Should confederate monuments be destroyed?

[Valka D'Ur]

And funnily enough, GoFundMe has pretty much banned any "Alt-Right" causes from its website.

Excellent decision.

As for the "domestic terrorism"...yeah no. This was clearly an episode of road rage (dude's car was being attacked by the mob) or panic. And even if it was domestic terrorism, you can't say it was the "plan" since nobody organizing the rally advocated for any violence. The plan was to have a peaceful event for different right-wingers to meet each other, share ideas, listen to speeches, and overall strengthen the movement.

Do you live in the same universe as the rest of us?

The driver of that car clearly intended to at least cause injury. It's fortunate that he didn't kill more.

People who want a peaceful event to meet, share ideas, make and listen to speeches, and strengthen the movement will rent space at a hotel or convention centre. They don't gather in the street with shields and weapons and wear military gear and use cars to run over people.

They've clearly got some sort of organization going on, since they manage to show up at every single event.

Right, because nobody ever posts "such-and-such an event is going on at Location X on (insert date and time), come if you're interested" on Facebook or Twitter.

I used to get all sorts of "invitations" and "notifications" to anti-NDP/Rachel Notley (our provincial Premier) protests due to having friended someone with whom I used to attend SF conventions back in the '80s and '90s, but whose politics now are so right-wing offensive that I unfriended her.

You're blaming the victims very hard here, because you disagree with their political beliefs.

You're blaming the murder victim very hard here, because you disagree with her political beliefs.

I'm going to go ahead and post some of these. I do not feel like investigating each and every one to try to figure out if they are all genuine, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that anyone attending a "Unite the Right" rally is fully intending to hold court with Nazis.

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

So, yeah. I think the purpose of this rally was QUITE clear.

Agreed. In Canada, all of these would be seen as hate literature, or at least advertising for hate groups.

There have been two "unite the right" movements in Canada. The first was over 10 years ago and resulted in the Reform/Canadian-Alliance party hijacking the Progressive Conservative Party and ending up calling itself the Conservative Party of Canada. They can rename themselves all they want, but they're still just the same bigoted anti-science, anti-equality, anti-marginalized demographics, anti-social justice Reformacons they always were.

The second instance just concluded a few weeks ago in my province. The new party is called the United Conservative Party - made up of the merger between the right-wing religious fundamentalist Wildrose party and the provincial Progressive Conservatives. They're having a leadership race now, and of course the one expected to win is a former federal Reformacon politician who would happily turn the UCP into the provincial version of the federal party we finally tossed out of power in 2015.

When the traces of those past wrong are still with you every day - when you still live on reservations, under the authority of a government where the overwhelming bulk of power is vested in the people who wronged you, the idea of "not dwelling on the past wrongs" is a delusional fantasy.

Just out of curiosity, what's your take on the issue of renaming the Ontario schools named after Sir John A. Macdonald? As I mentioned in my CBC.ca comments, I wonder how many of those misguided teachers spend the $10 bills in their wallets or purses. And which politician will they choose next?

Power IS monopolized by men in a way that is harmful to women. By white folks in a way that is harmful to other races. By descendants of immigrants and colonists at the expanse of Natives. These are simple, factual observations - political figures, are overwhelmingly white, men, christians, straights ; and their policy have a strong tendency to limit or harm the rights of women. There are a thousand different ways power is monopolized, a lot of it is the direct result of historical events, and of the damage done in the past that has yet to be fixed, but that still permeates society as a whole. Each of those break line between the powerful and the weak is unique, the result of its own distinct factor, and if we're to fix them we need to address the specific circumstances that allow it to exist.

Whut?

We've had numerous argumentsconversations over the years about ties to the land, feelings of identity based on how long your family has occupied said land, and how others ought to respect those feelings of identity. The Battle on the Plains of Abraham means something very different to you than it does to me. You think I should respect the language laws of Quebec in part because of an event that happened over 250 years ago. I think that 250 years is quite long enough to get over it and move on.

So having said this: Do you feel personal responsibility for what your ancestors did centuries ago? Do you think that present-day aboriginal people - excuse me, we're supposed to call them Indigenous people (wish they'd make up their minds; they change the terms every few years) - should spit venom at you on comment boards or in person because you're descended from Europeans?

I don't. Personally, I haven't done a damn thing I need to apologize for on that score. Neither did my dad. I have to assume my grandparents and great-grandparents (farmers/homesteaders) acquired their land peacefully, rather than at rifle-point a century ago. At least that's what the family history I've heard has indicated.

I was actually conflicted by the Charlottetown Accord. If that had been split up into sections rather than all or nothing, I'd have voted Yes for aboriginal self-government. But that pesky "distinct society" thing was in there, so in good conscience I had to vote No. It made for an uncomfortable discussion one night when on a trip to Edmonton with a couple of SCA friends. One of them had strong associations with the Stoney people and of course he wanted to know if I'd voted Yes (due to the self-government issue). I reasoned my answer this way: We were miles from anywhere on the highway, it was December, and it would have been a hell of a walk home. So in response to his question of "how did you vote on the Charlottetown Accord?" my answer was "with a pencil."

I got a dirty look from him, a laugh from his girlfriend, and I never did tell him.

 

[Evie]

I view MacDonald much as I view Jefferson: a man who did both great things and terrible things (to Natives and Metis most notably) We can honor the great; we should condemn the bad. Personally I am no fan of his, but in a way I'm glad we had such a flawed first pm - it spares us the whole cult of the founding fathers the US have.

Are schools the best way to honor him? I don't know. Perhaps there are too many? Perhaps not. It's hard to say, as I haven't given him much thought. But there are notables differences between him and Lee or other southern leaders who have done very little deserving of honor. Ditto Nelson whose right to be honored has also been questioned.All that said, it's good to ask "should we still honor this person", even if ultimately we answer "yes."

As for the rest...you may not have done anything, but you reap the benefits of what was done - the land you live on, and the natural resources they have provided us through the years, and the economy and social services we built around those. As do we all. Do YOU need to apologize on a personal level? Maybe not. Like you said, you have done nothing. Do WE need to apologize, has a group, as a people? Heck yeah.

 

[innonimatu]

The notion that those problems can be reduced to simple economic inequalities is staggering in its sheer wrong-headedness.

Economic inequality is ONE problem (albeit a serious one) within the larger mass. Pretending otherwise is massive ideological denialism.

Where have you seen me reduce the problems to economic inequalities. I only gave you two examples because I can't reasonably create an inventory of everything that may be wrong, here. Fell free to write about different examples. But understand that "their ancestors centuries ago took my land" does not make a good argument with people who live in the land today.

Ultimately you are asking that some people be given lands "because ancestors". True, there is a capitalist notion of property which allows people to extract rents from properties the inherited and don't use. For example the Grosvenor who have been extracting rents on a big portion of central London because centuries ago some ancestors ingratiated themselves with a king. But I don't think that is right. Therefore I can't think it would be right to let the descendants of some native americans extract rents from lands in Quebec today. Werther they took those lands back as "reparation", or had held and leased them over these past centuries. What you are demanding is special privilege for a few, allegedly to correct some past wrongs. And what I oppose is an excess of special privileges already, which create the existing social inequalities. Social, mind you, not just economic.

 

[Evie]

Are the natives still living on the reservations where their ancestors were sent all those years ago, as a direct result of being forced there when all their other lands were taken? Are the natives still living with shattered families as a direct result of the states repeatedly taking children away from their parents for a century to force-assimilate them in a child abuse-based system that dishonest twits had the nerve to call "schools"? Uh...yeah.

The idea that we're talking about gone and done deals ; about wrongs that are far removed behind us, is a fantasy born out of ignorance. The policies against Natives may have begun two to three hundred years ago - but they remained in full force into the sixties, the seventies. I'm old enough - and I'm still short of forty - for both the last army/native land crisis in Canada and the closing of the last residential school to be in living memory for me.

Heck, some are still very much in force today. Even where they aren't, the cumulative effects of centuries of ill treatments remains very much alive, and having a very lasting impact on Native people. One-size-fits-all "poor people" solutions might alleviate some of the symptoms, but they won't solve the problems themselves.

At the end of the day, I hold the following to be true.

1. The current situation of the Native people in North America is in a very real sense the result of past actions, largely by colonists and colonial governments and their successor states.

2. These past actions were morally repugnant, and decidedly wrong.

3. The nations that either consented to those actions or carried them out, and their successor states (that is to say, in this case, Canada and the United States) have a moral obligation to fix the resulting damage (as in, the damage that exists today as a result of those actions).

Reparations, in the sense of various forms of apologies and compensations, both symbolic, cultural, social and financial, meant to fix the damage that results from past wrongs, is a perfectly appropriate answer to this.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I view MacDonald much as I view Jefferson: a man who did both great things and terrible things (to Natives and Metis most notably) We can honor the great; we should condemn the bad. Personally I am no fan of his, but in a way I'm glad we had such a flawed first pm - it spares us the whole cult of the founding fathers the US have.

Agreed. There are right-wingers who say we shouldn't honor Tommy Douglas or even respect him, since he was apparently in favor of eugenics (hadn't known that). But I defy any of his detractors to opt to pay $$$$$$$ when they go to the hospital instead of just flashing their provincial health cards.

And btw: I consider Louis Riel to have been assassinated, not executed.

Are schools the best way to honor him? I don't know. Perhaps there are too many? Perhaps not. It's hard to say, as I haven't given him much thought. But there are notables differences between him and Lee or other southern leaders who have done very little deserving of honor. Ditto Nelson whose right to be honored has also been questioned.All that said, it's good to ask "should we still honor this person", even if ultimately we answer "yes."

It's good to ask, but it's also preferable not to jump on the American bandwagon of "they're doing it, so we should as well."

I'm not aware of much around here named for Macdonald. It's more likely to find things named after explorers such as David Thompson, Anthony Henday, or Simon Fraser (the latter particularly in BC), or local politicians. We have a bridge and major thoroughfare, for instance, named for Red Deer's first female alderman, Ethel Taylor. It's well-deserved; I met her at the doll club my grandmother joined, and she was a spectacular community-builder. After Stephen Harper's resignation, there was a lot of support on the CBC comment boards for naming Calgary's landfill after him. I'd go for that.

As for the rest...you may not have done anything, but you reap the benefits of what was done - the land you live on, and the natural resources they have provided us through the years, and the economy and social services we built around those. As do we all. Do YOU need to apologize on a personal level? Maybe not. Like you said, you have done nothing. Do WE need to apologize, has a group, as a people? Heck yeah.

We as a group? Let's see... I'm not part of either the Catholic or Protestant churches who ran the residential schools. Yes, I know I was an adult when the last of them closed, but there wasn't a hell of a lot I could have done about that, other than vote for whichever politician campaigned to close them, and I don't recall that any of them did.

I try to respect the courtesies as much as possible - for instance, I wouldn't wear a headdress or other regalia as a costume, and I'm fully aware that such things have to be earned or bestowed as gifts.

The RCMP owes a humongous apology for their slipshod, dismissive conduct regarding the victims of Robert Pickton and those who disappeared on the Highway of Tears, not to mention the people they routinely victimize in Saskatchewan (if they see an aboriginal person who is drunk, they pick them up, drive them out of town, and dump them in the middle of nowhere - and don't care that it might be the middle of winter and -20C).

I won't hold my breath, waiting for Pope Francis to come here and apologize for the Catholic Church's part in the residential schools. If he does my respect would go up a notch, but honestly, this is something that should have been done several popes ago.

The government? That's the thing... yes, the federal government has really mishandled a lot of situations that need to be rectified. That said, so have some of the chiefs. I'm getting rather tired of the litany of "You've been oppressing us!" when it turns out that some of the chiefs routinely claim a lot of privileges for themselves and don't seem to care that much that some of the people in their bands or reserves may not have running water or insulated houses or access to other things they need. Somehow the money seems to get diverted away from housing, plumbing, other infrastructure.

 

[Zkribbler]

A new memorial to the Confederacy has been raised.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...142e4b0821444c45402?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

IMHO, as long as it's on private land and paid for by private money, these folk have a 1st Amendment right to express their admiration. They have a Constitutional right to honor those who so hated America, they fought and died to tear it asunder and who so hated freedom, they fought and died to keep millions of Americans enslaved.

But I remind them of the old song:

'Twas an evening in October, I'll confess I wasn't sober,
I was carting home a load with manly pride,
When my feet began to stutter and I fell into the gutter,
And a pig came up and lay down by my side.
Then I lay there in the gutter and my heart was all a-flutter,
Till a lady, passing by, did chance to say:
"You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses,"
Then the pig got up and slowly walked away.

 

[Traitorfish]

I view MacDonald much as I view Jefferson[...]

Off-topic a bit, but it's never really been clear to me what made Jefferson stand out as particularly "great" among the Foundation generation.

In the minus column, he was a slave-owner, an imperialist, a war-hawk and a genocidaire.

In the plus column, he wrote poetically about liberty and invented the swivel-chair.

Frankly, I suspect Thomas Jefferson's reputation has benefited from having an excellent publicist in the person of Thomas Jefferson.

 

[metalhead]

He also benefits from white people not wanting to face the horrors of slavery. We're actually raised to believe that he and Sally Hemings had a "love affair" during which he fathered several of her children. I think you have to major in history or read some moderately subversive literature here if you want to realize how truly messed up we are when it comes to teaching our own history to our kids. I suspect the deification of all the Founders has this instinct (or possibly purpose) at its core. I mean yeah they owned slaves, but that doesn't make them bad people!

 

[Zkribbler]

Off-topic a bit, but it's never really been clear to me what made Jefferson stand out as particularly "great" among the Foundation generation.

In the minus column, he was a slave-owner, an imperialist, a war-hawk and a genocidaire.
.

He wrote the Declaration of Independence. About 1/3 of it was an indictment of slavery; however, the Second Continental Congress cut that part out to keep Georgia and the Carolinas from walking out. Yes, he owned slaves, but in Virginia, it was illegal to free slaves. He commissioned Madison to study the various republics in history and to put together a plan for a governmental system to replace the Articles of Confederation. Madison's Virginia Plan, set out federalism, the three co-equal branches of government, and the concept of checks and balances.

By imperialist, are you referring to his purchase of the Louisiana territories?

By war-hawk, are you referring to his decision to go to war with the Barbary pirates rather than pay them tribute?

I've never heard anyone but you claim he committed genocide.

 

[Arwon]

The whole Indian removal thing

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.c...jefferson-architect-of-indian-removal-policy/

 

[Zkribbler]

The whole Indian removal thing

https://indiancountrymedianetwork.c...jefferson-architect-of-indian-removal-policy/

Did you read your article? Name one Indian he killed or removed.

 

[Evie]

"Architect", in the title of the article, seems to refer to his creating the conditions that would later lead to the tragedies and genocide of the Nineteenth century. But it would be a large stretch of the imagination to say he in any way engineered or created the later events in question.

As for slavery...Jefferson was a complicated man, with all the contradictions that go with that title. A very complicated man.

Certainly, he was an active and vocal opponent of the slave trade, proposing to include language in the Declaration of Independance specifically calling out Britain for its involvement in the practice (Congress nixed such language to appease the south). There is good reason to believe he was actively involved (and possibly even wrote) the 1778 Virginia slave trade ban. There is absolute certainty he pushed hard for the federal ban three decades later (specifically demanding that Congress pass such a law against what he specifically described as "a violation in human rights" in his State of the Union, for a start). It wasn't just words.

There is... evidence to suggest that he genuinely did mean "ALL men" when he said they were created equals - but at the same time there is evidence he believed black to be less intelligent. There's evidence he saw negative traits he associated with African-americans as a whole...but also that he viewed slavery as the *cause* of those traits, not a solution to them. He appears to have believed in gradual emancipation, but never took any steps to make it happen. It appears he may have believed the American people weren't ready for him (he might not have been *wrong* about that, either, considering how badly it went when it actually happened). He supported banning slavery in the Northwest Territories , but opposed the Missouri compromise (because, said he, he feared it might break the union apart,...and he wasn't wrong about *that* part either). He supported Southern politicians who wanted America to oppose Haiti, but hoped Haiti would become a successful state.

All the while, of course, he owned hundreds of slaves, and made one his concubine. While Washington freed his slaves in his will, Jefferson only freed a handful.

Ultimately, he may have best phrased his views on slavery when he described it as a wolf held by the ear, which the United States could neither hold nor safely let go (whether he feared slave revolts or planters revolt if the US let go of slavery is unclear ; there's reason to believe either, and perhaps he meant both). Or perhaps when he said it would be the next generation's problem to solve.

In short: not an angel. Not a demon. A man, full of conflicts and contradictions, aspiring to (and, by and large, advocating for) lofty ideals but often falling into sin along the way. Worse than many of his contemporary - Burr, Laurens, even Washington - and better than many others.

Ultimately, if it were only for slavery, he wouldn't deserve the honors he get. But his pen to the declaration of independence (especially the preamble), and (oft forgotten, but perhaps as significant) his contributions with Lafayette in penning the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen were both fairly significant. Neither documents were particularly original ideas ; but they articulated those ideas in ways that left deep marks in world history (the French Declaration *was* just about the first document to articulate our modern conception of Free Speech as a full legal right, for one ; and the preamble of the Declaration of Independence became an abolitionist battle cry)

 

[Arwon]

Did you read your article? Name one Indian he killed or removed.

I mean, my own understanding of colonial frontier wars tends to suggest their targets' names aren't remembered, hey.

I don't mean to imply he was uniquely pro genocide but was there a US or pre US top authority figure prior to, say, 1870 who wasn't in some way responsible for colonial wars, displacements and outright murders of the locals? There certainly isn't likely to be in Australia. Seems unlikely just by the nature of the positions.

 

[metalhead]

As for slavery...Jefferson was a complicated man, with all the contradictions that go with that title. A very complicated man.

Certainly, he was an active and vocal opponent of the slave trade, proposing to include language in the Declaration of Independance specifically calling out Britain for its involvement in the practice (Congress nixed such language to appease the south). There is good reason to believe he was actively involved (and possibly even wrote) the 1778 Virginia slave trade ban. There is absolute certainty he pushed hard for the federal ban three decades later (specifically demanding that Congress pass such a law against what he specifically described as "a violation in human rights" in his State of the Union, for a start). It wasn't just words.

The irony being that the federal Constitution he helped to draft specifically prohibited the passage of laws ending the slave trade prior to 1808 - which is well after the British (nominally at least) forbade participation in it by British subjects.

A complicated man? Hardly. His positive views betray the fact that he took absolutely no action when it came to the people he had full power to free. Like every other rank hypocrite, he was a man of words but no action, where his inaction directly contradicts the principles he espoused in his own words. That's not complicated, that's called being a bad person.

 

[Evie]

The provision on banning the slave trade was a toned down version of a provision proposed by the committe of detail (who wrote the first draft) that prevented congress from banning the slave trade in perpetuity (the drafting commitee was chaired by a former governor of South Carolina).

Given that, at the time, Jefferson had ALREADY gotten the international slave trade banned in Virginia, that he wasn't on the commitee (or even at the convention) and was in fact on a different continent altogether at the time (1785-9 in Paris) the idea that he had much of anything to do with that provision is...far-fetched.

Likewise, I wouldn't describe his history as words but no action. He took specific actions in Virginia (1778, before Britain) and at the federal level (as soon as he had authority to do so) to ban the slave trade. He specifically put forth a pla for the northwest territories banning slavery there (before many northern states banned it); the plan was not adopted at first but formed the basis of the plan, three years later, that did ban slavery in the northwest territories. That Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan and Wisconsin were never slave states is in no small part thanks to Jefferson's actions.

Those are actions, not words.

 

[Traitorfish]

So far the argument for Jefferson's greatest amount to "not as evil as he might seem at first glance".

But that's how you describe the character-arc of a Marvel villain, not a national hero.

 

[Senethro]

He was a man of his time and all but its still a bit raw for a guy to rape his slaves so that he can create new slaves (who are also his children) to perform work for him.

 

[Evie]

The part you bothered to read ( which was indeed meant to put some perspective with regard to a one-liner criticism you made), you mean.

I stand by my statement (the bit you're pretending I didn't write) that his writing of the Declaration of Independance and his significant contribution in penning the Declaration on the rights of man and the citizens were major, positive documents and accomplishments in the developments of liberal democracy and human rights that warrant honor. Dismissing them as mere poetry requires much more than a one-liner to be considered a "point".

The bad part of his record is much more mixed than your one-liner quip made it out to be. The good part, much more significant than your snide dismissal alleged. On the whole, I stand by what I said - a mixed figure.

Senethro - yes, that's definitely the one part of the slavery criticism that we will always need to keep in mind and condemn him for regardless of accomplishments or how mixed he was on slavery as a whole. ( Though he did free them in his will, I won't contest that's both too little and too late)

(Also, for purely factual and informative purposes and without any implication it makes the issue any better - it does not, afaik the evidence only goes as far as slave, singular, not slaves plural)

Honor the good. Condem the bad. One person can deserve both.

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, if you espouse a bunch of wonderful ideals that you fail to put into practice in your own life, you're a terrible person. And the "product of his time" claim holds little water. Abolitionism was far from a fringe thing, especially in the early 1800s.

Do you really believe all men are created equal if you also believe in your own right to own other men?

 

[Evie]

The one thing he ought to have done to not be a terrible person in your world view is commit political, social and economic suicide. In a context where all the other planters are keeping their slaves, and he isn't (and a context of his financial obligations, and personal lack of financial foresight and acumen), freeing his slaves would likely have led Jefferson straight to bankruptcy - and that's 18th-19th century notions of debtors and bankruptcy.

Emotionally, though, I get what you mean. On the whole, Jefferson did a lot of good. But there is something *personal* about the bad he did, something that make it seems like it's the "real" him and the good he did just talking the talk. I don't think that's true, not reading the history. But I understand the feeling very, very, very well.

Honestly, I don't LIKE Jefferson (and not just because of Lin Manuel Miranda's awesome tracks). If I met him face to face, I'd probably kick him in the groin (also, there's the whole women rights thing). I'd love for him to be a monster.

But when I stop and read what he actually did beyond slave-owning, when I set aside my feelings...I don't think history support that view. Not compared to the other figures we call terrible, and who have done so much more and so much worse than Jefferson.

Hypocrite? Perhaps. But then again, people who ever truly live up to their ideals are a rare, rare, rare thing.