Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help


T___A

Recommended Posts

On 8/17/2017 at 6:05 AM, Collimatrix said:


 

For the record, all this shit about the statues is the most disgusting type of grandstanding.

 

Imma explain this stuff straight up, because not everyone here is from the USA.

 

Charles Francis Adams Sr. made a speech entitled "Shall Cromwell Have a Statue?"  This speech is explicitly about whether Robert E. Lee ought to have a statue.  Also, within context, this speech clarifies the reason why there are statues of Confederate generals in the USA in the first place.

 

When the rebels called it quits in 1865 it was because it was clear that the Confederates could no longer win.  It was not because they could no longer fight.  The Confederacy could have very plausibly continued a low-level guerrilla campaign against Union forces for years and seriously run up the body count.  Look up Quantrill's Raiders to get an idea of how nasty this could have become.

 

But the Confederates did not choose to do this.  They chose to lay down arms instead, come what may.  They realized that they were beaten.
 

Thus, the prevailing sentiment in the Union immediately after the war was that there should be a reasonable attempt at reconciliation.  In the immediate aftermath of the war very few Confederates were charged with treason.  After that there were further overtures, especially under President William Mckinley at the turn of the century.  Confederate soldier's graves were given headstones, and that's about the time that statues of Lee started growing in various places.  In general, it was felt that the rebels were traitors in a technical sense, but who had acted without malice or greed.  Furthermore, the legality of secession and indeed the theoretical underpinnings of the constitution were largely unanswered questions at the time.  It hardly seemed magnanimous to hold the issue against the rebels after beating them and burning their homes to the ground.

 

And that is why the USA was fine with statues of Confederate generals springing up here and there.  Did nobody think it odd that there's a statue of Robert E. Lee, a Confederate general, in Maryland, which was a Union state?  Of course they didn't think it odd.  They didn't think.  That statue was erected because, a mere generation after the war, the Confederates were seen as losers in a high stakes political controversy, but otherwise completely American and honorable.  Filthy modern iconoclasts made up their own bizarre interpretations of what the statue meant, and tore it down.  They got rid of a symbol of one of the greatest national efforts of re-unification, ostensibly in the name of tolerance.

Fucking philistines.

Confederate statues were erected in Baltimore in 1948, not a "mere generation after the war."  It is not a coincidence that these statues were put up at the same time as the Truman Administration was taking steps in the direction of integration and civil rights.  Baltimore was predominately Union territory with a large black population.  There was no reason to put up Confederate statues if the goal is to make former confederates feel included in society (they would have been all dead by 1948 anyway.)  However, confederate statues would be a good way to let the local black population know that a lot of white folks were not at all keen with them achieving any sort of equality.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly enough, for all those defending these confederate statues, Bobby Lee does not agree with you.

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that, however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt, in the present condition of the country, would have the effect of retarding instead of accelerating its accomplishment, and of continuing if not adding to the difficulties under which the Southern people labor."

 

Of course, Bobby Lee had a lot of weird ideas.  For one, he thought slavery was more harmful to white folks than black folks.  He also thought sending your army charging over open ground at an entrenched enemy would somehow work at Gettysburg, despite having seen what happened when Union forces did the exact same thing at Fredricksburg earlier that year.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Oddly enough, for all those defending these confederate statues, Bobby Lee does not agree with you.

"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that, however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt, in the present condition of the country, would have the effect of retarding instead of accelerating its accomplishment, and of continuing if not adding to the difficulties under which the Southern people labor."

 

Of course, Bobby Lee had a lot of weird ideas.  For one, he thought slavery was more harmful to white folks than black folks.  He also thought sending your army charging over open ground at an entrenched enemy would somehow work at Gettysburg, despite having seen what happened when Union forces did the exact same thing at Fredricksburg earlier that year.  

 

 

That's yesterdays news. How do feel about the left now atracking monuments to Washington, Jackson and Licoln. Because as predicted they are being targeted now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Confederate statues were erected in Baltimore in 1948, not a "mere generation after the war."  It is not a coincidence that these statues were put up at the same time as the Truman Administration was taking steps in the direction of integration and civil rights.  Baltimore was predominately Union territory with a large black population.  There was no reason to put up Confederate statues if the goal is to make former confederates feel included in society (they would have been all dead by 1948 anyway.)  However, confederate statues would be a good way to let the local black population know that a lot of white folks were not at all keen with them achieving any sort of equality.  

 

 

 

 

Thanks.  The majority of Confederate reconciliation movement I was familiar with dated from the turn of the century, and I had assumed that the Baltimore statue was of similar vintage.


I don't buy that it was a reaction to any particular Truman Administration policies, however.  Upon further digging, it appears that the statue was dedicated in 1948.  It would have gone up far earlier than that, but World War Two intervened.

 

Obviously, it didn't come from directly after the Civil War.  Even Robert E. Lee thought that was a bad idea then.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And to clarify, as the Charles Francis Adams Sr. speech makes clear, the point of putting up statues of Lee was not as a conciliatory gesture to ex-Confederates.  The point was that the Confederates had had the rebel beaten (or burned) out of them, and they could be embraced as Americans once again.

 

Lee himself was against monuments to Confederate generals, and even wearing Confederate gray uniforms on the grounds that it would be divisive.  By 1900, it was deemed that not recognizing them would be divisive.  Times change.

 

I could certainly buy that times have changed again, but I have to ask; under what rationale, exactly, are people today more aggrieved by the Confederacy than William Mckinley and Charles Francis Adams?  You know, men who actually fought and worked respectively for the US government against the Confederacy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Jeeps_Guns_Tanks said:

 

That's yesterdays news. How do feel about the left now atracking monuments to Washington, Jackson and Licoln. Because as predicted they are being targeted now.

I have not read about the specifics of these incidents, so I don't know how accurate the reporting is.  Regardless, I am not a fan of vandalism.  The removal of Confederate statues in Charlottesville and Baltimore was done by the city government in a legal manner.  Groups of people pulling down statues without any legal mandate to do so is obviously vandalism and not protected free speech.  That said, it's still a far lesser crime than driving a car into a crowd with the intent of killing people or marching through the streets carrying Nazi flags with the intent of starting street fights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Collimatrix said:

And to clarify, as the Charles Francis Adams Sr. speech makes clear, the point of putting up statues of Lee was not as a conciliatory gesture to ex-Confederates.  The point was that the Confederates had had the rebel beaten (or burned) out of them, and they could be embraced as Americans once again.

 

Lee himself was against monuments to Confederate generals, and even wearing Confederate gray uniforms on the grounds that it would be divisive.  By 1900, it was deemed that not recognizing them would be divisive.  Times change.

 

I could certainly buy that times have changed again, but I have to ask; under what rationale, exactly, are people today more aggrieved by the Confederacy than William Mckinley and Charles Francis Adams?  You know, men who actually fought and worked respectively for the US government against the Confederacy?

 

I think it's more about how to the victims of the Confederacy (or their decedents) feel about it that's important these days.  Nobody asked black folk how they felt about these statues when they went up.  I'm sure they don't particularly enjoy being reminded of Confederate generals who fought for a movement whose primary motivation was the preservation of slavery every time they walk or drive past (assuming they know who the statue represents, Americans are shockingly historically illiterate, both black and white.)  If we really want to move forward as a society and be inclusive to all our citizens, we can find better and more positive subjects for our public monuments.  Lets leave Lee and Jackson in the museums where they belong.  ( I will admit that the Baltimore statue really is a very well done and attractive bit of sculpture.  I would not advocate destroying it, just relocating it to a more appropriate setting )

 

On a totally different note, the Russians have this fantastic statue that give tribute to the contributions of laboratory test rats.  

 

1280px-Monument_to_lab_mouse-1.JPG

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to POTUS claims that the White Supremacists in Charlottesville had a permit while the counter protesters did not, here is the permit for the counter protesters.  And while this is hardly the biggest issue of concern for most people regarding last weekends events, it's example #183757373 of POTUS abilty to lie as easily as the breathes.  

 

a9L9_vtxfkLJ6HeL35iOl0pP1AxLzryyS5NhNUQk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An NPR/PBS/ Marist poll states that of 1,125 American adults surveyed, 62 percent are in favor of keeping up the Confederate statues. 27 Percent want them down.

 

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us170814_PBS/NPR_PBS NewsHour_Marist Poll_National Nature of the Sample and Tables_August 17, 2017.pdf

 

Of course polls and polling methodology has taken a black eye last election. But it has been fairly obvious that - yet again - the folks wanting to take down the statuary are a small minority, despite what the news coverage would have us believe. America is reconciled about the Civil War and the role the Confederacy  and its leaders played. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

As to POTUS claims that the White Supremacists in Charlottesville had a permit while the counter protesters did not, here is the permit for the counter protesters.  And while this is hardly the biggest issue of concern for most people regarding last weekends events, it's example #183757373 of POTUS abilty to lie as easily as the breathes.  

 

a9L9_vtxfkLJ6HeL35iOl0pP1AxLzryyS5NhNUQk

 

I'd say the President was simply repeating what local news coverage was reporting rather than "lying".

 

Perhaps this is a lesson not to ever take news coverage seriously as a source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Donward said:

 

I'd say the President was simply repeating what local news coverage was reporting rather than "lying".

 

Perhaps this is a lesson not to ever take news coverage seriously as a source.

 

Part of the problem is that it's really hard to tell when he is lying and when he is just regurgitating what he has absorbed from watching Fox and Friends.  I guess he recently tweeted about General Pershing, referencing claims he made much earlier that Pershing had Filipino insurrectionists shot with bullets dipped in pigs blood and that this somehow magically ended radical Islamic terrorists for 35 years.  Frankly, he probably believes the story is true regardless of the fact that historians have roundly debunked it.  The weird thing about the story is that it doesn't even make any sense if you think about it.  Disrespecting your adversaries most dearly held religious beliefs is generally not a good strategy for getting them to calm down.  Just ask the British how it went with their Hindu and Muslim soldiers in India when they introduced a paper cartridge that was supposedly greased with pig and/or beef fat in 1857.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

Part of the problem is that it's really hard to tell when he is lying and when he is just regurgitating what he has absorbed from watching Fox and Friends.  I guess he recently tweeted about General Pershing, referencing claims he made much earlier that Pershing had Filipino insurrectionists shot with bullets dipped in pigs blood and that this somehow magically ended radical Islamic terrorists for 35 years.  Frankly, he probably believes the story is true regardless of the fact that historians have roundly debunked it.  The weird thing about the story is that it doesn't even make any sense if you think about it.  Disrespecting your adversaries most dearly held religious beliefs is generally not a good strategy for getting them to calm down.  Just ask the British how it went with their Hindu and Muslim soldiers in India when they introduced a paper cartridge that was supposedly greased with pig and/or beef fat in 1857.

 

The reporting that the counter protesters did't have a permit was pretty widespread. Furthermore, with these type of events, there are literally dozens if not more "groups" which may or may not be talking to each other. I don't know where the place or location for this counterprotest is in relation to the KKK/Nazis. Furthermore that application states that there will be no street closures unless permitted by the local police and I don't know if this occurred. 

There are plenty of times - I've personally witnessed - when there is a permitted protest that then exceeds what that permit allows. Like here in Seattle, protesters will get a permit to rally in Westlake Park or up on Capitol Hill, and then a bunch of the yahoos will wander off down the street in order to block traffic or even to block Interstate 5 which bisects downtown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the permit held by the White Supremists did not include the right to drive cars into crowds or beat people with poles. Obviously, all sorts of things happened that were not within the scope of the permits issued.  I doubt anyone involved with either side applied for permits in good faith of following them.  

 

Just to be clear, here is my opinion regarding statues and antifa.  1) As President Trump himself said, the issue of whether a statue should stay or go should be made by local governments.  If a local government decides the public interest is better served by removing a statue, as they did in Charlottesville and Baltimore, than by all means, remove it.  2) White supremacists and other scum bags have a first amendment right to stage protests.  However, I think local governments also have the right to charge them for the extra security costs involved in providing for the public safety due to the well established pattern of disruption and violence caused by their rallies.  3) While I can sympathize with people wanting to violently counter white supremacists, I don't think it's a particularly productive tactic.  Based on my own experiences, it's better to organize an event at a different location promoting peace and unity, particularly if it involves some productive activity (cleaning a park, feeding people, etc).  Giving the nazi assholes a fight is actually what they want.  The last thing they want is to be ignored.  4) While I don't think the tactics of Antifa are very productive, I do not think one can draw a moral equivalence between them and Neo-Nazis.  One side is dumb, the other is evil.  There is a difference.

 

I remember back when I lived in Kalamazoo in the 90's, the Klan decided to hold a rally in the downtown park.  They city said fine, then erected so many chain link barricades in the name of public safety that the Klan rally was pretty much invisible.  Meanwhile, a public pick-nick was organized at a different park on the north side of town which attracted about twenty times the number of people as the Klan rally.  

 

If it were solely up to me, I would replace every confederate General statue with the statue of a country western singer.  So long General Lee, hello Willie Nelson.  See ya later Stonewall Jackson, good to see you Hank Williams.  I would take particular delight in replacing every monument to that old racist villian Nathan Bedford Forrest with a statue of Dolly Parton.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

As to POTUS claims that the White Supremacists in Charlottesville had a permit while the counter protesters did not, here is the permit for the counter protesters.  And while this is hardly the biggest issue of concern for most people regarding last weekends events, it's example #183757373 of POTUS abilty to lie as easily as the breathes.  

 

a9L9_vtxfkLJ6HeL35iOl0pP1AxLzryyS5NhNUQk

 

MyZbhxm.jpg

 

I'm sure the left wing extremists permit allowed them to be violent as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And your point is? I already said that neither group got their permits intending to observe them in good faith.  And for the record, Donward is completely correct when he observed that "with these type of events, there are literally dozens if not more "groups" which may or may not be talking to each other." I have enough experience with leftist organizing that I can say there will almost always be a small radical contingent that will go out of their way to break the rules of the permit on principle.  Cause permits are bad and wrong for some reason.  I don't know, it never made much sense to me and always seemed disrespectful to the people who organized the event and paid for the permit.

 

The bigger issue is that POTUS somehow felt it was necessary to point out that the Nazis had a permit.  Why would he do that?  What's the point, other than trying to create some sort of moral equivalence compared to the counter-protesters?  Every other President would have given a full-throated denunciation of White Supremacists.  Take Reagan for example.  This video clip will remind you what a president is supposed to sound like.  (I'm not a big fan of Reagan's policies, but damn, he was a good speaker and a likable personality)

 

 

Now, whether or not Reagan actually believed what he was saying is a different matter.  However, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.  His visit to the SS cemetery at Bitburg was a pretty serious faux pas, although it seems rather quaint compared to the current POTUS.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the President bringing up the permitting issue is because the KKK/Neo-Nazi types had a legal right to be there. The ACLU even backed their legal case to obtain the permits.

What is frustrating is that if the Antifa types had just ignored the whole thing, these losers would have waved their tiki torches, had a good yell and would have gone home to work at their dead end job and masturbate to interracial Cuck porn.

It is the counter protesters showing up - many of whom rioted - that blew the situation out of control and made this an international story.

If their goal was to nullify, the Klan, ignoring them is the best strategy. But the Left's goal isn't to nullify the Klan and Neo-Nazis. The left NEEDS these guys. They need them as a prop in order to scapegoat Republicans and Conservatives. They need these hate groups to fundraise for groups like the Southern Poverty Law Center. They need these groups to get television ratings. Why else is CNN and the New York Times constantly interviewing David Duke? Because zero-point-zero percent of Conservatives care about what Duke has to say.

If the KKK and Neo-Nazis didn't exist, the left would have to invent them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I saw, it looked like the armed mob of communist LARPers that is Antifa placed themselves in the protest route of the unite the right group to force an encounter. So they don't look remotely less culpable to the street violence to me.

 

Also when it comes to "moral relativism" between the two I'm far more concerned about the antifa types more than the whote supremecists/neo-nazis for one reason, everyone knows they're bad. Hell even the ones I've seen talk that are white supremacist know to the point of reveling in it. Meanwhile, antifa, surely not the beacon of nonviolence and liberal democracy, is being lionized as heroes of all that is good and light in the world. I just cannot equate the danger of the entire mainstream jumping to hoist antifa as the saints of the liberal world with a few pockets of virtually universally reviled white supremacists. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Donward said:

 

What is frustrating is that if the Antifa types had just ignored the whole thing, these losers would have waved their tiki torches, had a good yell and would have gone home to work at their dead end job and masturbate to interracial Cuck porn.

It is the counter protesters showing up - many of whom rioted - that blew the situation out of control and made this an international story.

....

 

If their goal was to nullify, the Klan, ignoring them is the best strategy.

 

Wait a minute, are Donward and I agreeing on something other than 80's pop culture references?  Miracles do happen!

 

........

 

One thing I have not seen good information on is the composition of the counter-protester crowd.  How many were travelling antifa (I'm kind of shocked that I have not seen them described as carpetbaggers yet) and how many were local folks that just wanted to show up and voice their opposition to the Nazis?  My experiences from back in the day of the anti-globalization protests were that the majority of the crowd were generally peaceful protesters while a smaller contingency were the radical "black block."  I'm guessing what used to be the black block has morphed into Antifa, but I can't say that definitively.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Belesarius said:

RIP Steve Bannon apparently.  FOX is reporting that he's on the way out.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/18/stephen-bannon-out-at-white-house-source-says.html

 

 

Other sources are reporting it as well.  It looks like the former generals are winning the war inside POTUS's  White House.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Donward said:

An NPR/PBS/ Marist poll states that of 1,125 American adults surveyed, 62 percent are in favor of keeping up the Confederate statues. 27 Percent want them down.

 

http://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/misc/usapolls/us170814_PBS/NPR_PBS NewsHour_Marist Poll_National Nature of the Sample and Tables_August 17, 2017.pdf

 

Of course polls and polling methodology has taken a black eye last election. But it has been fairly obvious that - yet again - the folks wanting to take down the statuary are a small minority, despite what the news coverage would have us believe. America is reconciled about the Civil War and the role the Confederacy  and its leaders played. 

I think there is an argument for removing them, but if you do, then move them to a museum or something. Don't destroy them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main hard right media outlet in Canada, Rebel Media, headed by Ezra Levant is having a meltdown after Charlottetown.  I wouldn't quite call them the Canadian Brietbart, but they lean that way, with a bit more of a factual basis.

 

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada/politicians-contributors-distance-themselves-as-rebel-medias-meltdown-continues/wcm/23597cc0-4c97-4e64-bea4-999bd870f1f1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...