How exactly does the fact that Asians are doing FAR better than Whites fit into that narrative? A list of assertions is not evidence of anything other than the author's opinion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluence_in_the_United_States
I actually agree with a lot of that, but these are statues of men who fought on the Confederate side in the mid-nineteenth century. They were fighting to preserve slavery as an institution. Specifically, they were fighting to make slavery legal in the territories, which would become new states - therefore expanding the institution of slavery. Again, this is not in the eighteenth century when slavery was accepted by most people, this is mid-nineteenth century. The Northern states had become pretty hardline about not tolerating slavery, and virtually all the European nations had completely banned slavery except in a few colonies.
However, put that aside for a moment. We aren't talking about then, we're talking about whether those statues should be displayed on the public government grounds NOW. We are discussing whether statues which commemorate men for acts we now (supposedly) all agree are evil should be displayed by the government NOW. I can fully accept that these represent a lot of good men who were doing what they felt was right and moral at the time. But that doesn't change the fact that they fought for something that we universally understand to be evil, a violation of our nation's very declaration of independence. We have no more fundamental principle than all men being created equal; these men were fighting for the right to declare some men aren't men at all, but chattel, property, inhuman.
I agree that those statues should be preserved and moved to battlefields or museums because they often are beautiful statues and they do represent a part of our history that we should not forget. For once, I'm probably in the majority with this view. My point of disagreement with Boomer was due solely to the state legislature blocking that attempt. I'm not attacking any statues, I'm just saying that I understand and can accept why others (especially blacks) might take it upon themselves to destroy these statues if the state legislature thwarts the will of the people to ensure that these statues continue to occupy places of honor similar to those of Lincoln, Washington or Jefferson. To roughly quote Chris Rock: I'm not saying they should have done it - but I understand.
That's fair and I agree pretty much. Placing them on battlefields etc seems like a reasonable compromise. My concern is the mob mentality on both sides (gasp, I said both sides). These statues are simply tools to further the divide in America, everything is polorized and middle ground isn't allowed to exist. The push is already starting to get rid of Washington and Jefferson as well. When these are all removed there will always be something else, always. There should be a happy medium like a battlefield or museum but I don't think compromise is in either sides playbook.
What ANTIFA did in Durham was absolutely wrong, regardless of their intentions. Public property should not be defaced, damaged, or removed without the democratic and due process of law. That happened in New Orleans and Charlottesville. It should have happened in Durham. It must happen in the future if the liberals want to be able to claim the moral high ground.
Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
What ANTIFA did in Durham was absolutely wrong, regardless of their intentions. Public property should not be defaced, damaged, or removed without the democratic and due process of law. That happened in New Orleans and Charlottesville. It should have happened in Durham. It must happen in the future if the liberals want to be able to claim the moral high ground.
What ANTIFA did in Durham was absolutely wrong, regardless of their intentions. Public property should not be defaced, damaged, or removed without the democratic and due process of law. That happened in New Orleans and Charlottesville. It should have happened in Durham. It must happen in the future if the liberals want to be able to claim the moral high ground.
Agree, but that couldn't have happened in Durham. Those famously relevant NC republican legislators last year banned NC municipalities from removing public monuments. They can't even hold a hearing about this, legally. Republicans: still spending their time doing totally useful stuff.
So civil disobedience is "absolutely wrong" ?
Those guys that sat at the lunch counter, they were breaking the law too. How wrong of them.
Even Thoreau did his time for his civil disobedience, and argued that it was necessary that he did so. These guys will too.
The larger issue here though IMO is that the act was myopic. Lawlessness undermines credibility and public opinion. This provided yet another opportunity for the alt-right, including the KKK and Neo-Nazis among them, to point to all that is liberalism and say, See? They're just as bad as we are!
Even Thoreau did his time for his civil disobedience, and argued that it was necessary that he did so. These guys will too.
The larger issue here though IMO is that the act was myopic. Lawlessness undermines credibility and public opinion. This provided yet another opportunity for the alt-right, including the KKK and Neo-Nazis among them, to point to all that is liberalism and say, See? They're just as bad as we are!
of course they'll do that, and still the majority will laugh at them and their false equivalence. I see what you're saying, but I've never been a fan of the "we must not do x because crazy Group A will just point out how right they were about us doing x." When Crazy group A is understood to be crazy and largely crawling from the fringes of society, their opinions on public matters have no real sway.
Horseshit! More alt-right fake news!That's fair and I agree pretty much. Placing them on battlefields etc seems like a reasonable compromise. My concern is the mob mentality on both sides (gasp, I said both sides). These statues are simply tools to further the divide in America, everything is polorized and middle ground isn't allowed to exist. The push is already starting to get rid of Washington and Jefferson as well. When these are all removed there will always be something else, always. There should be a happy medium like a battlefield or museum but I don't think compromise is in either sides playbook.
A long line of people marched into the police station to confess, so it seems they don't have any problem with that.
Do you have a problem with the state pressing absurd felony charges rather than the appropriate misdemeanors?
And people can then make up their minds if illegally pulling down symbols of white supremacy and hatred are just as bad as the stuff the KKK and Neo-Nazis do. There were no shortage of people making the same arguments you are during the civil rights protests.
What is the long term goal here? Civil rights and good governance, or taking down statues? Just throwing that out there as that choice may come up. Choose wisely.
Horseshit! More alt-right fake news!
I wish you could take a sec and see the statues and confederate flags from the perspective of those who died and were persecuted under it. A portion of the country decided to rise up and fight another because of their desire to keep slaves(and that was the primary reason for the war). It is all but amazing that somehow all these years we have allowed people to celebrate those who did that. It's disgusting and should be intolerable.
I understand the OPs sentiment but I will have to respectfully disagree. There was no motivation for secession that did not ultimately come down to the effort to preserve the south's economic dependence on the institution of slavery. I will say that there are certainly better ways to get the memorials and statues removed but to give this one a pass because it was dedicated to the common confederate soldier doesn't hold water. What I would personally like to see is a memorial to all the war dead from both sides as a reminder of a time when our nation attempted to cut its own throat and very nearly succeeded.
"What is the long term goal here? Civil rights and good governance or sitting on a bus seat? Choose wisely."
Is tearing down a statue in the middle of the night really the same as sitting in the front of the bus?
Civil disobedience needs to be non-violent. Its purpose is to show the people how the law being broken is unjust. Poll taxes were unjust. Forcing black people to sit in the back of the bus was unjust. School segregation was unjust. Civil disobedience through breaking these unjust laws helped to bring the injustice into public view.
You can argue the statue itdelf all day long, but was the law against taking down the statue unjust? No. A just society cannot tolerate vandalism and the unlawful destruction of property, regardless of the noble intention behind doing so.