Trump

[Usenko]

It's not really about the statues. The left needs something to destroy. They are going after symbols no one cared about a few years ago to prove how virtuous they are to themselves.

And the right are falling right into the trap - defending statues made in the 1950s and 60s as though they're serious icons of their cultural heritage. They SHOULD be saying "Much luck to you, we bought it at Discount Statue Warehouse for $3.50 (special deal, Lee and Jackson for the price of one). If it makes you feel better, go for it."

Otherwise they validate the action.

[Grim Lock]

It also makes painfully obvious how much problems arise from dividing the entire political spectrum up in "the left" and "the right", this simplification is imo what leads to this easy "it was them" rhetoric.

[Golden_Gonads]

And the right are falling right into the trap - defending statues made in the 1950s and 60s as though they're serious icons of their cultural heritage. They SHOULD be saying "Much luck to you, we bought it at Discount Statue Warehouse for $3.50 (special deal, Lee and Jackson for the price of one). If it makes you feel better, go for it."

That or they could commision two to take the place of each statue that is destroyed. General Lee (And every time I read that I think of Dukes of Hazard) was a good man and a great General fighting on the 'wrong' side, though like with politics today the American Civil War was not just about one issue, but dozens or hundreds of things which were important to the people of the time.

[Usenko]

Bannon fired.

Good. That man was dangerous.

Still is. Perhaps more so.

An anthem in honour of Trump's cabinet . . .

[muppetts]

Damn Trump is, I mean wow dumb needs a new name.

He tweeted Spain a fake story about a US general from the early 1900's (general Pershing)

He claims the general dipped 50 bullets in pigs blood and then executed 49 Muslim insurgents and told the last one to go back to his people and tell them to stop and then had 35 years of peace (or 25 or 41 he changes it)

The problem is it is totally made up, not even remotely true, fabricated on every level and he tweeted that to Spain, that they should study what Pershing did to the Muslims, a story he has told at multiple rallies and that is hosted on multiple White Power web sites.

What a choice of words, what timing, I am sure Spain is so happy......

http://news.sky.com/story/trump-follows ... s-10993390

http://mashable.com/2017/08/17/donald-t ... 7H3gxGoPqy

[Grim Lock]

Lol seriously next he's gonna claim nasa is gonna carve his face on the moon in honor of his birthday, and the US won the world-championship soccer?


Oh no wait that was another deranged dictator. Oh well it's easy to get them mixed up!

[JSDD]

He tweeted Spain a fake story about a US general from the early 1900's (general Pershing)

He claims the general dipped 50 bullets in pigs blood and then executed 49 Muslim insurgents and told the last one to go back to his people and tell them to stop and then had 35 years of peace (or 25 or 41 he changes it)

The problem is it is totally made up, not even remotely true, fabricated on every level and he tweeted that to Spain, ...

... and you got to cope with that kind of a**hole for the next 3 1/2 years, good luck! where are all the good things he spoke about while in campaign mode ? hopefully the republican party learns from their mistakes ... rallying behind tea party terrorists isnt a good idea

[eladan]

That or they could commision two to take the place of each statue that is destroyed. General Lee (And every time I read that I think of Dukes of Hazard) was a good man and a great General fighting on the 'wrong' side, though like with politics today the American Civil War was not just about one issue, but dozens or hundreds of things which were important to the people of the time.

In all of this discussion, I've not yet seen an argument as to why there is a statue of him at all. History already records his actions. There is no requirement that someone, great general or not, have a statue to be remembered by. Particularly so for someone on a losing side - they are often controversial figures because they were on the losing side.

Compare with, say, Erwin Rommel. He was, by all accounts, a great general. He was also reasonably fair-minded, by what I've read of him. His only crime, fighting on the losing side. But I think most people would rightfully consider Germany fairly insane if they erected a statue in his honor. It would act as a symbol for their nazi element, which is enough of a problem already.

[Observe]

In all of this discussion, I've not yet seen an argument as to why there is a statue of him at all.

Most of the statues in question, were created by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, between the late 1800's and early 1900's, in an attempt to color the Southern "lost cause" as an honorable one, lead by admirable figures. The general Lee statue was erected during that period.

There is debate about Lee's military prowess, but I expect there were many who rose to position of leadership who didn't have much military experience at that time.

I hope they don't destroy these statues, because they are great works of art and they do have historic reference regardless of how people may feel about them. Perhaps they could be put in a museum or stored someplace until such time as it is more socially palatable to display them.

[Mightysword]

In all of this discussion, I've not yet seen an argument as to why there is a statue of him at all. History already records his actions. There is no requirement that someone, great general or not, have a statue to be remembered by. Particularly so for someone on a losing side - they are often controversial figures because they were on the losing side.

You are half right in pointing out the fact that why erecting monuments for figures of the losing side. But this exception - to the American Civil War - it's not something symbolize hatred or such, but something to be admired.


I came from a country that fought a civil war too (in fact pretty much the reasons and a few millions of people like me are in the US), I came from the losing side of course. But let me tell you the "aftermatch" of the war:

- To those who fought and alive: they were put in concentration camps for years and decade. My father got 7 years, his commanding general got 20, many of his combrade never come back from those camps.
- Those those who didn't fight and alive: abuse, displacement, prosecution.
- To those who died, military or civilian: desecration. They destroyed a majority of our cemeteries right after war under different guise (like urban planning).

There was no afford for reconciliation, even today half a century later, people like my father are still labelled as traitors, unpatriotic, turn coat and all the other pretty names. Even today the veterans of the losing side can't have a get together without the risk of they will be caught and prosecute under the pretense of "planning to destabilize the government". Our flag, our symbol, insignia ... you only gonna put it up if you're ready to go to jail the next day, hell, probably as soon as that evening.


So you know, when I came to the US, when I see the statues of Robert Lee, when I see the Gettysburg's cemetery treasure both Union and Confederate soldiers, when I see someone driving a car with the Confederate flag emblems, or driving past a house with it hanging on the port, when I see soldiers on both side are equally honored on Memorial days, and Confederate veterans/families can have open getogether to talk about old times ... I don't see these as symbol of hatred and division, rather I feel a deep admiration because it showed to me that the America people was able to do something that my people never could, and a such, I consider the American culture is far superior to the pettiness of my own culture.

Grant is probably one of the worst President ever had, and by his battlefield account and tactic, and pretty ruthless and bloodthirsty general too. But he always has my respect for despising being all that, he already thought about reconciliation even before the final bullet was fired. I think the most memorable things about Grant is when he shunt the celebration of his own men after Lee's surrender saying "The rebels are now once again our brothers, we should not celebrate their defeat". And again, if you study history you will also realize, Lee is one of the central figure in the South after the war that pushed for reconciliation, just like before the war, he tried to stop the secessionists.



Figure and symbols, they don't carry or have any meaning themselves, but only the meaning we decide to associate them with:

- Will we celebrate Washington the first President, or will we celebrate Washington the slave owner?
- Will we celebrate the founding fathers for the wisdom they left us with the constitution. Or we will celebrate their failure in granting every human equal right in the same documents (black and women).
- Will we celebrate Lee as a patriot figure (and yes he is a patriot), a symbol of reconciliation. Or will we celebrate him as a "defender of Slavery"?

That is completely up to us, and again I say this, if we let the action of few extremists to soil these figures and symbol for us, then they win, and it is our loss.


PS: just to add something more. The nice thing about living in a society is that the people you respect or idealize don't have to be perfect. Say like "Great Father Kim" or "Brother Castro" are perfect being that have no fault (to a point you would wonder why these guys haven't become a saint) already. We choose to celebrate the positive of their life, but leave their flaws intact in history.

[matthewfarmery]

You do make some interesting points there, the fact it took so long to give both black people and women equal rights is just so wrong, hell, the UK didn't give women equal rights for so long is / was absurd, yet, this practice is still going on today. Many woman don't get equal pay or working rights, the BBC recently released a report detailing how much people earn, and the men are the top earners, while women aren't getting nearly as much.

In this regard both countries are really to blame, but I guess in the US, the treatment of blacks, (trying not to be insulting) was just so horrific, and so shameful, (I am white, but I really think things got way too far in the 60s. but still, there is still problems with this.

At the end of the day, the US is a very deeply divided country, the very principles that the civil war was fought for is clearly under threat. But I guess things didn't go far enough to give people of any colour equal rights.

I would say that is a major failing, the US lives with the sins of their forefathers, and the shame of the 60s and so on, will not be going away any time soon. As for the statues, I think they should remain as they are, at least some like general lee, he might have been on the losing side, but I would also say its a warning from history, like someone else mentioned, "those who don't remember the past, is condemned to repeat it"

If that history, is swiped under the carpet, then I would say that the US is trying to rewrite history, and this is something they seem to be very good at doing.

history is written by the victors - Winston Churchill

And you look at a few world war 2 films, one about the enigma machine, the US wasn't the first to capture the device, the brits were. Also look at many of the vietnam war, you string these together, and you get the impression the US won that one, but they lost it, yet ask a lot of US citizens ask who won that war, I bet a lot would say, the US did.

My point is, without those statues, the US will simply start to rewrite history, or make people forget that there was a civil war, they are a piece of history, something that needs to be preserved.

I don't think the US wants to remember the past, so they will gladly keep making the same mistakes over and over again.

[Morkonan]

...That is completely up to us, and again I say this, if we let the action of few extremists to soil these figures and symbol for us, then they win, and it is our loss....

A pretty moving post, all of it. I think you've said what really needed to be said.

******

Returning to bringing Trump into this mess:

Trump has failed to be a leader and has failed to use his office appropriately, especially the "bully pulpit." (His power to speak, as President, and for the words he uses to carry the weight of respect for his office and the gravitas associated with it)

Instead, he uses the power of his office to command the attention of the people for petty, trivial, childish remarks. As a result, his words easily become trivial blabber in the minds of many.

It's sad to see a tool that could be so useful, so important in healing wounds and diffusing anger and anxiety, demeaned to such an extent that it's useless for its most important task...

Trump can't act as a unifying force as a U.S. President should. That will have dangerous repercussions during this mess.

[Bishop149]

Most of the statues in question, were created by the United Daughters of the Confederacy, between the late 1800's and early 1900's, in an attempt to color the Southern "lost cause" as an honorable one, lead by admirable figures. The general Lee statue was erected during that period.

I hope they don't destroy these statues, because they are great works of art and they do have historic reference regardless of how people may feel about them. Perhaps they could be put in a museum or stored someplace until such time as it is more socially palatable to display them.

Something else to consider, in addition to Observes point about the attempted rewriting of history by the losers, many of these monuments were not put up to memorialize the Civil War. They were put up in direct opposition to America's civil rights movement. Have a look at the below.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/co ... olitics=Tw

These haven't been co-opted by racists and white nationalists, they were erected up by racists and white nationalists. These are THEIR statues. Mightsword has indeed been raising some good points but in some cases at least it's the people like him who have been placing a new interpretation on these monuments, not the racists, no they stuck with the original one.

I'm a little torn here.
Is it a good thing to strip a monument of the racist intentions of those that erected it and instead celebrate the more positive things it could be said to represent? Yes! Almost definitely.
Are you brushing under the carpet the hatred that erected the statue by doing so? Hmmmm, probably a bit yes.

I honestly think the best thing to do with all these statues is to move them to museums, places focused on a mature, sensible and balanced review of history were such items can be placed in an appropriate context.

[Grim Lock]

What a silly discussion this is about the statues their merits and who is worse extreme left or right.


Imagine if a muslim had ran his car into the same crowd that day.


Oh and my two cents, extreme right is worse, extreme left has a tendency of going after symbols, extreme right has a tendency of going after people and do so more often. (check your fbi stats)

[eladan]

...

Thanks, interesting post. I do disagree on a few points, though:

I'd argue that the tolerance you see for confederate symbols is directly due to the attitude deliberately taken by the Union directly following the victory, that no reprisals be taken and that effort should be made to heal the wounds. I believe that this was entirely pragmatic - it was required if they had any hope for a United States.

I would also argue that regardless of the tolerance of the majority for those symbols, that it is foolish to allow them - there will always be an element which will rally to them and cause trouble, trying to create division where there was none before. I take what would be an unpopular view here about our Aboriginal flag. I believe they should not be allowed to have their own flag for exactly the reason that it is a divisive symbol, where we want to have a united Australia. Unfortunately, people are wired towards categorising people, and flags in particular create a 'them' and 'us'.

- Will we celebrate Washington the first President, or will we celebrate Washington the slave owner?

The fact that Washington was a slave owner is neither memorable on its own, nor connected with the greater feats that he has been memorialised by. There is virtually no chance that anyone would successfully make him a symbol for slave ownership - it's too trivial a fact about him compared to his fame as first president.

- Will we celebrate the founding fathers for the wisdom they left us with the constitution. Or we will celebrate their failure in granting every human equal right in the same documents (black and women).

Similarly, people are generally remembered for their successes rather than their failures. There are some exceptions, but where you have a grand success such as creating a constitution, it will usually override any failures.

- Will we celebrate Lee as a patriot figure (and yes he is a patriot), a symbol of reconciliation. Or will we celebrate him as a "defender of Slavery"?

Lee is associated with the Confederate forces in the civil war. It is what he is famous for. Hence he will be associated with anything the Confederates fought for, which includes slavery. I am aware that he was a patriot. I fear that merely makes him a more potent symbol for the white supremacists, as they also see themselves as patriots.

[JSDD]

Lee is associated with the Confederate forces in the civil war. It is what he is famous for. Hence he will be associated with anything the Confederates fought for, which includes slavery. I am aware that he was a patriot. I fear that merely makes him a more potent symbol for the white supremacists, as they also see themselves as patriots.

but isnt it a bit (too) late to throw away his statue ? i think it's the "media attenton" that makes things worse than they really are .. including the rally of those nuts last week

the one guy who killed that woman of course is an exception: he's a criminal, a "hate criminal", and should be treated as such: lock him away in death row, forget him and let the "pieceful" demonstrators cry and shout as long as they want, as long as they obide by the law of the land ...

imho, let the police handle those guys, you dont have to (make your "hands dirty" and anti-demonstrate or even talk to those nuts), you cant erradicate hate, and hate is what drives most of them nuts, and such nuts dont think clearly, and / or just try to provoke hate in other people ...

[Masterbagger]

They've moved on to Columbus now.

https://baltimorebrew.com/2017/08/21/co ... andalized/

I truly hope this brand of mischief ends with many people sitting in prison knowing they got there over a statue.

[matthewfarmery]

Sad to see things escalate so far. This should have been quashed from the start. But seriously, this is just so sad.

[Bishop149]

America has big problem here.
As a country founded primarily upon the genocide of a native people and then economically upon slavery its going to be almost impossible to dodge this stuff seeing as it infests your history at literally every imaginable level.
You need to confront it and deal with it, and I'm not sure the current little spat between left and right counts as doing so.
I have no useful suggestions about how you might do this properly however, it's hard.

Before I'm accused of being anti-American I'd say the same about the UK. It's past time we properly faced up to all the evils of the British Empire, and our diminished, post-imperial place in the world. Rather than burying our heads firmly in the sand whilst singing a rousing chorus of "Rule Britannia!".

To switch topic; I toyed with putting this in the eclipse thread but decided it might needless politicise it. The picture below says it all really, as does the fact that about 40% of Twitter predicted he'd do it and has their jokes pre-written.
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/asset ... ge-169.jpg

[clakclak]

Trump wants more troops in Afgahnistan. Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that the opposite of what he promised?