Confederate Statue pulled down by Protesters, Durham, North Carolina

[Mindmaster]

North Carolina is a democracy, unlike the USA.
The voters could decide to elect public officials to get rid of the statues, if they want that.

I've got 15 points and 20 some warnings. IIRC.
My first warning on RF was for proselytizing Catholicism. And I've gotten others for posting in the Liberal Only DIR.
So there.
Tom
ETA~I just broke another rule by mentioning that. ~

Hey, I think we have the same high score - is this a club?

 

[columbus]

You were proselytizing Catholicism? For real?

I would post the warning I got. But that would be against the rules.

And I don't break the rules for such minor issues. I only do it when I really mean it.
Tom

 

[DavidFirth]

I would post the warning I got. But that would be against the rules.

And I don't break the rules for such minor issues. I only do it when I really mean it.
Tom

Sorry, I had thought you were kidding. My bad.

No, I wouldn't ask you to break rules to satisfy my curiosity, please don't do that.

 

[Father Heathen]

You don't think they would if it came before the Court? I feel sure they would and some similar case about Civil War propaganda is bound to end up in the federal courts.

Nevermind, I misread your post. Carry on.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

(Also @lewisnotmiller, and @Revoltingest)

The first misconception is that The Civil War was about slaves, actually it was about northern states (which were much more industrial, and profitable) having undue control over the south. Slavery was literally 10% of the reason why it started in the first place. In that context, to call it a monument to some darker times is completely idiotic. There were slaves in the north, in the south, and there were ex-slaves that owned slaves. You can't even make it a white-black racial issue without just being completely ignorant of the subject. The Confederates didn't represent all of these nasty things, but rather they were a revolution. It doesn't even make sense from a logical standpoint that most of the south would fight on that basis because other than a few (relatively) rich southern Democrats no one owned a single one.

I'm happy to discuss Civil War history if you like, but would suggest it needs it's own thread.
And no, it's not idiocy to suggest it, no matter your opinion. I'm not uninformed on this.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A wonderful argument that should be made during legal proceedings to take the statue down.

Tearing a statue is avoiding a forum not seeking one.

A good point well made. But it is in front of a courthouse. Is it possible that there's some reluctance to rely on rule of law?

 

[Curious George]

A good point well made. But it is in front of a courthouse. Is it possible that there's some reluctance to rely on rule of law?

In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: collection of the facts to determine whether injustices exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action...
You may well ask: "Why direct action? Why sit-ins, marches and so forth? Isn't negotiation a better path?" You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue

...violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones. Violence is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding: it seeks to annihilate rather than convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue.

Emphasis mine

 

[Curious George]

A good point well made. But it is in front of a courthouse. Is it possible that there's some reluctance to rely on rule of law?

Mind you, I do understand that there is a difference between violence to property and violence to people. But, that does not mean that either is permissable to effect change.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Mind you, I do understand that there is a difference between violence to property and violence to people. But, that does not mean that either is permissable to effect change.

Yeah, so I don't want to go overboard defending this particular instance, since it's not a good example, but I disagree, despite being law-abiding and a pacifist.
'Permissable' in whose eyes?

 

[Curious George]

Yeah, so I don't want to go overboard defending this particular instance, since it's not a good example, but I disagree, despite being law-abiding and a pacifist.
'Permissable' in whose eyes?

Not whose eyes, but when.

Permissable if dialogue is our goal.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not whose eyes, but when.

Permissable if dialogue is our goal.

It's going to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but on the sort of issues I am talking about, dialogue is never the goal, but merely the most preferable means to an end.
Sorry, not sure what you mean by 'when' though...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Emphasis mine

Do you see the tearing down of the statue as a violent act?

Do you see any breach of the law as a violent act? Keep in mind that the sit-ins and marches that MLK was referring to were often illegal.

 

[leibowde84]

Outside Durham County Courthouse, North Carolina, Protesters pulled down a statue of a Confederate Soldier dedicated to the Confederate States of America. Durham police later said they monitored the protests to make sure they were “safe,” but did not interfere with the statue toppling because it happened on county property.

Links here:

Protesters pull down Confederate statue at old Durham County courthouse

SEE IT: Crowd pulls down Confederate statue in North Carolina

Thoughts?

This needs to happen. Anyone who denies that the Confederacy was based on the inferiority and enslavement of the black population is ignorant to the truth. All one has to read is the Cornerstone Speech from the Vice President of the Confederacy.

 

[Curious George]

Do you see the tearing down of the statue as a violent act?

Do you see any breach of the law as a violent act? Keep in mind that the sit-ins and marches that MLK was referring to were often illegal.

Yes, I see violent acts as acts that are violent toward people or property. They are distinguishable, but that doesn't mean that destruction of property is not violent.

 

[Curious George]

It's going to sound like I'm splitting hairs, but on the sort of issues I am talking about, dialogue is never the goal, but merely the most preferable means to an end.
Sorry, not sure what you mean by 'when' though...

We are talking about an issue where there was a forum to tear down the statue legally. If dialogue is not your goal in whatever situations you are discussing then you are setting up an event that will likely escalate into violence against people as well. I am not saying that there are never conditions where that ought not be considered, but if the goal is dialogue, and in most cases it ought to be, then violence is impermissible.

If you are not talking about the statue, about what are you talking? This is an instance where dialogue is exactly what is needed.

 

[leibowde84]

Do y'all also support Muslims destroying cultural artifacts that they disapprove of?
I don't.
Tom

If they were destroying statutes of men who fought to enslave an entire population less than 200 years ago, I would approve. Read the Cornerstone Speech from the VP of the confederacy, and it becomes all too clear. Those statues belong in a museum. They offend far too many.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, I see violent acts as acts that are violent toward people or property. They are distinguishable, but that doesn't mean that destruction of property is not violent.

Personally, I disagree. I don't consider property crime to be violent crime. There was no violence against a person - or threat of violence - in tearing down the statue.

Do you consider a sit-in to be violent? After all, that involves physically blocking people from using the establishment.

 

[Curious George]

Personally, I disagree. I don't consider property crime to be violent crime. There was no violence against a person - or threat of violence - in tearing down the statue.

Do you consider a sit-in to be violent? After all, that involves physically blocking people from using the establishment.

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"a violent confrontation with riot police"

This definition seems to include property damage

 

[PureX]

If the public didn't want to look at them any more then they would elect officials who retire them to ignominy. The fact that they have not is proof that what you are proposing here is wrong.
Tom

I think you're missing the point. The public monuments in question glorify men that killed their fellow countrymen in an attempt to enforce practices and ideals that we could not abide, as a nation, nor even as human beings. They should never have been erected in the first place, but were, because the white wealthy elite in the south could do so, and get away with it. But the times and the circumstances have changed, and those who dared not voice their objections in the past, can do so, now. And so they are.

Keep in mind that the citizens paid for these monuments, many against their will, and have had to maintain and endure them for many decades. They have long past earned their right to speak out against these monuments, and to tear them down by force if they wish. Because they should never have been put up in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This definition seems to include property damage

You didn't answer my question.