite get the issues in the South of the US.

[luckyBatistuta]

What happens? Nothing will happen, unless perhaps it's a statue on a reservation that they actually have the power to remove.

People are simply making up absolutely horseshit examples here. If people think that the City of Charlottesville was wrong in its decision to proceed with the removal, fair enough. But this idea that it will lead to an avalanche of statues and monuments being removed simply because they are "offensive to some" is ******* laughable. And suggests people really don't quite get the issues in the South of the US.

I know it won't happen, why should it have to be on a reservation?

Not sure if your saying that my hypothetical question is horseshit, but if the statue is offensive to a group of people because of what happened/is happening to them, then why wouldn't others be.

[ZeroHour]

 

 

As an analogy, that doesn't really work.

 

 

So slavery is cool then? Let's face it, that's what these "fine southern gents" are really all about. White supremacy. Perhaps harsh on Lee himself, but it's not about him per se, is it?

Im having a hard time seeing where you derived 'slavery is cool' from my post. Like i said, for many in the South the civil war symbolised the south standing up to what they seen as a tyrannical northern government. It wasn't a single-issue war and the belligrents shouldn't all be portrayed as pro-slavery racists, history should be accurately respected not whitewashed & politicized.

[Ulysses]

It wasn't a single-issue war......

 

The "tyrannical North" and the South pissed each other off because they disagreed about slavery - in particular, about the power of the U.S. national government to prevent slavery from happening in territories of America that had not yet become states.  The rest is just padding and excuse-making by neo-conservatives, racists and white supremacists.

[Boaby Ewing]

Scottish folk actually saying a bunch of folk protesting Nazis are just as bad as the Nazis.

 

Jesus wept.

[niblick1874]

Scottish folk actually saying a bunch of folk protesting Nazis are just as bad as the Nazis.

 

Jesus wept.

 

Which lot are the Nazis? 

[Boaby Ewing]

The ones with ******** swastikas.

[Peebo]

I know it won't happen, why should it have to be on a reservation?

 

It doesn't. But in the real world, Native Americans dont have much sway outside of the federally-designated tribal lands.

 

Not sure if your saying that my hypothetical question is horseshit, but if the statue is offensive to a group of people because of what happened/is happening to them, then why wouldn't others be.

Eh?

[Peebo]

The ones with ******** swastikas.

 

It's quite remarkable some of the things people come out with while discussing this.

[peter_hmfc]

Just as well they all have their guns to protect themselves unless a civil war DOES break out. Imagine the bloodshed if they weren't all armed with AR-15s.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

But this idea that it will lead to an avalanche of statues and monuments being removed simply because they are "offensive to some" is ******* laughable. And suggests people really don't quite get the issues in the South of the US.

 

Lexington is the latest place to announce the removal of Confederate Monuments.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/13/us/kentucky-confederate-monuments/index.html

 

Since 2015.

'At least 60 publicly funded symbols of the Confederacy have been removed or renamed since the mass shooting in Charleston, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.'

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/12/us/confederate-monument-state-bills/index.html

 

The statue in Charlottesville isn't the first nor it would appear to be the last symbol of the Confederacy to be removed or renamed over the last couple of years.

 

I don't know the locations of every statue or symbol of the Confederacy that have been removed or renamed, however in just 3 locations which I am aware of, all 3 have a Democrat Mayor (New Orleans, Charlottesville & Lexington). 

 

Is there something more to this, is there a political slant to the removal of Confederate Monuments?  I don't know and I'm not saying that there is, but it would be interesting to know if there are any Republican Mayor's or Republican controlled councils, cities or states which have voted to remove Confederate Monuments or is it only Democrat controlled where the removals have happened over the last 2 years.

[Peebo]

Lexington is the latest place to announce the removal of Confederate Monuments.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/13/us/kentucky-confederate-monuments/index.html

 

Since 2015.

'At least 60 publicly funded symbols of the Confederacy have been removed or renamed since the mass shooting in Charleston, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.'

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/12/us/confederate-monument-state-bills/index.html

 

The statue in Charlottesville isn't the first nor it would appear to be the last symbol of the Confederacy to be removed or renamed over the last couple of years.

 

I don't know the locations of every statue or symbol of the Confederacy that have been removed or renamed, however in just 3 locations which I am aware of, all 3 have a Democrat Mayor (New Orleans, Charlottesville & Lexington).

 

Is there something more to this, is there a political slant to the removal of Confederate Monuments? I don't know and I'm not saying that there is, but it would be interesting to know if there are any Republican Mayor's or Republican controlled councils, cities or states which have voted to remove Confederate Monuments or is it only Democrat controlled where the removals have happened over the last 2 years.

Yes, I'm aware of the issue and the recent happenings surrounding such symbols in the South. In the post you quoted, I was more referring to the idea people were suddenly about to start chiseling off the faces at Mt. Rushmore, or pulling down the Statue of Liberty!

 

Of course it is political.

[luckyBatistuta]

It doesn't. But in the real world, Native Americans dont have much sway outside of the federally-designated tribal lands.

 

Why?

It doesn't. But in the real world, Native Americans dont have much sway outside of the federally-designated tribal lands.

 

Eh?

Why is the statue being removed?

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

All I know is that it seems like a ludicrous thing for people to be getting killed over.

[luckyBatistuta]

All I know is that it seems like a ludicrous thing for people to be getting killed over.

[Peebo]

Why?

 

Native Americans don't have much political sway, due to their numbers.

 

Why is the statue being removed?

Because the City has decided, on behalf of its constituents, that they no longer want it in a public park.

[redm]

Statues are (mostly) made to honour, commemorate or to glorify someone or something. To me, it's not about rewriting history, it's about society being uncomfortable with that type of symbolism. The sort of implicit endorsement for a person, an ideology, an event, or some form of politics. I don't think they're trying to pretend it didn't happen, they're just saying "this isn't something we want to celebrate in 2017." Maybe it's also about putting right some wrongs. I don't know.

 

What I do know is that none of it even comes close to justifying the murder of an innocent woman, and none of it comes close to explaining why these white supremacists think they have a point. Repulsive people with repulsive prejudices.

[luckyBatistuta]

Native Americans don't have much political sway, due to their numbers.

 

Because the City has decided, on behalf of its constituents, that they no longer want it in a public park.

Because some people in their constituency find it offensive, exactly the same as the Native Americans find certain statues offensive. Just because they're smaller in numbers doesn't mean they should be treated any differently,

[luckyBatistuta]

Statues are (mostly) made to honour, commemorate or to glorify someone or something. To me, it's not about rewriting history, it's about society being uncomfortable with that type of symbolism. The sort of implicit endorsement for a person, an ideology, an event, or some form of politics. I don't think they're trying to pretend it didn't happen, they're just saying "this isn't something we want to celebrate in 2017." Maybe it's also about putting right some wrongs. I don't know.

 

What I do know is that none of it even comes close to justifying the murder of an innocent woman, and none of it comes close to explaining why these white supremacists think they have a point. Repulsive people with repulsive prejudices.

Spot on, whether they remove the statue or not, its not going to make all this go away, but if it helps in anyway to make things better going forward and brings everyone closer together, then surely that can only be a good thing. This isn't going to stop at this statue though, there's plenty more that folk are going to want taken down across America.

[Peebo]

Because some people in their constituency find it offensive, exactly the same as the Native Americans find certain statues offensive. Just because they're smaller in numbers doesn't mean they should be treated any differently,

I think when it comes to decisions made by a city council, numbers do matter, as the council is elected.

[luckyBatistuta]

I think when it comes to decisions made by a city council, numbers do matter, as the council is elected.

Obviously bud, but I just think that once you start removing statues/monuments from history because they're offensive to some, where does it all end.

[Peebo]

Obviously bud, but I just think that once you start removing statues/monuments from history because they're offensive to some, where does it all end.

No one is removing anything from history. This case involves removal of a statue from a park, and it starts and ends with that.

[luckyBatistuta]

No one is removing anything from history. This case involves removal of a statue from a park, and it starts and ends with that.

It's a statue from history and it's being removed, you think the folk pushing for it to be removed will stop at this one.

[maroonlegions]

Ha ha , some of these fascists are getting sacked from their jobs for attending that gathering.

 

Anonymous on the case too.  Nowhere to hide in today's cyber world. 

 

 

People are identifying the Charlottesville Nazis and getting them fired

Some far-right protesters are beginning to pay the price for attending the ?United the Right? rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. Twitter user @YesYoureRacist, who?

REVEREPRESS.COM

 

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

No one is removing anything from history. This case involves removal of a statue from a park, and it starts and ends with that.

 

This one instance, this one statue in Charlottesville, yes.

 

But this isn't about one statue in Charlottesville, it's about the apparent systematic nationwide removal of Confederate Monuments, 60 apparently over the last two years alone in multiple locations.

 

Lexington, KY being the latest to announce that they are to remove 2 Confederate Statues.

And next week the next town is?

That's what people are meaning when they ask where does it end?

[Peebo]

This one instance, this one statue in Charlottesville, yes.

 

But this isn't about one statue in Charlottesville, it's about the apparent systematic nationwide removal of Confederate Monuments, 60 apparently over the last two years alone in multiple locations.

 

Lexington, KY being the latest to announce that they are to remove 2 Confederate Statues.

And next week the next town is?

That's what people are meaning when they ask where does it end?

A series of individual decisions? Yes.

A pattern/trend? Yes.

Systematic? No.

[luckyBatistuta]

This one instance, this one statue in Charlottesville, yes.

 

But this isn't about one statue in Charlottesville, it's about the apparent systematic nationwide removal of Confederate Monuments, 60 apparently over the last two years alone in multiple locations.

 

Lexington, KY being the latest to announce that they are to remove 2 Confederate Statues.

And next week the next town is?

That's what people are meaning when they ask where does it end?

Exactly

[redm]

Spot on, whether they remove the statue or not, its not going to make all this go away, but if it helps in anyway to make things better going forward and brings everyone closer together, then surely that can only be a good thing. This isn't going to stop at this statue though, there's plenty more that folk are going to want taken down across America.

 

 

Maybe, but I'm waaaaaaay less worried about a spate of statue removal than I am about the rise of white supremacy. It was quite something to see them pitch up without hoods, walking about in the open like that, so certain that their views would be socially and publicly acceptable to enough people that it made them brave and confident. Waving their Polynesian tiki torches and smashing out some Nazi salutes while dressed in preppy chinos. Some of them, anyway. The whole thing was so bizarre.

[doctor jambo]

Perhaps statues and the likes should be left alone for the very reason that they encourage us to think about the past and why they are there?

I tend to link the removal of these things with denial.

And I know its extreme, but I remain glad that Auschwitz was never destroyed, that you can still visit the tomb of Napoleon, and can look on the graves of a number of popes who have blessed and encouraged far worse atrocities than the confederates.

But then again, I am not offended by dead men.

In much the same way as I use such things to talk to my kids about them- a "lesson from history"

Ayr has a number of statues of men who were high up the army in Africa and so on.

I use them to talk to my kids of racism, colonialism and so on.

If they were not there, I couldn't do that.

But I'm not a snowflake

[Jambo-Jimbo]

A series of individual decisions? Yes.

A pattern/trend? Yes.

Systematic? No.

 

A pattern or trend can develop into something systematic, only time will tell on that.