The Trump Presidency

[AerchAngel]

Right.. white culture isn't allowed in this country anymore.

We can erect a statue of MLK, despite many moral shortfalls. And before everyone ****s their pants, I'm NOT saying infidelity and alleged woman beating is equivalent to to fighting for slaves (because it's not)... but if we're so intent on legislating morality, and not the actual history, then there's barely any room for anyone to be remembered.

This.

You can't have it both ways. Both stay or both go. Can't throw stones at your own glass house if you want to go there.

 

[Krgrecw]

This.

You can't have it both ways. Both stay or both go. Can't throw stones at your own glass house if you want to go there.

Since when do liberals care about keeping things fair and balanced? its either their way or you're a racist, xenophobic etc. remember the outrage from all the BLM protests from the liberals in here? No.

 

[AerchAngel]

True, they want their cake and ice cream. Been saying that for years.

My free speech is being assaulted by them now when they try to silence me or tell me to know my place. Stuff like that pisses me off to no end.

 

[nsacpi]

Right.. white culture isn't allowed in this country anymore.

We can erect a statue of MLK, despite many moral shortfalls. And before everyone ****s their pants, I'm NOT saying infidelity and alleged woman beating is equivalent to to fighting for slaves (because it's not)... but if we're so intent on legislating morality, and not the actual history, then there's barely any room for anyone to be remembered.

I think there is enough public space in the South for statues of Robert E Lee and MLK. And I'd like to see a Sherman Avenue in Atlanta. And a statue of Ulysses S Grant. And more recognition of the 150,000 plus freedmen who fought for the North and 100,000 plus white southerners who fought for the North. They are all an important part of southern history and heroes in my book. Instead of taking down statues, let's be more inclusive in recognizing those who contributed to southern history.

 

[thethe]

Right.. white culture isn't allowed in this country anymore.

We can erect a statue of MLK, despite many moral shortfalls. And before everyone ****s their pants, I'm NOT saying infidelity and alleged woman beating is equivalent to to fighting for slaves (because it's not)... but if we're so intent on legislating morality, and not the actual history, then there's barely any room for anyone to be remembered.

Cue the 'poor white people' responses.

This is exacrly what I'd happening because the left just sees minorities as votes and don't really address the issues to lift them from hard times.

 

[Krgrecw]

Cue the 'poor white people' responses.

This is exacrly what I'd happening because the left just sees minorities as votes and don't really address the issues to lift them from hard times.

Lost them last election. Will lose them every election. Hopefully, they're stupid enough to keep touting minorities and gays and not care about the middle class.

 

[AerchAngel]

Cue the 'poor white people' responses.

This is exacrly what I'd happening because the left just sees minorities as votes and don't really address the issues to lift them from hard times.

Wow, someone gets it. Too bad the alternative doesn't care about our vote or don't care about us at all. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing because you work your butt off you will be rewarded.

It's bad we can trust the Republicans more than the Democrats who only pay lip service and don't do anything. Republicans is not going to promise us anything so they don't have to lie about it. They just won't help. At least they are being upfront about it. Even the ones on this board would not lie to me and tell me in my face you are on your own. The others, they try to mince words and say they are there for me.....yeah right. When I see a white person go to a street corner or even in church to preach and tell my kind to keep their dicks in their pants, graduate from school, quit dealing drugs and be responsible and if not we take some of your welfare away would be the first.

 

[Julio3000]

I'm on board with sacpi's idea of broadening the historical context.

To sturg, I'd suggest that literally elevating any person to a pedestal is potentially problematic, because it tends to elevate only their historical virtues. Doing so figuratively can likewise transgress, but it's easier having a conversation with a person about a set of historical facts than it is with a statue.

FDR provided inspiration through implacable opposition to fascism and his personal struggle with a physical disability. He also presided over the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war.

Reagan provided comfort and inspiration to pro-democracy activists in E Europe, and also to Central American death squads and apartheid S Africans.

Same story for MLK, for Obama, for JFK, Thomas Jefferson, for Richard Nixon. Same thing for you and for me, I suppose. Maybe even for Justin Amash.

Personally, I don't see much of the same ambiguity around the leading lights of the Confederacy. That's a red line for me, though I'm willing to admit it's a subjective judgement. To choose--and they all chose--to take up arms against their country in defense of a system that treated other human beings as property seems like something that shouldn't be celebrated. What's more important to you? "White culture" or personal liberty? I'm sure you'd say the latter. So why go to bat against the perceived sin of the legislation of morality over the unambiguous sin of the promotion of the ultimate affront to personal liberty?

 

[nsacpi]

A personal anecdote: When I was in high school I received some promotional literature from a school named Washington and Lee University. I knew who Washington was but had to read the brochure to find out who this Lee fellow was. It wasn't that I was ignorant of Robert E Lee. It was that it never occurred to me that a university would be named after a confederate general, no matter how distinguished. Shows you how clueless I was as an immigrant about certain aspects of American culture and history.

 

[nsacpi]

To choose--and they all chose--to take up arms against their country in defense of a system that treated other human beings as property seems like something that shouldn't be celebrated. What's more important to you? "White culture" or personal liberty? I'm sure you'd say the latter. So why go to bat against the perceived sin of the legislation of morality over the unambiguous sin of the promotion of the ultimate affront to personal liberty?

Yup. These people took up arms in the name of one of the worst causes anyone has ever fought for. Hard to get around that fact. And it is a fact no matter the romantic re-writing of history that has happened since.

 

[57Brave]

I have always felt every landmark to the Confederacy should be replaced with one of Wm Tecumseh Sherman. Just as a reminder to the atrocity of war and the horrible wrongs people will go to for a buck.

What gets lost is Lincoln allowed the South to go back to their lives without punishment or branding as traitors.
Let no good deed go unpunished

The end of the Civil War allowed our country to get back to the business of genocide on Native Americans
We are a violent people and like a famous person once said "America's chickens are coming home to roost"

" Violence begets violence. Hatred begets hatred. And terrorism begets terrorism. A white ambassador said that, y'all. Not a black militant. Not a reverend who preaches about racism. An ambassador whose eyes are wide open and who is trying to get us to wake up and move away from this dangerous precipice upon which we are now poised. The ambassador said the people that we have wounded don't have the military capability we have. But they do have individuals who are willing to die and take thousands with them. And we need to come to grips with that."
Rev Jeremiah Wright

 

[Jaw]

Wow, someone gets it. Too bad the alternative doesn't care about our vote or don't care about us at all. I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing because you work your butt off you will be rewarded.

AA, do you think it's enough that I care about your welfare as an American? I couldn't care less that you are black, I don't think we should lower college entrance requirements because of it, provide you a special stipend because of it, try to draw special voter districts because of it, or audit how many people with dark skin work at any given companies. I don't think your skin color is a disability because I have worked with too many people who were really smart and really good at their job and had really dark skin. I guess my point is, do you feel that it's people like me treating you in a racist way, or is it the people who are trying to cater to you specifically based on your skin pigmentation?

 

[sturg33]

AA, do you think it's enough that I care about your welfare as an American? I couldn't care less that you are black, I don't think we should lower college entrance requirements because of it, provide you a special stipend because of it, try to draw special voter districts because of it, or audit how many people with dark skin work at any given companies. I don't think your skin color is a disability because I have worked with too many people who were really smart and really good at their job and had really dark skin. I guess my point is, do you feel that it's people like me treating you in a racist way, or is it the people who are trying to cater to you specifically based on your skin pigmentation?

+1.

I think the true racists are the folks who cater and legit treat someone differently because their skin color (or gender, in another example)

 

[Jaw]

Yup. These people took up arms in the name of one of the worst causes anyone has ever fought for. Hard to get around that fact. And it is a fact no matter the romantic re-writing of history that has happened since.

The thing is, most of the soldiers didn't. They couldn't look this stuff up on the internet. Heck most of them couldn't read it for themselves in a newspaper, and those that could would have had to read it from a paper published in a big, prosperous, slave economy driven town that gave a biased perspective. Most of these guys were told the Yanks were invading so they put on their walking boots and went to defend.

We also need to recall that until Lincoln, more precedence was put on the state than the country. Robert E. Lee famously disagreed with secession, but chose Virginia over the US.

Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Candidate Obama was opposed to gay marriage until his position on it began "evolving" around the time the poll numbers on it went through a major shift. We need to stop trying to judge historical figures based on the current moral compass of the day.

 

[Jaw]

haha, thanks for asking ;-)

First, this:

"I don't think it's a very difficult argument to make that his importance to Southern culture supersedes racism."

What is so often casually referred to as Southern culture is white Southern culture. "Southern culture," imo, is a tad more complex beast than that. Ask a black southerner how important Robert E. Lee is to his or her culture.

The speech that Mitch Landrieu gave on the removal of 3 monuments in New Orleans was a pretty good encapsulation of the issue as far as I'm concerned.

I suppose it's an attempt to symbolically right some historic wrongs--not the Civil War, not slavery, but the persistent myths about the nobility of the Lost Cause that continued a half-century after the war (when that statue was erected) and in the century after that, right up until the present day. As far as I'm concerned, there is NOTHING about the CSA that should be celebrated or elevated. These monuments certainly do that.

On the other hand, because I have a soft spot for old, musty stuff, I'd probably be content with historically accurate plaques and informational signage around these monuments instead of outright removal. But I also defer to the feelings of those who were and are most directly harmed by the system of white supremacy in the ante- and postbellum south. I can easily imagine what seeing those tangible reminders of power and influence every day could mean to people from different walks of life.

As for poking the bear? I'm not sure how to address that, exactly. Change can be painful and uncomfortable. That's true for me, and for most, I suppose. Stirring the pot can be difficult and awkward and messy. This bear, though? I think this bear should be--figuratively--staked through the heart, not poked.

Should we discourage Muslim signage in NYC and take down the Saudi flag so those that lost loved ones on 9/11 aren't reminded of the pain?

Will we one day take down all crosses because some homosexuals feel they were persecuted by Christians?

Should we ban roman candles on July 4th because of Pontius Pilate did to Jesus?

We can't make the whole world a safe space.

 

[thethe]

AA, do you think it's enough that I care about your welfare as an American? I couldn't care less that you are black, I don't think we should lower college entrance requirements because of it, provide you a special stipend because of it, try to draw special voter districts because of it, or audit how many people with dark skin work at any given companies. I don't think your skin color is a disability because I have worked with too many people who were really smart and really good at their job and had really dark skin. I guess my point is, do you feel that it's people like me treating you in a racist way, or is it the people who are trying to cater to you specifically based on your skin pigmentation?

I've also had the pleasure of meeting many successful black people in my travels through PwC and now my current employer.

I just don't buy the fact that people can't escape poverty through hard work. But, whatever it takes to keep minorities under the lefts thumb for those votes.

 

[sturg33]

I'm on board with sacpi's idea of broadening the historical context.

To sturg, I'd suggest that literally elevating any person to a pedestal is potentially problematic, because it tends to elevate only their historical virtues. Doing so figuratively can likewise transgress, but it's easier having a conversation with a person about a set of historical facts than it is with a statue.

FDR provided inspiration through implacable opposition to fascism and his personal struggle with a physical disability. He also presided over the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war.

Reagan provided comfort and inspiration to pro-democracy activists in E Europe, and also to Central American death squads and apartheid S Africans.

Same story for MLK, for Obama, for JFK, Thomas Jefferson, for Richard Nixon. Same thing for you and for me, I suppose. Maybe even for Justin Amash.

Personally, I don't see much of the same ambiguity around the leading lights of the Confederacy. That's a red line for me, though I'm willing to admit it's a subjective judgement. To choose--and they all chose--to take up arms against their country in defense of a system that treated other human beings as property seems like something that shouldn't be celebrated. What's more important to you? "White culture" or personal liberty? I'm sure you'd say the latter. So why go to bat against the perceived sin of the legislation of morality over the unambiguous sin of the promotion of the ultimate affront to personal liberty?

If you'd like to make an argument that nobody deserves a statue because nobody is perfect... then fine. I'm not there, but fine if you are.

But if you prefer to have a living testament to someone's contributions, then I think we should be consistent. Imagine the outrage if a Christian city demanded and successfully argued that an MLK statue should be taken down because it hurt their feelings because he represented an ungodly man and a hypocrite. But hey, now we have to appease the left by ripping down Thomas Jefferson memorials. I assume Washington will be next. The good news here is it will create a lot of jobs in DC.

So somebody's feelings get hurt over a statue and thus that is enough reason to remove it?

Yes - individual liberty is frankly all that matters to me (although you and others have told me time and time again that it's not necessarily that important to you. And yes, slavery is about worst thing imaginable to libertarians. But as you said, erasing a statue doesn't erase the history.

Re: Lee, it is my understanding that his views of the war were a state's rights issue more so than slavery. He was originally planning to be a master general of the union army UNTIL Virginia seceded.

Now you can say (and I'm sure you will) that since he fought for the south his intentions are meaningless, and thus he fought for slavery and should be remembered as such. I disagree on that point, and recognize that he was an American hero for the majority of his adult life, and many people from the north thought as much, even after the war.

If we want to wipe his memory from history because some people get their feelings hurt, well I respectfully disagree and think that is the larger issue our country is currently facing.

 

[Hawk]

Christ. Your question is parsed specifically to avoid my comment, which I don't think is refutable. Killing, maiming, and terrorizing POC, leftists, and political opponents is absolutely aligned with the nazi and white supremacist cause.

Your question is about the organizers of the march, and, frankly, I think it's completely ****ing moot, but I'll answer it anyway, to the best of my ability. I don't know what their goals are, but given that David Duke et al were invited speakers, I feel pretty damned confident in saying that their goal is white supremacy and a white ethno-state, so I wouldn't dial back my original statement, at all. The historical klan was, foremost, an instrument of terror and intimidation. How is this different? How are people who claim the Nazi mantle not on board with blood in the streets?

I'm really surprised, in fact, that you'd object to this reasoning, and that you continue to try to normalize this stuff. Of course, I remember your saying that you thought the alt-right was the future, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.

Sigh.

First off, killing, maiming, and terrorizing are generally the calling cards of extremist political groups. Those tactics are absolutely, unequivocally not endemic to one ideological subset.

Your initial comment struck me as tone deaf because you were, in no uncertain terms ("100% consistent with the agenda" ... "What that kid did is completely in line with that ideology"), aligning what I perceive to be the underlying, justifiable grounds for protest with wanton violence and race hate. There were over 25 individual right wing 'organizations' that participated in the Charlottesville protest. Some overtly connected with supremacist values, others simply not. You want to point to David Duke, I'll point at Gavin McInnes. So, please, spare me the over-amped, over-simplified soapbox harangue on Nazism and White Nationalism. I'm well aware of what these ideologies espouse and hope to achieve.

There is a degree of overlap between a white nationalist and a nationalist. That doesn't mean that all nationalists are white nationalists. For example. But you know this, and you are more than capable of understanding the nuance. I guess that's what is disconcerting to me about the slaphappy approach you've taken here by casting a wide net over the entire 'right' side of the equation and, then, casually fashioning every creed within into a kind of pithy moral v. amoral construct.

That's not reasoning and that's not reasonable.

There is a netherworld in the contemporary conservative belief system that's somewhere between the alt-right/ultra-nationalist wing and what we've traditionally considered to be the far right. It's a place where many of your 'disenchanted' twentysomethings reside. These are people with negative views toward both the government and society, and they tend to embrace things like a strong immigration policy, strong military, First Amendment rights, a loosely defined notion of national pride, etc. They are not inherently racist, they are not inherently supremacist. They are, however, inherently susceptible. They support an issue like the Lee statue in Charlottesville for reasons completely antithetical to Neo-Nazism/Neo-Confederacy. But now, suddenly, you (and really, it's not just you, it's many other people both on this board and well beyond) have neatly positioned them in a dichotomy with a bunch of dudes that do the Hitler salute in public (and aren't joking about it).

Do you understand the danger of labeling these people something they aren't ... for protecting a concept that they have every right to want to guard?

 

[Julio3000]

Aren't JOKING about it? So it's OK if they are?

 

[nsacpi]

how many monument are there in the south to General George Henry Thomas of Virginia