DECENCY, STATUES, AND GEORGE WASHINGTON – WHY TRUMP IS WRONG ABOUT THEM ALL

[Revoltingest]

Not true. As I said, all nazis and white supremacists are indecent, evil people. So, when you see them at a protest, you are knowingly associating yourself with a group that, officially, is evil. Any decent person would not associate themselves with a group that is officially evil.

BLM is not all bad. There are plenty in the group (a majority I would argue) that are fine people doing the right thing. Their official messaging is, in fact, admirable. So, the evil people in BLM are outliers rather than the norm. It is easy to see that decent people could be fine with being associated with BLM, because their official messaging is fine.
No, I am saying that it is far more understandable for blacks to feel physically threatened by racist whites, as history validates them feeling threatened.

Otoh, there is not nearly as much precedent for whites to feel threatened by BLM or black activists.

In other words, when a black person sees a nazi on the street screaming racist slogans at him, personally, he has every reason to feel physically threatened. Throughout American history, racist groups have been violent toward blacks without any provocation.

Otoh, when a white person sees a BLM member shouting "black lives matter" at them, they have absolutely no reason to feel physically threatened. There are plenty of white members of BLM. Whereas there aren't any black members of the KKK or neo-nazis.

Despite some disagreement, I understand & even sympathize.

 

[Akivah]

That isn't really a fair comparison, though.

Of course it is. That the two regimes weren't exactly identical does not invalidate all their similarities.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't see how this refutes what I said. The North had the choice to keep the troops in the South, but they chose not to. Yes, it was precisely for the reason of mending relations with the South, as well as a way to settle the contested Election of 1876. The North turned the blind eye to the KKK because reunification was more important than justice, equality, or any of the other issues they fought over in the Civil War. The North betrayed their own principles, which may even be considered a worse form of "treason" than that committed by the Confederates.

I agree, except the Confederates committed treason by taking up arms against the United States. The North, although I agree they should have kept federal troops in the south, weren't in any way committing treason as they did what they did in the interest of keeping the country together. Also, what they did in no way violated the law.

That was the reason? Considering all the lynchings, cross burnings, Jim Crow laws, acts of terror, and blatant racism being part and parcel of mainstream popular culture until at least the 1950s, they really didn't need any statues to show black people who was still in charge. In my opinion, the statues exist primarily to propagate the "lost cause" version of history, to paint their cause as more "noble" than it actually was.

And why did the North go along with this? Why did the Northern perspective on the Civil War similarly de-emphasize slavery while saying it was all about preserving the Union? Perhaps they were trying to show people who was still in charge as well.

I don't really care about the statues all that much. Tear them all down; I won't stand in the way. The real question is whether we're learning the correct lessons from history. I prefer to look at history as a way of telling how we got to the point we're at now. When it's treated as a bunch of disconnected stories full of "heroes" and "villains," it gets treated more as a comic book.

And then we wonder why we still have these problems. The violence that occurred in Charlottesville was obviously over a deeper, more serious issue than an argument over differing interpretations of American history.

One thing that can be observed is that - these people who dress up as Nazis, KKK, etc., they're mostly poor, disaffected types - the kind who fit the profile of potential gang members. They're angry, angst-ridden, full of p. and vinegar, and spoiling for a fight. They were likely raised in abusive environments, had a poor education, and very few prospects or opportunities for advancement. If they were black, they'd likely join the Crips or the Bloods, but since they're white, they have to join some "gang" that will accept them.

That's what seems to be missed here. I think too many people are reacting to costumes, flags, and other imagery. They're just looking at pieces of cloth, without looking at the person underneath, along with the society/culture in which they're raised.

I think we need to be extremely hesitant of letting racists off the hook by blaming their situations/upbringing. It all stems from gullibility ... believing one's parents, relatives and friends over historians and documented fact. Also, this brand of gullibility comes from ignorance and isolationism. Many admitted racists tend to have very little experience living with and around people of color. Anyone with half a brain should understand that it is silly to judge others based on what those who already hate them claim. All in all, the only excuse they have is stupidity.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course it is. That the two regimes weren't exactly identical does not invalidate all their similarities.

Hitler and the Nazis rose to power legally (for the most part). So, how did they commit treason against Germany? Until they were beaten by Stalin in Russia, Hitler enjoyed nearly unanimous support in Germany.

trea·son
ˈtrēzən/
noun

1. the crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government.

 

[suncowiam]

Not true. As I said, all nazis and white supremacists are indecent, evil people. So, when you see them at a protest, you are knowingly associating yourself with a group that, officially, is evil. Any decent person would not associate themselves with a group that is officially evil.

BLM is not all bad. There are plenty in the group (a majority I would argue) that are fine people doing the right thing. Their official messaging is, in fact, admirable. So, the evil people in BLM are outliers rather than the norm. It is easy to see that decent people could be fine with being associated with BLM, because their official messaging is fine.
No, I am saying that it is far more understandable for blacks to feel physically threatened by racist whites, as history validates them feeling threatened.

Otoh, there is not nearly as much precedent for whites to feel threatened by BLM or black activists.

In other words, when a black person sees a nazi on the street screaming racist slogans at him, personally, he has every reason to feel physically threatened. Throughout American history, racist groups have been violent toward blacks without any provocation.

Otoh, when a white person sees a BLM member shouting "black lives matter" at them, they have absolutely no reason to feel physically threatened. There are plenty of white members of BLM. Whereas there aren't any black members of the KKK or neo-nazis.

Some Alt-Rights just want to defend their white heritage. I can emphasize with that. They don't wan't to go beyond that.

I believe this is exactly the case.

I think that the Yankees were about as interested in rescuing black people as the Bush administration was interested in rescuing the Iraqis.

And the results were about the same. Social disaster and destruction, leading to the rise of the KKK and ISIS.
Tom

Both of you are speculating. If true, then answer is obvious.

But how can we conclude this?

 

[leibowde84]

Some Alt-Rights just want to defend their white heritage. I can emphasize with that. They don't wan't to go beyond that.

What do you mean by "defend their white heritage"? The Confederacy was primarily based on white superiority and retaining slavery. If that is what they are trying to defend, then they are racist. And, the leader of the Alt-Right has repeatedly said that "white privilege is a good thing" and fights to enhance it. If a person believes that white privilege is a good thing, they are without a doubt racist, right?

 

[Valjean]

George Bernard Shaw had an interesting perspective:
You can be intelligent, Nazi, or decent, but you cannot be all three.

It a person were intelligent and Nazi, he was not decent; if decent and Nazi, he was not intelligent, and if decent and intelligent, he was no Nazi.

 

[leibowde84]

George Bernard Shaw had an interesting perspective:
You could be intelligent, Nazi, or decent, but you cannot be all three.

It a person were intelligent and Nazi, he was not decent; if decent and Nazi, he was not intelligent, and if decent and intelligent, he was no Nazi.

de·cent
ˈdēs(ə)nt/
adjective

1. conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior.
   "the good name of such a decent and innocent person"

How can anyone be decent and a nazi?

 

[sun rise]

There are different ways to judge people.
Let's consider a couple....
A) Look at a group. Judge it's effect. Let this judgement apply to all within.
B) Look at an individual. Consider his beliefs & group memberships. Judge him by his actions.

You seem to lean towards A. I prefer B.
I can imagine that a white nationalist could be a law abiding productive citizen, despite advocating
things I dislike. But let's say we should condemn them all anyway because of their group membership.
What of the communists & socialists I know? They advocate systems which lead to deaths &
terrible oppression, but are also law abiding & productive. No, I won't condemn them. But I'll
argue with them.
Btw, I'm dining with a couple commies tomorrow.

Path A blinds people to individuality, & leads to prejudice & broad hatred.
It's a risky general approach to judgement....it reminds me of Nazis & the KKK.

Hitler had a dog and I'm a dog lover. So what.

 

[sun rise]

Let's consider the recent riots in St Louis.
Would all people who demonstrated be bad people simply
because they knowingly associated with the violent elements?

In a court of law? Yes. "Felony murder" law, for example.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hitler had a dog and I'm a dog lover. So what.

But did you run with Hitler's dog?
(Rhetorical question....you're not that old.)

 

[Revoltingest]

In a court of law? Yes. "Felony murder" law, for example.

I don't think so.
Individual intent matters.

 

[sun rise]

What do you mean by "defend their white heritage"? The Confederacy was primarily based on white superiority and retaining slavery. If that is what they are trying to defend, then they are racist. And, the leader of the Alt-Right has repeatedly said that "white privilege is a good thing" and fights to enhance it. If a person believes that white privilege is a good thing, they are without a doubt racist, right?

They are explicitly attacking me because I was born Jewish. People are known by the company they keep. My answer to their prejudice and hate is this - you are losing because the country is becoming united against you and your ultimate loss is inevitable.

 

[sun rise]

I don't think so.
Individual intent matters.

Actually to be precise, this is what I had in mind which is actually called "vicarious liability"

A more controversial application of vicarious liability occurs when an accomplice purposely aids the commission of crime A, but the person aided also commits crime B. In many jurisdictions, the accomplice is guilty not only of crime A, which the accomplice intentionally aided, but also of crime B, provided that crime B was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conduct the accomplice aided. Thus, the accomplice may be held liable for conduct that the accomplice did not intend to aid.

Vicarious Liability - Vicarious Liability For Accomplices And Coconspirators

 

[Twilight Hue]

What? How are people supposed to get Hitler selfies??

Here you go...

 

[suncowiam]

What do you mean by "defend their white heritage"? The Confederacy was primarily based on white superiority and retaining slavery. If that is what they are trying to defend, then they are racist. And, the leader of the Alt-Right has repeatedly said that "white privilege is a good thing" and fights to enhance it. If a person believes that white privilege is a good thing, they are without a doubt racist, right?

Yes, we should distinguish between good and bad events. But all history should be kept. I don't agree that we should honor confederate statues by placing them in front of our court houses. They can be placed in museums with proper context. It is context that matters most.

There has been a notion that there is no white culture or heritage. That is what I was trying to discuss with my trite comment. In that essence, then it is not fair to white folks not to be able to continue on such culture or heritage.

I'm just saying, there are some in the alt-right that just wants to defend their culture without the notion of being superior.

Just like you stated there are some in the BLM that can be violent and unruling...

 

[sun rise]

Yes, we should distinguish between good and bad events. But all history should be kept. I don't agree that we should honor confederate statues by placing them in front of our court houses. They can be placed in museums with proper context. It is context that matters most.

There has been a notion that there is no white culture or heritage. That is what I was trying to discuss with my trite comment. In that essence, then it is not fair to white folks not to be able to continue on such culture or heritage.

I'm just saying, there are some in the alt-right that just wants to defend their culture without the notion of being superior.

Just like you stated there are some in the BLM that can be violent and unruling...

I'm white for whatever that means but "white culture" is a bogus concept to me. There is no "white culture". There is culture based on national origin such as French culture. There is culture based on religion. But to claim there is a culture based on skin color is to claim a racist idea on the face of it.

I do agree history should be kept and the full nature of people involved in history maintained in an appropriate way. But we should not have statues in public places honoring losers.

 

[suncowiam]

I'm white for whatever that means but "white culture" is a bogus concept to me. There is no "white culture". There is culture based on national origin such as French culture. There is culture based on religion. But to claim there is a culture based on skin color is to claim a racist idea on the face of it.

I do agree history should be kept and the full nature of people involved in history maintained in an appropriate way. But we should not have statues in public places honoring losers.

White is a race.

There is Asian culture. There is Black culture. No?

So why the discrimination towards "White culture"?

White here is not to signify skin color but an ethic group.

 

[Valjean]

de·cent
ˈdēs(ə)nt/
adjective

1. conforming with generally accepted standards of respectable or moral behavior.
   "the good name of such a decent and innocent person"

How can anyone be decent and a nazi?

By being stupid enough to accept the Nazi standards as respectable and moral.

 

[sun rise]

White is a race.

There is Asian culture. There is Black culture. No?

So why the discrimination towards "White culture"?

White here is not to signify skin color but an ethic group.

To assert that, for example, cultural equivalence between Chinese and Japanese people for one and African-Americans and various African groups is laughable. African Tribes. Afar, Amhara, Anlo-Ewe, Ashanti, Bakongo, Bambara, Bemba, Berber, Bobo, Bushmen/San, Chewa, Dogon, Fang, Fon, Fulani, Ibos, Kikuyu (Gikuyu), Maasai, Mandinka, Pygmy, Samburu, Senufo, Tuareg, Wolof, Yoruba, Zulu

So, again, to me the statement that there is a "white culture" is racist. There is no such thing as "white culture" outside of the claims of racist bigots. And I have no problems, as a white man, discriminating against racists.