[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[caketastydelish]

Aside of jokes about somebody living inside a statue etc, this should depend on local laws and other things.
For example, statue may be part of war memorial - and in some countries desecrating war memorials is a serious crime.

The CSA were traitors though, so the "war memorial" represents an enemy side (not even a neutral country). It's why I personally have a problem with tearing down a statue of George Washington, for example, but not CSA soldiers/generals/leaders.

You can have statues of the enemy in museums all you want for all I care, but they shouldn't be displayed in public property, especially government buildings such as courthouses. That's without even factoring in the obvious racist implications of the CSA statues and monuments, which you should.

There's a difference between a country that has existed for almost 250 years, some of which included a period of slavery and racism, and a country that lasted for only 4 years, and 100 percent of its existence, was for purely white supremacist, anti-black, pro-slavery purposes.

The British, French, and Spanish had racism, imperialism, slavery as well but no one is offended by their flags. The "heritage not hate" argument, in that case, can be validated by rational people, because those flags have been consistently waved for literally hundreds of years. Nazi flags and statues don't get that benefit of the doubt, because that regime wasn't around nearly as long, but 100 percent of its existence from the beginning to the end was for purely racist purposes. Also worth noting that even then the Third Reich not only lasted much longer than the CSA, but has occurred more recently as well. Modern Germany doesn't have Swazitaks and nazi statues/monuments on their public property and/or government buildings. Why then should America have this with the CSA? It's especially ironic given the "we freed those people from fascism" rhetoric that we tell ourselves.

 

[Socrates99]

Well, people who are at work can't simultaneously be out protesting. That's pretty much self evident, but I don't see any great conclusion arising from it.

I'm 100% convinced that's why Whitmer ended our lockdown with almost no notice at all.

 

[Kyriakos]

The CSA were traitors though, so the "war memorial" represents an enemy side (not even a neutral country). It's why I personally have a problem with tearing down a statue of George Washington, for example, but not CSA soldiers/generals/leaders.

You can have statues of the enemy in museums all you want for all I care, but they shouldn't be displayed in public property, especially government buildings such as courthouses. That's without even factoring in the obvious racist implications of the CSA statues and monuments, which you should.

There's a difference between a country that has existed for almost 250 years, some of which included a period of slavery and racism, and a country that lasted for only 4 years, and 100 percent of its existence, was for purely white supremacist, anti-black, pro-slavery purposes.

The British, French, and Spanish had racism, imperialism, slavery as well but no one is offended by their flags. The "heritage not hate" argument, in that case, can be validated by rational people, because those flags have been consistently waved for literally hundreds of years. Nazi flags and statues don't get that benefit of the doubt, because that regime wasn't around nearly as long, but 100 percent of its existence from the beginning to the end was for purely racist purposes. Also worth noting that even then the Third Reich not only lasted much longer than the CSA, but has occurred more recently as well. Modern Germany doesn't have Swazitaks and nazi statues/monuments on their public property and/or government buildings. Why then should America have this with the CSA? It's especially ironic given the "we freed those people from fascism" rhetoric that we tell ourselves.

CSA were traitors, more than the colonies were traitors to Britain? Or is it that they just lost, so they are traitors due to losing?

Moreover, USA went on to massacre the indians after the completion of the war against the slavers in the CSA, and it took another century for the civil rights movement for black people. Acting as if the point of that war was to support human rights isn't in touch with the historical reality of what followed.

More crucially, though, if a lot of people in the south think they have to preserve a legacy of having their own "state", maybe they do that cause they want to be their own state again in the future. And I doubt this time they will have slavery.

 

[Takhisis]

Naiveté doesn't suit you any longer, Lexicus. Nor falling for the talk of people whose purpose is to divide and distract.

Policies need to be thought through, what will be their consequences. Someone defending two mutually contradictory policies is either trying to sabotage both, using them to divide those who'll fall for the talk, or just a fool. And seeing how big the economy of propaganda production has become, with state and private financing, I do tend to see malice whet people keep doing it again and again, ignoring anyone who points out their contractions.

Once again you are all the people you claim to denounce. I have read your post to the very end, enough so to be able to point out that you should have said ‘contradictions’ instead of ‘contractions’, so i can point out that once again you've entered the chatbot zone, if ever you've left it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

CSA were traitors, more than the colonies were traitors to Britain? Or is it that they just lost, so they are traitors due to losing?

Simple answer...yes. If you win, you form a new nation. If you lose, you were traitors. I mean, that is the basic stakes in any such rebellion.

 

[Socrates99]

CSA were traitors, more than the colonies were traitors to Britain? Or is it that they just lost, so they are traitors due to losing?

Moreover, USA went on to massacre the indians after the completion of the war against the slavers in the CSA, and it took another century for the civil rights movement for black people. Acting as if the point of that war was to support human rights isn't in touch with the historical reality of what followed.

More crucially, though, if a lot of people in the south think they have to preserve a legacy of having their own "state", maybe they do that cause they want to be their own state again in the future. And I doubt this time they will have slavery.

Thinking about this, I'd say if the CSA had won they'd eventually have abolished slavery like everyone else had. That was just the inevitable trend of history. Then there would have been a period when it wouldn't have been a country wholly devoted to white supremacy and slavery. We might have eventually ended hostility and become allies like the US and Britain did. If all that happened they wouldn't be just traitors anymore.

 

[red_elk]

The CSA were traitors though, so the "war memorial" represents an enemy side (not even a neutral country). It's why I personally have a problem with tearing down a statue of George Washington, for example, but not CSA soldiers/generals/leaders.

You can have statues of the enemy in museums all you want for all I care, but they shouldn't be displayed in public property, especially government buildings such as courthouses. That's without even factoring in the obvious racist implications of the CSA statues and monuments, which you should.

I think everyone agrees that statues of enemies or traitors must be removed. The problem seems to be that not all Americans consider CSA traitors. Your civil war is not over.

About museums, you reminded me about a story which happened few years ago. Our idiot minister of culture lobbied installation of memorial tablet to Finnish general Mannerheim. In Leningrad of all places. It was repeatedly vandalized, finally moved to museum.

 

[caketastydelish]

CSA were traitors, more than the colonies were traitors to Britain? Or is it that they just lost, so they are traitors due to losing?

Moreover, USA went on to massacre the indians after the completion of the war against the slavers in the CSA, and it took another century for the civil rights movement for black people. Acting as if the point of that war was to support human rights isn't in touch with the historical reality of what followed.

More crucially, though, if a lot of people in the south think they have to preserve a legacy of having their own "state", maybe they do that cause they want to be their own state again in the future. And I doubt this time they will have slavery.

But I'm an American, not a Brit. If British people honored George Washington you could argue they are traitors to their country. It's also worth noting that the colonists had legitimate grievances (most notably, no taxation without representation) whereas the south didn't.

The American revolutionary war might have only been for the rights of white people (especially white men), but in the society at the time, even they didn't have rights because of legitimate oppression from King George. The South was not being oppressed in any way at that time, not even the white men. Black people were oppressed, but they weren't the ones who wanted to betray the country and fight against the union. The people who actually committed treason in the ACW were not doing so because they were being oppressed themselves in any way, which is a false equivalence to the American revolutionary war. And yes, we did some unspeakable things in our existence as a country. But that doesn't really contradict everything I just said. But America has also done legitimately good things as well, and not all of our history is like that. Whereas the CSA entire existence was explicitly for an overtly white supremacist purpose. There is a difference. There is a reason why a significantly larger percentage of people consider the confederate flag to a be symbol of racism, but not the stars and stripes.

 

[Kyriakos]

But I'm an American, not a Brit. If British people honored George Washington you could argue they are traitors to their country. It's also worth noting that the colonists had legitimate grievances (most notably, no taxation without representation) whereas the south didn't.

The American revolutionary war might have only been for the rights of white people (especially white men), but in the society at the time, even they didn't have rights because of legitimate oppression from King George. The South was not being oppressed in any way at that time, not even the white men. Black people were oppressed, but they weren't the ones who wanted to betray the country and fight against the union. The people who actually committed treason in the ACW were not doing so because they were being oppressed themselves in any way, which is a false equivalence to the American revolutionary war. And yes, we did some unspeakable things in our existence as a country. But that doesn't really contradict everything I just said. But America has also done legitimately good things as well, and not all of our history is like that. Whereas the CSA entire existence was explicitly for an overtly white supremacist purpose. There is a difference. There is a reason why a significantly larger percentage of people consider the confederate flag to a be symbol of racism, but not the stars and stripes.

Like Socrates99 suggests, if a state only exists for four years, and all of those are during a massive war, you can't know what would have followed. Maybe they would have fallen in some other way, or re-annexed, and maybe they'd just develop into a similar state to the US, with no slavery.
But we already know what followed with the actual USA, after the US civil war, and it wasn't pro human rights.

That said, I don't think this is what is important. The CSA died. What is important is that apparently there is a movement for states leaving the union again, and the issue resurfaces with each new election. The existence of the CSA just means there is a precedent for those territories being their own country, is all.

 

[caketastydelish]

This is all hypothetical. The point is: what motivation could someone have for displaying a flag (or statue/monument) of a nation which only existed for 4 years, all 4 of which was for purely white supremacist, anti-black purposes? Do you think the motivation is "Well, we are giving them the benefit of the doubt for what could have been". Do you buy that?

Maybe if the Third Reich was never defeated they would have eventually cleaned up their act as well, but people who fly Swatiskias aren't trying to make that point and everyone knows it.

 

[Kyriakos]

This is all hypothetical. The point is: what motivation could someone have for displaying a flag (or statue/monument) of a nation which only existed for 4 years, all 4 of which was for purely white supremacist, anti-black purposes? Do you think the motivation is "Well, we are giving them the benefit of the doubt for what could have been". Do you buy that?

Maybe if the Third Reich was never defeated they would have eventually cleaned up their act as well, but people who fly Swatiskias aren't trying to make that point and everyone knows it.

I think that it is likely a majority of those americans who use the CSA flag, do so not because they expect slavery to return, or wish it to, but due to wishing to identify their area as their own thing (like a country of its own). This, by itself, isn't negative. Obviously some people will use the CSA flag because they are KKK or other trash, but it seems unlikely those are a majority (?).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Thinking about this, I'd say if the CSA had won they'd eventually have abolished slavery like everyone else had. That was just the inevitable trend of history. Then there would have been a period when it wouldn't have been a country wholly devoted to white supremacy and slavery. We might have eventually ended hostility and become allies like the US and Britain did. If all that happened they wouldn't be just traitors anymore.

When? And why? South Africa and apartheid may be instructive here. It seems highly unlikely that a successfully independent CSA would have voluntarily given up on the primary issue that lead to their rebellion in the first place any time soon, if ever. Until world demand for cotton became a nonissue it is unlikely much in the way of international pressure would have been applied. The "inevitable trend of history" might have been a long time pending fruition in a successfully formed CSA.

 

[Lexicus]

I think that it is likely a majority of those americans who use the CSA flag, do so not because they expect slavery to return, or wish it to,

And, as I've told you before, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. After the end of the war pretty much no one actually flew the "CSA flag" (which is actually the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, not the "CSA flag" at all) until the 20th century when it became popular as a symbol of resistance against federally-mandated racial integration.

 

[Crezth]

CSA were traitors, more than the colonies were traitors to Britain? Or is it that they just lost, so they are traitors due to losing?

John Dickinson: Mr. Jefferson, are you seriously suggesting that we publish a paper declaring to all the world that an illegal rebellion is, in reality, a legal one?

Benjamin Franklin: Oh, Mr. Dickinson, I'm surprised at you. You should know that rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it is illegal.

 

[Lexicus]

The legality is not the real issue, of course. Personally, I don't care at all that the Confederates were traitors - except insofar as it seems hypocritical for the "America, love it or leave it" crowd to worship a bunch of, well, traitors - I care that the reason they committed treason was to fight for what U.S. Grant accurately called "one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

They fought the war to preserve slavery, this much is generally known, but the wrinkle is that the Lincoln Administration had no intention of abolishing slavery, and the secession and war were really a temper tantrum because the "Slave Power" would no longer exercise complete control of the federal government for its own benefit.

 

[Kyriakos]

And, as I've told you before, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. After the end of the war pretty much no one actually flew the "CSA flag" (which is actually the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, not the "CSA flag" at all) until the 20th century when it became popular as a symbol of resistance against federally-mandated racial integration.

That may be, but we were talking about why people fly the CSA flag (or what is seen as that) now.
It would be rather bizarre to expect the large majority of those who use that flag, to think that slavery will magically return in 2020.
On the other hand it is pretty straightforward to see it as a symbol of self-determination (as in declaring your own state), regardless of the actual CSA having been a slaver state.

 

[Lexicus]

That may be, but we were talking about why people fly the CSA flag (or what is seen as that) now.
It would be rather bizarre to expect the large majority of those who use that flag, to think that slavery will magically return in 2020.
On the other hand it is pretty straightforward to see it as a symbol of self-determination (as in declaring your own state), regardless of the actual CSA having been a slaver state.

Sure, the problem is that "think that slavery will magically return in 2020" is something you just made up. Opposition to federally-mandated racial integration - or, really, to any federal policy that will tend to reduce racial inequality - is the primary political raison d'etre of the Republican Party today as much as it was in 1968.

Additionally, even if we take "self-determination" at face value, the whole "cause" of Southern US "self-determination" is inextricably bound up in the cause of white supremacy. Racists do not care even one bit about things like local autonomy and self-determination. As an example, back in the 1850s, there was a Supreme Court case called Dred Scott v Sandford, in which the Court, dominated by slaveholding Southerners, ruled that the law of slavery was to be enforced even in the territory of the free states of the North - and this meant, quite literally, the armed agents of the slaveholders would come into the northern states to recapture their escaped "property," naturally kidnapping plenty of free black Northerners along the way. The "states rights" of the free states didn't matter.

The South only started trumpeting local autonomy and "self-determination" when it started to lose the political battle to control the institutions of the federal government.

 

[Berzerker]

Impossible to say Biden's worse. It just is. BLM is about cops mistreatment of suspects more than anything else.

Yes, the drug war has led to more arrests and the crime bill has led to mass incarceration. They're both terrible and need to go but neither of them encourages use of excessive force.

The drug war militarized the police and created a nation of suspects by criminalizing commonly engaged in behavior with a massive arbitrary power to wage war on specific communities. According to Nixon's aide (Halderman?) the purpose was to disrupt hippie and black communities for opposing his war in Vietnam.

Incarceration is just the most obvious outcome, but the homicide rate had doubled by the late 80s because of black market violence and violent crime across the board rose too. With the body count and over filled prisons housing primarily younger men, single parent households increased as fathers and potential fathers were removed from communities.

That led to an imbalance with even more women than men which creates another set of problems. The remaining male population had more opportunities for women further hurting monogamous marriage. The cascade effect by waging wars in black communities was devastating.

And yes, it is why we see the police using excessive force. They've been fighting the war for decades, 50 years of escalation. Back then search warrants were typically handed to homeowners but they've been replaced by no knock raids like what happened to Breonna Taylor. The drug war is not just about mass incarceration, it damages virtually everything in targeted communities.

Don't get bamboozled into the "crime bill" trap. The argument @Berzerker is fighting so hard to make essentially boils down to Biden voted for the 1994 crime bill which was racist, so you can't support him if you support BLM. But this is a poor argument because almost everyone in Congress back then voted for the crime bill, including Bernie Sanders. There are myriad of reasons to have preferred Sanders over Biden, but the crime bill vote isn't one of them. And if he shifts the goalpost to "Trump didn't vote for the crime bill", its irrelevant, because neither did Hillary.

Trump would not have voted for it, the vote in the House was ~235-195 with mostly Democrat support and the GOP against it. Hillary would have been a yes vote, she was calling for it along with Bill. Remember how we needed 100,000 cops on the streets? Sanders did vote for it, but Biden wrote it. Even by then Biden was a veteran of the drug war, he was pushing it under Nixon.

So this crime bill thing is essentially a non-factor. Its a complete red-herring, bad-faith argument, being used to do what Berz always does... derail the issue into protecting Trump/Republicans and attacking "the Democrats".

The endless rhetorical questions doubling-down about the Klan are a similar distraction/derailment attempt. The bottom line is his point is that defacing Confederate monuments is in his view, just as bad as firebombing a black church, and the reason he is advancing that argument is to create moral equivalence between the BLM protesters and white-supremacists, in an effort to try and discourage support for BLM.

The arguments are transparent hogwash, with absolutely no merit.

I asked about the KKK burning a church to show property crimes can be violent, not equate it with defacing statues. If I was to compare the KKK example with the protests, it would be with the destruction of businesses. I'm sure the KKK did the same thing to 'the enemy'.

If 'protesters' attack people or their property based on skin color, they are racists. I'm hoping to encourage peaceful protests, not just to spare the innocent victims but endorsing or defending riots, arson and looting hurts the cause.

 

[caketastydelish]

Chattel slavery returning (at least in America) isn't realistic. But that doesn't mean they can't express their opinions about what they wish they can't have. At an absolute bare minimum, it is a flag representing white supremacy and black oppression.

The "heritage not hate" argument falls flat when famously short-lived bands like Nirvana went on longer than the existence of that nation.

edit: @Kyriakos

 

[caketastydelish]

Sure, the problem is that "think that slavery will magically return in 2020" is something you just made up. Opposition to federally-mandated racial integration - or, really, to any federal policy that will tend to reduce racial inequality - is the primary political raison d'etre of the Republican Party today as much as it was in 1968.

Not a Republican. Nor do I generally agree with them. But there's more to the party than that.

Additionally, even if we take "self-determination" at face value, the whole "cause" of Southern US "self-determination" is inextricably bound up in the cause of white supremacy. Racists do not care even one bit about things like local autonomy and self-determination. As an example, back in the 1850s, there was a Supreme Court case called Dred Scott v Sandford, in which the Court, dominated by slaveholding Southerners, ruled that the law of slavery was to be enforced even in the territory of the free states of the North - and this meant, quite literally, the armed agents of the slaveholders would come into the northern states to recapture their escaped "property," naturally kidnapping plenty of free black Northerners along the way. The "states rights" of the free states didn't matter.

The South only started trumpeting local autonomy and "self-determination" when it started to lose the political battle to control the institutions of the federal government.

All of this, OTOH, you nailed spot on.