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

[leibowde84]

Then we are in agreement there. They should not be labeled racists because they were White and wanted to define their culture.

I'm not discussing white privilege is a good thing. I agree that white privilege, black privilege or asian privilege are bad things.

I think another aspect is this: if they can't define what white culture/heritage is (what they are defending), it seems like they are just white supremacists trying to mask it in an absurd way.

 

[leibowde84]

Uhm. I'm Asian and I will explicitly say that it exists. I have Vietnamese culture and I share much of it with other Asians that are non-Vietnamese.

If you don't want to define your own culture, that's for you to suggest. Others should not feel discriminated at for be able to define theirs.

Aren't there differences between say Chinese culture and Japanese culture though? They aren't the same culture, so how is "asian culture" a thing? What does it consist of?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do you think the winners should simply write the losers out of history?

Do you think drivel such as this is at all honest? Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between removing a statue intending to, and serving to, honor a person and removing that person from history? What a sick joke ...

 

[suncowiam]

Aren't there differences between say Chinese culture and Japanese culture though? They aren't the same culture, so how is "asian culture" a thing? What does it consist of?

Of course, there are differences between the specifics.

Asian culture is definitely "a thing."

To highlight this, all Asians share things like respect to their elders, cuisine similarities like rice and chopsticks, no shoes in the house, frugality and so on. There's some stereotyping here but isn't that basically a definition of culture?

 

[shunyadragon]

An excellent summary of events, although many of the crimes that you're associating with the Confederacy can also be laid at the feet of the United States and its government. The Northern leaders had just as much to gain by pushing for reconciliation and allowing the former Confederate states to have their monuments and rewrite history as they see fit. The North allowed the KKK to run roughshod over the rights of people (and the KKK even made inroads and gained members among Northerners). The North allowed the Jim Crow laws and the lie of "Separate But Equal" to persist for over half a century before it was finally overturned.

There is a lot of blame to go around, but the responsibility for the Civil War remains at the feet of the Southern states desiring to perpetuate the institution of slavery,

But the point is, the North is just as guilty as the South, so to use "The Confederacy" as some kind of scapegoat or sacrificial lamb to pay for all of America's sins tends to come off as disingenuous.

No need for a scapegoat here, the secession of the Southern States was not based on moral high ground as detailed in the documents of secession of each of the states. For example:

From: What This Cruel War Was Over
Alabama:

"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

Texas:

. . . in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states. . ."

When the Bluecoats committed acts of genocide and other atrocities against Native Americans, were they holding Confederate flags? I don't think so. What flags were they holding, and aren't those the same flags flying over America today?

True, but you changing the subject.

"Traitor" may be a bit hard to define here. Robert E. Lee and others might have argued that they were still loyal to their own states - which was a more important identification to people before the Civil War. People would give their loyalty to their states, and it was up to their state government to either remain loyal to the national government or not.

Rebellion for secession from a Republic under a Constitution that all states signed and committed to would be treason by definition. There was no provision in the Constitution for a state to secede.

As some people sometimes say, "America - love it or leave it." The Confederate states said, "Okay, we're leaving it." But then, that begs the question of whether "leaving" a country is the same thing as "treason" against it.

What people say concerns individuals. Leaving the country by rebellion without due process when you are basically part of a Republic, it is treason by definition.

The question of the legality of the secession was later settled after the war, but at the point when it started, they might have seen it simply as a parting of the ways.

There was no provision for secession in the Constitution. Yes it was settled after the bloodiest conflict in the history of the USA motivated by the South to preserve the institution of slavery.

After all, "Brexit" is not considered treason against Europe, is it?

No. The EU was an arrangement by consent of the member countries. Any country may withdraw at any time. no parallel here.

When Scotland wanted to break off from the United Kingdom, was that treason?

If you are talking about the recent vote by the Scots as to whether to stay in the British government or leave. The British government is also more a confederation that a Republic Federation like the USA. no parallel.

If you are considering the older conflicts over the nature of the relationship between Scotland, England. Wales, and Ireland. Let's talk more about that

 

[leibowde84]

Of course, there are differences between the specifics.

Asian culture is definitely "a thing."

To highlight this, all Asians share things like respect to their elders, cuisine similarities like rice and chopsticks, no shoes in the house, frugality and so on. There's some stereotyping here but isn't that basically a definition of culture?

Stereotyping is not a good thing because it is almost always incorrect. But, respect for elders, no shoes in the house, and frugality are not "asian" things. They are common in many different cultures. So, besides chopsticks, why is "asian culture" a thing?

 

[blü 2]

Do you think drivel such as this is at all honest? Are you seriously incapable of distinguishing between removing a statue intending to, and serving to, honor a person and removing that person from history? What a sick joke ...

Did you seriously read what I first said?

 

[suncowiam]

Stereotyping is not a good thing because it is almost always incorrect. But, respect for elders, no shoes in the house, and frugality are not "asian" things. They are common in many different cultures. So, besides chopsticks, why is "asian culture" a thing?

So I can't define what Asian culture is to me, but I need your agreement on this?

 

[LillyChaos]

“There were decent people on both sides”

Trump on Tuesday claimed that there were decent people on both sides of the conflict in Charlottesville, VA on Saturday. While it could be said that there were some indecent people in both groups using violence as a means of expression, it cannot be said that there were decent people amongst the Nazis, White Supremacists, White Nationalists and other Alt-Right groups.

This should be obvious because any decent person arriving in Charlottesville on Saturday, even if they were ignorant to the Nazi style “torch rally” the night before, would have instantly turned tail and ran when they saw who their fellow protesters were. There are, of course, plenty of decent people who feel strongly that Confederate statues should be left in place throughout the country. But, at a protest where outspoken and obvious members of the KKK and other White Supremacist groups are present, any decent minded, non-racist would have the fortitude to instantly pack up and leave, not wanting to be associated with such scum.

Thus, anyone who stayed and protested with known racists cannot honestly be considered “decent”, according to what the term actually means. Protesting alongside Nazis is a clear sign that a person puts their southern pride ahead of racial equality and honor.

“Confederate statues should be left in place”

Thursday, Trump sent a series of tweets condemning the removal of “beautiful” statues memorializing and praising members of the Confederacy. While it can certainly be said that not all Confederate soldiers and officers were bad people and were merely products of their time, the Confederacy itself was primarily based on keeping blacks in chains, making sure that their society was one that recognized them as being strictly and legally inferior to whites.

This can clearly be seen in the Cornerstone Address, an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, GA on March 21, 1861. Stephens made clear what the principal goal and purpose of the secession and the Confederacy actually was:

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

During and after reconstruction following the Confederacy’s loss in the Civil War, Confederate statues were placed throughout the South as a way for white racist leaders to make sure blacks knew their place. Regardless of the fact that they lost what they called the “War of Northern Aggression”, whites were still in charge. And, naming parks, buildings, roads and dedicating statues in prominent locations was their way of hammering in this shameful point.

Now, it is true that history should not be erased, and everyone should learn a lesson from the traitorous Confederacy and their subjugation of an entire race. That is why these statues belong in museums rather than in places of admiration, no matter how southerners feel about it. The mere fact that the Confederacy attacked our great nation as a band of racist traitors should be enough to avoid any praise of them. It’s time our children learned the truth about this part of American history. These statues are a reminder of the absolute horrors perpetrated by southern states during and prior to that time.

“If we take these statues down, who’s next … George Washington”

Trump’s comparison here is obviously ludicrous. It is true that Washington was a slave holder. But, the Confederate statues are not being removed simply because they depict men who owned slaves. They are being removed because they depict traitors to our young nation who fought a war, causing the deaths of over a million Americans, primarily to preserve the institution of slavery and the inferiority of black people.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were, indeed, slave holders who lived in southern states. But, they are founding fathers who never took up arms against us. They fought against a tyrannical king who taxed them without representation and treated colonists as lesser men and women. They were fighting for liberty rather than against it, and our country was born as a result. We celebrate them not for their owning of slaves, but for their courageous fight against oppression.

In short, men like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson were traitors fighting for racial superiority in their culture. George Washington, on the other hand, was fighting against tyranny and a monarchy that refused to be reasonable and was guilty of atrocities where innocent men and women were murdered. All in all, the Confederacy lost for good reason, both tactically and morally, and that truth should be recognized.

Traitors who fought for racism should not be celebrated. They should be studied and learned from, but honoring them is a ludicrous proposition that has gone on for far too long. Let’s make a museum to the Confederacy and be done with it. And, if it upsets White Supremacist groups and those who choose to protest alongside them, we can be confident we are doing the right thing.


The reasoning behind Trump’s words should be obvious. I don’t think our President is a racist or White Nationalist. I think he is a Trump Supremacist. Anyone who is not as successful as he is not his equal … in his words, they are “losers”. His reasoning has to do with the fact that White Nationalists and White Supremacists support him, compliment him, and, most importantly, voted for him. As has been made entirely too clear, Trump is willing to befriend any group that expressly supports him. And, he will do whatever he can to make sure they aren’t offended out of fear of losing that support.

Now, some may say that all politicians think like this. But, that is incorrect. Courting voters is all too common and expected, but when it comes to the Alt-Right, White Supremacists, White Nationalists, Nazis, and the KKK, the vast majority of politicians would do the right thing. They would speak honestly and state the obvious when it comes to any White Supremacist group. There were certainly decent people on the side of the counter-protesters. They were standing up against racism, attempting to stick up for blacks, Jews, and immigrants … an undeniably honorable pursuit, for we saw in the 1930s what can happen when we don’t stand up to brown-shirt Nazi thugs. But, there were absolutely no decent people who chose to stay and protest marching alongside obvious and outspoken racists using actual Nazi insignia and slogans to profess their love for a group of traitors who fought and killed to keep slavery in place and make sure that black people knew their inferiority to whites.

It’s time for all Americans to recognize how despicable Trump’s words and sentiments were regarding the protests in Charlottesville. He has sold his soul in exchange for support from the most vile, evil, despicable and un-American citizens our country has to offer. We cannot forget and we cannot forgive him for this unless he specifically asks for our mercy … which we all know will never happen, as our President sees apologies as a sign of weakness.

How can you call any American citizen "un-American"?

As if there's a distinction between "true Americans" and people too "vile, evil, despicable" to be considered members of the country they were born in.

You're as bad, if not worse than Trump, simply for making these points.

 

[SomeRandom]

Stereotyping is not a good thing because it is almost always incorrect. But, respect for elders, no shoes in the house, and frugality are not "asian" things. They are common in many different cultures. So, besides chopsticks, why is "asian culture" a thing?

Stereotypes are like the smoke to the fire. Sure they are sometimes incorrect, but not almost always. That's why they exist in the first place.

Respect for elders might be a cross cultural thing, but it is expressed differently in Asian culture compared to say the West. For example in the West it is usually more polite to say Mr or Mrs when addressing an elder, or sir and ma'am, sometimes even referring to them by their first name is accepted as respectful. Asians on the other hand usually address their elders using familial terms, and in some Asian cultures using familial terms even if they're not actually related to you is seen as the norm. In "The West" something like that needs preamble. Example referring to or thinking of one of your dad's friends as your uncle/aunt, simply because you grew up around them. Some Asians on the other hand will call complete strangers aunty/uncle simply because they are older. Asians often see respecting one's elders as a matter of duty and honor, the West usually sees it as being polite or even an expression of love. Also I have seen far more Asians enforcing the no shoes in the house rule than "White people." And even then, it's usually because of their Asian spouse. (Or because they are very clean people!) Just an observation mind you.
As a mixed race Asian/whitey, I will gladly tell you that Asian culture is most definitely a thing, even though both share remarkable similarities. We even joke amongst ourselves that someone is "way too brown" or "way too white" based entirely on how much they follow one culture or the other.
But it's one of those things that you know sort of by default, but have a hard time expressing that to others who didn't grow up in that sort of thing. If that makes sense?

It's more in the details than anything else that separates "Asian culture" to "American culture" or white culture or whatever you wish to call it. But given that we live in a multicultural society, there's bound to be overlap anyway.

Disclaimer, I am kind of generalizing. This is in no way suppose to be indicative of every single Asian or "white" culture. Blah blah blah etc etc etc.

 

[Maponos]

I wonder when the book burning will start.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the news (NYT)....
Trump Aside, Artists and Preservationists Debate the Rush to Topple Statues

 

[Stevicus]

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.

I think you're quibbling over technicalities here. If they were wrong, then they were wrong. If they say today "it is wrong" while yesterday they said "it was right," then it's a contradiction which has to be addressed. It's because of these kinds of equivocations that we can't even seem to move forward as a country.

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.

Nobody is being let off the hook. For any crimes they committed, they will pay. Even Trump has said as much. But as a society, we still have to examine the reasons why. To examine the cause is the first step towards finding a solution. But if your only priority is to seek out and punish anyone you deem to be a racist, then nothing will really be solved in the long run.

You may be correct in that they're gullible, although gullibility, in and of itself, does not explain the hatred and anger which we're talking about. I've heard some white racists play the "victim card," claiming that they (or their family/loved ones) were victimized by blacks in some way or another.

 

[Stevicus]

There is a lot of blame to go around, but the responsibility for the Civil War remains at the feet of the Southern states desiring to perpetuate the institution of slavery,

Partly true, but if the North was truly against slavery, they would have stopped it from the very beginning. They didn't, and they made compromise after compromise to avoid a national rift over the issue, which was going to happen anyway.

No need for a scapegoat here, the secession of the Southern States was not based on moral high ground as detailed in the documents of secession of each of the states. For example:

Who said it was based on a "moral high ground"? I certainly didn't.

But as to your examples, it really doesn't matter what the Southern states say the war was about, since they're the ones who lost. Read what Abraham Lincoln said instead:

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

A quote from Grant on the subject: "The Southern rebellion was largely the outgrowth of the Mexican war. Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions. We got our punishment in the most sanguinary and expensive war of modern times."

True, but you changing the subject.

What subject is that? Racism? Atrocities? Statues? Decency? George Washington?

You say that it's "changing the subject," but the history shows that the issue of slavery was exacerbated primarily due to westward expansionism, which freed up huge new lands which both North and South wanted economic control over. That's what they kept fighting over. That's what they kept compromising over - until there could be no more compromise. It's not changing the subject at all. It IS the subject.

Rebellion for secession from a Republic under a Constitution that all states signed and committed to would be treason by definition. There was no provision in the Constitution for a state to secede.

They joined voluntarily, and there was nothing in the Constitution which said they couldn't secede. They considered themselves "sovereign." That's why they called them "states" and not "provinces" or "counties."

Of course, after the war was over, Texas v. White resolved the issue in the legal sense, which was politically expedient at the time. But there's no way anyone could have predicted that beforehand.

It wasn't the first time states had threatened to secede. The New England states came close to seceding one time, and there were previous times when the issue came up over slavery, yet secession was avoided by compromise.

What people say concerns individuals. Leaving the country by rebellion without due process when you are basically part of a Republic, it is treason by definition.

Well, as to the definition, that's in Article 3 of the Constitution (Article Three of the United States Constitution - Wikipedia):

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

I suppose one could argue that Lee's invasions of the North (Antietam in 1862, and Gettysburg in 1863) could be interpreted as levying war against the United States, but most of the battles were fought in Confederate territory. The Confederates were fighting a defensive war, and had no real designs on invading or conquering the North.

If not for the dispute over Ft. Sumter, the war might not have even happened.

There was no provision for secession in the Constitution. Yes it was settled after the bloodiest conflict in the history of the USA motivated by the South to preserve the institution of slavery.

That doesn't tell the whole story, though. The thing is, if the South truly wanted to preserve the institution of slavery, then secession was the absolute dumbest thing they could do. But as leibowde84 pointed out, they are/were rather gullible.

In any case, I don't think this topic is really about slavery - not anymore. The recent tragedy in Charlottesville had very little, if anything at all, to do with anyone wanting to return the institution of slavery. There is still slavery and a great deal of exploitation in this world, but I seriously doubt those Nazis in the park at Charlottesville have anything to do with it.

No. The EU was an arrangement by consent of the member countries. Any country may withdraw at any time. no parallel here.

Wasn't that the same circumstances by which the original 13 colonies came together? They weren't automatically a unified "nation." They could have just as easily remained independent states.

If you are talking about the recent vote by the Scots as to whether to stay in the British government or leave. The British government is also more a confederation that a Republic Federation like the USA. no parallel.

I think you're talking technicalities here. The question is, is it treason? Are they breaking a vow? Are they becoming disloyal and turning on a friend? Betrayal can come in many forms.

If you are considering the older conflicts over the nature of the relationship between Scotland, England. Wales, and Ireland. Let's talk more about that

Perhaps it might be worthy of another thread. I'd be interested in hearing opinions from those in that area of the world.

 

[sun rise]

Yes, but it's ok to say Asian Culture or Black Culture. We understand that in the context of location.

Why do you assert that its racist to hear "White Culture?" You should validate your premise first then your conclusion would then also be validated.

My point is that there is a double standard here. Why is this justified?

It is NOT ok to say Asian culture as I've pointed out. It's not a thing.

 

[sun rise]

How can you call any American citizen "un-American"?

As if there's a distinction between "true Americans" and people too "vile, evil, despicable" to be considered members of the country they were born in.

You're as bad, if not worse than Trump, simply for making these points.

Anyone who espouses anti-american ideals is un-American. The nazis and right wing terrorists who hate me because I was born Jewish and am a Democrat are un-American and they will be defeated once again as they've always lost.

 

[sun rise]

Japanese love and appreciate dainty things, and are great learners of foreign cultures. They also love quality, not quantity, and take great pride in their workmanship. Simplicity is the key to their aesthetics. They do tend to be very safety oriented though, and are less willing to take risks sometimes. They are very polite, but this can also mean they will always try to keep you at arm's length.

Chinese prefer size and quantity to quality, and their taste can be a bit over the top at times. And because they are from a huge country with a large population, they can sometimes be a bit arrogant and self-absorbed. They can also come off as rude, offering opinions when not solicited. They are not so detailed oriented, and their workmanship can be a problem. But they will invite you to their home for a meal--something that doesn't happen very often in Japan.

What are the key cultural differences between China and Japan?

 

[suncowiam]

It is NOT ok to say Asian culture as I've pointed out. It's not a thing.

Some people are really picky about cultures.

You FEEL its not ok because you FEEL it's racist? That's basically just your own opinion. There hasn't been any justification in the matter.

Why do you feel the need to define these abstractions for myself or others? In my neck of the woods with a major mixed population of different Asians including Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean, Chinese, Indian and Japanese, we do define such a thing as Asian culture. No we do not feel it is racist to define it. It is combination of our combined heritage.

If you want to define such abstractions for yourself, that's your prerogative. Don't tell me what I should think based on my experiences or locality.

Culture police alert. You're the one individual that can define culture for the 7 billion on this Earth? Please?

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, but it's ok to say Asian Culture or Black Culture. We understand that in the context of location.

Why do you assert that its racist to hear "White Culture?" You should validate your premise first then your conclusion would then also be validated.

My point is that there is a double standard here. Why is this justified?

I think the reason the term "white culture" is considered racist is because it originates from a time when there was a distinction made between "white culture" and "black culture" in areas where those were the only two "cultures" which actually existed. It wasn't like the North which had a large influx of immigrants from other continents, or the West which had immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and the Eastern United States. In the South, particularly after the Civil War, it was more or less "static": "white culture" and "black culture." The concept itself is often associated with segregation and racism, along with the idea that "white culture" needs to be preserved.

Theoretically, I suppose there are benign ways that "white culture" could be expressed, but what would be the point? What is "white culture" anyway? Even among white people within America, one could probably discern a variety of sub-cultures, both in terms of region and nationality. Our cultures have rubbed off on each other and influenced the larger culture within America to the point where even "American culture" is hard to define. We truly are a melting pot - an amalgamation of multiple cultures.

 

[suncowiam]

I think the reason the term "white culture" is considered racist is because it originates from a time when there was a distinction made between "white culture" and "black culture" in areas where those were the only two "cultures" which actually existed. It wasn't like the North which had a large influx of immigrants from other continents, or the West which had immigrants from Asia, Latin America, and the Eastern United States. In the South, particularly after the Civil War, it was more or less "static": "white culture" and "black culture." The concept itself is often associated with segregation and racism, along with the idea that "white culture" needs to be preserved.

Theoretically, I suppose there are benign ways that "white culture" could be expressed, but what would be the point? What is "white culture" anyway? Even among white people within America, one could probably discern a variety of sub-cultures, both in terms of region and nationality. Our cultures have rubbed off on each other and influenced the larger culture within America to the point where even "American culture" is hard to define. We truly are a melting pot - an amalgamation of multiple cultures.

That is a very great thought out post. I applaud you for that.

Yes, there are benign ways people can express themselves without having the implication of being a deviant because their intent was not to be offensive. As far as your suggestion that there is no point,that is still an opinion. If a white person can express his definition of culture without the intention of anything offensive, then so what. Culture is a huge complicated abstraction for the individual to define. They take from their experiences, especially from their upbringing, community, family, location, religion and so on.