Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

marcus001

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Good point. However, I think (or like to think) that most people believe in the principles of openess, tolerance and inclusivity. So religions that have a very small minority of adherents who are violent extremists will be defended by most people under the aegis of those principles. For the very same reasons and principles, those same people will not support supremacists and fascists as they do not subscribe to openess, tolerance and inclusivity.

No I don't think you could say most people believe in openness tolerance and inclusivity. These are not value systems these are personality traits and only a segment of the population has them.

Noel82

Mostly it has been "wtf" at some of the more desperate deflections and blaming the counter-protesters for exercising -their- right to protest too.

Misconstrued in your moral talking point is talking about Antifa like they have a right to protest. They don't protest, they are anarchists and purposely go to events to start riots and cause chaos. Remember the G20 "protests" a few months back? They are part of the problem.

marcus001

Samaris wrote: »

...And then there's the other argument, which is that certain people, particularly white men, have no say in their own ideals or their actions and anything they think or say is purely down to the progressives, who are apparently the only ones capable of thinking or any action. It's not their fault, they were forced into it all by nebulous left-wingers because they have absolutely no agency, choice or minds of their own.

I don't buy it, tbh.

People forming opinions the opposite of the ones that are vigorously shoved down their throats is not the same as having no mind of your own.

Samaris

Noel82 wrote: »

Misconstrued in your moral talking point is talking about Antifa like they have a right to protest. They don't protest, they are anarchists and purposely go to events to start riots and cause chaos. Remember the G20 "protests" a few months back? They are part of the problem.

Yes, Antifa, as much as I generally agree with being anti-fascist, are a gang of thugs. However, Heather Heyers was not a member of Antifa. The march was not an Antifa march. It was a peaceful counter-protest where a murderous white supremacist rammed a car through the middle of it.

Samaris

marcus001 wrote: »

People forming opinions the opposite of the ones that are vigorously shoved down their throats is not the same as having no mind of your own.

And yes, but saying that the left are responsible for fascists marching about the place is implying that the people involved have no brain or independent thought whatsoever and are merely reactionaries. What can you expect? I expect the people actually marching to own up to their own ideologies and own awful ideas and stop trying to whine it away onto those that vehemently disagree with them.

I still don't buy it. This is a far right-wing ideology and no amount of attempting to deflect it on their ideological enemies will change that. Have some respect for people having their own brains and freedom to act on their own initiatives. Blaming the people ideologically opposite them is frankly ridiculous.

marcus001

Samaris wrote: »

Yes, Antifa, as much as I generally agree with being anti-fascist, are a gang of thugs. However, Heather Heyers was not a member of Antifa. The march was not an Antifa march. It was a peaceful counter-protest where a murderous white supremacist rammed a car through the middle of it.

I think we should all be aware that not everyone there was spoiling for a fight and that plenty of people were peacefully demonstrating on both sides. However the shocking thing is how Antifa's presence (which was significant in how things went down) has barely been mentioned in the MSM. Its almost like they're the corporate medias secret police. They go and attack all the groups the media despises most (i.e. anyone who opposes immigration or Brexit) and the media gives them soft coverage. I wonder does your average Antifa thug understand the extent to which he serves the elites.

When they riot during the G20 they don't call them protestors. They call them anarchists. When they riot at a Trump rally or in Charlotteville they're called antiracism demonstrators.

Samaris

The reason that they didn't get much of a mention was because there was a goddam murder and an attempted mass murder. The reason they didn't get much mention was a terrorist attack. The helicopter didn't get much mention either.

And yes, there was plenty of peaceful protesting. There were also Antifa extremists. There were also a lot of white supremacists. Have you considered what that term, proudly embraced by the people marching with tiki torches means? It means the domination of other races or failing that, their extermination. Do you think that is a peaceful anything?

And please do not give me guff about peaceful historians marching to protect history (yes, I have seen that argument too!). They weren't waving tiki torches and banners with swastikas. Do you think there was anything actually peaceful about what they were demanding, with the message that symbol sends?

marcus001

Samaris wrote: »

And yes, but saying that the left are responsible for fascists marching about the place is implying that the people involved have no brain or independent thought whatsoever and are merely reactionaries. What can you expect? I expect the people actually marching to own up to their own ideologies and own awful ideas and stop trying to whine it away onto those that vehemently disagree with them.

I still don't buy it. This is a far right-wing ideology and no amount of attempting to deflect it on their ideological enemies will change that. Have some respect for people having their own brains and freedom to act on their own initiatives. Blaming the people ideologically opposite them is frankly ridiculous.

No one is saying they don't have agency. The point is that half of the young lads there wouldn't have even found the altright had they not being looking for it.

They saw the progressive consensus. They decided they didn't like it. Mainstream conservativism and libertarianism (an outsized proportion of altrighters are former libertarians) had no answers to the problems they saw with college campuses, feminism, oppressive work cultures like Google, people being sacked for having opinions that go against progrsssivism etc. The alt right apparently had answers to those problems. Its really as simple as that.

Although I will say that IMO a good portion of people who turned out to that march are probably coming from multiple generations of racism and didn't lick it off a stone. You dont just show up at a rally like that unless you hang out in those circles at home.

Sand

Honestly, the US needs to clamp down on the SJW&Antifa/alt-right ritualistic violence that seems to erupt all too often. You could view them both as domestic terrorist groups, or you could view them both as political hooligans, looking forward to the next away day. I would tend to the latter view.

The US needs to start applying the same approach that works for combating football hooliganism in Europe: ban *anything* that could conceivably be used as a weapon, ban identified individuals from attending formally or informally, segregate the opposing groups, ban counter-protests, identify and register members of antifa and the alt-right and place travel bans on violent individuals of each group.

There has been a tolerance of a ritualistic violent confrontation between these groups with dozens if not hundreds injured and maimed. Deaths are inevitable. The murder of those police officers last year should have been the line in the sand. It wasn't, it was permitted to continue. Now another person is dead. At some point the adults need to intervene and halt this juvenile crap between SJW and the Alt-Right.

marcus001

Samaris wrote: »

The reason that they didn't get much of a mention was because there was a goddam murder and an attempted mass murder. The reason they didn't get much mention was a terrorist attack. The helicopter didn't get much mention either.

And yes, there was plenty of peaceful protesting. There were also Antifa extremists. There were also a lot of white supremacists. Have you considered what that term, proudly embraced by the people marching with tiki torches means? It means the domination of other races or failing that, their extermination. Do you think that is a peaceful anything?

And please do not give me guff about peaceful historians marching to protect history (yes, I have seen that argument too!). They weren't waving tiki torches and banners with swastikas. Do you think there was anything actually peaceful about what they were demanding, with the message that symbol sends?

Where did they call themselves white supremacists? That's interesting. Most of the interviews I watched they called themselves white nationalists or separatists not supremacists. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they were so dense they adopted the term supremacist without knowing what it means.

marcus001

Sand wrote: »

Honestly, the US needs to clamp down on the SJW&Antifa/alt-right ritualistic violence that seems to erupt all too often. You could view them both as domestic terrorist groups, or you could view them both as political hooligans, looking forward to the next away day. I would tend to the latter view.

The US needs to start applying the same approach that works for combating football hooliganism in Europe: ban *anything* that could conceivably be used as a weapon, ban identified individuals from attending formally or informally, segregate the opposing groups, ban counter-protests, identify and register members of antifa and the alt-right and place travel bans on violent individuals of each group.

There has been a tolerance of a ritualistic violent confrontation between these groups with dozens if not hundreds injured and maimed. Deaths are inevitable. The murder of those police officers last year should have been the line in the sand. It wasn't, it was permitted to continue. Now another person is dead. At some point the adults need to intervene and halt this juvenile crap between SJW and the Alt-Right.

I agree but no need to turn into even more of a police state. Just keep them separated. The police in Charlottesville allegedly forced the right wingers to walk right through the left wingers basically asking for a riot to break out.

Sand

marcus001 wrote: »

I agree but no need to turn into even more of a police state. Just keep them separated. The police in Charlottesville allegedly forced the right wingers to walk right through the left wingers basically asking for a riot to break out.

Europe deals with hooliganism without a police state. It identifies the troublemakers, and prevents them travelling, prevents them getting armed and prevents them getting close to the other side. We are not talking about barcoding anyone who steps out of line.

marcus001

Sand wrote: »

Europe deals with hooliganism without a police state. It identifies the troublemakers, and prevents them travelling, prevents them getting armed and prevents them getting close to the other side. We are not talking about barcoding anyone who steps out of line.

The UK is a police state, not sure if you knew that or not.

http://listverse.com/2015/11/10/10-signs-britain-is-becoming-a-creepy-police-state/

Not that familiar with the rest of Europe but fairly sure France is going that way too.

InTheTrees

marcus001 wrote: »

Where did they call themselves white supremacists? That's interesting. Most of the interviews I watched they called themselves white nationalists or separatists not supremacists. Although I wouldn't be surprised if they were so dense they adopted the term supremacist without knowing what it means.

I dont think most people care what label these people choose for themselves. Their ideology is what defines them.

Manic Moran

Sand wrote: »

Europe deals with hooliganism without a police state. It identifies the troublemakers, and prevents them travelling, prevents them getting armed and prevents them getting close to the other side. We are not talking about barcoding anyone who steps out of line.

Attending a football game is not one of the most cherished rights enshrined in the Constitution of Europe. Not really the best of analogies.

Chips Lovell

Seriously? A chap gets fired from Google for being a bit of a sexist and that's making people become neo-Nazis? I've heard it all now.

Samaris

The people holding the torches weren't the moderate-to-pissed-off. The march couldn't get the moderates (because the moderates took one look at who was going and decided "nope, we are not tainting our beliefs with those racist nutters"), which is why it Nazified so rapidly. These were actually the racists. You don't wake up one morning and accidentally join the Ku Klux Klan, even if you feel that universities are full of communism. And it is reeeally quite difficult to argue that you're totally innocent while marching with the KKK. Seriously, the KKK. That's where America is right now. If you march with the KKK and Seig Heil like a Nazi and chant "Jew! Jew!" like a Nazi (yeah, that was going on too), you are probably at the least a raving doucheweasel.

On that note, all this isn't new. Does no-one remember the existance of the Red Scare? McCarthyism? How someone's life and career could be destroyed by the accusation of being Socialist, which was only one step aside from pinko Commie-ism. You think people get called out for being white supremacists? Well, maybe it's a bit more understandable that someone should get called out for being a white supremacist than someone should get called out for being socialist - or even having Communist beliefs. Because socialism is pretty benign, even if you don't believe in it. Communism's ideas don't -work- at a national scale, but in general, they are based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", which balanced against "The naturally dominant white race has a destiny under God to dominate the lesser races"...isn't actually all that horrific. There were certainly awful people leading the Communist beliefs as well as decent ones, but it's really quite difficult to be a decent supremacist.

Secondly, the supremacists and Antifa share a method - violence. That makes them both condemnable. However, there is actually a slight difference - believing that lesser races should be dominated or wiped out is actually objectively worse than believing that those who believe lesser races should be wiped out have no place expressing that crap in civilised society. I deplore their methods, but I feel there is a certain false equivalence going on.

The counter-protests very easily can be formed of essentially peaceful people because their beliefs (not being a dick to minorities for one) are not inherently violent. The belief that due to the colour of your skin, you have an inherent right is to dominate others is not a peaceful belief.

Tony EH

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Bingo. I identified as liberal / left wing for my entire young life because "conservative" was synonymous with "cultural authoritarian". Now that "liberal" is synonymous with "cultural authoritarian", I pretty much support nobody. There seem to be very few left wing cultural libertarians like myself - everyone these days seems to be either left wing and pro-censorship, or right wing and anti-censorship. So much so that the very existence of people like myself is denied by a lot of people - they will bracket me in and accuse me either of being a closeted alt-right supporter, or a closeted cultural authoritarian concern troll.

It's very, very sad.

This is largely and American thing. It's pretty unrecognisable in most of Europe.

And, I'll add this. America has never had a real left. So called "Liberals" are not the same as the traditional European left. They're not even on the same page in many respects.

I think it's a great mistake to look at the shouty internet types who identify as "Liberal" in the States and braket them in the same group as traditional style lefties in Europe, a lot of whom would pretty removed from their issues, beliefs and methods.

The flip side to that is looking at these alt-right clowns and putting them in the same pile as tradtional Conservatives. Those twains aren't going to be meeting any time soon either.

jooksavage

marcus001 wrote: »

The UK is a police state, not sure if you knew that or not.

http://listverse.com/2015/11/10/10-signs-britain-is-becoming-a-creepy-police-state/

Not that familiar with the rest of Europe but fairly sure France is going that way too.

Listverse? List-f*#king-verse? You're citing polished-up clickbait to support your argument. That speaks volumes about your research into the topic.

Tony EH

Danzy wrote: »

This is the problem with identity politics, it becomes a pissing contest.

You could start ripping down every statue of Washington for slavery, Engels for his frankly genocidal views on Slavs, Mao, Stalin, Lenin for the 100 million + that died at their hands.

Identity politics thrives on division, us, them, me, me, me, it is the opposite of class politics, it is the opposite of We.

Every sub group can be further broken down and the rest then become the enemy, ever further balkanization where the person you were campaigning with yesterday finds out that they are part of an oppressive identity group as far as you are concerned today, if there is not new division created then it just fades away.

There are statues and monuments all over the world remembering people and events that are, these days, considered awful to a modern society. But, what would tearing them down achieve? It doesn't eliminate those events. It won't stop people having racist attitudes.

In fact, I would argue that these historical items should remain in their place as to spark interest and debate about national histories and let's be honest here, if one digs deep enough, theirs enough dirt on the hands of most countries in their attitudes and deeds from past events/people.

Pissing and moaning about flags, symbols and people from 100, 200, 2000 years ago is not going to change that. However, I believe that it does dull the historical record to a degree and as someone who's interests lie in history, I find that rather sad.

20Cent

Tony EH wrote: »

There are statues and monuments all over the world remembering people and events that are, these days, considered awful to a modern society. But, what would tearing them down achieve? It doesn't eliminate those events. It won't stop people having racist attitudes.

In fact, I would argue that these historical items should remain in their place as to spark interest and debate about national histories and let's be honest here, if one digs deep enough, theirs enough dirt on the hands of most countries in their attitudes and deeds from past events/people.

Pissing and moaning about flags, symbols and people from 100, 200, 2000 years ago is not going to change that. However, I believe that it does dull the historical record to a degree and as someone who's interests lie in history, I find that rather sad.

How do you think a black person must feel when they see statues of people who fought for slavery in prominent places in their hometowns? Seeing the confederate flag flying.
It must be awful.
Best get rid of them and replace with something more appropriate. Not saying they should be destroyed just put in a museum or somewhere less prominent.

Christy42

Tony EH wrote: »

There are statues and monuments all over the world remembering people and events that are, these days, considered awful to a modern society. But, what would tearing them down achieve? It doesn't eliminate those events. It won't stop people having racist attitudes.

In fact, I would argue that these historical items should remain in their place as to spark interest and debate about national histories and let's be honest here, if one digs deep enough, theirs enough dirt on the hands of most countries in their attitudes and deeds from past events/people.

Pissing and moaning about flags, symbols and people from 100, 200, 2000 years ago is not going to change that. However, I believe that it does dull the historical record to a degree and as someone who's interests lie in history, I find that rather sad.

The historical record is still there. While statues are there for people with morals that would be currently questionable it is much rarer that their main achievement was to fight against social progress. Certainly someone like Washington had issues but that was not his main achievement in life. The creation of the US was something to be proud of and he can be celebrated in that light.

The civil war is all that Lee is known for and I can see why a black person would not like his memory celebrated in a statue. As long as it is still taught in schools.

In the time of the founding fathers there was not as much of a push for modernisation. Indeed they were arguing for an increase of representation for people and so while they might not have solved every issue of the day they moved things forward. Lee is best known for attempting to stop things from moving forward. It won't change the past but there is no need to give him a stage of honour. There are other people who could be honoured there and have their own history highlighted.

jooksavage

Danzy wrote: »

You could start ripping down every statue of Washington for slavery, Engels for his frankly genocidal views on Slavs, Mao, Stalin, Lenin for the 100 million + that died at their hands.

.

This argument holds zero water. Washington and Jefferson, though slave-holders both, are commemorated for their more significant role as nation-builders. Lee and Jackson, traitors to the Union, rebelled and lost a war to maintain slavery. That is their legacy - they symbolize nothing except the South's struggle against being dragged into the civilized world. Trying to equate Washington with Lee is just whataboutery.

Also, I've mentioned this before but there seems to be a perception that these Confederate statues have been standing since time immemorial. The vast majority of these monuments were not constructed until the 20th century and their erection was directly tied to a reaction against reconstruction and an expansion of the Jim Crow laws. Trying to argue that these are just benign tributes to war leaders is naive or dishonest.

Tony EH

20Cent wrote: »

How do you think a black person must feel when they see statues of people who fought for slavery in prominent places in their hometowns? Seeing the confederate flag flying.
It must be awful.
Best get rid of them and replace with something more appropriate. Not saying they should be destroyed just put in a museum or somewhere less prominent.

It would be. But it doesn't change anything. Besides, black people wandering by that statue of Lee in Robert E. Lee park weren't even born when the Civil War was in effect.

I understand the sentiments and understand why people around the world would have issue with statues and symbols from history. But, whitewashing these things out of the public eye won't erase the historical record or even make those those hard done by feel any better in the long run.

It's just a gloss.

20Cent

Tony EH wrote: »

It would be. But it doesn't change anything. Besides, black people wandering by that statue of Lee in Robert E. Lee park weren't even born when the Civil War was in effect.

I understand the sentiments and understand why people around the world would have issue with statues and symbols from history. But, whitewashing these things out of the public eye won't erase the historical record or even make those those hard done by feel any better in the long run.

It's just a gloss.

Taking down a statue isn't whitewashing, it won't change history or what happened. It might make people feel a bit more welcome in their hometowns and acknowledge that bad people shouldn't be honoured.

Honouring the guy who thought you were subhuman and should be a slave would be disconcerting even if it happened before you were born.

Tony EH

Christy42 wrote: »

The historical record is still there.

And it's becomes more and more vague all the time. Which is a bad thing if you ask me.

I don't believe that a nation's history should be confined to the happy clappy versions.

Scratch deep enough and most country's have shame in their past.

And, I've asked this before. Who gets to be arbiter of what statues/symbols are ok and which ones aren't? Many, many have had negative conotations attached in their past. There are national flags today that carry those past negativities for many people.

B0jangles

For those arguing that the statues etc., should be retained as historical monuments, are you aware that the majority were erected long after war - most went up in the 1910s-20s (Jim Crow era, beginning of the NAACP) and there was another surge on the 1960's (Civil Right's Movement)

https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/897255950951866368



Just look at the burst of enthusiasm for putting them up in schools in the 1960's, just about when there was a push for desegregation. These statues are not ancient history, there are people alive who saw them go up in their communities, and people alive who helped put them up.

Tony EH

20Cent wrote: »

Taking down a statue isn't whitewashing, it won't change history or what happened. It might make people feel a bit more welcome in their hometowns and acknowledge that bad people shouldn't be honoured.

Honouring the guy who thought you were subhuman and should be a slave would be disconcerting even if it happened before you were born.

People make people feel welcome in their hometowns. Not statues.

Tony EH

B0jangles wrote: »

For those arguing that the statues etc., should be retained as historical monuments, are you aware that the majority were erected long after war - most went up in the 1910s-20s (Jim Crow era, beginning of the NAACP) and there was another surge on the 1960's (Civil Right's Movement)

So, which other ones do you want removed? Where do you stop?

Christy42

Tony EH wrote: »

And it's becomes more and more vague all the time. Which is a bad thing if you ask me.

I don't believe that a nation's history should be confined to the happy clappy versions.

Scratch deep enough and most country's have shame in their past.

And, I've asked this before. Who gets to be arbiter of what statues/symbols are ok and which ones aren't? Many, many have had negative conotations attached in their past. There are national flags today that carry those past negativities for many people.

Fine stick up a statue commemorating all the slaves who died instead.

It highlights the issue and the history in a far clearer way than celebrating a man known for fighting for slavery. Also as for people making someone feel welcome- it kinda shouts out that these people are cool honouring a man only known for fighting for slavery.

In the end some people were not cool with it and petitioned for it to be gone. Yes all countries have shame in their past. Germany is not going to stick statues of Hitler up but they remember the past with memorials to those who suffered. Those are the ones who deserve the honour.

B0jangles

Everything has to be judged in its context, there are no hard and fast rules when it comes to respecting historical facts on one side and the rights of people who suffered as a result of that situation on the other.

As it is, it appears that a very large number of the Civil War monuments were erected long after the event in question and it appears that they were put up as a reaction to the growing calls for equality for black americans. It cannot be ignored that many of them are explicitly monuments to racism.

People should not have to live their lives surrounded by monuments to the fact that, in the very recent past, members of their own communities wanted to be able to treat them as literally and legally inferior. These statues were put up in parks to make black people feel unwanted, they were put into schools to intimidate black children.

Why should black americans still have to live surrounded by such vivid reminders of a hateful past just because someone somewhere thinks history will be offended if they are removed?

Professor Moriarty

marcus001 wrote: »

No I don't think you could say most people believe in openness tolerance and inclusivity. These are not value systems these are personality traits and only a segment of the population has them.

Nope. They are moral principles not 'personality traits'. Moral principles are developed by logic and intelligence via education. That is why most people are able to develop the moral principles of tolerance, openess and inclusivity and see these principles as conjusive to a healthy society. Racists and fascists have developed an attitude of exclusivity, suspicion and intolerance.

Akrasia

Tony EH wrote: »

And it's becomes more and more vague all the time. Which is a bad thing if you ask me.

I don't believe that a nation's history should be confined to the happy clappy versions.

Scratch deep enough and most country's have shame in their past.

And, I've asked this before. Who gets to be arbiter of what statues/symbols are ok and which ones aren't? Many, many have had negative conotations attached in their past. There are national flags today that carry those past negativities for many people.

The statues that are placed in your cities and towns are a reflection of what you value and how you want the world to see you.

In Ennis, we have a statue of Daniel O'Connell in the town square. We have a statue of De-Valera in front of our Courthouse. The other statues we have are mostly celebrating sporting achievement, music, culture and art.

If there are statues or memorials of historical tragedies or wars, they are somber in tone and remember those who died either for a good cause, or needlessly for a natural disaster or because of an atrocity committed against them.

If the South wants to remember slavery, there should be memorials remembering the suffering of the slaves, or honoring those who fought against slavery, there should absolutely not be triumphalist statues honoring the generals who fought to preserve slavery.

Tony EH

Akrasia wrote: »

If the South wants to remember slavery, there should be memorials remembering the suffering of the slaves, or honoring those who fought against slavery, there should absolutely not be triumphalist statues honoring the generals who fought to preserve slavery.

AGAIN, I'll ask where do you stop?

There's a statue to Bomber Harris in London. A man who murdered German civilians in their sleep.

Why is that ok?

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Let's rip them down, shall we?

20Cent

Tony EH wrote: »

AGAIN, I'll ask where do you stop?

There's a statue to Bomber Harris in London. A man who murdered German civilians in their sleep.

Why is that ok?

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Let's rip them down, shall we?

Whataboutery.
Give over.

jooksavage

Tony EH wrote: »

AGAIN, I'll ask where do you stop?

There's a statue to Bomber Harris in London. A man who murdered German civilians in their sleep.

Why is that ok?

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Let's rip them down, shall we?

You're not going to find too many Celts walking around the Pantheon today.

You seem to be deaf to what a lot of posters have pointed out here: those monuments were mostly built at time in the 20th century when Jim Crow laws were expanding and lynching was commonplace. Southern culture, for anyone who's ever been there, is alive and well and doesn't need a few recently-erected statues to keep it going.

wes

Tony EH wrote: »

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Lee was a traitor to the US, on that basis alone, its absurd that there are statues of the man. I do not understand why the US puts up with that nonsense. These confederate people need to get over the fact they lost the civil war decades ago, and that it was fought for the right to own people.

B0jangles

Tony EH wrote: »

AGAIN, I'll ask where do you stop?

There's a statue to Bomber Harris in London. A man who murdered German civilians in their sleep.

Why is that ok?

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Let's rip them down, shall we?

I don't think the Bomber Harris comparison is very accurate, it would be a more accurate if there was a statue of Bomber Harris in Dresden and the people of Dresden were accused of wanting to whitewash history if they wanted it removed. (Personally I think the Bomber Harris statue should never have been put up).

If there were statues of Hitler standing in Germany, would think it reasonable for people to want them removed into museums? Would you expect people who lost family to the Nazis to accept having statues of their leader in their communities?

Akrasia

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope. They are moral principles not 'personality traits'. Moral principles are developed by logic and intelligence via education. That is why most people are able to develop the moral principles of tolerance, openess and inclusivity and see these principles as conjusive to a healthy society. Racists and fascists have developed an attitude of exclusivity, suspicion and intolerance.

I'm reading an excellent book at the moment called 'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst '
https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078

It goes in detail into brain development, and the parts of our brain that deal with morality, values, aggression etc are the latest parts to develop. These areas are not fully mature until adulthood, around the mid-twenties.

The reason for this is not because it's the hardest part of the brain for the body to build, biologically, it's no more complex than the other parts of the brain. In the 'Nature versus Nurture' debate one of the answers is that the frontal Cortex develops late in order to minimise the effects of genes, and maximise the influence of culture, environment, experience and the behaviors of the adults around them. Humans are so adaptable because children's personalities and judgements and values and inclination towards violence are not fixed at birth by their genes.

Children and young adults are much more vulnerable to being influenced by culture and environment than older adults are. This is why religion targets schools and richard Spencer and Steve Bannon spend most of their time trying to recruit students to their cause. It's why the majority of people who are radicalised are young, and those young people are much more likely to act on their ideology (adolescent brains are wired differently to adults, they experience emotion on a much more intense level and they crave novelty and adventure way more than mature adults (another evolutionary adaptation)

Children who are raised in households dominated by violence, racism, authoritarianism have different brain chemistry compared with children who are raised in an environment of compassion, altrusim, respect for logic education, reason and respect for others.

The culture of their upbringing has a real and long term influence on the personalities of children raised there.

Professor Moriarty

Tony EH wrote: »

AGAIN, I'll ask where do you stop?

There's a statue to Bomber Harris in London. A man who murdered German civilians in their sleep.

Why is that ok?

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Let's rip them down, shall we?

A core reason for the American civil war was slavery. The Confederates wanted to retain slavery. Statues commemorating confederate leaders who were defending slavery have no place in a modern democracy. Not least because of the messages such statues give to many American citizens who are descendants of slaves.

This isn't rocket science, it isn't hard to understand. Unless you do understand but choose to support the commemoration of segregation and human rights abuses anyway.

Professor Moriarty

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm reading an excellent book at the moment called 'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst '
https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078

It goes in detail into brain development, and the parts of our brain that deal with morality, values, aggression etc are the latest parts to develop. These areas are not fully mature until adulthood, around the mid-twenties.

The reason for this is not because it's the hardest part of the brain for the body to build, biologically, it's no more complex than the other parts of the brain. In the 'Nature versus Nurture' debate one of the answers is that the frontal Cortex develops late in order to minimise the effects of genes, and maximise the influence of culture, environment, experience and the behaviors of the adults around them. Humans are so adaptable because children's personalities and judgements and values and inclination towards violence are not fixed at birth by their genes.

Children and young adults are much more vulnerable to being influenced by culture and environment than older adults are. This is why religion targets schools and richard Spencer and Steve Bannon spend most of their time trying to recruit students to their cause. It's why the majority of people who are radicalised are young, and those young people are much more likely to act on their ideology (adolescent brains are wired differently to adults, they experience emotion on a much more intense level and they crave novelty and adventure way more than mature adults (another evolutionary adaptation)

Children who are raised in households dominated by violence, racism, authoritarianism have different brain chemistry compared with children who are raised in an environment of compassion, altrusim, respect for logic education, reason and respect for others.

The culture of their upbringing has a real and long term influence on the personalities of children raised there.

Very true. It's the high dopamine levels (usually tailing off in young adulthood) that encourage risk taking and excitement seeking. As you say, this makes teenage boys particularly susceptible to organisations with a whiff of cordite such as supremacists and fascists.

Palmach

wes wrote: »

Lee was a traitor to the US, on that basis alone, its absurd that there are statues of the man. I do not understand why the US puts up with that nonsense. These confederate people need to get over the fact they lost the civil war decades ago, and that it was fought for the right to own people.

Reaaalllllyyy............http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,

Palmach

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A core reason for the American civil war was slavery. The Confederates wanted to retain slavery. Statues commemorating confederate leaders who were defending slavery have no place in a modern democracy. Not least because of the messages such statues give to many American citizens who are descendants of slaves.

This isn't rocket science, it isn't hard to understand. Unless you do understand but choose to support the commemoration of segregation and human rights abuses anyway.

Many people throughout history owned and traded slaves. If you take down all their statues you'll have a lot of empty plinths. This is the left trying to extinguish history for their own political ends.

Tony EH

jooksavage wrote: »

You seem to be deaf to what a lot of posters have pointed out here: those monuments were mostly built at time in the 20th century when Jim Crow laws were expanding and lynching was commonplace. Southern culture, for anyone who's ever been there, is alive and well and doesn't need a few recently-erected statues to keep it going.

Far from it. I understand and sympathise with the point. I am however asking a valid question on where one stops. A question that nobody has even attempted to answer.

If we apply a certain rule to a statue of Lee, then that rule should be applied elsewhere in my opinion.

Other's mileage may differ, of course.

Wildlife Actor

Where do you stop?

Where the local authority with the power to erect, remove and replace statues say you stop.

The decision here was a decision of the elected local authority. They can replace a statue of mickey mouse with a statue of Donald duck.

The decision of one local authority to remove a statue does not create a rule. So Trump's nonsense about Washington owning slaves is a non sequitur. If a local authority of a particular locality wants to remove a statue of washington and replace it with a statue of Donald duck, or worse, Donald Trump, that's their call.

That's where it stops.

Christy42

Palmach wrote: »

Many people throughout history owned and traded slaves. If you take down all their statues you'll have a lot of empty plinths. This is the left trying to extinguish history for their own political ends.

People have repeatedly offered a suggestion of putting in a commemoration to slaves in its place so the last point is complete and utter junk.

You are also glossing over the fact that the issue is not the owning and trading of slaves (which was simply going along with the times for many historical figures) as opposed to the fact that Lee actively fought to keep slavery there. That is not simply going along with it. It was also going against the large progressive movement at the time to get rid of slavery you can't say he was going along with the times. It was a controversial issue during his time.

wes

Looks like some of the media is now going to start calling a duck a duck:

How to describe extremists who rallied in Charlottesville


--SNIP--
“alt-right”
A political grouping or tendency mixing racism, white nationalism and populism; a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States.
In AP stories discussing what the movement says about itself, the term “alt-right” (quotation marks, hyphen and lowercase) may be used in quotes or modified as in the self-described “alt-right” or so-called alt-right. Avoid using the term generically and without definition, however, because it is not well-known and the term may exist primarily as a public relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience.
Depending on the specifics of the situation, such beliefs might be termed racist, white supremacist or neo-Nazi; be sure to describe the specifics. Whenever “alt-right” is used in a story, include a definition: an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism, or, more simply, a white nationalist movement.
--SNIP--

I think the rest of us need to follow suit, the "alt-right" are imo just re-branded Neo-Nazi's wearing polo shirts, and the bizarre political correctness, that we have for whatever bizarre reason have been observing towards them should end. They want to exterminate all non-white people and anyone who disagrees with them, we seen what there inspiration did the last time, so best to stop them here and now, or else our children will be fighting a war against these people.

B0jangles

Tony EH wrote: »

Far from it. I understand and sympathise with the point. I am however asking a valid question on where one stops. A question that nobody has even attempted to answer.

If we apply a certain rule to a statue of Lee, then that rule should be applied elsewhere in my opinion.

Other's mileage may differ, of course.

In my opinion it is not a valid question, so there is no valid answer. There is no need to create a hard and fast rule by which it is decided whether or not monuments should be erected, or if they already exist, whether they should be left as they are.

Each one should be judged on its own merits - thus the question of 'where one stops' does not arise.

jooksavage

Tony EH wrote: »

If we apply a certain rule to a statue of Lee, then that rule should be applied elsewhere in my opinion.

Only the historically illiterate would apply the same value to a statue of Lee as a statue Washington. To do so would be require you to strip the monuments of what they symbolize and the circumstances of their construction. If we do that, you're looking at all monuments as heaps of concrete and bronze.

Professor Moriarty

Palmach wrote: »

Many people throughout history owned and traded slaves. If you take down all their statues you'll have a lot of empty plinths. This is the left trying to extinguish history for their own political ends.

Nah. You need to think a little deeper. The core reason for the Confederate rebellion was to maintain slavery. Thus statues that celebrate the leaders of that rebellion are an insult to the descendants of those slaves. Equating that with a statue of Julius Caesar is very simplistic thinking.