WeTheArmed.com

General Topics => General Non-Firearms Discussion => Topic started by: RMc on June 16, 2020, 12:31:06 am

Title: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: RMc on June 16, 2020, 12:31:06 am
The revolutionary zeal of the "cancel culture" movement is alive and well in the UK, as this cringe-worthy news clip reveals!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YHR_ie3jt-s
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 16, 2020, 01:37:14 am
 :facepalm   Democracy is usually its own worst enemy. 
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: stephendutton on June 16, 2020, 06:08:17 am
Yes we have our fair share of morons as well. The sorts of people who would label Queen Victoria as a slave owner when she took the throne in 1837, four years after slavery and the slave trade was abolished throughout the entire British Empire and more than sixty after it was abolished with the UK. They've also vandalised a statue of Robert the Bruce, labeling him a racist without any evidence other than the fact that he was a white man.
I'm willing to bet that few if any of the BLM movement in the UK (a group that seems to be nothing more than a front for the extreme left wing Socialist Workshy Party) would have a clue about how slavery was abolished with the Empire or the actions of the West Africa Squadron of the Royal Navy.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 16, 2020, 01:03:45 pm
Yup.  Western civilization has become a victim of its own success - or excess - depending on your point of view. 

The phenomenon has been described often and by better minds than my own but this one quote seems appropriate of late;

" The capacity of the human mind for swallowing nonsense and spewing it forth in violent and repressive action has never yet been plumbed."
                                                                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                                 Robert A. Heinlein
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on June 17, 2020, 04:11:22 pm
Here's the problem with decrying "Cancel Culture":  there's a discernible difference between teaching history, and glorifying a movement.

If you want to teach history, you put it in a book.

If you want to glorify something, you put up a statue.  A lot of those statues were put up during the 1950-60's, in response to the Civil Rights movement.

Hell, look at Georgia's own Stone Mountain, and it's history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain#:~:text=Stone%20Mountain%20was%20%22the%20sacred,Klan%20%E2%80%94%20was%20inspired%20by%20D.%20W.&text=Stone%20Mountain%20was%20the%20location,the%20state%20condemned%20the%20property.).

If y'all want to keep claiming to be "The Party of Lincoln," you can't keep trying to wave the Confederate Flag. Pick one, and stick with it.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Plebian on June 17, 2020, 06:15:32 pm
Here's the problem with decrying "Cancel Culture":  there's a discernible difference between teaching history, and glorifying a movement.

If you want to teach history, you put it in a book.

If you want to glorify something, you put up a statue.  A lot of those statues were put up during the 1950-60's, in response to the Civil Rights movement.

Hell, look at Georgia's own Stone Mountain, and it's history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain#:~:text=Stone%20Mountain%20was%20%22the%20sacred,Klan%20%E2%80%94%20was%20inspired%20by%20D.%20W.&text=Stone%20Mountain%20was%20the%20location,the%20state%20condemned%20the%20property.).

If y'all want to keep claiming to be "The Party of Lincoln," you can't keep trying to wave the Confederate Flag. Pick one, and stick with it.

It is quite easy to forget or have never read a book. Statues are hard to ignore either for the positive or the negative.

You need to remember your history so you can learn from it, rather that be of heroes or villains.

A statue is erected for something you do not wish to forget. That can be a statue to Guy Fawkes in the UK, or a statue of Lincoln in the USA.

If you remove the statue you remove untold millions of teaching moments when the uneducated come face to face with the statue. Those moments can be lessons of actions to not repeat, or they can be lessons of the actions of heroes. They can also be lessons about both at the same time.

I know the modern liberal hates nuance and context, but history is filled with both.

It also seems quite appropriate to wave a flag of rebellion from time to time. That would seem to me to be a very apt thing for an American to do.   
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 17, 2020, 11:54:24 pm
Well said - and I concur. 

Here's the problem with decrying "Cancel Culture":  there's a discernible difference between teaching history, and glorifying a movement.

If you want to teach history, you put it in a book.

If you want to glorify something, you put up a statue.  A lot of those statues were put up during the 1950-60's, in response to the Civil Rights movement.

Hell, look at Georgia's own Stone Mountain, and it's history (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_Mountain#:~:text=Stone%20Mountain%20was%20%22the%20sacred,Klan%20%E2%80%94%20was%20inspired%20by%20D.%20W.&text=Stone%20Mountain%20was%20the%20location,the%20state%20condemned%20the%20property.).

If y'all want to keep claiming to be "The Party of Lincoln," you can't keep trying to wave the Confederate Flag. Pick one, and stick with it.
"Cancel Culture" is just the latest trendy name for for an idea that is as old as human history.  No substantive difference from book burnings or removing some previous pharoah's name from all the stone monuments in ancient Egypt.  I decry anything that seeks to hide the truth and so do all who value it over some real or imagined disadvantage it might pose. 

If you want to teach history you don't put it in a book - except as reference material.  You live it and breathe it and talk about it and learn all that it has to teach you and your children and grandchildren.  I've seen a lot of statuary that was not about glorifying anything - just remembering it for what it was.  If you take it to be glorifying something, so be it.  That's on you - not me. 

I can't fathom the reason for tearing down a statue erected to commemorate the life and work of a committed abolitionist or, a statue erected to commemorate the emancipation of the slave population of America and the president who signed that legislation into law and paid for by freedmen and their families or,  a statue commemorating the first black regiment raised to fight in the Civil War or, a statue of Christopher Columbus.   Perhaps we can chalk that up to one of those moments Plebian mentioned above, " .  .  .  when the uneducated come face to face with the statue.".    :hmm

Personally, I'm OK with anybody who wants to wave the banner of the old Confederacy.  Doesn't bother me a bit because I know the money in their wallet says "The United States of America" and they all seem to celebrate Independence Day just like the rest of us.  Like I said, history has to be lived and breathed and learned from - good, bad or indifferent.   As I recall the Republican Party was and is the party of Abraham Lincoln and they stood for the abolition of slavery and, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed through Congress without the votes of Republican senators to outweigh the Democrat votes against it.  That's the way it happened, brother.  You could probably read it in a book somewhere if you're so inclined. 

"Pick one, and stick with it." sounds like marriage advice to me and good advice at that.   :cool
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on June 19, 2020, 09:56:50 am
Here's why I don't buy it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#:~:text=The%20Lost%20Cause%20of%20the,a%20just%20and%20heroic%20one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#:~:text=The%20Lost%20Cause%20of%20the,a%20just%20and%20heroic%20one.)

Gone with the Wind. Stone Mountain. About 95.5% of the Confederate monuments y'all are so bent on keeping. Naming Fort Benning after a Confederate general, etc.

All part of a revisionist attempt to make the Confederacy look like a grand movement instead of a grasping attempt to keep hold of a way of life that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

You can celebrate the same history by putting up statues to the winning side.

Let's rename Ft. Benning after Sherman.

Some other good suggestions here: https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/for-a-grander-army-of-the-republic-better-names-for-bases/ (https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/for-a-grander-army-of-the-republic-better-names-for-bases/)

Renaming an air base after the most distinguished of the Tuskegee Red Tails isn't a bad idea, either, if it hasn't been done yet (perhaps Col. William Campbell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Campbell_(Tuskegee_Airman))?).
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: goatroper on June 19, 2020, 02:18:30 pm
Here's why I don't buy it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#:~:text=The%20Lost%20Cause%20of%20the,a%20just%20and%20heroic%20one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#:~:text=The%20Lost%20Cause%20of%20the,a%20just%20and%20heroic%20one.)

Gone with the Wind. Stone Mountain. About 95.5% of the Confederate monuments y'all are so bent on keeping. Naming Fort Benning after a Confederate general, etc.

All part of a revisionist attempt to make the Confederacy look like a grand movement instead of a grasping attempt to keep hold of a way of life that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

You can celebrate the same history by putting up statues to the winning side.

Let's rename Ft. Benning after Sherman.

Some other good suggestions here: https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/for-a-grander-army-of-the-republic-better-names-for-bases/ (https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/for-a-grander-army-of-the-republic-better-names-for-bases/)

Renaming an air base after the most distinguished of the Tuskegee Red Tails isn't a bad idea, either, if it hasn't been done yet (perhaps Col. William Campbell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Campbell_(Tuskegee_Airman))?).

Not impressed with your woke Wiki history.  Its derogatory tone doesn't fit with forms of historical debate that I'm familiar with -- but I'm old and probably don't understand y'all's version of one-upmanship that's replaced debate.  And I'm not sure who the "y'all" is that you say is so "bent on keeping" Confederate monuments; didn't see anyone being as emphatic on that point as you make it appear.

"All part of a revisionist attempt to make the Confederacy look like a grand movement instead of a grasping attempt to keep hold of a way of life that shouldn't have existed in the first place."  That's a pretty broad statement.  How do you actually know all the minutiae -- all the nuance y'all seem to consider so important -- and the broader weave of the fabric of life and culture over so large an area that you can blithely dismiss all of it?  Oral history is still operational in much of the South, and it tends to be primarily about family and family history.  That's a rich cultural vein you're passing over.  If it was only about slavery, why was slavery not abolished until after the war?  Why did the Emancipation Proclamation not appear until 1863? 

I could go on in that vein, but arguing with your talking points I believe is a vain exercise.  Maybe you could profit from a historical point of view that's a bit different.

https://www.timesexaminer.com/mike-scruggs/6837-will-removing-confederate-symbols-promote-social-peace-of-course-not

http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2019/04/09/the-battle-for-truth-and-southern-heritage/

https://www.thetribunepapers.com/2020/02/13/the-tariff-road-to-civil-war/

http://www.thetribunepapers.com/2018/01/18/remembering-robert-e-lee-measuring-true-greatness/

https://www.thetribunepapers.com/2018/06/15/false-narratives-of-american-history/

https://www.thetribunepapers.com/2020/02/21/the-presidential-campaign-of-1860/


I don't for a minute expect you to agree with any of these (if you even read them), but there is some good historical/cultural information there -- which is to say that there is a whole 'nother world of memory/history/opinion/cultural values that you're writing off here.  I believe the first article linked above speaks to that better than I could.

Have a better day.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 19, 2020, 02:28:38 pm
Here's why I don't buy it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#:~:text=The%20Lost%20Cause%20of%20the,a%20just%20and%20heroic%20one. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy#:~:text=The%20Lost%20Cause%20of%20the,a%20just%20and%20heroic%20one.)

Gone with the Wind. Stone Mountain. About 95.5% of the Confederate monuments y'all are so bent on keeping. Naming Fort Benning after a Confederate general, etc.

All part of a revisionist attempt to make the Confederacy look like a grand movement instead of a grasping attempt to keep hold of a way of life that shouldn't have existed in the first place.

You can celebrate the same history by putting up statues to the winning side.

Let's rename Ft. Benning after Sherman.

Some other good suggestions here: https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/for-a-grander-army-of-the-republic-better-names-for-bases/ (https://warontherocks.com/2020/06/for-a-grander-army-of-the-republic-better-names-for-bases/)

Renaming an air base after the most distinguished of the Tuskegee Red Tails isn't a bad idea, either, if it hasn't been done yet (perhaps Col. William Campbell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Campbell_(Tuskegee_Airman))?).

Who's the "revisionist" now y'all?   :hmm     Like I said in the previous post, what you believe is just that.  Nothing more, nothing less and it doesn't change actual history.   My family is all from a border state and has been since the end of the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century.  My only relative that served in the war fought for the Union army, an uncle of my great grandmother on my mother's side. 

She knew a lot more about the subject than you will ever know because she lived it and breathed it as a girl.  I had the good fortune to live in the same house with her so I got to spend a lot of time as a kid talking to her and listening to her tell me about her life and times.  The war came to them in the form of economic hardship on people who wanted no part of it and the rancor on both sides.   Rural folk have always depended on each other to get through hard times so they learned early on that while your neighbor may not think like you do on some things he was still your neighbor and deserved to be treated as such.  People were drawn into the conflict peripherally through no action of their own other than the misfortune of having homesteaded a particular patch of ground.   Having a situation forced upon you by distant and unfathomable acts of governments you've never seen and wouldn't recognize if you did is the reality of the vast majority of the people alive at that time. 

Secession from the Union was considered viable and even necessary by the same class of people who, today, populate the Chambers of Commerce and tell us we have to embrace globalism and open borders.  Not much has changed, really, as witnessed by the fact that you seem determined to support and justify acts of violence and vandalism against people you disagree with even though we are all at least four or five generations removed from the burr under your saddle.  A closer examination of the history of the country would, hopefully, generate some sort of understanding that the defeat of the Confederacy and the Reconstruction Era with all its attendant problems was the source of the need to bind up the wounds of those on the short end of that stick.  The same people who ended up donating land and resources to the federal government for all sorts of things those in the north didn't want in their back yard like vast numbers military bases, national cemeteries and the like and who, for all the time since have been the backbone of our military culture and traditions.  You know, the ones that fought and died for the United States of America all over the world from the Spanish American War to WWI and WWII and the Korean War and everything since. 

Yeah, those people.  Politicians have always been politicians and there has never been a statue erected in a public square anywhere that wasn't the brainchild of one or more of them.  Same principle applies for naming military bases or even whole classes of weaponry.  They usually have more to do with some perceived need to curry favor with the voting public than with any sincere desire to honor our history but that's an editorial for another thread.  Point is, nearly all those statues seem to have been erected in hereditary Democrat strongholds by Democrat politicians for the purpose of continuing that tradition. Y'all.  Whatever the reason they were put up they do represent actual historic figures and/or events so to the degree they make the uneducated think about the subject I'm OK with it.  Rewriting history remains the same pointless exercise it has always been.  Knowing and understanding history remains the critical facet of citizenship it has always been. 

The article you quote from Wikipedia seems poorly researched from my perspective.  It references an idea that we heard as kids but had the good sense to recognize for what it was.  We got the gist of it from some of the old timers - none of whom actually took part in the conflict - who seemed content to romanticize a national tragedy from the comfort of their armchairs.  My great-grandmother considered it the mental equivalent of "road apples" to use her terminology.  Our parents and grandparents taught us how to think - not what to think and back when they still taught history and civics in school we had many classroom discussions and dinner table discussions about such things.  It was during the "civil rights" era of the 1950's and 1960's so the discussions were topical and relevant to the news of the day - unlike this discussion.  I'm calling this what it is  - a red herring designed to appeal to fans of "what aboutism" and dodging any discussion of actual substance in favor of feigned outrage and virtue signalling. 

As for the "War on the Rocks" article, while it raises some interesting points from the perspective of its twenty first century authors and editors keep in mind that it amounts to an editorial rather than a scholarly article and fails entirely to mention the whys and wherefores of the current situation.  They fail to note the existence of such bases as Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama that was one of the largest, most active bases in the U.S. Army in the twentieth century.  Named, incidentally, for General George McClellan the commanding general of the Union Army at the outbreak of the Civil War.   Editorializing is fine as far as it goes but if you don't have an understanding of the subject matter or don't care to include a balanced portrayal of it in the editorial you can't expect to be taken seriously.  I understand the impulse to appear relevant - especially in today's 24/7/365 news cycle but, again, you cite a source of questionable reliability to bolster your argument.  Dude, seriously?   :shrug



Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on June 19, 2020, 03:02:06 pm
From a friend's FB page:

Quote
For those who think confederate symbols are patriotic history and not racist, I give you this. It’s a speech Alexander Stephens, the VP of the confederacy, gave in March 1861 about the need for a “revolution.” In the speech, it’s pretty clear that, 1) the confederates thought the American constitution and all of America’s ideals were “fundamentally wrong,” and 2) they thought white men were inherently superior to black men. So. Were they patriots? Not even a little. They were literal traitors to America. Were they racist? You better freakin believe it. Here’s what Stephens said:

Quote
“The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

So, why do we celebrate the confederacy? It’s one thing to have chapters in history books, but quite another to erect monuments, and name streets and military bases after confederate generals. I mean, do the Germans call WW2 “just a part of our history” and celebrate their loss? Do they have “Hitler Blvd,” “Hitler military base” and statues of Hitler everywhere? Sure, it’s history, and we all should learn about it, but it’s not to be celebrated. So why do we do it here? I think we all know the answer.

Read Stephens’ whole speech here:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech?fbclid=IwAR0MT7JdyCC1FjqZiQxCkcn884cT7x7OnKc_ljZP_--XW6rg5yYsDtZ_SAQ (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech?fbclid=IwAR0MT7JdyCC1FjqZiQxCkcn884cT7x7OnKc_ljZP_--XW6rg5yYsDtZ_SAQ)

Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861BY Alexander H. Stephens
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 19, 2020, 03:14:30 pm
Yes, those of us conversant with the our history are aware of Mr. Stephens, his speech and his views on secession and slavery and his role in the Confederacy and the larger tapestry of nineteenth century American history.   Again, you take a snapshot - like the speech - and attempt to extrapolate the entirety of the larger picture from it.  It has never worked and it still doesn't. 

It is akin to trying to capture the relationship between us from a single thread here on WTA.  I like you.  Always have.  I value our various long discussions over widely varying subjects over the years.   That said there have been times when I found myself aggravated by something you posted and called you on it.  If you look at one of those threads without considering all the rest of the content and interaction between us you would likely come away with an erroneous conclusion.

Intellectual sloth is its own reward.   :coffee

Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on June 19, 2020, 04:23:34 pm
Raising monuments to a concept best swept into the dustbin of history is not how the entirety of a culture comes to grips with it - particularly not for those who were on the worst end of that concept.  For them, it is seen as an attempt to intimidate, to belittle, to "keep them in their place".

You see a monument to a fallen soldier.

They see glorification of what the soldier stood for and fought for, which was their subjugation.

Until you can learn to see things from multiple angles, and empathize with how someone else might feel about something, there will always be a shortfall in the promise of a more perfect union.

Look at it this way: next time you're in church, tell me how many statues of Satan you see. I'm willing to bet a) not many, if any, and b) he is not in a superior position.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 19, 2020, 06:15:41 pm
Raising monuments to a concept best swept into the dustbin of history is not how the entirety of a culture comes to grips with it - particularly not for those who were on the worst end of that concept.  For them, it is seen as an attempt to intimidate, to belittle, to "keep them in their place".

You see a monument to a fallen soldier.

They see glorification of what the soldier stood for and fought for, which was their subjugation.

Until you can learn to see things from multiple angles, and empathize with how someone else might feel about something, there will always be a shortfall in the promise of a more perfect union.

As gently as possible I, and others, have tried to bring you up to speed on what knowledge you seem to lack and why we think in the various ways we do.  That effort appears to have been wasted.   Ironically, your last sentence in the previous post sums up some of what we have tried to convey to you, apparently to no avail. 
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on June 19, 2020, 07:40:27 pm
Knowledge I lack?

In order,  I see a link for an opinion, a distortion of recorded fact (South Carolina's base cause for secession was protecting their right to own slaves+), and two deflections of cause (the Morrill Tarriff was on goods the South... the vast majority of which was produced by slave labor... Trump's trade war with China follows similar 'logic'), an attempt to whitewash slavery with Christianity#, and a personality piece on Lee (whose own descendants have said he didn't want memorials made to him).

+(https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/541a2f43e4b06fd9d82ed31f/1530467725564-CEKH3EITCAO62G4U4R0W/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kEZUSqEtwQjml_DxBnuooBNZw-zPPgdn4jUwVcJE1ZvWQUxwkmyExglNqGp0IvTJZUJFbgE-7XRK3dMEBRBhUpzADkEvtZCn5S0bRP0H8A0Quy92tkFn9lnFL75V3-2gg5Wlitzzw3owNEAPq9NYjfE/image-asset.jpeg)

# I've got two or three different relatives that fought for the Union. One of them was Charles Sherman, who died at the Battle of Cedar Creek, Va.  My mother found letters written home to his wife, Virtue, and published them (oh, heyy, primary source material! - https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Virtue-Civil-Journey-Courage/dp/1610055209 (https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Virtue-Civil-Journey-Courage/dp/1610055209)).  In one of the letters, he details his company finding a runaway slave, wearing an iron collar with inward pointing spikes.
Benign Christianity, my ass.

Morrill Act P.S.:
Quote
The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were "anti-Lecompton Democrats" (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).
  Even the passage of the Morrill Tarriff revolved around the issue of slavery.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 19, 2020, 09:33:46 pm
As gently as possible I, and others, have tried to bring you up to speed on what knowledge you seem to lack and why we think in the various ways we do.  That effort appears to have been wasted.   Ironically, your last sentence in the previous post sums up some of what we have tried to convey to you, apparently to no avail. 
My response here is to your unedited post and therefore refers to the sentence before the last on in the edited post.  Sorry for any confusion. 

So, we both have distant relatives who fought in the war.  On the same side.  Where does that leave us?   :hmm   

A response to valid points made by other people in this thread is going to be required and so far we don't have it.  A number of us have covered this ground with you before and it isn't going to be any different here.  Posting links to things written by other people isn't going to cut it for the things you have said and implied here.  Deflection and red herring arguments and all the other things you have been called on before aren't going to be accepted as the coin of the realm anymore.  Point by point refutation is difficult and time consuming - especially when your opponents have the facts on their side.  Ignoring them is not optional.  So, with that said;

What part of the modern incarnation of "Cancel Culture" are you in favor of? Is it the rioting in the streets? The looting and burning and general destruction of public and private property? The widespread destruction of all that thousands of people worked for most of their lives?  The injuries and the deaths caused by all this?  Is all that OK with you?  How about the calls for the death of sworn law enforcement officers by those same people?  You OK with that?  How does any of that relate to your last post?  Or any of your other posts in this thread?

And yes, there is a lot of knowledge you seem to lack along with a few other things.   :scrutiny


           
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Plebian on June 19, 2020, 10:11:34 pm
Raising monuments to a concept best swept into the dustbin of history is not how the entirety of a culture comes to grips with it - particularly not for those who were on the worst end of that concept.  For them, it is seen as an attempt to intimidate, to belittle, to "keep them in their place".

You see a monument to a fallen soldier.

They see glorification of what the soldier stood for and fought for, which was their subjugation.

Until you can learn to see things from multiple angles, and empathize with how someone else might feel about something, there will always be a shortfall in the promise of a more perfect union.

Look at it this way: next time you're in church, tell me how many statues of Satan you see. I'm willing to bet a) not many, if any, and b) he is not in a superior position.

How far does it go on feelings? Can I call for the removal of all crosses, Christian churches and monuments? Should I violently destroy those things?

There have been individuals on this very board say I am no better than Hitler because of my beliefs or lack of belief. My great grandfather had a rope scar around his neck where some fine Christians attempted to drag him to death for being a 'heathen'. I have a few scars from some fine Christian fellows trying to educate me as well.

Do I see those crosses and Christian symbols as hate filled objects meant to keep me in my place, no. I see them as symbols that give some folks hope, and that they believe expresses the great things in their beliefs.

If I can be asked to see multiple angles and empathize with how other individuals feel. Then I think other folks can do so as well.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 19, 2020, 11:50:16 pm
As long as we're throwing out links here's a couple of editorials;

redstate.com/diary/colonel-race/2020/06/18/i-told-you-it-was-sick/

redstate.com/diary/clint-fargeau/2020/06/19/on-the-advisability-of-arguing-with-crazy-people/


Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 20, 2020, 02:13:59 pm
As long as we're throwing out links here's a couple of editorials;

redstate.com/diary/colonel-race/2020/06/18/i-told-you-it-was-sick/

redstate.com/diary/clint-fargeau/2020/06/19/on-the-advisability-of-arguing-with-crazy-people/



Whoops.  Forgot to add the   https://www.   to those links.  My bad.   :facepalm
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: goatroper on June 20, 2020, 04:33:58 pm
Raising monuments to a concept best swept into the dustbin of history is not how the entirety of a culture comes to grips with it - particularly not for those who were on the worst end of that concept.  For them, it is seen as an attempt to intimidate, to belittle, to "keep them in their place".

You see a monument to a fallen soldier.

They see glorification of what the soldier stood for and fought for, which was their subjugation.

Until you can learn to see things from multiple angles, and empathize with how someone else might feel about something, there will always be a shortfall in the promise of a more perfect union.

Look at it this way: next time you're in church, tell me how many statues of Satan you see. I'm willing to bet a) not many, if any, and b) he is not in a superior position.

Once again, you base your argument on a one-and-only premise that I do not consider valid when used that way; the history of that era was simply not such a cut-and-dried monolith. 

"Until you can learn to see things from multiple angles, and empathize with how someone else might feel about something, there will always be a shortfall in the promise of a more perfect union."

Pot, meet kettle.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Plebian on June 20, 2020, 06:38:27 pm
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/)

So much for it being only those horrible confederate statues being torn down. Guess that Grant fellow was on the wrong side of history as well.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: goatroper on June 21, 2020, 01:41:42 am
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/)

So much for it being only those horrible confederate statues being torn down. Guess that Grant fellow was on the wrong side of history as well.

^This.

And there you have it -- communist/socialist (or whatever the spruced-up term of the day applies) revolutions/takeovers always, inevitably, eat their own.  Higher-placed useful idiots and historically-adjusted are the first to go.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: goatroper on June 21, 2020, 02:03:40 am
As long as we're throwing out links here's a couple of editorials;

redstate.com/diary/colonel-race/2020/06/18/i-told-you-it-was-sick/

redstate.com/diary/clint-fargeau/2020/06/19/on-the-advisability-of-arguing-with-crazy-people/




Good and instructive articles.

And point well made.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on June 21, 2020, 01:27:52 pm
Okay, this is going to take a while...

Can I call for the removal of all crosses, Christian churches and monuments? Should I violently destroy those things?

One person can go pound sand. When more than 50% of the population weighs in, it's a conversation worth having and listening to (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/majority-back-removing-confederate-statues-but-split-on-renaming-bases-poll (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/majority-back-removing-confederate-statues-but-split-on-renaming-bases-poll).

A response to valid points made by other people in this thread is going to be required and so far we don't have it.  A number of us have covered this ground with you before and it isn't going to be any different here.  Posting links to things written by other people isn't going to cut it for the things you have said and implied here.  Deflection and red herring arguments and all the other things you have been called on before aren't going to be accepted as the coin of the realm anymore.  Point by point refutation is difficult and time consuming - especially when your opponents have the facts on their side.  Ignoring them is not optional.

I have answered them, and I've answered them point by point.  The links posted by y'all have been quoting other people, any reason I shouldn't so the same?  And as for that, the links I have posted have come from more neutral sources than yours - The Tribune Papers is a *distinctly* conservative newspaper chain (probably even less neutral in it's coverage than Fox News, which is basically the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, for all intents and purposes), and treating it's articles like historical record is confirmation bias of the first order.  Wikipedia is at least democratic enough to let *either side* make changes, provided they can provide references.

What part of the modern incarnation of "Cancel Culture" are you in favor of? Is it the rioting in the streets? The looting and burning and general destruction of public and private property? The widespread destruction of all that thousands of people worked for most of their lives?  The injuries and the deaths caused by all this?  Is all that OK with you?  How about the calls for the death of sworn law enforcement officers by those same people?  You OK with that?  How does any of that relate to your last post?  Or any of your other posts in this thread?

If you've been paying attention to more than Fox News, the rioting & looting that have been going on for the past few weeks aren't *because* of "cancel culture," (and I really shouldn't have to explain the deaths of George Floyd, Brionna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery to you, and why you should be equally disturbed by them. Hell, my Mom is, and she's as right-wing as y'all are... possibly more).  "Cancel culture" has taken this as an opportunity to make headway, just like alt-right a______es have taken the rioting as opportunity to incite violence (please note: I am not saying the alt-right is the only source of fluffery in all this, antifa and plain old school anarchists are doing their share, too).

My point is: laying everything that's happened in the past few weeks solely at the feet of "cancel culture" is myopic, and ill-informed. There's a hell of a lot more behind it, and ignoring that fact is not going to do any good.  It's trying to break a complicated confluence of events and times down into one movement, when that movement is part of a broad spectrum of concerns.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/)

So much for it being only those horrible confederate statues being torn down. Guess that Grant fellow was on the wrong side of history as well.

You'd have to ask them why they took it down. Either they didn't realize who it was, or they did and they thought his record on the Indian Wars (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ulysses-grant-launched-illegal-war-plains-indians-180960787/) was grounds. I don't know (and he's a distant cousin, so I wouldn't mind if they'd put it back up).

Sidenote: In my opinion, the two greatest stains on our history are the institution of slavery and our genocide of the Native Americans, and all the pain and suffering both have caused and continue to cause today.

Cast aspersions all you want, buy I answered your points, and with historical documentation.  Slavery was the root cause of the turmoil leading up to the Civil War, and it was the root cause of states seceding, and therefore the root cause of the Civil War.  At the time, everything revolved around it as it's center.

The *Confederacy* does not deserve to be memorialized with statuary. The truth of it deserves to be taught in our schools, and maybe memorialized in a museum.  When you want to learn a lesson from something that caused that much pain, you don't remember the people that fought to cause it, you remember the victims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums) who suffered from it.
Title: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: lesptr on June 21, 2020, 03:03:02 pm
What was the root cause of “The War of Northern Aggression”? I forget.

Booksmart for someone who has spent his adult life surrounded by academia, you have fallen victim to the re-writing of history. While slavery was A reason for the Civil War, it was not the root cause.

Somebody remind me of why I stopped in here.
fluff me! I made a mistake.

And I did not say “fluff” btw.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Plebian on June 21, 2020, 04:41:11 pm
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/19/us/portland-george-washington-statue-toppled-trnd/index.html

Hmmm... These statues are of crappy slave owners anyway. No reason to celebrate them, they need to be swept into the dustbin of history.   
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Raptor on June 21, 2020, 05:52:55 pm
Just watch and wait.  They'll tear down every single statue that isn't Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Che, or Mao.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 22, 2020, 05:40:18 am

Okay, this is going to take a while...

One person can go pound sand. When more than 50% of the population weighs in, it's a conversation worth having and listening to (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/majority-back-removing-confederate-statues-but-split-on-renaming-bases-poll (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/majority-back-removing-confederate-statues-but-split-on-renaming-bases-poll).

I have answered them, and I've answered them point by point.  The links posted by y'all have been quoting other people, any reason I shouldn't so the same?  And as for that, the links I have posted have come from more neutral sources than yours - The Tribune Papers is a *distinctly* conservative newspaper chain (probably even less neutral in it's coverage than Fox News, which is basically the propaganda wing of the Republican Party, for all intents and purposes), and treating it's articles like historical record is confirmation bias of the first order.  Wikipedia is at least democratic enough to let *either side* make changes, provided they can provide references.

If you've been paying attention to more than Fox News, the rioting & looting that have been going on for the past few weeks aren't *because* of "cancel culture," (and I really shouldn't have to explain the deaths of George Floyd, Brionna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery to you, and why you should be equally disturbed by them. Hell, my Mom is, and she's as right-wing as y'all are... possibly more).  "Cancel culture" has taken this as an opportunity to make headway, just like alt-right a______es have taken the rioting as opportunity to incite violence (please note: I am not saying the alt-right is the only source of fluffery in all this, antifa and plain old school anarchists are doing their share, too).

My point is: laying everything that's happened in the past few weeks solely at the feet of "cancel culture" is myopic, and ill-informed. There's a hell of a lot more behind it, and ignoring that fact is not going to do any good.  It's trying to break a complicated confluence of events and times down into one movement, when that movement is part of a broad spectrum of concerns.

You'd have to ask them why they took it down. Either they didn't realize who it was, or they did and they thought his record on the Indian Wars (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ulysses-grant-launched-illegal-war-plains-indians-180960787/) was grounds. I don't know (and he's a distant cousin, so I wouldn't mind if they'd put it back up).

Sidenote: In my opinion, the two greatest stains on our history are the institution of slavery and our genocide of the Native Americans, and all the pain and suffering both have caused and continue to cause today.

Cast aspersions all you want, buy I answered your points, and with historical documentation.  Slavery was the root cause of the turmoil leading up to the Civil War, and it was the root cause of states seceding, and therefore the root cause of the Civil War.  At the time, everything revolved around it as it's center.

The *Confederacy* does not deserve to be memorialized with statuary. The truth of it deserves to be taught in our schools, and maybe memorialized in a museum.  When you want to learn a lesson from something that caused that much pain, you don't remember the people that fought to cause it, you remember the victims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Holocaust_memorials_and_museums) who suffered from it.
A swing and a miss.  Strike one.

Fifty percent of the population?  Seriously?  Are you that ignorant or do you just think the rest of us are?  According to the article from the link you posted the telephone survey was of 1332 "self-identified, registered voters".  One thousand, three hundred, thirty two. That isn't even a good sized crowd at a high school sporting event - much less 50% of the population.  I didn't dig into it deep enough to get the percentages broken down by party affiliation or ethnicity and I didn't look at the questions asked but Quinnipiac isn't really known for playing it straight down the middle.   I suppose it does explain a little about your propensity for taking a single "fact" and attempting to extrapolate the entirety of known universe from it. 

A swing and a miss.  Strike two.

You have not.  You have not answered anything directly except as a reference to something you already posted.  Witness the response I just referenced for the most recent example.  When Plebian asked you a specific question regarding Christian crosses and churches and whether you think he should violently destroy such things based on personal experience(s) - you cite a news story referencing a poll on a different subject.  Are you unable or just unwilling to answer such a direct question? 

Your initial post to a thread that was previously discussing events in the U.K. and their relation to "Cancel Culture" is critical of "decrying Cancel Culture" and then references "teaching history" and "glorifying a movement" without any apparent awareness that "Cancel Culture" as it is currently practiced isn't related to either of those things.  You may disagree but trying to make it a tacit assumption going forward isn't going to fly without evidence to support it - which you have not provided at this point.  Your opinions on the teaching of history and the raising of statues are noted and addressed directly by Plebian and I in the next two posts.  Finally, you toss in a gratuitous reference to the political affiliation(s) of "y'all" and an activity nobody seems to be engaged in at this point.  Referencing Georgia's Stone Mountain and some statues, somewhere, and the American "civil rights" era seem to be your attempt to justify something in your own mind that you never plainly stated.  Frankly, this post is the equivalent of a drive-by Molotov cocktail bombing.   

"Y'all" is a southern colloquialism.  A contraction of "you all", it usually refers to a group of people by one or more identifying characteristics but can occasionally be used when addressing an individual.  The use of the term can also be indicative of a tribal mindset on the part of the user. 

Your next post did not address a single point in either Plebian's response to you or my own.   Specifically, Plebian's point regarding a statue being hard to ignore in public places and the educational imperative it prompts.  Also the corollary that removing the statue removes the teaching moments it prompted when it still stood.  Stating that a statue is a celebration of history may be your opinion but it isn't one shared by all and it doesn't acknowledge or address the objective truth of what Plebian pointed out.  Once again you avoided answering the central point about "Cancel Culture" and the consequences of recent actions. 

In the next post I pointed out that today's "Cancel Culture" is a long established human behavior - an observation supported by reams of historic fact(s) from ancient to modern history.  You may disagree with my contention that it is no different than book burnings but I think the analogy stands and you either couldn't or wouldn't attempt to refute it or modify it.  I then gave you my opinion on history and the teaching of it but again no acknowledgement of that or discussion of it.  I then referred to several incidents taken from very recent news reports and easily verifiable if you have been following the news coverage.  I chose those examples because the discussion was/is about "Cancel Culture" and the seemingly universal lack of knowledge and historical perspective demonstrated by the people tearing down statues or calling for their destruction and also your own determination to apparently justify such behavior.  Still no response by you to any specifics of my post or even an acknowledgement that if the protest(s) are against the Confederacy there is no reason to tear down the statue of a committed abolitionist from that period.  Nor was there any acknowledgement that you approve of the "celebration" of the life and work of such a man.   

I would think that a little intellectual consistency might be called for at that point but apparently that's not a concern for you.  I then tied my post to a comment made by Plebian by using a quote from his previous post in an attempt to elicit some sort of comment or even an acknowledgement of it but no such luck. 

I do admit to tweaking you a little in the final paragraph of that post but at that point I was beginning to think you had earned it.  If not at that point then certainly by the next post you made. 

A swing and a miss.  Better luck next time.

Saying you disagree is fine but with what, specifically?  And why?  Rather than actually addressing other people's questions and comments and ideas you throw out a Hollywood movie from the 1930's, a previously mentioned monument in Georgia and something you hoped would pass for a statistic with yet another reference to some group other than your own and a red herring comment about Confederate monuments nobody but you mentioned.  Attempting to weave a whole conspiracy theory out of this thread and trying to bolster the idea with some half baked Wikipedia entry by way of getting around to the idea that only the winning side should have any monuments raised or military bases named for their heroes is laughable on its face.  That may be your opinion and you're welcome to it but maybe you ought to try and stay on point with the discussion begun in the OP.  Unless it's getting your panties all bunched up. 

goatroper addressed exactly that in his post and linked several articles both relevant and timely to the discussion from newspapers you don't like because they are "conservative".   Truth is truth even when its told by somebody you don't like.  That point has been mentioned more than once in this thread and you seem determined to either ignore it or deny it.  OK.  But don't expect the rest of the world to validate that kind of foolishness.  He also called you on your tendency to paint things you disfavor with abroad brush and reminded you that your understanding of things seems lacking.  He also asked you two specific questions - neither of which you have yet answered.  I think they were legitimate questions so why haven't you given him answers - or at least opinions?   Still working on that wedgie? 



In the next post I pointed out you seem to be OK with revisionism as long as you're the one doing the revisions.   I also reminded you that statues in public places are almost invariably the result of political decisions and the ones you seem to be having the most trouble with were/are in hereditary Democrat stong holds.  Surely even you must realize that chattel slavery and the Confederacy was a Democrat show from the start so was the Jim Crow era that followed and  right up through the civil rights era of the 1950's and 1960's  - and that's where those statues and all the rest of the stuff you seem to despise came from.  Do I need to remind you that in your lifetime the Democrat majority leader of the U.S. senate was none other than a recruiting member of the Ku Klux Klan by the name of Robert Byrd from West Virginia?  You want to start running your mouth about other peoples politics it seems to me you got a lot of backfilling to do before you get out of your own yard there slick. 

You back in the box again?  A swing and a miss.  Strike one.  Again.

Your next post still doesn't actually answer any questions any of us asked you nor does it address any points we made.  I'm going out on a limb here because I have no idea what's going on in your head - but - I assume you found your friend's Spacebook post relevant to some point you were trying to make.  That would make one of you.   To the degree that his(?) opinion and yours make a nice little echo chamber for each other I can understand why you posted it but for you to accuse anybody else of "confirmation bias" after posting this is weapons grade irony. 

In my next post I even alluded to it by noting it as intellectual sloth.  I also reiterated the point goatroper was making about taking a single snapshot from a page of history and trying to extrapolate an entire era from it.   BTW - it still won't work.   I even gave you an example from right here on WTA which you know is accurate from our interaction via PM over the years. 

A swing and a miss.  Strike two.  Again

Again, no acknowledgement of anything any of the rest of us have said be it questions or opinions just another red herring.  Nobody involved here has said or indicated that they see a statue as anything but a marker of a significant event in our history.  Can you really read minds and determine thoughts and motives the rest of us aren't privy to ?   If so I probably wasted a lot of time and effort composing this.   :hmm  You did finally say something we could all agree with and more than one of us acknowledged it but you followed it with an edit that was an really lame attempt at an analogy. 

A swing and a miss.  Strike three.  Next batter. 

Still avoiding any questions or points made by others in this discussion you post .  .  . something .  .  . which, again, seems to have some relevance to you but I am at a loss to figure out what it adds to this discussion.  :shrug  I appreciate the personal anecdote and history but  this post seems irrelevant to anything posted by anyone but you so far.  I believe the term for this is non-sequitur.   

So, at this point I, for one, have had enough of the tactic(s) you are attempting to use - again - and call you to task. 

Other posts indicate ongoing examples of "Cancel Culture" idiocy and criminality. 

Which brings us to this:   You have not yet answered much of anything until this final post and while we appreciate any effort on your part to that end, engaging in "what aboutism" and casting your own aspersions doesn't mark this as any great improvement.  For the record I have definitely been paying attention to the news around the country the last few weeks.  I think the topic in the OP was a perfectly good one for discussion and apparently others did as well.  We were content to discuss that until you decided this thread should be about the Confederacy and the justification for tearing down of any monument to it.  It took until post 23 for you to finally come straight out and call the rest of us "myopic, and ill - informed".   You're welcome to your own opinion but not your own set of "facts" .  You admit that "cancel culture" is a thing because you admit it took the "opportunity" of massive civil unrest to "make headway".   Bingo.  That was what we were trying to discuss from the outset here but we had to wait for you to get your head out of your a$$ first.   :facepalm   Nobody has ever disputed the idea that we are at " .  .  .  a complicated confluence of events and times, .  .  .".   Maybe if you had led off with that idea we might been able to have  a discussion instead of a pi&&ing match.   :scrutiny   

And for the record you're still doing that tribal thing.  Y'all.  Claiming you don't know why vandalism is taking place ( " You'd have to ask them why they took it down." ) and making half a$$ed excuses for it ( . . . they didn't realize who it was . . . ) in the midst of all this opportunistic action by your "cancel culture" comrades is equivocation of the highest order.

As for your side note I'm sure it would make for a lively thread if you'd care to start one.  Maybe somebody will even reply to your OP.   

Any aspersions I have cast have been fact based and richly deserved IMO.  You start talking BS in your first post - you got nobody to blame but yourself. 

I've already said my peace regarding the teaching of history.  You teach your way and I'll teach mine.  If you don't remember all of it you run the risk of stumbling over something you never knew was there.   As long as we remember the first amendment to the constitution protects both methods we'll be OK - which is something "cancel culture" doesn't seem to get.  How about you? 

 
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Plebian on June 22, 2020, 12:15:23 pm
Many of the things BLM did confused me. It made significantly more sense once I learned the co-founders are both 'trained Marxists', their own words there. Marx searched for a method to justify violent action against non-violent people. He found it in the idea of class warfare.

This odd coupling of the Occupy, BLM and Antifa becomes very clear once you realize their fundamentals all start with Marxist ideals.

I just hope these statues are not just bellwethers of more violence, but I am going to buy some more ammo just in case.   
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 22, 2020, 02:22:57 pm
Correct again on all counts.  Oh say, can you see does the statue of Lenin ( V. I. Ulyanov ) still stand in the Fremont suburb of Seattle, Washington?   If so, why?   Oh, wait - you just explained that.  Never mind.   :doh   
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Raptor on June 22, 2020, 03:29:31 pm
Correct again on all counts.  Oh say, can you see does the statue of Lenin ( V. I. Ulyanov ) still stand in the Fremont suburb of Seattle, Washington?   If so, why?   Oh, wait - you just explained that.  Never mind.   :doh   

Because it's on private property and he wasn't a Confederate slaveholder you [EXPLETIVE]!  Or so it was explained by a Leftist on Twitter.

"Because it's on private property."  The hypocrisy is staggering.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on June 23, 2020, 10:38:21 am
C -

This isn't doing much good, if you're only going to read half of my responses. 

I told Plebian one person could pound sand, with regards to being offended by symbols they view as hateful, but that %50 or so of the population deserved to be listened to. This isn't two different topics, it's one conversation.  If you don't understand how blind surveys work when combined with statistics, that is not my fault, and it's outside of the scope of this discussion for me to educate you.  But one thing worth noting is this: "Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the founder of the poll-analysis website Electoral-vote.com, compared major pollsters' performances in the 2010 midterm Senate elections and concluded that Quinnipiac was the most accurate, with a mean error of 2.0 percent."

It's also not going to do much good if you expect me to be a mindreader (which I'm not) of people on the other side of the country from me.  I can't tell you what was in the minds of the people that tore down Grant's statue, any more than you can.  I said they may not have realized who it was.  The part you left out of your response was that I also pointed out they may have objected to his role in the Indian Wars.  There are very few angels in our history, but the Confederacy is notable for three things: it's basis in racism and slavery, it's brevity, and it's veneration completely out of proportion to it's mediocrity.  Lee is probably the best leader (in a variety of manners) that they had.  He was still on the losing side. I don't know of a lot of monuments to the losing side (the aforementioned Gunpowder Plot withstanding).  Hitler certainly doesn't have a lot in Germany, so why are we so hell-bent on propping up ours?  Read the article on renaming bases - the names were picked to ingratiate themselves with the local population, not because the honorees were particularly... honor worthy.  A lot of this statuary was put up in the '50 & 60s, at the height of the Civil Rights movement. Pretending they aren't in response to it is... naive. Or willful ignorance.

My remarks regarding Stone Mountain - the link attached to which I have to assume you did not read - detailed the racist origins of the monument, from being funded by the KKK, to Stone Mountain being held as "sacred ground" by the same, the sculptor himself being a supporter of the KKK, etc.  It wasn't drive-by, it was the details.  I read your links, you read mine. That's how this works.

I grew up in the South. I'm well versed in the use of a variety of Southernisms, including "y'all". You don't need to tell me about it.  Georgia law requires at least a year *in both middle school and high school* studying the Civil War. I will be the first to admit that that was a long, loooong time ago for me.  I wasn't a history major in college, so I didn't go out of my way to take courses in a subject that - as a Georgian - I'm not particularly proud of.  I've never liked racism, never understood the rationale behind it.  Judge someone by what they do, how they act, not by something they have no control over, like the color of their skin, etc.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 23, 2020, 06:07:20 pm
By paragraph, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and congratulations.  To anyone still following this, I rest my case.   :coffee
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: Plebian on June 23, 2020, 07:07:35 pm
Perhaps I did not communicate effectively my intention on Christian symbols or 'negative' symbols in general.

Even if the Confederate monuments were put up in direct reaction to the civil rights movements. That does not mean they should be removed. The statues still have meaning. I do not wish for that history to be moved into a spot easy to ignore or to be destroyed. If the individuals wish to walk by that monument everyday and give it a one-finger salute. Then it will be doing a job of education. That even goes for a monument funded by the KKK and constructed from racist origins. I will once again say, those monuments are erected so that we may remember something. If that something is awful or heroic doesn't matter.

To destroy or to remove these things is to attempt to forget history, for both the good and the evil in man. We need reminders of both. 
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: LowKey on June 23, 2020, 10:25:06 pm
@Booksmart

Since when is it legally or ethically acceptable to condone destruction of property?
If someone were to decide you had done something they felt was reprehensible,  would it justify them demolishing or otherwise vandalizing your home?   
How about, hopefully many decades from now, your headstone?


As to your statement regarding 50% of the population feeling a certain way (and assuming that it is indeed %50), so what?   We are not, never have been, and intentionally were not formed as a democracy in hopes of avoiding exactly what we are now seeing take place...mob rule.   

Supporting the breakdown of order just to get your own way is a very dangerous thing, prone to having many unintended consequences and a high potential for backlash.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: goatroper on June 24, 2020, 10:43:52 am
By paragraph, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, and congratulations.  To anyone still following this, I rest my case.   :coffee

^This.

And thank you for your earlier long response -- I was kinda waiting for that, as you're much more patient than I in trying to answer what's been put forth here.  I could only add to it that the argument that apparently favors the rioters and monument topplers ignores some critical lessons of history, lessons on display in all their malevolent glory in the Balkans in recent history.  When you try to crush a local, regional, or national culture by stamping out all it might hold dear -- for whatever reason, which you may judge somewhat rightly but more likely wrongly or incompletely unless you really understand its cultural foundations -- you may rid yourself of the appearance of those things, whatever they are.  What you miss is the wounds and scars that will fester beneath the surface, and likely will be handed down through generations.  Eventually that festering will break out when its time comes, as it did in the Balkans when the old Soviet system failed, and the unreasoning rage will be worse than any original sin that went before it.  (That's explained pretty well in the first of the articles I linked back in post #8 of this thread; that one may have been skimmed but not read, it being from a non-kosher source.)  I know BS will argue that that's what's happening now with the destroyers of statues, but I submit that this politically driven outburst has been carefully planned and financed (at some distance from specific events, I might add) and -- as is usual with socialist/communist uprisings -- passed on to the useful idiots for the grunt work.  Why else would they be going after those who have nothing to do with the purported reason of seeking justice for a slain individual?

I learned long ago that debate with folks at a certain level of the liberal persuasion is pointless, as they're well insulated against any and all differing viewpoints.

Maybe The Feelz will get through, so I offer these:

"That a people should love their homeland is itself contemptible. It stands against the ruffians' will to rule us. The ruffians slash and burn not because they love something, but because we do."

From:

https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2020/06/mordor-usa.html


And this:

“It’s clear that this movement to tear down monuments is really to divide the country”

From:

https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/former-princeton-professor-spills-beans-blm-doesnt-help-black-people-dems-using-win-votes?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=brief-FP&utm_campaign=dailyam&utm_content=federalist-papers

(Ms. Swain is a very interesting individual, and she's got the "been there, done that" cred that should give her words some weight.)


And, more directly, this:

https://twitter.com/NYCNavid/status/1275522052095647752

Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on June 24, 2020, 06:23:24 pm
Well said.  Analogous to the observation, " Gun control isn't about guns - its about control."   And you're welcome.  I regret the necessity but am glad to have been of some service. 

Your linked material is thought provoking and timely.  Ms. Swain is a known quantity as I have encountered her work before but I had not spent any time, previously, at the Reform Club blog.  The observations on Iran from the young lady on Twitter are spot on.  There is also a Venezuelan activist making salient points about the parallels she sees between our situation and the destruction of Venezuela at the hands of Marxist elements a few years back.  I'll see if I can find you a link as her words are a straight up warning to us.  "You cannot allow this."  or words to that effect. 




Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: RetroGrouch on July 01, 2020, 05:56:52 am
The Cancel Culture and their Marxist foot solders want to destroy our history.  Once you control history, you control both the present and the future of a society.  They are using the tragic death of a released convict to justify rioting, looting, arson, assault, battery, attempted murder, murder and vandalizing/tearing down statues.  They started with Confederate statues, the vast majority of which were put up by Democrats or their militant arm (the KKK), and have moved on to Union statues & headstones, statues of Presidents (including Lincoln and Grant) and historical figures like that well known racist Ghandi and our Founding Fathers.


booksmart wants to justify all that by observing that all of those people who statues are being defaced and destroyed weren't perfect from our 21st century viewpoint.  Well, according to almost all religions, there has been only one perfect person from each religion, and even they wouldn't be perfect from our lofty 21st century viewpoint.


As far as the Confederacy being losers, they were an agrarian society going up against a industrial society that had greater numbers.  And General Lee was a superior general to Grant, he just didn't have the resources or the bloody mindedness that Grant did.  Also, I don't really think the poor sharecroppers were going to war for slavery, as their position was not as bad as being a slave, but no more.
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: booksmart on July 01, 2020, 06:27:31 pm
Democrats or their militant arm (the KKK),

Okay, so which is our militant arm, the KKK, the BLM, or antifa? 

Because last I saw on the news, antifa was fighting the KKK and the Nazis, the BLM was fighting the Nazis and the KKK, and the KKK was marching with a bunch of right wing organizations, and endorsing Republican candidates (last Democrat I saw them endorse was in '95 or '96, and it was a *heavily ironic (https://isps.yale.edu/news/blog/2016/11/when-the-ku-klux-klan-endorsed-a-black-liberal-democrat-for-senate)* endorsement).
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: coelacanth on July 01, 2020, 11:05:32 pm
 :rotfl
Title: Re: "Cancel Culture" vs Statues!
Post by: RetroGrouch on July 04, 2020, 12:41:16 am
Post Civil War, when the Southern Democrats passed the Jim Crow laws, the KKK was also established by the same Southern Democrats to terrorize the newly freed African-Americans.  Statues honoring Confederates were put up after President Grant left office and the carpetbaggers went back North.  Some were erected as recently as the 1960s, as a response to the Civil Rights movement. The Dems lost the true believers in the KKK when they started to ally themselves with minorities.


Antifa appears to be a Marxist/Communist organization, who disdains the Democrats as too far to the right.  BLM appears to be an organization with some extreme social justice goals, but upon following the money, may just be a front for a con to scam money from the weak minded.  Neither appears to be funded or organized by the Dems, or if they ever were, have gotten out of their control, and now the Dems are just using their protest-riots to gain more power.