The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Crunch on August 16, 2017, 09:32:20 AM

Title: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2017, 09:32:20 AM
Quote
Deliberate destruction and theft of cultural heritage has been conducted by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant since 2014 in Iraq, Syria, and to a lesser extent in Libya. The destruction targets various places of worship under ISIL control and ancient historical artifacts. In Iraq, between the fall of Mosul in June 2014 and February 2015, ISIL has plundered and destroyed at least 28 historical religious buildings. Valuable items from some buildings were looted in order to smuggle and sell them to finance ISIS activities.

ISIL uses a unit called the Kata'ib Taswiyya (settlement battalions) to select targets for demolition.  UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova branded the ISIS activities in this respect as "a form of cultural cleansing" ...

Why were they doing this?

Quote
Part of that effort [eradicating any hint of non-muslim culture] requires a rewriting of history: Earlier this week, news outlets reported that ISIS ransacked and burned the Mosul Public Library, destroying more than 8,000 ancient and rare books and manuscripts.

“This destruction marks a new phase in the cultural cleansing perpetrated in regions controlled by armed extremists in Iraq,” Irina Bokova, director-general of the UN’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said in a statement Tuesday. “It adds to the systematic destruction of heritage and the persecution of minorities that seeks to wipe out the cultural diversity that is the soul of the Iraqi people.”

The tactic is unofficially called “cultural genocide,” a term that David Nersessian, assistant dean of global programs at Boston University School of Management, has used to describe attacks on an ethnic or religious group’s wider institutions – including its languages, traditional practices and ways, religious institutions and objects, and clergy members, academics, and intellectuals.
This is rightly seen as a violation of human rights:
Quote
The UN’s “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” validates the rights of any group to maintain, observe, and protect its culture and traditions.

Back to more current events:
Quote
In the aftermath of Charlottesville, the Left has returned to one of its favorite pastimes: tearing down statues and defacing public property. Instead of making a grown-up argument that Confederate war monuments shouldn’t be funded by taxpayer dollars, Leftists have simply determined that it’s fine to tear down statues they don’t like, without even engaging in a serious historical or political debate.
Quote
In 2015, the students at the University of Missouri demanded the removal of a Jefferson statue. Two years ago, on CNN, anchor Ashleigh Banfield suggested the Jefferson Memorial in Washington might have to go.
Quote
The Lincoln Memorial was vandalized overnight Tuesday by a vandal or vandals wielding red spray paint, the National Park Service said.

The NPS said they discovered graffiti on the iconic Foggy Bottom, D.C. memorial around 4:30 a.m. ET.

The graffiti appeared to spell "F*** Law" and was scrawled on a pillar in front of the sculpture of Lincoln.
Quote
Deputies took Thompson, a member of the far-left Workers World Party and a student at N.C. Central University, into custody Tuesday shortly after she appeared at a press conference with other protesters.

“The people decided to take matters into our own hands and remove the statue,” Thompson told reporters. “We are tired of waiting on politicians who could have voted to remove the white supremacist statues years ago, but they failed to act. So we acted.”



Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Mynnion on August 16, 2017, 10:24:59 AM
I agree there needs to be a reasoned discussion on this.  I strongly believe that these statues/monuments should not be destroyed but instead should either be moved to a location  deemed more appropriate (based on the desires of those who actually reside locally) or should have plaques added stating the specific history surrounding the individual represented. 

I do not believe that non-local citizens should have any say in which action occurs.  If a community chooses to remove a statue and does not want to relocate it then it should probably be moved to a historical site dedicated to the associated history.  Our history is not always pretty but trying to hide the ugly is an affront to those most harmed by that ugly.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: D.W. on August 16, 2017, 11:33:26 AM
All reasoned discussions should start by comparing someone to ISIS.   ::)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Mynnion on August 16, 2017, 11:57:46 AM
Generally I would agree with you but when I heard about the removal and possible destruction of some of the Confederate symbols the destruction of Palmyra came to mind. 

I did a little research on the Lee statue and it wasn't erected until 1924 right about the time the KKK was experiencing a resurgence and Jim Crow laws were taking off.  In this case the "cultural heritage" probably had more to do with making a racist statement than with actually honoring Lee who was opposed to Confederate war statues.

Many other statues fit the same bill.  Even so I oppose their destruction and believe they should be preserved as a reminder of an ulgy part of our history.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on August 16, 2017, 12:05:44 PM
Crunch, I resist your equation of state-subsidized propaganda and dissemination of a Big Lie as "culture" of the sorts that ISIS is destroying.  I think a better analogy would be the Berlin Wall and the myriad statues of Lenin that are ironically but quite effectively being rescued by private enterprise from the junkyard of former Soviet states.

Surely the distinguishing fact that ISIS murders those that resist, cannot be lost on you.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on August 16, 2017, 12:10:25 PM
Crunch, I'm all for discussion, though. I've argued here for over a decade that Confederate and white supremacist icons like John C Calhoun Jefferson Davis and Confederate memorials Confederate flags in public places should be taxed by the federal government as the only Equitable and reasonable way of paying slavery reparations
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2017, 12:15:02 PM
It's indisputable that statues such as Lee's are a part of Southern heritage and history. Whether or not one likes that heritage or what it meant at the time, it should be clear enough that eliminating the cultural presence of that which a majority currently dislikes is pretty tyrannical. Can you imagine if someone suggested removing a Jewish monument on the grounds that they dislike the tenets of Judaism? There would be an outcry that would never stop. It would be called anti-Semitic and oppressive, and that's not because the majority particularly subscribes to Judaism but because it would be properly seen as persecution of a group that reveres certain things - rightly or wrongly. It would be considered immaterial whether or not the things Jews revere are popularly considered to be good or tasteful, that wouldn't even enter into the discussion. But because the Jews are by and large considered a minority and have been oppressed in the past it would be considered simply out of bounds to suggest oppressing them further, effectively. When it comes to white people and their potentially good or bad icons, they aren't considered out of bounds because, as the argument goes, targeting them is punching up and is therefore cannot be considered to be oppressive by definition. As I mentioned earlier, I sympathize with the sentiment of "we will not be removed", which potentially means that regardless of newspeak definitions it might very well feel to them like persecution by removing their revered heroes from the public space. You can like their icons or hate them, but they're theirs.

Don't we remember the incident recently with the Baphomet statue?

http://time.com/3972713/detroit-satanic-statue-baphomet/

If that can be put up in this cultural climate it seems hypocritical to simultaneously take down other statues that are disliked by some. The point of the Satanists seems to have been that if some people can have statues in public areas then it's discriminatory to pick and choose which are acceptable and which aren't based on popular sentiment about which are unsavory and which are cool.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Mynnion on August 16, 2017, 12:36:19 PM
In other associated news Baltimore quietly removed four statues last night.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2017, 01:59:16 PM
Boston is contemplating the removal of a marker that commemorates boys held as POWs at a fort in Boston Harbor. I have no joy for confederate statues in a place of honor in the center of town, much as I disliked a state house sporting the stars and bars.

Those men lived and died almost certainly without a say in starting the war, leading the war, or ending the war.

The entire purpose of the island is a ferry stop, and the fort. The fort is a historic landmark. The only reason to go there is to contemplate that history, and it takes 45 minutes by boat to get there from the city.

That's just getting ridiculous.

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on August 16, 2017, 02:06:54 PM
Boston is contemplating the removal of a marker that commemorates boys held as POWs at a fort in Boston Harbor. I have no joy for confederate statues in a place of honor in the center of town, much as I disliked a state house sporting the stars and bars.

Those men lived and died almost certainly without a say in starting the war, leading the war, or ending the war.

The entire purpose of the island is a ferry stop, and the fort. The fort is a historic landmark. The only reason to go there is to contemplate that history, and it takes 45 minutes by boat to get there from the city.

That's just getting ridiculous.

Considering how POW's were treated in that Era, I'd say they probably deserve more than just a marker, to be honest. The Ghetto's that the Jew's were placed in during WW2 could seem downright pleasant compared to the conditions POWs encountered during the Civil War, on both sides.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2017, 05:28:54 PM
In other associated news Baltimore quietly removed four statues last night.
and this headline: Vigilante protesters start DIGGING UP body of Confederate general and KKK leader Nathan Forrest from his grave (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3173456/Vigilante-protesters-start-DIGGING-body-Confederate-general-Nathan-Forrest-KKK-leader-grave.html#ixzz4pxKb6fQJ)
Quote
A group of protesters who want the body of an alleged Ku Klux Klan leader removed from their city have broken the soil over the grave.
The campaigners claim it has taken officials in Memphis, Tennessee, too long to exhume Nathan Bedford Forrest - who was a lieutenant general in the Confederate States Army.

They also want the statue of the soldier on a horse on the burial site to be removed. The rebel cavalryman, who died in 1877, has been buried in the city's Health Sciences Park since 1904.
No word yet on how they plan to desecrate the body once exhumed.

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on August 16, 2017, 05:30:19 PM
All reasoned discussions should start by comparing someone to ISIS.   ::)

When it comes to cultural genocide, who would you like to start with?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: JoshCrow on August 16, 2017, 06:55:49 PM
It's indisputable that statues such as Lee's are a part of Southern heritage and history. Whether or not one likes that heritage or what it meant at the time, it should be clear enough that eliminating the cultural presence of that which a majority currently dislikes is pretty tyrannical. Can you imagine if someone suggested removing a Jewish monument on the grounds that they dislike the tenets of Judaism?

Would you say the same if the discussion was about taking down a statue of Hitler in some corner of Germany? It fits all the descriptors you've used - part of heritage and history, revered by a small segment of the population, disliked by the majority, etc.

Let me suggest to you that specifically public symbolism is a category in which the social mores of the population are actually relevant. Because symbols convey meanings, unless they convey something the general population agrees should be conveyed then they aren't actually fulfilling their primary reason for existing. Remember, these are public! That they inspire a few is not enough - they must be accepted by the people or they are essentially a misrepresentation of the values of the people in their midst.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on August 16, 2017, 07:20:32 PM
Poor analogy to Germany on account of the genocide, I think South Africa works better:

Quote
President Mandela did not support the destruction of monuments, but rather the building of new ones, and the incorporation of existing monuments into an inclusive vision for the future of our society.

This inclusive vision can only be achieved through constructive dialogue that recognizes the pain of our past, and a creative re-imagining of our public spaces and monuments.
 
We would do well to remember the words of former Chief Justice Pius Langa in his 2006 speech on transformative constitutionalism:
 
“There is no right way to deal with the immense violation that was apartheid. But, as a society, we must keep alive the hope that we can move beyond our past. That requires both a remembering and a forgetting. We must remember what it is that brought us here. But at the same time we must forget the hate and anger that fuelled some of our activities if we are to avoid returning to the same cycle of violence and oppression.”

But they started having the same conversations a couple of years ago, including vandalism, relocation, and destruction of monuments and statues from the cclonial and apartheid periods.



Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on August 16, 2017, 07:22:35 PM
Here's some context for the confederate monuments in question.  It would seem that the culture putatively being 'genocided' correlates suspiciously well with periods of anti-black sentiment in the south.

https://www.splcenter.org/20160421/whose-heritage-public-symbols-confederacy
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: yossarian22c on August 16, 2017, 08:01:44 PM
All reasoned discussions should start by comparing someone to ISIS.   ::)

When it comes to cultural genocide, who would you like to start with?

ISIS would be a great place to start some cultural genocide.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Gaoics79 on August 16, 2017, 09:16:35 PM
I think many of these monuments are fundamentally offensive and should be torn down. I think Josh's comparison to Hitler statues in Germany is an apt one.

However, the question is: 1) Who should do the tearing down and 2) What else are they going to tear down once they get a taste for it?

I do not like the idea of mobs tearing down anyone's statue, end of story. It's illegal, it's violent, and yeah, it's asking for armed confrontration and bloodshed in our streets. The next time some mob of self-entitled SJW types decides to take down a statue on their own time, there could be blood in the streets if certain groups get wind of it. This is what happens when police abdicate their responsibility to uphold law.

I'm particularly disturbed because I think that tearing down the statue of Jefferson Davis and other confederate monuments is the thin of the wedge with this rabble. In Canada we have similar agitators threatening to bring down a statue of Cornwalis in Halifax, who by the way founded the City - all because he called for the scalps of Miqmaq warriors at the time. Suffice it to say, while it doesn't endear him to a modern audience, it wasn't like the Miqmaqs were pacifists either, or above similar acts of barbarity.

And let me repeat, the man founded the City!

So yeah, I don't like self-righteous mobs tearing down statues and I am positive that it won't be long until any number of historical figures are going to receive similar treatment, from Washington (who owned slaves) to Churchill (who propagated colonialism). This isn't the slippery slope with these people - they are already there. They are just targeting the low  hanging fruit right now. When they're finished with the confederate monuments, guaranteed it's not going to stop.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: JoshCrow on August 16, 2017, 09:34:49 PM
When they're finished with the confederate monuments, guaranteed it's not going to stop.

Maybe, but you and I (and many others) are going to stop agreeing with them, and that's worth something considering the relevance of these symbols is up to us (collectively speaking).

Incidentally, I don't support destroying the works (or having mobs do the removal) - just moving them to a museum is sufficient to change their context from "inappropriate" to, I think, "public service". Some have also suggested relocating them to Confederate cemeteries, which I also like.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2017, 09:53:20 PM
When they're finished with the confederate monuments, guaranteed it's not going to stop.

Maybe, but you and I (and many others) are going to stop agreeing with them, and that's worth something considering the relevance of these symbols is up to us (collectively speaking).

Incidentally, I don't support destroying the works (or having mobs do the removal) - just moving them to a museum is sufficient to change their context from "inappropriate" to, I think, "public service". Some have also suggested relocating them to Confederate cemeteries, which I also like.

That would at least be a fair solution, if still tilted towards majority sentiment winning who gets to show off their prized values. Your Hitler example is apt, but not so much to argue against my point. My point was that if Baphomet has 'every right' to be displayed in public then the game is over in suggesting that moral appropriateness should have anything to do with what gets displayed. You either have to take the position that every group has the right, or that majority values dominate those of minorities. Baphomet could have been banned, right, but then the state/city would have to officially claim it's because Christians have higher 'moral status' in the area that Satanists. It would oblige the city to admit that Christianity has a privileged place at the table, if for no other reason than because it's popular. They didn't take the bait and instead let Baphomet be installed. And you know, it's sort of a joke at this point that literally nothing is worse than Hitler, but if you want to be pedantic about it Hitler's got nothing on THE DEVIL. And that's still up as far as I know. So I don't really buy the Hitler thing. Oh, Hitler probably riles people up more than the devil does at this point, but if we're going to objectively weigh the idea of the devil versus the idea of Hitler, at best Hitler is a subset of how bad the devil is. But the rub here is that putting up Baphomet sticks it to the Christians, which is a fun pastime for many these days, whereas in this case, the people who enjoy Baphomet as a point against Christians would hate to see Hitler, or a Confederate Hero, up. So what it boils down to isn't so much what is decorous, but what happens to be fashionable to hate right now. I don't think the devil is any less hateful than the statues you argue shouldn't be up, but it isn't something that bothers the Antifa crowd so they don't care about it. And that's sort of the issue here for me: the statues that are to be taken down may be bad in some objective way, but they are a problem only to a group that has a very selective taste for what they don't like. And I'm not too keen on their sense of taste at present. I'd just as soon leave up questionable statues just to make them see they don't have the right to declare by fiat what gets done in a town.

And by the way, I actually agree with you that public sentiment should probably weight into what's displayed publicly. But what I'm looking at here is consistency rather than decorum. I would wholeheartedly like to see positive, encouraging messages up in public. However if the game is going to be "everyone's opinion is equally valid" then I'm going to hold them to that, and not be impressed by cherry picking.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Greg Davidson on August 16, 2017, 10:49:56 PM
Confederate statuary and monuments was part of a political movement not in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, but later as a symbol of the Jim Crow regime of using law to suppress the minority population. The second wave was in opposition to the Civil Rights movement. James Loewen's book "Lies Across America" documents the extend of efforts to falsify history in accordance with the segregationist ideology 

Quote
As Loewen points out, most Confederate monuments were erected between 1890 and 1920 under the leadership of the United Daughters of the Confederacy as part of a conscious effort to glorify and sanitize the Confederate cause and legitimize the newly installed Jim Crow system. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest, “one of the most vicious racists in U.S. history,” as Loewen puts it, was a slave trader, founder of the Ku Klux Klan and commander of troops who massacred black Union soldiers after their surrender at Fort Pillow. Yet there are more statues, markers and busts of Forrest in Tennessee than of any other figure in the state’s history, including President Andrew Jackson. Only one transgression was sufficiently outrageous to disqualify Confederate leaders from the pantheon of heroes. No statue of James Longstreet, a far abler commander than Forrest, graces the Southern countryside, and Gen. James Fleming is omitted from the portrait gallery of famous figures of Arkansas history in Little Rock. Their crime? Both supported black rights during Reconstruction.

https://www.thenation.com/article/our-monumental-mistakes/ (https://www.thenation.com/article/our-monumental-mistakes/)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: JoshCrow on August 16, 2017, 11:28:31 PM
They didn't take the bait and instead let Baphomet be installed.

I'm not finding any evidence that this happened as you describe. In fact it looks like the opposite happened: Oklahoma withdrew from replacing a Ten Commandments statue rather than accept Baphomet as well, and the last record I have of the statue is it being placed into storage while waiting for a petition for Arkansas to approve it!

Edit: it looks like they finally has success in Minnesota, but not with Baphomet: http://nypost.com/2017/05/07/satanic-temple-cleared-to-install-monument-for-the-first-time/
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on August 16, 2017, 11:41:15 PM
They didn't take the bait and instead let Baphomet be installed.

I'm not finding any evidence that this happened as you describe. In fact it looks like the opposite happened: Oklahoma withdrew from replacing a Ten Commandments statue rather than accept Baphomet as well, and the last record I have of the statue is it being placed into storage while waiting for a petition for Arkansas to approve it!

Edit: it looks like they finally has success in Minnesota, but not with Baphomet: http://nypost.com/2017/05/07/satanic-temple-cleared-to-install-monument-for-the-first-time/

Bloody heck, I thought it was outside but it turns out the Baphomet was installed inside a building in Detroit instead. Well, I basically stand by my point anyhow even though my analogy sort of fails. Good find on the Satanic box or whatever it is.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: scifibum on August 18, 2017, 12:14:11 AM
<can't resist the low hanging fruit in this thread, digs up password>

Fenring, you should look up the creed - well, it's more of a values statement - of the Detroit Satanic Temple.  You couldn't be more wrong about the morality of their religion.  They don't worship evil, they don't even believe in the devil as a being.   They believe in empathy, justice, and other things like that. 

When you say something like this:

Quote
if you want to be pedantic about it Hitler's got nothing on THE DEVIL.


you are arguing from within the context of religions that believe in the devil as a being who is purely/maximally evil.  Not from the context of the Satanists who wanted to erect a statue, whose beliefs are both atheistic and benignly humanistic. 

In this example you've chosen, you're completely wrong.  They don't want to harm anyone; they aren't evil.  Except if you circularly define blasphemy as evil, which is understandable if you're arguing from Christian theology but absurd if you are trying to make a point about civics.  Hitler is evil by the standards of basic human rights enshrined in our constitution.  Baphomet as viewed by the Detroit Satanic Temple is no more evil than a statue of Zeus sponsored by an art appreciation club.

You've made another pretty egregious error in this thread, too:

Quote
Can you imagine if someone suggested removing a Jewish monument on the grounds that they dislike the tenets of Judaism? There would be an outcry that would never stop.

1) the Ten Commandments ARE tenets of Judaism, and we've been around the block on that kind of monument already.  It didn't trigger the cataclysm of anti-anti-Semitism that you predicted. 

OK, fine, everybody conceived of those as Christian monuments.  Not because they weren't also representative of Judaism, but because Christians are such a bigger cohort in this country. 

But that still leaves:

2) "Jewish monuments" in public, that aren't also Christian, aren't much of a thing in this country.  Holocaust memorials don't represent Judaism, their purpose is to remind us of the immeasurable evil of the Nazi regime and keep us vigilant against similar evils.   

3) You're comparing symbols of a religious and ethnic identity - which happens to be a protected class in this country - with symbols of historical events that were brought about by the evils of racism and which symbols were largely erected for the purpose of promoting white supremacy, and further, mainly exist in places that continue to shelter and breed racism.   One of these things is not like the other. 

This difference is the same reason you can refuse to hire Nazis but you can't refuse to hire Jews. 

It's a terrible comparison. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on August 18, 2017, 03:22:02 AM
Scifi,

I know the differences between the Satanic Temple and the Church of Satan, and on this topic it's more involved an issue than I can appropriately dress here. I can summarize quickly by saying I'm skeptical that the Satanic Temple (which is on it's face far more benign than the Church of Satan) is a positive or even neutral force. But that's neither here nor there, because to the average Joe, Baphomet is simply the devil, and there isn't much qualification that will be understood beyond that. Even though *I* know that Baphomet, as an icon, means something rather specific to a few different occult groups, and that it's not identical to the Christian devil, we're talking about public perception here (I think), and in that sense we can just call it "the devil".

The purpose in me bringing up Judaism was precisely to raise the point that you reiterated, which is the distinction between protected groups and those that aren't. It's clear that there would be objections to picking on protected groups, whereas picking on a "majority" group such as white Southerners is by this standard an ok action (since it's punching up). So yes, I see the framework there. What I'm saying is that white Southerners who revere Confederate heros may well be a minority at this point, so in effect having the majority dictate whether their icons are ok is being decided by the majority. I also mentioned later on that I do actually believe that it's a good thing to judge what should be in public. But I'm pointing out that the attitude of "hah! Stick it to the racists" seems to be justified by the fact that they're white, rather than the fact that they're wrong. The rightness or wrongness of protected groups wouldn't even enter into the conversation when looking at public icons they believe in. But here we're happy to say the General Lee statue is wrong, therefore should perhaps come down. I'm looking at the big picture. In the microcosm, mind you, I might well be happier knowing racist icons aren't up. But I wouldn't necessarily wish to impose what makes me happy on others who value certain things that have a mixed bag of virtue in them. JoshCrow is right that I really wouldn't be happy at all with a Hitler statue, so I'm trying to distinguish here between what I would like and between recognizing that certain groups are sort of arbitrarily given preferential rights, in a sense. In terms of how intersectionality defines oppressed vs. oppressor, I certainly do think it's arbitrary and largely a function of current tastes in a select group that makes a lot of noise. So in a way it's worse, which is that a minority speaking on behalf of a majority unaffiliated with them, makes a lot of noise and gets its way.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on August 18, 2017, 09:45:25 AM
Quote
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A statue of the U.S. Supreme Court justice who wrote the 1857 Dred Scott decision that upheld slavery and denied citizenship to African Americans was removed from the grounds of the Maryland State House early Friday morning.

The statue of Roger B. Taney (TAW nee) was lifted away by a crane at about 2 a.m. It was lowered into a truck and driven away to storage. The bronze statue was erected in 1872, just outside the original front door of the State House.
2 AM. Gotta be sneaky it seems.

Quote
Abraham Lincoln has joined George Washington on the list of those targeted by Chicagoans in a national debate over Civil War-era monuments.

Alderman Raymond Lopez took to Facebook Wednesday night to decry a defaced statue of the nation’s 16th president in the Englewood neighborhood. The giant bust appears to have been damaged after someone in the 15th Ward sprayed and ignited a flammable liquid.

It doesn't seem to matter who or what, just get them statues down!

Quote
VICE Magazine Tweet Calls for Blowing Up Mount Rushmore

Probably gonna need a cannon for that one, how ISIS of them.

Quote
On Thursday, one liberal commentator veered off script and lent credibility to President Donald Trump’s warning that the anti-Confederate movement will not stop with southern Civil War generals like Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

“I don’t care if it’s a George Washington statue or a Thomas Jefferson statue, or a Robert E. Lee statue,” commentator Angela Rye said on CNN. “They all need to come down.”

They *all* need to come down. I don't know if "all" includes WW2 or viet nam memorials but when it's cultural genocide time I assume it's all on the table sooner or later.

When they go from confederate era statues to all statues, it's full on cultural genocide. Can anyone guess what culture is being targeted?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Wayward Son on August 18, 2017, 02:34:34 PM
I don't see why the statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and other Confederate generals and heroes shouldn't be treated like the monuments to Benedict Arnold. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument)

Praise them for the good they did for our country, but do not honor them for whatever treacherous acts they may have done against it (although teach people about what those acts were).

Seems fair to me. :)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on August 18, 2017, 04:09:44 PM
Quote
ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — A statue of the U.S. Supreme Court justice who wrote the 1857 Dred Scott decision that upheld slavery and denied citizenship to African Americans was removed from the grounds of the Maryland State House early Friday morning.

The statue of Roger B. Taney (TAW nee) was lifted away by a crane at about 2 a.m. It was lowered into a truck and driven away to storage. The bronze statue was erected in 1872, just outside the original front door of the State House.
2 AM. Gotta be sneaky it seems.

Quote
Abraham Lincoln has joined George Washington on the list of those targeted by Chicagoans in a national debate over Civil War-era monuments.

Alderman Raymond Lopez took to Facebook Wednesday night to decry a defaced statue of the nation’s 16th president in the Englewood neighborhood. The giant bust appears to have been damaged after someone in the 15th Ward sprayed and ignited a flammable liquid.

It doesn't seem to matter who or what, just get them statues down!

Quote
VICE Magazine Tweet Calls for Blowing Up Mount Rushmore

Probably gonna need a cannon for that one, how ISIS of them.

Quote
On Thursday, one liberal commentator veered off script and lent credibility to President Donald Trump’s warning that the anti-Confederate movement will not stop with southern Civil War generals like Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

“I don’t care if it’s a George Washington statue or a Thomas Jefferson statue, or a Robert E. Lee statue,” commentator Angela Rye said on CNN. “They all need to come down.”

They *all* need to come down. I don't know if "all" includes WW2 or viet nam memorials but when it's cultural genocide time I assume it's all on the table sooner or later.

When they go from confederate era statues to all statues, it's full on cultural genocide. Can anyone guess what culture is being targeted?

You have a valid argument that some of the people who are destroying Confederate icons, intend to use the momentum to go on to do some stuff that looks a lot like Isis. That is in fact a lot like Isis in substance. I've been talking about this for years on this forum about cultural genocide and what I call cultural nihilism.

Nevertheless, there are a number of very valid reasons II want federal and state government to put a tie arm's-length the host of quote-unquote memorials which are in fact propaganda and Misrepresentations of History
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on August 22, 2017, 09:09:54 AM
Let's take a look at Democrat icon Senator Robert Byrd:
Quote
Byrd became a recruiter and leader of his chapter. When it came time to elect the top officer (Exalted Cyclops) in the local Klan unit, Byrd won unanimously.
This was the 1940's, the KKK was a real threat and Byrd was a top leader, recruiting over 150 friends and other to join the Klan.
Quote
In December 1944, Byrd wrote to segregationist Mississippi Senator Theodore G. Bilbo:
Quote
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

Byrd was a member of the wing of the Democratic Party that opposed desegregation and civil rights and he personally logged 14 hours of the 83 day filibuster Democrats tried as the party opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Byrd personally opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

When it comes to racism and keeping black Americans down, there's no bigger example of it than Robert Byrd. He's a poster child for it. There may be people as racist as Byrd in the world but there aren't any that were more racist and fought more tirelessly and effectively in post reconstruction America to keep black people down.

Here's a list of places named after Byrd. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_places_named_after_Robert_Byrd). Literally dozens of them. There are multiple statues erected in his honor and bearing his likeness, including at the Virginia state capital and US capital.

When will these statues be removed, his name scrubbed from the buildings?


Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on August 22, 2017, 06:47:38 PM
Well, keep in mind, with this pursuit of purging all ties or "monuments to slavery" means we're going to need to completely remodel the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, numerous other Federal Buildings, and many Universities will likewise need to follow suit.

After all what is Greco-Roman but a celebration of Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece? Both civilizations made extensive use of slaves. This cannot be tolerated in this wonderful new world order that AntiFa is bringing about for us. I imagine this means that many ancient historians and philosophers will need to be "scrubbed from history" because of their ties to that despicable practice as well.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: D.W. on August 22, 2017, 08:28:06 PM
As someone in the architectural field, I support this petition.  :D
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on August 22, 2017, 10:43:20 PM
As someone in the architectural field, I support this petition.  :D

I'm all in favor of it if only because it brutally kills off "Greek life" on college campuses. :)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on August 23, 2017, 11:18:07 AM
I don't know how I feel about statues being taken down.  There are some good points being made here.  I do know that we should be talking about it and reaching a collective decision and not letting the most violent have their way. 

But can we all agree that this is a trend that has already gone too far?  I mean honestly, an Asian American sports broadcaster named, Robert Lee, being transferred by ESPN off of a football game because it involved UVA?  That's flat up stupid, racist and ridiculous.

I'd also like to see some explanation for calling confederate generals traitors.  It's my understanding, that at the time, the legitimate loyalty of most people living in what is now the United States of America was to their states not to the Union.  It's like calling Americans who support the United States over the UN traitors, or labeling Brits traitors for backing the UK over the EU.  It's bad conceit to apply labels that only make sense in a modern context to evaluate a historical decision.

And if we're going to tear down confederate statues, and any statute of slave owners, what about the statues and monuments to Union generals that deliberately committed what would be widely acknowledged as war crimes today?  Shouldn't their statues come down too?  Shouldn't the revolutionary war memorials come down over the treachery to their lawful - at the time - government in England?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on August 23, 2017, 11:28:51 AM
And if we're going to tear down confederate statues, and any statute of slave owners, what about the statues and monuments to Union generals that deliberately committed what would be widely acknowledged as war crimes today?  Shouldn't their statues come down too?  Shouldn't the revolutionary war memorials come down over the treachery to their lawful - at the time - government in England?

The Jefferson Memorial and monuments to George Washington have already been brought up as things that should be removed and/or changed, as both men are widely known to have owned slaves. I guess Washington DC and the State of Washington will need to start taking proposals for new names.  8)

I'm wondering when they're going to target Woodrow Wilson. He was a very prominent figure within the KKK and other white supremacy movements in his time. Almost a 100% certainty he was more racist than either Washington or Jefferson ever were, even in context, Wilson was "a very bad man." Well, I guess we can't be so certain about Washington, but I don't think Jefferson was particularly racist based on recollections of the few writings of his I've read or otherwise heard about--even with the fact that he owned slaves. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2017, 12:27:12 PM
Some university buildings named after Wilson have indeed come into question. They ended it with keeping the name, but removing more celebratory icons, like a mural depicting him having a great time throwing out a baseball at a Senators game.

This to me is an appropriate line. I don't think I'd much like to walk by a giant picture of a smiling racist on my way to class every day.

Nor is it a good idea to completely forget some of the positive things the man did. I think the general idea is to stop celebrating him as a hero.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: D.W. on August 23, 2017, 12:32:36 PM
Modern artist conspiracy fighting back against fascist budgetary cuts!
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on August 23, 2017, 12:42:24 PM
I wonder whether this will remain only about 'racists,' or whether it will come to include anyone seen as a 'fascist' or who did things some group disagrees with. Will liberal towns begin taking down monuments or photos of Republicans because of the evil things they believe, and likewise for the other side?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on August 23, 2017, 01:10:48 PM
I don't know how I feel about statues being taken down.  There are some good points being made here.  I do know that we should be talking about it and reaching a collective decision and not letting the most violent have their way. 

But can we all agree that this is a trend that has already gone too far?  I mean honestly, an Asian American sports broadcaster named, Robert Lee, being transferred by ESPN off of a football game because it involved UVA?  That's flat up stupid, racist and ridiculous.

I'd also like to see some explanation for calling confederate generals traitors.  It's my understanding, that at the time, the legitimate loyalty of most people living in what is now the United States of America was to their states not to the Union.  It's like calling Americans who support the United States over the UN traitors, or labeling Brits traitors for backing the UK over the EU.  It's bad conceit to apply labels that only make sense in a modern context to evaluate a historical decision.

And if we're going to tear down confederate statues, and any statute of slave owners, what about the statues and monuments to Union generals that deliberately committed what would be widely acknowledged as war crimes today?  Shouldn't their statues come down too?  Shouldn't the revolutionary war memorials come down over the treachery to their lawful - at the time - government in England?
Some of them were officers in the US army and swore an oath to the Union. For the rest, regardless of where their "legitimate" loyalty lay, they were still free and willing citizens of the United States when they took up arms against it. What do you call them if not traitors?

Americans are not citizens of the UN. The UK is following the rules and laws of the EU as they try to leave which can hardly be treachery.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on August 23, 2017, 01:12:23 PM
Nor is it a good idea to completely forget some of the positive things the man did. I think the general idea is to stop celebrating him as a hero.

Not sure there are legitimately more than a handful of people from history who are not racists, or otherwise guilty of an unacceptable intolerance.  Who'd be left?

Maybe, we could acknowledge that for many of these people good outweighed the bad and that they were products of a very different time.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2017, 02:50:03 PM
I think for me, it would be your position and your active discrimination, not racism. Of course, I've always though Jefferson was a plagiarist and a whiner, so I'm not sorry to see him go. :)

But there's a difference between Wilson actively supporting segregation while in a position of power to do it, or Byrd, and someone who was privately racist or who just didn't want black people in their country club.

I don't believe there's a slippery slope from Robert E. Lee to FDR, though one can easily make a case for him too.

Likewise, I don't believe that all the average riflemen in the Confederacy deserve to have a horse-collar of shame automatically placed about their necks.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: rightleft22 on August 23, 2017, 02:56:48 PM
Its all nuts
Apparently in Russia Stalin, the idea of Stalin, is becoming more and more popular.
Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on August 23, 2017, 04:36:56 PM
Some of them were officers in the US army and swore an oath to the Union. For the rest, regardless of where their "legitimate" loyalty lay, they were still free and willing citizens of the United States when they took up arms against it. What do you call them if not traitors?

Are you SURE about that? I'd put pretty good odds that Lee was "A General in the Army of the Commonwealth of Virginia" who happened to be part of a standing army "on loan" to the United States Government from said Commonwealth of Virginia. That the US Government in turn had placed him in command of other states beyond Virginia doesn't change that his commission was with the Commonwealth of Virginia, and not the Federal Government. But then, I haven't done an in depth dig on this, but I do know that Army units of the time were setup and structured along geographical lines, in wasn't until near the end of the Civil War that the Union started doing away with that practice IIRC.

So if my understanding is correct, and his Oath was to the Commonwealth of Virginia rather than the Union, how again, would he then be a traitor for siding with the State he swore an oath to?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on August 23, 2017, 04:49:23 PM
Apparently in Russia Stalin, the idea of Stalin, is becoming more and more popular.
Be careful what you wish for you just might get it.

Stalin was a "strong man" further, he was a "Strong man" who wasn't afraid to take action, going so far as to send millions of people off to gulags to suffer and die in obscurity without concern for how it looked. Something Putin and the Oligarchs in Russia today would love to be able to do.

I still wouldn't be surprised to discover that some of this AntiFa activity is actually being instigated by deep cover Russian operatives buried in various communist and socialistic front groups from the days of the goold ole USSR days. The chaos it could potentially unleash in the US is a win-win for Putin and company either way. If "the snowflakes" somehow win, the United States should emasculate its ability to project power abroad--and thus be unable to interfere in Russian expansionism. If "the snowflakes" simply creates mass choas within the US for a period, the US will be busy with "internal matters" for at least a few weeks, if not months or years, while they try to resolve the problems created. More importantly for Putin though in regards to AntiFa "snowflakes" creating a massive long-term (violent) disruption in the US is it potentially "poisons the well" in regards to entire swaths of "the agenda" such groups identify as being supporters of for years to come... Which translates into a United States that is much more Nationalistic in nature, and inclined to not give much of a ____ about how other nations bother with "internal problems"(specifically in regards to "social issues" which SJW and AntiFa is obsessive compulsive over) or "clear threats to national interests" that may lie outside their borders(again, potentially allowing for Russian expansionism to go unchecked by the US).
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on August 23, 2017, 04:52:36 PM
De Tocqueville speaks from an outsider's perspective, having spent years in America studying the system there, and describes the states as being a set of independent nations that have some areas of life governed at the Federal level but are otherwise in charge of themselves. It's hard for a modern American to think of their country in this way, and functionally it seems to not be so much the case any more. But back then (the 1830's and 40's) it seemed clear as day to him that the states weren't municipalities of a single nation but rather a series of nations that employed collective resources to certain specific ends such as national defence, diplomacy, etc. I'm not very knowledgeable in this area from an historical point of view but I've heard enough about that era to understand that the current notion that the U.S. is your country while a state is merely the place within it you happen to live wasn't at all the way things were understood at that time. Assuming this is correct, defending one's state against Federal encroachment could only be called treason by a revisionist definition of the word.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on August 23, 2017, 04:56:30 PM
Some of them were officers in the US army and swore an oath to the Union.  For the rest, regardless of where their "legitimate" loyalty lay, they were still free and willing citizens of the United States when they took up arms against it. What do you call them if not traitors?

It is my understanding that Lee had sworn such an oath.  However, you are looking at this through the modern interpretative lens, where we are citizens of the United States first and barely consider our State relevant.  Lee and the many others (likely even a majority), both North and South, would have seen themselves as citizens of their State first.  Their Citizenship in the US was derivative of their citizenship in their State and would not have survived their State's decision to secede.  This is directly parallel, to a citizen of the UK vis a vis the EU after the Brexit is complete.

In the circumstances of the day, it would have been treachery to remain in the Union when your citizenship was derivative of your state.  Breaching the oath is definitely an issue of honor, but in weighing breaching an oath versus treachery it's not clear that breach is not the better option.  Particularly, when, as with Lee, he openly resigned his commission and departed.

Quote
The UK is following the rules and laws of the EU as they try to leave which can hardly be treachery.

Yet, you seem not aware that the issue of whether it was legal to secede was unsettled at the time of the Civil War and it wasn't political agreement or legal arguments that finally decided the issue, it was force of arms.   Reasonable people did disagree as to whether secession was legal.

I mentioned the UN simply because its a clear example of an inter-governmental union of limited power.  At the time we're talking about, it wasn't clear that the Union was actually intended to be much stronger.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on August 23, 2017, 06:23:27 PM
From a source (I didn't spend time vetting it):

Quote
In 1836, he went to West Point, to become an Army officer. He graduated, twelfth in his class in 1840. The oath he swore went like this: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

This seems fairly unequivocal that he broke that particular oath. Whether he held more stock in any oath he made in Virginia is unclear.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on September 01, 2017, 08:33:32 AM
Here we go. (http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/31/splc-says-army-bases-are-confederate-monuments-that-need-to-come-down/)

Quote
The Southern Poverty Law Center has declared three of America’s largest Army bases Confederate monuments “with the potential to unleash more turmoil and bloodshed” if activists don’t “take down” the Army bases.
Nice, threats.

Quote
The SPLC included Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Bragg in North Carolina and Fort Benning in Georgia on a list of 1,500 “Confederate monuments” that the SPLC claims could inspire more violence like what happened in Charlottesville, Virginia last month. All three bases are named after Confederate military leaders.

Quote
Elementary and middle schools, local streets and even entire towns are included on the SPLC’s list of “Confederate monuments.”
What, you thought it was gonna be just a few statues? Silly, don't you know how thsee things work?

You should be asking, what's next? Once they've torn down the schools and wiped entire towns off the map, where's the next logical target?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 01, 2017, 08:57:25 AM
Crunch, I never questioned your assertion that the cultural left was going to try to go overboard just as Antifa defines fascism as anything right of Pol Pot.

But if I was willing to sponsor state sponsored revisionist lies as "culture", then how would I be any better than Antifa ?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 01, 2017, 09:16:16 AM
Seriati, even in 1860, reasonable people understood that conflicts over unsettled law could only be lawfully adjudicated through SCOTUS.  If secession had been lawful, firing on Ft Sumpter was still treason and rebellion. The North was in a holding pattern. The South was overrepresented in SCOTUS.  If the powers that be in the South honestly believed their position to be lawful, then why start shooting before SCOTUS could take the case?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 01, 2017, 09:25:58 AM
I don't see why the statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and other Confederate generals and heroes shouldn't be treated like the monuments to Benedict Arnold. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument)

Praise them for the good they did for our country, but do not honor them for whatever treacherous acts they may have done against it (although teach people about what those acts were).

Seems fair to me. :)

Did you not read your own link, or are you actually proposing that George Washington's face and name be stricken from his own monuments?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Wayward Son on September 01, 2017, 12:10:32 PM
Seriati, even in 1860, reasonable people understood that conflicts over unsettled law could only be lawfully adjudicated through SCOTUS.  If secession had been lawful, firing on Ft Sumpter was still treason and rebellion. The North was in a holding pattern. The South was overrepresented in SCOTUS.  If the powers that be in the South honestly believed their position to be lawful, then why start shooting before SCOTUS could take the case?

Pete's right.  Ft. Sumpter was attacked, which was an act of war.  The Confederate states then banded together, made incursions into the Union States, and fought Union troops.  They elected their own President and disowned the elected President.  These are acts of war.  Since they were part of the United States, that makes it treachery.

Although the individuals may have seen themselves as loyal to their respective states, they were warring against the United States and the federal government and thus were traitors to the U.S.A.

I don't see why the statues of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and other Confederate generals and heroes shouldn't be treated like the monuments to Benedict Arnold. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument)

Praise them for the good they did for our country, but do not honor them for whatever treacherous acts they may have done against it (although teach people about what those acts were).

Seems fair to me. :)

Did you not read your own link, or are you actually proposing that George Washington's face and name be stricken from his own monuments?


Pete, what are you talking about??  ???

I never mentioned Washington.  The article doesn't mention Washington.  I mentioned Confederate generals and (military) heroes, who fought against the United States in order to preserve slavery.  Who took up arms and killed people in order to break up the union and keep their slaves.

Washington never took up arms against the United States.  He did the opposite. 

Benedict Arnold fought with Washington for the United States.  He won several important battles.  One could easily argue that he did more for the United States than Lee did.

While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern.  I see no reason to keep these monuments because the Confederate States went to war against the United States to preserve slavery.  And for this, their generals and politicians are honored.  I see no reason they should be honored for these actions.

Hey, honor them for what they did for the United States in the locals where they did it.

But no more than Benedict Arnold is honored for his actions.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Gaoics79 on September 01, 2017, 12:58:20 PM
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Wayward Son on September 01, 2017, 01:38:56 PM
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.

I know, and it's sad.  I don't agree with that reasoning.

But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on September 01, 2017, 01:48:02 PM
But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.
And where does your outrage stop? What's your next target?

The selectiveness of the targets you want destroyed belies the phoniness of this effort.  Robert Byrd, literally as racist as they come, not a target. The Democrat party, home of the KKK and segregation for more than a generation, not a target. Planned Parenthood, founded by a eugenicist targeting blacks, not a target.

The reasoning for hopping on this bandwagon, is blatantly false. That much is obvious. Everyone knows it will not stop at statues. Where do you plan to go next?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Gaoics79 on September 01, 2017, 02:03:54 PM
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.

I know, and it's sad.  I don't agree with that reasoning.

But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.

I actually don't have a problem with taking down Confederate statues and agree with you they should be taken down - but not by mobs. I am worried that this sort of thing will be a flashhpoint for more violence. It mightf even be the shot in the arm the white supremacists need to revive their largely faded and marginalized movement. Start seeing videos of mobs of minorities tearing down statues of white people on the news and they might just get the "race war" they have been hankering for. Complete madness and totally predictable.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 01, 2017, 02:12:44 PM
The Nazis and White Supremacists don't seem to be reviving in the aftermath of Charlottesville. Given how tiny their presence was in Boston and the chatter about cancelled rallies, it seems like they're retreating.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on September 01, 2017, 02:31:22 PM
White supremacy is a canard, and sold by the news for cheap clicks. Mob justice is the danger of the future.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Wayward Son on September 01, 2017, 02:45:38 PM
But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.
And where does your outrage stop? What's your next target?

The selectiveness of the targets you want destroyed belies the phoniness of this effort.  Robert Byrd, literally as racist as they come, not a target. The Democrat party, home of the KKK and segregation for more than a generation, not a target. Planned Parenthood, founded by a eugenicist targeting blacks, not a target.

The reasoning for hopping on this bandwagon, is blatantly false. That much is obvious. Everyone knows it will not stop at statues. Where do you plan to go next?

And tell me, Crunch, where does your outrage begin?

Obviously not with slavery.  Obviously not with those who fought and died and killed to preserve the legal right to treat people like animals.  Obviously not with traitors to the United States, who fought with the duly elected government and tried to overthrow their laws and institutions with guns and cannons.

Because, after all, anyone who stands against the Confederacy and traitors is a "phony" and his reasons are "blatantly false."  They "obviously" have some secret purpose for it, other than the one they state and defend.

You don't like Senator Byrd.  You don't like the KKK.  You criticize anyone who doesn't immediately criticize Byrd and the Democrats at that time for their racist views.  Good.

But for some reason you think that is a requirement to criticize these statues of traitors?  That without criticizing Byrd and the old Democrats' support of the KKK, that no one has the right to criticize the ennoblement of those who fought for slavery?  Or that decrying these traitors can only mean that the person wants every person with the slightest bit of racism taken down?

Sorry, Crunch, I won't be your strawman.  There are legitimate reasons to take down Confederate war-hero statues that have nothing to do with thought-policing or looking through history with only the single lens of racism.  The fact that you can't or won't acknowledge that says more about you than anything about me.

You seem to be worried about the slippery slope of this, that if the statues are taken down, what else will go?  But what about the slippery slope that goes the other way?

Why aren't you worried about the racists in this country who will feel emboldened if they keep these statues?  Why are you worried what they will go after next?  Perhaps taking away more votes from blacks and minorities?  Making sure that whites will always have the power and advantages in this country?  Perhaps even making sure that only whites are allowed to live in this country?  Why aren't you worried about those things, too?

Or is it more important to you that the slope doesn't go one particular way?  That the slope in the other direction isn't so scary?

If idolizing Confederate war heroes doesn't outrage you, what racist action would it take to outrage you?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Wayward Son on September 01, 2017, 02:59:01 PM
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.

I know, and it's sad.  I don't agree with that reasoning.

But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.

I actually don't have a problem with taking down Confederate statues and agree with you they should be taken down - but not by mobs. I am worried that this sort of thing will be a flashhpoint for more violence. It mightf even be the shot in the arm the white supremacists need to revive their largely faded and marginalized movement. Start seeing videos of mobs of minorities tearing down statues of white people on the news and they might just get the "race war" they have been hankering for. Complete madness and totally predictable.

I agree that these statues should not be pulled down by mobs.  We have legal means to do so, with reviews and input from the community.  That is how it should be done, or not at all.

But it should be noted that the Confederate statue in Charlottesville was being taken down through the normal, legal means, with meeting and reviews and all the other niceties of our government system--precisely the way everyone wants it to be done.  But then a mob showed up, brandishing guns and shields and truncheons, trying to intimidate anyone who disagreed with them and decrying those they felt were less worthy than them.  One of them even decided to try to kill people over it, and succeeded. :(

Yes, a number of people have overreacted to them.  But remember that it is an overreaction.  The white nationalists have already threatened violence, and have killed far, far more people in the past couple of decades than any Anti-fas.  So while we should worry about violence from the mobs against these statues, they cannot be responsible for violence from the other side.  People are responsible for how they react.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on September 01, 2017, 03:27:59 PM
Seriati, even in 1860, reasonable people understood that conflicts over unsettled law could only be lawfully adjudicated through SCOTUS.

Pete, there is no legitimate merit to that argument.  If the states were States the act of succession terminated the SC authority to issue such a judgement.  The SC has not authority over sovereign entities other than the US.  In any event, it actually was an issue in dispute so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise to me, over a150 years later.

Quote
If secession had been lawful, firing on Ft Sumpter was still treason and rebellion.

It'd be neither.  It'd be an act of war.

Quote
The North was in a holding pattern. The South was overrepresented in SCOTUS.  If the powers that be in the South honestly believed their position to be lawful, then why start shooting before SCOTUS could take the case?

Again, if they believed their states retained sovereign status, as was asserted, no SCOTUS ruling would have been valid, in their favor or against.  effectively, they asserted sovereign immunity when they succeeded.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Wayward Son on September 01, 2017, 03:42:05 PM
Quote
Quote
If secession had been lawful, firing on Ft Sumpter was still treason and rebellion.

It'd be neither.  It'd be an act of war.

So the question is whether these "war heroes" are traitors to the U.S. or just enemies in a war with the U.S.

Neither sounds like a very good reason to put up statues of them. :D
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on September 01, 2017, 03:52:51 PM
effectively, they asserted sovereign immunity when they succeeded.

Or rather, when they did not.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 01, 2017, 04:43:35 PM
Seriati, even in 1860, reasonable people understood that conflicts over unsettled law could only be lawfully adjudicated through SCOTUS.  If secession had been lawful, firing on Ft Sumpter was still treason and rebellion. The North was in a holding pattern. The South was overrepresented in SCOTUS.  If the powers that be in the South honestly believed their position to be lawful, then why start shooting before SCOTUS could take the case?

Because politics rarely is completely rational, and more often then not, wars are fought for political rather than rational reasons.

They'd declared their independence. They viewed the continued presence of Union Troops on their "independent territory" to be "a hostile occupation," and the Union using the excuse of "Waiting for a legal resolution" was probably taken as their use of a delaying tactic to allow them time to fortify and prepare (their much larger population and industrial base) for war.

Having many of the best Generals in the US Army at the time also happening to hail from Confederate States just made it that much more important that they strike while they both held the tactical advantage and had the political will to pursue it in the aftermath of Lincoln's win. Before the Union had a chance to regroup, reorganize, and find some competent generals to command their forces.

But a lot of this still cycles back to how decentralized a lot of the decision making was for the Confederacy(at least early on), and South Carolina "Acted out of turn" as I'm fairly certain nobody "at the top" of military command for the Confederacy authorized opening fire on Fort Sumter. Either their own president, or the ranking members of their War Department(or whatever they called it). That was simply an over-eager and hot headed act on the part of a Southern Governor acting on his own authority as the civilian head of the Armies/Militias of South Carolina.

Realistically, I'm actually kind of halfway curious what would have happened if Jefferson Davis has responded to the firing on Ft Sumter by declaring the governor of South Carolina a traitor to the Confederacy and disavowed the actions he had undertaken. But not having actually looked at their Constitution, I don't know if he was actually prohibited from doing what he did. Certainly he was under the US Constitution--as arguably committing an act of war against "a foreign nation" falls under the exclusive purview of the Federal Government as it holds final authority on "foreign relations." But we're talking alternate history at that point. (Also fully acknowledging that the politics of the reality is that even if Davis could have done so, he probably would have faced his own internal revolt for throwing his fellow Confederate under the proverbial wagon in that case) (Buses having not yet been invented)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Gaoics79 on September 01, 2017, 04:47:34 PM
Quote
While some do want these monuments removed because Lee was a slave-owner, that's not my main concern. 

Yet it will be and is the concern of others who will shortly be calling for the tearing down of statues of others (including Washington) for slave owning and many lesser offenses. Guaranteed.

I know, and it's sad.  I don't agree with that reasoning.

But that doesn't mean the Confederate statues of traitors should stand, for the aforementioned reasons.

I actually don't have a problem with taking down Confederate statues and agree with you they should be taken down - but not by mobs. I am worried that this sort of thing will be a flashhpoint for more violence. It mightf even be the shot in the arm the white supremacists need to revive their largely faded and marginalized movement. Start seeing videos of mobs of minorities tearing down statues of white people on the news and they might just get the "race war" they have been hankering for. Complete madness and totally predictable.

I agree that these statues should not be pulled down by mobs.  We have legal means to do so, with reviews and input from the community.  That is how it should be done, or not at all.

But it should be noted that the Confederate statue in Charlottesville was being taken down through the normal, legal means, with meeting and reviews and all the other niceties of our government system--precisely the way everyone wants it to be done.  But then a mob showed up, brandishing guns and shields and truncheons, trying to intimidate anyone who disagreed with them and decrying those they felt were less worthy than them.  One of them even decided to try to kill people over it, and succeeded. :(

Yes, a number of people have overreacted to them.  But remember that it is an overreaction.  The white nationalists have already threatened violence, and have killed far, far more people in the past couple of decades than any Anti-fas.  So while we should worry about violence from the mobs against these statues, they cannot be responsible for violence from the other side.  People are responsible for how they react.

Not that I would be shocked if KKK members used intimidation but in this instance I'm going to request specifics about the acts of intimidation leading up to the confrontation with Antifa. In what way did they intimidate or attack others prior to being attacked themselves? And speaking of guns - how many shootings were there in Charlottsville anyway?

You keep bringing up the car attack but I have seen no scintilla of evidence that ehite supremacists have EVER used cars as a method of terror, let alone that this one man premeditated an "attack". Rather all evidence thus far points to it as an escalation of violence Antifa started.

It's not like they didn't have Nazi marches 30 yrs ago or that those guys were pacifists or something. Yet I cannot recall white supremacists rioting in my lifetime. Funny that, it took a bunch of black clad masked vigilantes with clubs and batons to bring out the ugly violence in Neo Nazi marchers. Who knew?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 01, 2017, 04:56:06 PM
So the question is whether these "war heroes" are traitors to the U.S. or just enemies in a war with the U.S.

Neither sounds like a very good reason to put up statues of them. :D

IIRC, most of those Generals had battle experience and had already acquitted themselves quite admirably in earlier wars prior to the Civil War. So for a number of them(Lee included), even ignoring what they did during the Civil War as Generals who arguably committed treason. They probably had sufficient "credentials" on their proverbial resume to warrant such monuments in their honor. Their fighting for the wrong side in the Civil War just makes it more ambiguous in a lot of ways. On the strong minus side, they arguably committed treason by remaining loyal to their home state rather than the Federal Government. On the plus side however, many of them continued to demonstrate tactical and strategic brilliance on the battlefield that is worthy of noting(as West Point and other military institutions still do) and even celebrating in terms of demonstrating brilliant and courageous thinking in adverse conditions. Albeit, thinking and courage demonstrated on behalf of "the wrong side."

And at that point, it's one of those things that something else has been lost in all of this current rhetoric. "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

At what point is Truman going to need to be scrubbed from history books because he nuked Japan twice? Maybe also scrub FDR as well since he authorized the Manhattan Project which culminated in that specific act.  Of course, if we're going to follow that chain backwards, that also means Einstein may need to be scrubbed as well, because he evidently wrote a letter to FDR strongly encouraging him to authorize research into the matter, so after a fashion, Einstein nuked Japan.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Wayward Son on September 01, 2017, 06:02:29 PM
So the question is whether these "war heroes" are traitors to the U.S. or just enemies in a war with the U.S.

Neither sounds like a very good reason to put up statues of them. :D

IIRC, most of those Generals had battle experience and had already acquitted themselves quite admirably in earlier wars prior to the Civil War. So for a number of them(Lee included), even ignoring what they did during the Civil War as Generals who arguably committed treason. They probably had sufficient "credentials" on their proverbial resume to warrant such monuments in their honor. Their fighting for the wrong side in the Civil War just makes it more ambiguous in a lot of ways. On the strong minus side, they arguably committed treason by remaining loyal to their home state rather than the Federal Government. On the plus side however, many of them continued to demonstrate tactical and strategic brilliance on the battlefield that is worthy of noting(as West Point and other military institutions still do) and even celebrating in terms of demonstrating brilliant and courageous thinking in adverse conditions. Albeit, thinking and courage demonstrated on behalf of "the wrong side."

Yes, those military men had prior experience, and did good things for our country.

But so did Benedict Arnold. :)

And how many of those monuments are for their achievements before the Civil War?  Are they wearing U.S. military uniforms?  Are they located at or near the locations of their achievements?  Do the plaques talk about their heroic efforts in defense of our country?  And if not, does everyone know what they were, so when they look upon the statue of Robert E. Lee, they think, "Ah, there is the mighty fighter in the Mexican-American war"?

Or are they reminders of the great things they did battling the United States of America?

Certainly they should be remembered.  The courage of the Confederate forces should not be forgotten, nor the blood and human misery of the conflict.  The brilliant tactics should be studied.  But to honor the men themselves, when their most notable accomplishments were to battle our nation in defense of slavery?  I think we can draw a pretty clear line there, don't you?

Quote
And at that point, it's one of those things that something else has been lost in all of this current rhetoric. "To err is human; to forgive, divine."

At what point is Truman going to need to be scrubbed from history books because he nuked Japan twice? Maybe also scrub FDR as well since he authorized the Manhattan Project which culminated in that specific act.  Of course, if we're going to follow that chain backwards, that also means Einstein may need to be scrubbed as well, because he evidently wrote a letter to FDR strongly encouraging him to authorize research into the matter, so after a fashion, Einstein nuked Japan.

Once again, we don't remember FDR primarily because he authorized the Manhattan Project.  We don't remember Truman primarily because he nuked Japan.  And the purpose of attacking Japan with nuclear bombs was to end the bloody war between us and them, hopefully saving lives, American and Japanese.  (IIRC, we were estimating over a million Japanese casualties if we invaded the islands.)

And these actions were taken in the defense of the country.

Compare that to the honored Confederate heroes.

What was Robert E. Lee's major accomplishment during his life?  Stonewall Jackson's?  Jefferson Davis'?  What do we remember these men for?

Yes, some will call for the removal of other monuments to other American heroes.  And I will question many of them.  Washington is not remembered primarily as a slave-holder.  Jefferson did not gain his fame defending slavery.  They are remembered for their service to our country.

But Robert E. Lee is not, just like Benedict Arnold.  Why should one be honored so much more than the other?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 01, 2017, 09:18:46 PM
Yes, those military men had prior experience, and did good things for our country.

But so did Benedict Arnold. :)

But even he does have a monument in his honor! :)

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/boot-monument

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 01, 2017, 09:41:59 PM
And how many of those monuments are for their achievements before the Civil War?  Are they wearing U.S. military uniforms?  Are they located at or near the locations of their achievements?  Do the plaques talk about their heroic efforts in defense of our country?  And if not, does everyone know what they were, so when they look upon the statue of Robert E. Lee, they think, "Ah, there is the mighty fighter in the Mexican-American war"?

I haven't researched it, so I can't say for certain, but I'd suspect the Forts that are there namesakes like pay homage to them because of the locations they're at. But that's just a guess. Can't speak as to which regalia they are wearing, as "back in the day" there may have been some significant back and forth as to which uniform they should wear, but if I had to make a guess, the decision was made to have them remain in Confederate garb, not so much because it was to honor the Confederacy. But because the Union Soldiers took exception to those men being memorialized as Union Soldiers when they did ultimately take up arms against their own brethren-in-arms.

Which gives some of those monuments perhaps a double-meaning, and which one you ascribe to it depends on which "side" you're viewing it from. From "The Union side" their being in Confederate Garb is an affirmation and constant reminder of their betrayal, while for "The Confederates" (who were the losing side) could pretty much view however they wished.

Basically from the Union side: "We had a disagreemet, we fought, we won, they lost, we got over it." Only now here we are some 150 years later and people want to dig it up all over again. If the surviving/still iving Union Soldiers, and still living freed slaves didn't take particular issue with those monuments when they went up, who are we to take issue with it now? They were the ones with the biggest axe to grind on the matter.

And I guess that's my biggest issue with the Army Base naming thing.  As old as some of those bases are, there were plenty of people around to object to the naming when it happened. That it didn't seem to materialize as far as I'm aware, speaks simply enough for me. Although I guess a quick Wiki lookup shows that Fort Bragg in North Carolina was established as "Camp Bragg" during World War 1, some 50 years after the Civil War, so the number of veterans still around would have already been in pronounced decline by then(although the last living Union Soldier died in the 1960's, IIRC).

Of note with Fort Bragg:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Bragg
Quote
Camp Bragg was established in 1918 as an artillery training ground. The Chief of Field Artillery, General William J. Snow, was seeking an area having suitable terrain, adequate water, rail facilities and a climate for year-round training, and he decided that the area now known as Fort Bragg met all of the desired criteria. Camp Bragg was named to honor a native North Carolinian, Braxton Bragg, who commanded Confederate States Army forces in the Civil War.

Of course, I guess we could drill into the history of General Snow to determine if he was a Yankee or if he hailed from Dixie. Oh wait, I just did (http://apps.westpointaog.org/Memorials/Article/3354/), he's a Yankee.
Quote
William Josiah Snow was born in W Brooklyn, N. Y., December 16, 1868, the son of William Dunham Snow and Mary Elizabeth Newell Snow. Both his parents were of pure Colonial New England ancestry.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on September 02, 2017, 03:54:08 AM
At what point is Truman going to need to be scrubbed from history books because he nuked Japan twice? Maybe also scrub FDR as well since he authorized the Manhattan Project which culminated in that specific act.  Of course, if we're going to follow that chain backwards, that also means Einstein may need to be scrubbed as well, because he evidently wrote a letter to FDR strongly encouraging him to authorize research into the matter, so after a fashion, Einstein nuked Japan.

I find it interesting that somehow there's a munging of "scrubbed from history" versus "given a place of honor". He can stay in the history books, but there should PROBABLY be a paragraph or footnote about deciding to drop another bomb on Nagasaki, and exploring the question of whether that was reprehensible or necessary?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DJQuag on September 02, 2017, 08:08:09 AM
+1.

Given the projections of casualties he was presented with, I can resentfully admit the Hiroshima bombing was justified. To show Japan just what we were capable of.

But...to repeat it three days later? Sorry, too extreme for me. At least give it a week or two for the reality of the situation to sink in. Japan wasn't a threat at that point; their fleets were defeated and they were pinned in their islands. There was no rush.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: yossarian22c on September 02, 2017, 10:34:35 AM
+1.

Given the projections of casualties he was presented with, I can resentfully admit the Hiroshima bombing was justified. To show Japan just what we were capable of.

But...to repeat it three days later? Sorry, too extreme for me. At least give it a week or two for the reality of the situation to sink in. Japan wasn't a threat at that point; their fleets were defeated and they were pinned in their islands. There was no rush.

The rush was to get Japan to surrender before Russia mobilized forces in the pacific and Japan ended up divided like Germany. Plus the generals who backed the Manhattan project had spent crazy amounts of money and resources on these weapons and were pushing hard for their use before the war ended so that the expense would be "justified."
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on September 02, 2017, 11:43:51 AM
The rush was to get Japan to surrender before Russia mobilized forces in the pacific and Japan ended up divided like Germany. Plus the generals who backed the Manhattan project had spent crazy amounts of money and resources on these weapons and were pushing hard for their use before the war ended so that the expense would be "justified."

That, and from what I've read it sounds like it was also about scaring the hell out of the Russians. Despite what is popularly claimed I've seen a source or two argue that Japan tried to surrender and it was rejected. The decision to bomb had nothing to do with them, they were just being made an example of.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 02, 2017, 12:47:44 PM
Here's another "crisis" that is generally manufactured and full of disingenuous intent. 

First, I don't believe that Southern Heritage or Culture is being destroyed by removing statues.  Culture is stronger than that.  Heritage is History and more resilient than statues.  I do believe this is simply a fever of iconoclasm.  The purpose is to destroy or remove from sight those symbols deemed hateful to a set of the populace.  In this way it pretty much is similar to what ISIS was doing, though probably less thorough.  Comparison of a single point doesn't really do much to conflate the removing of statues to ISIS, but it's food for thought and should bring to mind the roots and psychology of iconoclasm. 

I personally don't have a problem with a local population deciding to remove a statue of any kind because they no longer like it for whatever reason.  I do think that the proper way to do this is referendum rather than iconoclasm and rogue fundamentalists running around in mobs with torches, burning and tearing down and digging up graves.  It's basically another method of a group forcing their views through violence and criminal action. 

I think it's a manufactured issue because all this people, Lee and Forrest and Davis and whomever, have been dead for over 100 years and havn't hurt anybody or caused any mischief in just as long.  The problems with America, and the problems with racism and White Nationalism and Southern History and the Confederacy can not be fixed by tearing down a bunch of statues or renaming forts.  I don't think it's an attempt at solving these problems at all.  I think it's basically trolling.  In the days that the Civil Rights Movement made their greatest strides, and the greatest amount of influence and cultural change was effected, statues were not even on the menu.  30 years ago I don't think Jesse Jackson gave alot of thought to Confederate monuments and statues.  What changed? 

I think the entire thing is being pushed hardest by a young group of people who just want to fight somebody.  Racists and White Nationalists and Nazis are the present best targets, and they apparently love their Confederate Statues. 

I'm unconvinced by the arguments that the timing of the monuments and statues has any special significance in their meaning, or their actual symbolism.  Apparently, because a bunch of little old southern ladies who had brothers and fathers and uncles who died in the Civil War wanted to put up some statues during Jim Crowe, it means the statues themselves were all meant to be symbols of racism or Jim Crowe.  If this was the case, that the timing had some special significance, I'd like to know what particular time it would have been OK or better to put up a statue of Lee or a Confederate Monument between 1865 and 2017.  What period of time would it have not been a symbol of Jim Crowe and racism?  2008?  If this is the case, then are those Confederate statues who were put up in these other times OK to have?  We can keep them up because the little old ladies who paid to put them up at the time were not trying to defend Jim Crowe?  It's all a red herring.  It's meaningless. 

If the entire point is to destroy symbols of the Lost Cause or glorification of traitors and slavers, etc, then I'd not recommend going after statues.  I'd suggest they go after the real thing that fuels the ideas of good ole boys, the books and websites.  It should be an easy deal to remove all Lost Cause or pro-Lee biographies from all public libraries.  Have a nice bonfire with them.  Make the websites all illegal.  That should be real fun. 

My personal relationship with the Confederacy is generally indifferent.  I spent most of my time growing up in the South, a good portion of it as a military brat.  I've had enough experience with the good ole boys, particularly the ones between 16 and 25 years old.  There are still a couple of hangers on that you can run into, but mostly on social media.  There is plenty of soft racism to go around.  The wackos have been generally thrown out of polite and civil society, but they are indeed making a bit of a comback since they're getting so much attention, they have the internet now, and they want to be part of the great war on liberalism and MAGA! 

The majority of my ancestors were not around in 1860.  They were getting stepped on in Poland or Mexico.  I don't really have any dogs in the hunt.  I'm absolutely puzzled by those who seem to have so many that they are tearing around the Big Bottom with a pack of rabid hounds chasing Ole Ben.   The reason they hunted is because that is what they did.  That was their fun.  Ole Ben wasn't a threat to anybody except a couple of farmers with some dead pigs or cows.  He was the last great hunt, the last worthy foe, and I guess that's the role the White Nationalists and the Neo-Nazis play today.  Nobody can storm the beaches of Normandy or charge up the berm into the breach of Fort Wagner, so let's fight what we have:  David Duke and Richard Spencer. 

I can easily say that Slavery was a major cause of the Civil War.  I can say easily that slavery is evil.  My view of secession is rather less settled.  But I'm not a product of a cultural vacuum.  I'm an American who grew up in the 80s and 90s.  I'm partially a product of my time and environment.  I'd like to think that I'm not entirely without will or choice or responsibility in what I believe, but I cannot ignore that it's easier to sail with the current rather than against it.  I cannot ignore that I believe the vast majority of humanity really isn't terribly moral outside of their cultural matrix of beliefs. 

I don't know what I would have done if I had lived in 1860s Virginia, or South Carolina, as a white man.  I don't know what I would have done if I had lived in 1860s Vermont.  I know what I would have likely done had I lived there.  I'm not a moral relativist, but in order to be a moral objectivist, you need to believe in objective knowledge itself.  And if you believe in objective knowledge itself, you have to believe that morality IS a form of knowledge, and that it must be taught or discovered just as any other kind of knowledge.  While I can say without doubt that slavery is evil, and that political violence is evil, I have a harder time judging men and women from the past harshly.  It's easier to do on an individual basis, and there are exceptions. 

I enjoy the comparisons of Robert E Lee to Hitler.  Personally, if certain Germans wanted to keep statues of him around, I wouldn't have a stroke.  Napoleon wasn't exactly a great force of good in the Universe, but the French keep plenty of statues of him around.  Ditto for Genghis Khan.  Personally, I'd say that Hitler was a bit more of a pivitol figure in the Second World War, as compared to Robert E Lee.  I'm not sure if there would have been a WWII without Hitler.  I'm fairly certain there would have been a Civil War without Robert E Lee.  I'm fairly certain that genocide and invasions of conquest are worse than slavery and invasions meant to end wars.  I'm fairly certain that if Virginia did not secede, then Robert E Lee would have lead the US Army with great ability and would be a northern hero today rather than a goat.  If WWI did not happen, Hitler would have been a failed artist.  There is no WWII without Hitler and I doubt there would be a Hitler without WWII.  If Hitler had not existed, Germany would have likely gone socialist, or even communist, and the next great war in Europe would have been with the USSR and Germany as allies against France, GB, and possibly the United States.  It would have been a war that the west would have been hard pressed to win compared to WWII. 

Sure, Hitler was a product of his environment as well.  But I have no trouble judging him.  If I were a German in 1930s Germany, I seriously doubt I would have been Hitler.  I seriously doubt I would have been Robert E Lee either, but I probably would have been in an Army.  There are not a great many Hitlers and Napoleons in History.  There are plenty of Robert E Lees and Sam Watkins and Guderians and Mansteins and Rundstedts. 

At the end of the day, it's important to ask where these men went wrong.  Were they good, were they bad, wholely are partly, heaven or hell, what happened and why.  We should ask these questions so we know how to check ourselves, rather than check them.  Their time is gone.  Our own souls are of practical importance.  I think statues are an OK way to raise these questions, no matter the reason they were erected by little old ladies. 

Take down your statues, people.  But it isn't going to change the world.  It's not even going to change yourselves.  It's certainly not going to change Robert E Lee or history. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 02, 2017, 04:37:48 PM
Some good points, Grant, but ultimately I think that history is written and rewritten by the history writers.  Robert E Lee did change posthumously as the 1920s changed the story, and he can change again as the story changes. The trouble with history is that you don't always know whose story it is
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 02, 2017, 05:16:36 PM
Some good points, Grant, but ultimately I think that history is written and rewritten by the history writers.  Robert E Lee did change posthumously as the 1920s changed the story, and he can change again as the story changes. The trouble with history is that you don't always know whose story it is
Yeah, in some ways.  One of the sayings thrown around too often was always "history is written by the victors".  But if this is the case, it kinda weakens the arguments against the "Lost Cause". 

I think history is often used as a tool, and is too often a target of revisionism.  My feeling has always been that history is more complex then it is simple, and you need to weigh all the evidence you have, and note the evidence you don't have, which is often a great deal. 

This is difficult, because I'm all for using history and viewing history through a moral lens.  But the goal is not to condemn, but to learn lessons so as not to repeat them.  Black Hats and White Hats are for Westerns.  Lessons of mistakes to avoid are for good citizens. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 02, 2017, 07:07:56 PM
Further considerations on things: The better historical analogue for Robert E. Lee and a number of Confederate Generals would be Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, and General Erwin Rommel.

All of them were military leaders involved in leading and fighting wars they weren't exactly enthusiastic about prosecuting.

Jefferson Davis is another matter entirely, as "the political head" of the Confederacy, even if he may or may not have been in a position not much like the Emperor of Japan in some respects. Although my understanding is he'd be more in line with the Chancellor of Germany than the Emperor of Japan in many respects.

BUT also going back to comparing Robert E. Lee to Benedict Arnold. Another factor to consider on the "how's and why's" of the Civil War being treated differently than the Revolutionary War. Consider this aspect as well: The "Revolutionary War" or "The American War for Independence" has those titles rather than "The Colonial Civil War" for two reasons:
1) They won.
2) Their primary opponent was external to their borders, in the form of the British Empire.

Whereas the American Civil War from the Union Side:
1)  They won
2) Their primary(and only significant) opponent was internal to borders that existed circa 1860.
3) It was "further complicated" by having "Echoes of the revolution" in that the "traitors" were operating on (illegitimate--potentially ex post facto) authority granted to them by their respective (and collective) State Governments. Much like how the Revolutionary War was initiated and fought for many of the colonies. (Keeping in mind that "The Crown" would likewise say the colonies had no such authority to raise armies in revolt against the Crown)
4) The only side in the Civil War that viewed "the other side" as "a foreign power" during the War was, drumroll please, The Confederacy.

Generally speaking, High Treason, at least to the 19th century layman, would require betraying ones "own legitimate government to a foreign power." So thus, Benedict Arnold remains in a special class all by himself because he recognized the Authority of the Continental Congress, until he decided to turn around and join forces with the Crown(the foreign power) instead.  So you get into all kinds of legalistic fun and games from there.

Basically, while Lee and company can be viewed as traitors as they betrayed their oaths to the Union Army. They stop short of treason because they didn't betray the Union Army to "a foreign power." It also ironically means the only persons technically capable of committing Treason in that situation were the Confederates, and only if they decided to join on the side of the Union after having first fought on behalf of the Confederacy(and subsequently being captured/prosecuted by the Confederacy, as obviously the Union would have a differing view on that matter). Otherwise, they were simply guilty of Insurrection. So the BIG thing that separates the Confederate Generals and those who served under them from the people who defected to the British "Tory"/Loyalist side over the course of the Revolutionary War is the distinction between Insurrection/Rebellion and Treason which while being comparable, aren't quite the same thing.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 02, 2017, 08:04:13 PM
Agreed and well said on the victors bromide, Grant. I have yet to see a history written by the Huns or the Vandals.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 02, 2017, 08:15:06 PM
I hate Jeff Davis not so much for the co,federal but for the hypocrisy of his martial law and his shameless acceptance of surrender and pardon while continuing to see sedition and laying foundation of continued resistance after his war was lost.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 03, 2017, 01:53:32 AM
I hate Jeff Davis not so much for the co,federal but for the hypocrisy of his martial law and his shameless acceptance of surrender and pardon while continuing to see sedition and laying foundation of continued resistance after his war was lost.

As I said. "More in line with the Chancellor of Germany" (aka Hitler)

SOME of the Confederate Generals are almost sympathetic characters after a fashion, in that they basically were opting for "My state right or wrong." And the cause their state took up was the wrong side(in more ways than one). Those men (and women) are in a different category from the other group that were cheerleading the process from the word go.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on September 03, 2017, 01:54:57 PM
If England had won in 1776, I wonder if they'd have let people put up statues of Washington.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 03, 2017, 05:56:04 PM
If England had won in 1776, I wonder if they'd have let people put up statues of Washington.
http://www.pilgrimpath.net/?p=114
https://www.flickr.com/photos/26712426@N07/4568568399
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Oliver_Cromwell_outside_the_Palace_of_Westminster.jpg
https://www.garrymcgivern.com/files/statue-of-guy-fawkes-in-bridgwater/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/28/John_Frost_plaque.jpg/220px-John_Frost_plaque.jpg



https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/around-london/statues-6-american-presidents-london/


http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/52834
https://www.trulia.com/property/3270733766-296-Daniel-Shays-Hwy-Belchertown-MA-01007
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Brigham_Young_in_front_of_Provo_City_Library.jpg
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 03, 2017, 06:40:12 PM
I hate Jeff Davis not so much for the co,federal but for the hypocrisy of his martial law and his shameless acceptance of surrender and pardon while continuing to see sedition and laying foundation of continued resistance after his war was lost.

"Peace is the continuation of war by other means" - Hannah Arendt

I'd love an alternate history where the Confederacy lost.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 04, 2017, 02:45:13 AM
https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/around-london/statues-6-american-presidents-london/

So George Washington has a statue in London. Neat.


Quote
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/tip/52834
https://www.trulia.com/property/3270733766-296-Daniel-Shays-Hwy-Belchertown-MA-01007
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Statue_of_Brigham_Young_in_front_of_Provo_City_Library.jpg

Should we add the numerous monuments to indians who fought against(or were simply slaughtered by) the US Cavalry? Chief Joseph has stuff scattered across Washington, Idaho and Montana that I know of first hand. Although he was fleeing, not fighting(well, much).

Although I'm intrigued as to how Brigham Young made the list? I can see a case with regards to Joseph Smith(in particular as it regards the State of Missouri), but Brigham Young is a bit more of a stretch I think. Best you have with him is a specific "firebrand speech" that he quickly backed away from, and a very tenuous link to Mountain Meadows, neither of which have anything to do with his statue in Provo. That and MM doesn't cross into open rebellion against the Government.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 04, 2017, 07:52:32 AM

Although I'm intrigued as to how Brigham Young made the list?

I'm not trying to knock Brigham Young.  But I think he met several criteria during the Utah War.  Next to slavery, polygamy was the Republican Party's big goblin.  Plenty of bad press for the Mormons in the East led to Buchanan removing Young as governor of Utah Territory.  To effect this change, he sent the 2nd Cavalry Regiment, commanded by AS Johnson.  (Lee wasn't there because his father in law had died and he was the executor of the will.  This is where the controversy of his telling his father in law's slaves to work 5 more years before being freed, and whether or not this was actually his father in law's desire, comes from). 

Young did not know he had been removed as Governor, but heard that US troops were on the way to Utah.  Fearing persecution, Young called up the Mormon Militia, spoke round-about secession, and generally prepared to fight the US Army.  It never came down to heavy fighting, and everything was resolved, partly because the entire action was so unpopular.  Buchannan had declared the Mormons to be in rebellion, traitors, and seditious, but pardoned them all as long as they stopped. 

The Republican Party removed all mention of polygamy in their 1860 platform, due to the backlash the entire affair caused.  But in 1860 Lincoln signed an act that made polygamy a crime in the territories. He promised Young he would not enforce it, though Republican grass root rhetoric against polygamy continued.  Eventually, polygamy was made a felony, and by the 1880s polygamists were being put in federal prison.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 04, 2017, 07:59:53 AM
Should we add the numerous monuments to indians who fought against(or were simply slaughtered by) the US Cavalry? Chief Joseph has stuff scattered across Washington, Idaho and Montana that I know of first hand. Although he was fleeing, not fighting(well, much).

I'm unsure if Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, Geronimo, Black Hawk, etc etc, were ever US Citizens.  I'm pretty sure they were not.  Hence they could not be seen as rebels or traitors, but simply foreign enemies. 

We have plenty of statues and memorials to them, despite being enemies of the US, because they are now seen as being Americans.  All-one-tribe.  We named the fiercest Army helicopters after tribes like the Apache and Comanche, which the US fought against for years. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 04, 2017, 10:48:18 AM
Le sigh.

The Civil War, like most big history, becomes mythologized over time.  The Civil War is no different than the Trojan War in this respect, but it is amazing how quickly the mythologizing started.  It shouldn't really be that difficult to see though.  Look at Vietnam and the Gulf Wars and the War on Terror, and you can see how fast politics and justifications and accusations can grow and spin out of control. 

The main revisionist thread that everyone likes to talk about and pound on is the "Lost Cause" revisionism.  Lost Cause revisionism is generally the idea that slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War, but it has many other romantic aspects to it, such as the "why" and "how" the south lost, and enters into the morality of those fighting on the side of the south.  It's amazing how quickly the "Lost Cause" revisionism started, almost immediately after the war ended.  But there are certain aspects of it that are true. 

The idea that slavery had nothing to do with the war is ludicrous.  I've stated that already.  Without slavery, the war would not have occurred.  It is a root cause of many of the lesser causes, including states rights, though the ideas of states rights and slavery are separate constitutional issues.  Nevertheless, Alabama was not fighting for marijuana legalization or the death penalty. 

But the South was largely outnumbered and under equipped.  The defeat of the South had to do with material and tactical and strategic concerns rather than moral concerns.  I suppose it's possible God fought on the side of the Union, though I figure most liberals today would find this ridiculous.  It is one of those things that probably got the good ole boy's dander up.   

There was a great deal of bravery, fortitude, and craft exhibited by the Southerners during the war.  Even President Grant could admit as such.  This fortitude was given respect by those who understood it's meaning and power.  Regardless of the cause, enemies found virtue in each other, and gave respect when it was due. 

It's true that a great deal of the southern population probably didn't give a damn about slavery.  I could believe the vast majority of them were racist, but they still didn't care about slavery and probably would not have fought if it were their sole motivation.  I feel a great many of them fought because they felt it was their duty to the government of their state, which they saw as a higher authority than the federal government.  Even President Grant fought in the Mexican War, despite feeling it was an immoral war, because of duty. 

But in my opinion, the south were not the only ones guilty of revisionism, even immediately after the war.  To say that slavery was a cause of the war, or even THE cause of the war, is a different proposition than saying that the war was fought over slavery, or that it started over slavery, or that slavery was the PROXIMAL cause of the war. 

The lead up to the Civil War during the 50s was a political one.  It's no more different than people counting seats today.  The slave states were desperate to maintain a slim majority or at least equality in the US Senate.  The writing on the wall had been seen long ago that the House would be primarily northern and free state.  The Senate was the last place the slave states could oppose legislation freeing the slaves, which the abolitionists had fought for.

But the Kansas-Nebraska Act had basically upended the Compromise of 1850, and by the election of 1860, it was evident that the slave states had lost the Senate.  Their last refuge was the Presidency.  The Democratic Party, north and south, did not call for abolition, but the Republican Party had.  More specifically, the Republican party platform demanded the end of the growth of slavery into the territories.  No more slave states.  For the Republicans and abolitionists, it was a moral matter.  To the Southerners, it looked like a political move. 

The election of 1860 brought the first Republican President, in Abraham Lincoln.  The deck was stacked and the political battle was over.  Lincoln had not run on abolition, but had run on the end of the growth of slavery in the territories.  He had been able to defeat more radical abolitionists elements in the Republican Party at the convention of 1860.  Lincoln desired to enact legislation to free the slaves in the south, and to monetarily compensate their owners, but it was not something he was ready to start a war over.  Lincoln won the vast majority of the north, but not by huge margins, against the northern democrat, Stephen A Douglas, who had run on a compromise platform that did not emphasize the abolition of slavery.  If you cared about slavery, you voted Lincoln.  If you did not, or were concerned about southern secession and war, you voted for Douglas. 

Similarly, the chief opponent to Breckenridge in the south was Bell, who ran as a Constitutional Unionist, who were against secession.  The choice to the southern voters was "for secession" and "against secession, whatever happens to slavery".  Even Breckenridge advised against secession and was part of the "border state neutrality" group, which included the swing vote in Virginia.  Both Bell and Douglas gave Lincoln and Breckinridge a run for their money in the north and south. 

Lincoln won 40% of the popular vote.  But he won a vast amount of the electoral votes.  The southern voter might as well have stayed home.  The election was decided by Lincoln vs Douglas.  Lincoln wasn't even on the ballot in most slave states.  This doesn't really matter as much to those who look to the Constitution, but even today, the winning of the Presidency without a majority of the popular vote is quite controversial.  Cries of "Not My President" today should generally give you an idea of how Southerners saw President Lincoln. 

It was after the election of Lincoln that the slave states started calling conventions to secede. The proximal cause of the Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln, whom the southerners saw as illegitimate, and whom they hated because he was part of the Republican party which had begun adversarial politics against slavery.  This is no stranger to us today who see a growth of demonization in politics, and generally a very emotional backlash against it.  Part of the rationalization of the whole MAGA! movement is the idea that liberals and progressives have impugned the morality and character of those who were against same-sex marriage, gun control, illegal immigration, voter ID, etc.  The argument being that liberals and progressives were the enemy, plain and simple, because they had attacked the character of conservatives.  The same argument was made against the Republicans in 1860.  They attacked the character of southerners, hence they were the dastardly enemy.  This goes to a psychological cause of war. 

Lincoln tried to hold the thing together.  In his inaugural address, he expressed support for the Corwin Amendment.  Seeing the writing on the war, the House attempted to hold things together by passing an amendment to the Constitution that would have expressly protected slavery inside the slave states.  Lincoln seemed perfectly willing to keep slavery in the slave states to preserve the Union. 

It seems that slavery inside the slave states then was not threatened.  Only the growth of slavery in the territories.  But by this time, it didn't matter to the southerners, who had whipped themselves into a fury, getting their dander up.  Secessionist Conventions were called in the southern states.  The deep south started to secede.  The votes in the conventions were quite one sided, with the majority of the delegates voting for secession almost immediately.  There are questions as to who exactly got invited.  Some argue that non-secessionist southerners didn't even vote for delegates, because they saw the entire process as disloyal.  Hence the conventions were stacked with secessionists.  One by one, the southern states began to secede. 

The exception was Virginia.  There were three factions in the Virginia convention, each about 1/3 of the total.  First were the secessionists, who wanted Virginia in the Confederacy.  Second were the Unionists, who wanted to keep Virginia in the Union, Confederacy or no, slavery or no.  Most of these were from West Virginia.  The third faction, the swing faction, were those who wanted to stay in the Union, but desired to stay neutral in the fight between Lincoln and the Confederacy.  After Fort Sumpter fell in Charleston harbor, Lincoln called up the army and asked for Virginia to contribute.  This was too much for those who wanted to stay neutral in the coming war, so the swing faction voted to secede in the second convention.  It was the appearance of Lincoln as invader that turned Virginia to secession. 

This does not take away slavery as the root cause of the war, but it does mean that the causes of southern secession were complex.  I'm personally in favor of Mark Twain's take on the start of the war being too many Sir Walter Scott novels. 

Quote
Sir Walter had so large a hand in making Southern character, as it existed before the war, that he is in great measure responsible for the war.

Southerners had a distinct view of honor and morality, and it could not countenance attacks on their morality or the morality of their "peculiar institution".  Slavery was somewhat taken off the board by the Corwin Amendment.  All that remained was political power as assurance and their sense of being attacked by northern Republicans and abolitionists.  It's no different than Trumpists saying progressives and liberals are to blame for Trump because they were called racists.  It's all insane, illogical, and bereft or reason, but it's nevertheless their psychology. 

Slavery cannot stand alone as the reason because there were other options for everyone involved.  Lincoln and Congress attempted to put forward some of these options.  Secession could have been attempted non-violently and brought before the Supreme Court.  But that is not how southern honor demanded it be fought.  Hence the great flushing sound of the Union in a deluge of blood due to a great temper tantrum. 


President Grant himself writes in his memoirs about slavery being the great cause of the war.  I personally believe this is the second form of revisionism that we deal with.  I'm unsure if slavery as "the great cause" of the north appeared before or after the "Lost Cause" revisionism, but I know it started rather quickly. 

Why do I believe it is a type of revisionism?  Grant himself admits to being no abolitionist at the start of the war.  I don't think it is deniable that a great many northerners who fought for the Union were not abolitionists, or were in some cases only slightly less racist than their southern counterparts.  Lincoln himself sought to preserve the Union by constitutionally protecting slavery in the slave states.  So what was the cause, the root of this view of the war in the north? 

Nobody thought the war would be as bad as it was, as long as it was, as deadly as it was.  Only people like Sherman, who were seen as insane at the start of the war, believed it would be as bad as it was.  A total of 215,000 deaths were attributed to combat in the Civil War.  140,000 alone on the north.  Were you to line these men up, shoulder to shoulder, along the side of a road, 1 meter per body, the line of dead men would stretch for 155 miles.  87 if were are only counting northern deaths.  If you walked along the road to view all the bodies, and walked 25 miles a day, it would take you a week of walking to view all of the bodies.  7 days, nothing but dead men.    This does not count all of the deaths attributed to the war by sickness and other causes.  That would be roughly 750,000 dead and a line that stretched a bit over 450 miles long.  That's the distance between Boston and Washington DC.  If you took the blood of all the men killed in combat, at 5L per man, it would fill a pool slightly larger than 61 feet long, 61 feet wide, and 10 feet deep.   That doesn't count the blood of the wounded. 

If you had said the war would cost that much in 1861, you would have been locked up as a madman.  Nobody believed it would have been that bad except a few crackpots.  If you could have presented these 140K deaths to the north in 1861, I'm doubtful there would have been a great deal widespread support for the war.  As it was, the war was not hugely popular to some in the north.  But confronted with such a death toll, support for Lincoln would have probably evaporated in the north, slavery notwithstanding.  At the end of the day, a great deal men in New York really didn't care that much how many people a man in Charleston owned.  That's not a defense of slavery, it's a simple declaration of the degree of motivation of people to fight against it. 

How do you justify these deaths?  The mountain of casualties?  I hesitate to call it a river of blood, but certainly a stream of it.  Lincoln was under pressure from the start.   Only impending victory saved him in the election of 1864.  For Lincoln, it was the idea that the deaths had not been in vain.  It had not been for nothing, and the cause of those deaths, regardless of any personal motivations, was the cause of liberty and freedom and equality for all men.  Lincoln himself, so eloquently put in the Gettysburg Address, argued that those deaths had been in the cause of ending slavery.  Grant made the same argument. 

Regardless of how you view that argument, or how you view the motivations of the majority of northerners, I think you could admit that nothing but ending slavery could have justified such a sacrifice on the people of the United States.  Despite the fact that in 1861 a majority of the people in the north, and the government itself, including Lincoln, signaled a willingness to keep slavery in the slave states to preserve the Union, by 1863 ending slavery was the only cause that could justify the war.  What was a non-issue in 1861 to the majority, became the great crusade. 

I don't see how this could be surprising.  We see it today and see it throughout the history of the United States.  We hear about the evil of Nazi Germany and the Holocaust, but it wasn't the reason the United States entered war against Germany.  It was Germany who declared war against the United States first.  If Germany had not, it's possible the United States would have limited itself to war against Japan.  If not for Pearl Harbor, would the United States have entered at all?  Even if you had presented the evidence to the people of the United States, and the government, that the Nazis were industrially slaughtering the Jewish people (which actually did occur, but was not believed), I doubt a majority of Americans would have gone to war to save the Jewish people. 

That may sound like an indictment of the American people.  Maybe it is.  But it seems a historical fact.  America would not go to war to prevent genocides on several occasions.  In some occasions that it did, it failed because public support was limited.  Somalia, Cambodia, Syria, Ruwana.  All mass slaughters where the general feeling is that there is nothing to be done about it, or that the cost would be too high.  If tomorrow China started wholesale butchery of it's people, as it did during the Cultural Revolution, I doubt a war against China would begin, due to the perceived cost.  You could argue that a slave in Alabama is a lot closer to Chicago than a Cambodian in Phenom Penh, but I wonder.  It's possible that those who look askance on America being a world policeman have a distance factor, but I wonder. 

None of this is an argument that slavery was not a cause of the Civil War.  What it does is shed a light on the fact that a certain degree of revisionism was being perpetrated by both the north and the south after, and even during, the civil war.  Maybe it's not even revisionism, but a changing of minds and attitudes.  Maybe Lost Cause revisionism is actually a subtle indictment by southerners themselves that slavery was never a good thing to have defended.  It's possible that it's an admission that it was indeed a stain and evil.  The concern is that it is a whitewashing of history, to justify secession, but it doesn't seem to get very far.  Facing slavery was and is one of the challenges facing southerners.  Faulkner, now accused of being a Lost Causer, wrote reams on it. 

Honestly, if slavery is dropped as defensible by even the lost causers, then the victory of the north in the Civil War is complete, if it was indeed fought over slavery. 

The cause of war is a complex bit of historiography.  Why did WWI start?  An assassinated Arch-Duke?  The politics?  Failure of diplomacy and an inter-national entity?  Or was it simply that the machinery, once started, could not be stopped?  The cause of WWII?  Was it imperialism and the fight by nations over scarce resources?  Was it about power?  Was it about grievance?  Was it about Pearl Harbor? 

The American Civil War has descended and continues to descend into myth.  The history is all there, though.  But what happens often contradicts what people say.  History is people.  People have been and continue to be motivated primarily by their passions.  Passion over the great evil of slavery.  Passion over slight to character.  Passion over politics and justice.  You see it today, everywhere. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on September 04, 2017, 12:02:28 PM
That statue of Washington was put up in 1924, a gift from Virginia. You may recall that this was slightly after WW1, and England was probably feeling pretty favorable toward the US at that time. I also think you don't have a situation where English walk by and think about what a horrific person Washington was.

This situation is not at all equivalent to one in which the rebel was put down but has supporters in the area.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 04, 2017, 12:06:36 PM
But in 1860 Lincoln signed an act that made polygamy a crime in the territories.

This was in 1862, NOT 1860.  I knew this but typed it in wrong. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 04, 2017, 01:02:03 PM

This situation is not at all equivalent to one in which the rebel was put down but has supporters in the area.

It depends on what we are trying to equivocate it to. 

Was Washington a traitor to the crown?  To Great Britain?  Yes. 

Did Washington defend/fight for slavery?  Meh.  Not explicitly but roundabout. 

Was Washington a traitor who fought for slavery?  Meh.  His treason is not linked to slavery. 

Was Washington popular in England in 1789?  Ehhhh.  Certainly in some quarters.  Definitely not in others. 

Is Washington popular now in England?  Yes.  Why?  Change of opinion in what he did and fought for. 

Does Washington cause offense or bad feelings in Londoners?  Probably not, but there are probably one or two wackos. 


So what is the criteria for statue removal?  Treason?  Washington qualifies.  Holding slaves and fighting for slavery and being racist?  Qualifies if you really try hard.  Causing bad feelings?  No. 

So what we are left with is hurting feelings.  If such is the case, we need to ask why the upset over Lee and Davis and Forrest.  The answers usually bring us back to slavery and treason and the combination thereof. 

See, I find the "contiguous border" argument to be faulty.  Whether or not the colonies shared a land border with Britain in 1776 is meaningless.  The colonies were territory of the crown, and of Great Britain.  It would be like excusing treason in Alaska, or Hawaii, or the Marshall Islands because we did not share a land border with them.  This happened in Puerto Rico in 1950. 

There are plenty of people who wouldn't mind seeing Statues of Washington or Jefferson torn down, and colleges or roads renamed.  Some of them are the same people who want statues of Lee taken down.  You can make your reasoned arguments, but the people leading the charges here, on both sides, are not the reasonable ones.  It's all post hoc reasoning from the sidelines.  People want to support their team, because they're fighting the other team. 

In London, there have been calls for the removal of Nelson from Trafalgar Square because he was racist.  I hesitate to call him a white nationalist, because there generally wasn't such a term in the 1810s and 20s, but his views on slavery in the West Indies British Colonies are not PC to modern sensibilities.  You can't call Nelson a traitor.  He is one of the greatest heroes of British history.  But he defended slavery and was a racist, and that is enough to offend. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on September 04, 2017, 04:58:41 PM
I think the people get to decide what statues go up and which come down. If a sufficient number of people decide Washington is as undeserving as Lee to have a statue or a monument, then so be it. My only complaint is with the illegal destruction of these by a self appointed vigilante group.

I thought the Tubman $20 was a pretty good idea. In general, it would be nice to look objectively at those enshrined as embodying our finest ideals, and see if there isn't a more favorable role model.

Maybe John Adams and Thomas Paine should replace some of the Jefferson stuff.

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 04, 2017, 05:25:47 PM
I'm in favor of communities deciding to take down statues by referendum.  It's certainly a better idea than bands of iconoclasts and vandals taking them down in the dark of night.  But I'm warning people, that you're not going to like the results.  Monuments and statues become politics.  Who's in, who's out.  This year we have a Trumpist majority and we take down statues of Obama.  Next year we have a Progressive majority and we take down Jefferson or Reagan or Bush II.  Then Shelbyville gets pissed because Springfield has a statue of Jebediah Springfield, who once peed in the petunias of Elizabeth Shelby.  The people of Shelbyville create a state referrendum, and because there are more people in Shelbyville, the state takes down Jebediah's statue.  In response, Springfield burns Elizabeth Shelby in effigy.  Etc Etc Etc.  What was once the concern on the fringe combative elements of society now becomes the battleground for the everyday citizens. 

If we are going to enshrine our finest ideals, we should just go back to putting gods and goddesses on currency.  No human is perfect, and if we're looking to find fault, we'll find it eventually.  Liberty with her torch, and Justice with her scales, and Social Justice with hir shears, etc etc.  We'll have to ensure that all races and genders are equally represented as deities on the new currency.  This should keep the mint in business. 

I doubt Paine would be a favorite of conservatives.  Particularly religious ones. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on September 05, 2017, 10:40:41 AM
Enjoyed reading the write ups Grant.  Never had the time to really dig into the history myself.

I would note, the idea that history is written by the victors is questionable these days.  As a historical matter war tended to be much more brutal and final, and the aftermath ignored niceties like rights for any conquered peoples.  Today however, with our protections for civilians and desire to reintegrate the losers it's not true that the losing side isn't still around and free to write about it.  Heck, they are often encouraged to do so.

These days, it's fairer to say that History is written by the professors, and honestly they tend to have a unitary view of politics that is highly sympathetic to the losers, if not actively against the victors.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 05, 2017, 11:34:59 AM
Better that history is written by professors than poets or generals.

I think the profession of history as a whole is inclined towards people and subjects that have been left out of previous histories. So that tends to mean the losers and the oppressed. It probably bleeds over into recent events where there isn't a pre-existing history to revise or challenge.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on September 05, 2017, 12:15:11 PM
To be fair, it seems that history is written by...people who write history. That can be anyone, from a rigorous professor to a hack trying to sell textbooks. There's also a large disparity in the approach to content between someone, for example, who chairs a history department, versus someone teaching high school. The latter often teaches wrong information without remorse, and since classroom teaching isn't peer reviewed there's no cushion to correct that. So "history" is basically what people are exposed to or told, since few people will actually read academic papers to see what's on the cutting edge of the field.

In terms of the conversion about cultural heritage I think it's a different issue than the study of history itself. People with an agenda or a socio-political axe to grind are less concerned with historical accuracy as with spinning the past to suit their current convictions. Take Antifa, for instance, which is an extreme example of this. I doubt very much the people participating in their protests are interested in an objective study of the history of their flag, of violence, or of the strength of the freedom of expression. They think in terms of making gains in the here and now, and history to them is little more than a tool to prove they're justified in what they do. The same is doubtless true to varying degrees with both sides of the political spectrum in how history is used (or abused) in order to justify positions that are entrenched in the first place. It's not like these parties are looking to change their opinions and will bow to whatever a study of history would reveal to them. So I take the concern about history to be not which side is writing it, but which side is making use of it to their ends. It sadly comes down to marketing in large part. This may not be true of the purer arenas of academic study, but I wonder how much their work really impacts anyone other than their little circle.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 05, 2017, 12:22:45 PM
High School teaching can also be simplified to the point of error simply for convenience. It's not that they set out to teach things that are wrong but it's just easier to present a coherent narrative rather than explaining everything we don't know or are just inferring from sparse records. High school still tends to focus on political/military history which is easier to source from official records. Names and dates are easy to get right and lets you leave thornier issues for students who are more interested in history for it's own sake rather than ticking a box in diploma requirements.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on September 05, 2017, 12:45:19 PM
It's not that they set out to teach things that are wrong but it's just easier to present a coherent narrative rather than explaining everything we don't know or are just inferring from sparse records.

Yes and no. I doubt it's almost ever intentional. But the question is - is teaching simplified for the benefit of the student, or of the teacher? I've heard plenty of stories about high school teachers who are not even in the field they're teaching, to say nothing of being experts in it. I think most high school science teachers must have studied science and may have degrees ranging from bachelor's to doctorates. But in other subjects, at least in many schools, they'll assign teaching of subjects by people who are "professional teachers" rather than professionals in that subject who happen to have chosen teaching as their chosen vocation within that subject. There may be some benefit to this, since you want someone teaching who knows how to teach, even if they may not be a leader in some field, but when the subject happens to be one where there's a lot to get wrong it starts to be problematic to have random Joe's teaching a topic that should primary show how complex people can be, rather than how simple memorizing dates can be.

The question of teachers and vocation is kind of like politicians who are career politicians and may choose some subject to specialize in once their career is underway, but who don't otherwise hold some expertise in government such as political theory, economics, or philosophy. The closest thing we get to that with politicians is career politicians who were once lawyers.

So yeah, I have no problem arguing that many high school teachers don't know much more than what's found in the questionable textbook they're teaching from, and that they're certainly not qualified to be able to independently verify the accuracy of the content they're teaching. But this goes into a much larger issue I have with the profession of teaching in the first place, where I think society seems to be totally upside-down in terms of how the teaching of young people is handled. There's no immediate monetary benefit to it and therefore it's treated as being worthless by the system. This plays directly into how history is taught because, yes, things end up simplified in narrative just to grease the wheels and make everything easy.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 05, 2017, 12:56:11 PM
IRRC, Ontario requires a certain number of courses to be taken as part of a university degree in order for a teacher be allowed to list a subject as a teachable. I'm not sure how well that translates into what they end up teaching. Their main area of expertise is probably what they'd get hired for but I don't know how much weight schools give to a teacher's background when they someone to fill in for a less technical subject. I'm sure they'd prefer someone who'd taken a half-dozen English courses to teach English but if none of the potential teachers have English as a teachable I'm not sure how far they'd go to find someone with that specific expertise.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 05, 2017, 01:02:53 PM
Enjoyed reading the write ups Grant.  Never had the time to really dig into the history myself.

I would note, the idea that history is written by the victors is questionable these days.  As a historical matter war tended to be much more brutal and final, and the aftermath ignored niceties like rights for any conquered peoples.  Today however, with our protections for civilians and desire to reintegrate the losers it's not true that the losing side isn't still around and free to write about it.  Heck, they are often encouraged to do so.

These days, it's fairer to say that History is written by the professors, and honestly they tend to have a unitary view of politics that is highly sympathetic to the losers, if not actively against the victors.

I never liked the idea that history was written by the victors.  I thought it was myopic.  Sure, we have no Carthagenian historians, but we have plenty of historians from other losers. Also the implication that the victors skew the history to favor them is somewhat pessimistic. It's often true, but it ignores that the entire profession of historian, since Thucydides, has attempted the recording of objective facts, as best as possible. 

The problem that we have reached, and it's not exactly new, is when we move beyond history as reporting of facts and creating a great overall theory of history.  When you arrange the facts, look at the facts, and then come up with a theory as to what it all means.  It's the same in journalism.  It's the difference between news and punditry.  It's the creation of a narrative. 

It's not really new.  You could say that it started with the bible.  The bible presents the history of the Jews, and early Christians, as a narrative of God's interaction with the earth.   Plato and Aristotle arranged the history of government into a system of rise and decay.  It's more political science than history, but it relies on historical facts to support it.  Vicco was the great enlightenment historiographer who followed up with Aristotle's political rise and decay and divided civilizations into periods of rise and decay and saw history as a cyclical narrative.  Marx took Vicco's ideas and created a narrative of history that dealt with social struggle between those controlling capital and those who did not.  It was the Marxist view of history and sociology that have brought us to where we are today. 

While the Marxist view of social struggle is not exactly in vogue, the idea of creating these systems and narratives have become the crown jewel, and the lodestone of historical interpretation.  You have a narrative already built, and then you arrange the facts to support the narrative.  The problem is, that this is somewhat unscientific and can get you in trouble.  If you start with the conclusion, and work to arrange the facts to fit the narrative conclusion, you can almost do anything.  It brings confirmation bias into history.  Instead of looking at the facts and asking what they mean, you look at what you want them to mean, and try to arrange the facts to fit the narrative. 

It's not necessarily unscentific.  Every schoolthing knows that you start with a hypothesis and then start your experiments.  This gets science into just as much trouble though, when confirmation bias is at work.  When you loose objectivity, you can interpret things however you like.  Objectivity itself is under attack of course.  There is some validity to the idea that a human being can never be perfectly objective, but it sometimes seems to be taken to an extreme where you cannot be nearly objective, or as objective as you can be, or that objectivity is a pointless goal if it is impossible. 

So when history does not fit into the new narrative, or the chosen narrative, then it is declared anti-historical.  It's not attacked on the basis of the facts, but on the idea that the facts added together do not reach the correct sum.  These are the basis of the attacks on pro-capitalist history, Lost Cause history, etc etc.  To give an example, the above brief history of the origins and causes of the Civil War would be considered anti-historical and supporting Lost Cause history because it does not include several factors.  I make no mention of the trials and tribulations of slaves and the history of abolition in the United States, and I completely omit that one of the chief results of the Civil War, if not THE chief result of the war, is the freeing of the slaves in the American South.  That omission alone is enough to be called Lost Cause history, but if you add in the fact that the conclusions or the perceived conclusions that I present do not support that the South, or Southerners, were fighting for slavery, and that the North was fighting against it, is utterly damning. 

The idea is that my facts are not wrong, but by the omission of facts, the narrative and the history is wrong.  There is a good point to this.  If you only present the facts that you want in a case, you can more easily convict someone.  But in my opinion, the results of a war do not always point to the reasons why the war started, or the underlying causes.

 

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on September 05, 2017, 01:13:50 PM
While the Marxist view of social struggle is not exactly in vogue

Are you sure?   :-\
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 05, 2017, 01:23:20 PM
While the Marxist view of social struggle is not exactly in vogue

Are you sure?   :-\

As a school of history, Marxism is not popular. It requires too much meddling with the evidence for the model to remain coherent.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 05, 2017, 01:38:40 PM
While the Marxist view of social struggle is not exactly in vogue

Are you sure?   :-\

The conclusions of Marxism are not exactly popular, but it's easy to fall back on when faced with the problems of capitalism. 

What is in vogue is the core narrative of Marxism.  The narrative of the oppressor and victim.  Before Marx, history was about this culture or nation or civilization against that one.  The stronger one won because it was stronger.  Marx wiped this away and showed history as a struggle, not between this nation and that, but a history of the rich oppressing the poor.  Victimization history is very much in vogue, and is the bedrock of all kinds of Cultural Studies. 

This is not to say that many of the facts that Cultural Studies relies on are in themselves wrong, or that there is not some truth to their conclusions.  But the very concept of victim-hood is still rather new in the wide scheme of things, and very popular today.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on September 05, 2017, 02:29:35 PM
Grant that's a fair point about comfirmation bias in historical writing.  I think it's one that is especially of merit in how we view history as produced by US institutions.  PhD candidates generally have to produce a new contribution to the field to receive their degree.  Recompliing history to support current popular social theories is often both "groundbreaking" (as in new and novel) and preaching to the choir (as its confirming the bias of the professors). 

Dry history (just facts) and books in support of old conclusions are less likely to get published, and even less likely to be promoted.  The big money in history is from feeding a bias, whether it be to absolve a group (as it was in the past, where countries were ruled by autocrats), or to implicate a group (as it is now where identity politics is a dominant theme), it's still the same thing.  Historians pandering to someone by presenting a favorable narrative.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 05, 2017, 02:58:18 PM
Big money? History? Does not compute.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 05, 2017, 03:01:50 PM
Seriati,

I agree.  I think it's become easier for a lazy History PhD candidate to take old facts and re-arrange them to fit a new narrative rather than go out and find new facts and simply present them.  Historians probably see this as the job of journalism now. 

I don't want to poo on taking second looks at old facts, because it can sometimes lead to some good history.  But the idea having to constantly fit the current model is producing some cheap PhDs and bad history. 

Like you say, it's where the money is.  Same thing with punditry and journalism.  The big money is in telling the customer what to think about the facts, rather than just constantly giving facts.  I hate to poo on punditry as well, because sometimes it's good to have some educated interpretations.  But I feel there is a point where it becomes too much. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on September 05, 2017, 03:02:57 PM
It's more like any money.  But I tend to think of money as a proxy for other things.  It also applies to credibility and stature in the field, and overall view of whether someone is a leading figure.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 05, 2017, 03:06:05 PM
Big money? History? Does not compute.
Meh.  The big money in history books seems to be in military history that really doesn't deal with socio-political narrative, so maybe that's incorrect. 

A better point would be big prestige.  A good look at the nominees and winners of the Pulitzer Prize for History would probaby be a better place to look than the best seller's list.  A second point would be that the best sellers in History are often not by PhDs in History. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 05, 2017, 03:09:04 PM
It's more like any money.  But I tend to think of money as a proxy for other things.  It also applies to credibility and stature in the field, and overall view of whether someone is a leading figure.

Any money. Ha! I've heard it said that academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on September 05, 2017, 03:48:33 PM
This is not to say that many of the facts that Cultural Studies relies on are in themselves wrong, or that there is not some truth to their conclusions.  But the very concept of victim-hood is still rather new in the wide scheme of things, and very popular today.

Victimhood is a cultural outgrowth (I think) of a few things, one of which is cultural Marxism, and another of which is relativism. I don't think it's all that new - Nietzsche spoke of it at length as having been in development for a long time - but it's new that it's being accepted as a popular religion.

But what I was referring to, which you touched upon, was Marxist theory in terms of classifying social relationships as being drawn on an axis of power dynamics, and moreover, as calling for and/or predicting the oppressed class along that axis will rise up and overthrow the oppressor. This last point is critical, because there are many movements that have had as their mission statement to help the oppressed throw off their yoke, but Marxist theory in particular involves doing so by force, with the implicit proviso that there is justification for aggression when an oppressive force is being overthrown. If life was a comic book that theory might not sound so bad, but in practice it has all kinds of implications, which as we see, include even language being overthrown by force in some instances.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 05, 2017, 04:32:30 PM

But what I was referring to, which you touched upon, was Marxist theory in terms of classifying social relationships as being drawn on an axis of power dynamics, and moreover, as calling for and/or predicting the oppressed class along that axis will rise up and overthrow the oppressor.

I'm unsure if Marx was the first one to focus on class struggle and political violence within polities.  The histories of ancient Greece and Rome were full of such focus on class struggle.  The history of Athens up to the Macedonian Conquest was 50% the story of internal struggle between the classes of Attica.  The dirt poor vs the landed aristocracy.  Plato and Aristotle's theory of political decay and rebirth were all about revolution and class struggle and political violence. 

The history of Republican Rome up to the Empire was one long story of class struggle between the Plebs and the Patricians.  The political violence was startling.  When the Romans were not killing everyone around them they were rioting in the city. 

It was the rise of the Monarchies and the alliance with the clergy that put a halt to the social struggle during the Medieval period.  The American Revolution was not couched in terms of social class struggle, but there were glimmers of it.  The French Revolution played it more heavily and it devolved into The Terror. 

It wasn't so much that social class struggle was new in history, but that Marx was the first to call it the goal, and the natural evolution, and the good, that the proles defeat the capitalists.  He simply took Western European revolutionary theory and applied it to social class in a way that also undercut the foundations of revolutionary theory. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2017, 07:53:37 PM
I would note, the idea that history is written by the victors is questionable these days.  As a historical matter war tended to be much more brutal and final, and the aftermath ignored niceties like rights for any conquered peoples.  Today however, with our protections for civilians and desire to reintegrate the losers it's not true that the losing side isn't still around and free to write about it.  Heck, they are often encouraged to do so.

Pretty much this. The maxim works "well enough" for more distant historical references, but for more modern applications, the story is wildly different.

Absent a literate populace and thus the ability to create an abundant written record of sufficient quantity(or quality) that "a significant portion" survives centuries later is a major contributor. Nearly all of the "lost history" is pretty much the result of it failing to find its way into the written record, and that applies for conquerors and conquered alike. It also can be demonstrated to lesser degrees in respect to our own society going from century to century. Where certain things simply seem to disappear/"get lost" over time because the writers of those eras considered those matters to be so inconsequential, trivial, or just so basic that they didn't think it warranted direct mention. 

So in that regard, the more modern iteration would probably be more along the lines of:

1) If is doesn't leave behind physical(or virtual on a physical medium) evidence which can be examined later its "historical merits" are dubious at best.
2) If nobody bothers to write about it, and/or no written record can be found or it, "it" will likely "disappear into the mists of time" if the chance presents itself.

Which gets back to that older maxim about the victors writing the history. It's true enough, when the victor tears down the monuments of the conquered, bans or otherwise goes about destroying the culture/language/history of the conquered peoples, doubly so if they only have oral traditions to start with. (That doesn't mean they'll get everything, but they'll likely destroy enough of it that "significant holes" will exist for the rest of time when it comes to that particular society.)

But otherwise, it pretty much isn't that "the victors" write the histories, but rather, that writers write the history books, and at many points throughout history, the victors either were very particular about what the writers wrote... Or the writers in question were among the victors. (And that the literate among their opposites were likely killed, as they were likely senior/important persons in "the old order")
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2017, 08:09:13 PM
To be fair, it seems that history is written by...people who write history. That can be anyone, from a rigorous professor to a hack trying to sell textbooks.


snipping there
Quote
In terms of the conversion about cultural heritage I think it's a different issue than the study of history itself.

Generally speaking, historians aren't just studying history in general, they're looking for certain things in relation to that history. It also cycles back to my previous post where I basically said "History is written by writers" rather than by Historians. If you look at the modern practice of historical research, it's amazing what they're often looking at. Their first resource of choice, when available isn't the historian alive in that era(although they're a good reference point, although Newpapers are generally better, although editorial bias is a concern there as well), but diaries/journals/memoirs, or even better, contemporary art and literature, as bizarre as that can get. Mark Twain and Charles Dickens are decent examples to some degree with regards to the 19th Century.

They didn't set out to write a history of the 19th century history, in fact, much of what they wrote is rather ahistorical(seeing as it is mostly fiction). But you still cycle around to the matter that fiction has to be grounded in reality, so for a book to do well in the 19th Century, even if it was a work of fiction, it had to be "Grounded in the reality" of the 19th Century, so those works help provide insights into things happening in the time period you may not necessarily pick up on from checking news reports of the era, or various other "more reliable primary sources."

Kind of leaves you to wonder what "fun" a historian could have with some of OSC's stuff in about 100 years. While Ender's Game probably doesn't yield particularly well to historical lensing, the Shadow subset probably does, as do a number of OSC's newer works in particular, although a few of his older works reflect their respective (general--given time lags in writing/editing/publication) year of publican as well.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2017, 08:14:16 PM
Big money? History? Does not compute.

Alt-History seems to do decently for a number of people.

Harry Turtledove anyone?

(For that matter OSC's Seventh Son technically qualifies in that niche, it just also slightly predates it as a recognized genre IIRC.)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2017, 08:23:29 PM
Seriati,

I agree.  I think it's become easier for a lazy History PhD candidate to take old facts and re-arrange them to fit a new narrative rather than go out and find new facts and simply present them.  Historians probably see this as the job of journalism now. 

I don't want to poo on taking second looks at old facts, because it can sometimes lead to some good history.  But the idea having to constantly fit the current model is producing some cheap PhDs and bad history.

Uh, Victorian England wasn't exactly a pinnacle of "good history" production either, and England wasn't particularly unique in its abuses, although it probably was one of the larger abusers(alongside France). As a LOT of the historical research going on in various corners relies on a "patronage system" of sorts, a lot of people in that field will tend to "follow the money" (Much as is the alleged claim regarding Climate Scientists, the money is "in finding further proof" of Climate Change because you're just asking to sink your career prospects and blacklisting if you actually manage to get funded and produce research that contradicts the party line) and pursue lines of research that were considered "Fashionable" among the types of people who were willing to shell out money to fund such undertakings.

Which basically in that era meant churning out stuff that demonstrated the moral failings of whatever society you were investigating, and providing further basis to bolster the "Historical standing" of your own nation/patrons in relation to it. Although if you were clever, you could walk the line on being controversial, as that could let you hit it big on the social circuit as well, you just have to be careful about what your "controversial topic" is or risk being blacklisted rather than hotlisted.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 05, 2017, 08:31:45 PM
It was the rise of the Monarchies and the alliance with the clergy that put a halt to the social struggle during the Medieval period.  The American Revolution was not couched in terms of social class struggle, but there were glimmers of it.  The French Revolution played it more heavily and it devolved into The Terror.

The American Revolution had very faint glimmers of Class Struggle going on (mostly in regards to the bickering over slavery), considering that a number of very prominent men at the time on the revolutionary side of things were in the "Self-made man" category. They didn't come from old money, in some cases, they didn't even come from their parents money. They made themselves what they were. In that kind of environment, Class-Struggle is pretty much a non-factor, as Class-Struggle only becomes "a problem" when the members of the lower class determine(by whatever means) that whatever their lot in life is, that's probably the best they're ever going to get. For the US, it's only really been in this past century where we've really run into that "(social) mobility wall" where Class Struggle can really try to set some solid roots down. "Black America" in particular being fertile soil due a large number of factors, including their comparative "late start" into social integration due to Slavery followed by Jim Crow laws shortly thereafter.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on September 06, 2017, 09:52:39 AM
Pretty much this. The maxim works "well enough" for more distant historical references, but for more modern applications, the story is wildly different.

Absent a literate populace and thus the ability to create an abundant written record of sufficient quantity(or quality) that "a significant portion" survives centuries later is a major contributor. Nearly all of the "lost history" is pretty much the result of it failing to find its way into the written record, and that applies for conquerors and conquered alike. It also can be demonstrated to lesser degrees in respect to our own society going from century to century. Where certain things simply seem to disappear/"get lost" over time because the writers of those eras considered those matters to be so inconsequential, trivial, or just so basic that they didn't think it warranted direct mention. 

So in that regard, the more modern iteration would probably be more along the lines of:

1) If is doesn't leave behind physical(or virtual on a physical medium) evidence which can be examined later its "historical merits" are dubious at best.
2) If nobody bothers to write about it, and/or no written record can be found or it, "it" will likely "disappear into the mists of time" if the chance presents itself.

Which gets back to that older maxim about the victors writing the history. It's true enough, when the victor tears down the monuments of the conquered, bans or otherwise goes about destroying the culture/language/history of the conquered peoples, doubly so if they only have oral traditions to start with. (That doesn't mean they'll get everything, but they'll likely destroy enough of it that "significant holes" will exist for the rest of time when it comes to that particular society.)

But otherwise, it pretty much isn't that "the victors" write the histories, but rather, that writers write the history books, and at many points throughout history, the victors either were very particular about what the writers wrote... Or the writers in question were among the victors. (And that the literate among their opposites were likely killed, as they were likely senior/important persons in "the old order")

The reason Athens features so prominently in Classical history is because they wrote a lot. History as a subject essentially requires writing. The more recent past can be accessed through oral history but that introduces a whole different set of issues.

Quote
Uh, Victorian England wasn't exactly a pinnacle of "good history" production either, and England wasn't particularly unique in its abuses, although it probably was one of the larger abusers(alongside France). As a LOT of the historical research going on in various corners relies on a "patronage system" of sorts, a lot of people in that field will tend to "follow the money" (Much as is the alleged claim regarding Climate Scientists, the money is "in finding further proof" of Climate Change because you're just asking to sink your career prospects and blacklisting if you actually manage to get funded and produce research that contradicts the party line) and pursue lines of research that were considered "Fashionable" among the types of people who were willing to shell out money to fund such undertakings.

Which basically in that era meant churning out stuff that demonstrated the moral failings of whatever society you were investigating, and providing further basis to bolster the "Historical standing" of your own nation/patrons in relation to it. Although if you were clever, you could walk the line on being controversial, as that could let you hit it big on the social circuit as well, you just have to be careful about what your "controversial topic" is or risk being blacklisted rather than hotlisted.

My approach to secondary sources was to assume that anything written before the 60s or 70s was good only for basic facts. They're just so bad at separating out what they think should be true from what the evidence supports. It might also be that I'm lazy and it's easier to chuck out anything over a certain age.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 06, 2017, 10:46:27 AM
Quote
The reason Athens features so prominently in Classical history is because they wrote a lot.

I think the translation problem features as well.  Everything the Greeks wrote was translated into Latin.  Knowing Greek was actually a sign of an educated Roman.  Everything the Romans wrote in Latin was available to the clergy and educated Europeans during the Medieval period and Renaissance because of the Church and later the Universities, which still spoke and taught Latin. 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on September 07, 2017, 12:20:29 AM
The American Revolution had very faint glimmers of Class Struggle going on (mostly in regards to the bickering over slavery), considering that a number of very prominent men at the time on the revolutionary side of things were in the "Self-made man" category.

You're going to have to walk me through this one.  I don't see anything faint about the class struggle here.  You have a country of people fleeing the oppression of a landed aristocracy later rising up in revolt against a king and a class of overlords entitled by birth, with the majority of those rising up having built their influence through merit.  When they do create a country they expressly forbid the establishment of an aristocracy or nobility.  Seems pretty literally a class struggle, money isn't the only way to divide classes.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 07, 2017, 12:32:07 AM
The American Revolution had very faint glimmers of Class Struggle going on (mostly in regards to the bickering over slavery), considering that a number of very prominent men at the time on the revolutionary side of things were in the "Self-made man" category.

You're going to have to walk me through this one.  I don't see anything faint about the class struggle here.  You have a country of people fleeing the oppression of a landed aristocracy later rising up in revolt against a king and a class of overlords entitled by birth, with the majority of those rising up having built their influence through merit.  When they do create a country they expressly forbid the establishment of an aristocracy or nobility.  Seems pretty literally a class struggle, money isn't the only way to divide classes.

I didn't define that as "a class struggle" because by and large, the aristocracy they fought against was "over there" (in Britain) and largely a non-factor on what became American soil, with very few exceptions. The colonials only had to deal with the agents, not the aristocracy itself. (Yes, I realize the Senior Officers in the British Army were mostly aristocrats themselves, but they were not operating under their own respective authority. They worked on behalf of the Crown itself.)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Grant on September 07, 2017, 08:04:27 AM

You're going to have to walk me through this one.  I don't see anything faint about the class struggle here.  You have a country of people fleeing the oppression of a landed aristocracy later rising up in revolt against a king and a class of overlords entitled by birth, with the majority of those rising up having built their influence through merit.  When they do create a country they expressly forbid the establishment of an aristocracy or nobility.  Seems pretty literally a class struggle, money isn't the only way to divide classes.

The reason I agree more with Deamon is that the Revolution was never couched, at least originally, as a class struggle.  There is not a single mention of "Monarchy" in the Declaration of Independence.  There is only a single mention of "King", singular, but the meat of the Declaration is a list of the King's crimes against the rights of Americans.  So the origins of the Revolution were couched against a singular bad King. A tyrant.  The war was not necessarily against Monarchy or the Nobility.  Some Americans figured that at the end of the tunnel, America would have a Monarchy or a nobility as well.  It was what they knew and it was a proven form of government. 

The end result of the Revolution was to create a form of government that eschewed Monarchy, and that somewhat changed the view of the Revolution as a kind of class struggle, against a particular class that monopolized political power.  You saw this more readily in the support of the Democratic Republicans for the French Revolution, which was indeed couched as a class struggle between the entire Nobility and those without political power.  The results of the French Revolution somewhat doused the flames of class struggle in America. 

So the Revolution was presented as a fight against a particular individual, the King, and his cronies.  A fight against a single individual doesn't really count as "class struggle".  Even after, the enemy was a particular form of Government, Monarchy, rather than an entire class of people, the nobility.  This is somewhat the difference between American Socialists attacking Capitalism as an economic system, and American Socialists/Communists who attack the capitalist class itself.  It's the difference between saying "Capitalism is a bad system of economics", and "capitalists are oppressors". 

The reasons it was different in America than in France are myriad.  First, the King of England really didn't have the same kind of political power that the King of France had.  Call him a tyrant, but the government and the war was run by Lord North, and the Acts that inflamed American passions were passed by Parliament. 

Second, the nobility as a whole were not couched as enemies, because in many cases there were friends to the American nation within the nobility.  The Whigs were a strong faction within the House of Lords, and one should recall names like Pitt the Elder, Earl of Chatham.  There was also the idea that the British nobility were often the best business partners for the American mercantile interests.  These mercantile interests were seen in the formation of the Federalist Party in America, which kept at arms length the obvious class struggle elements that came out during the French Revolution, in opposition to the Democratic Republicans attraction to it.  Hamilton vs Jefferson. 

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 16, 2017, 09:09:30 PM
Seriati, even in 1860, reasonable people understood that conflicts over unsettled law could only be lawfully adjudicated through SCOTUS.

Pete, there is no legitimate merit to that argument.  If the states were States the act of succession terminated the SC authority to issue such a judgement.  The SC has not authority over sovereign entities other than the US.

You just begged the question.  Your question assumes that the Confederacy was a sovereign entity, and that's a question of interpretation.  You can interpret through the courts, or through military force of arms.  I also note as a point of history that the war didn't end until Sherman took the fight to the Southern Aristocracy.

Quote
In any event, it actually was an issue in dispute so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise to me, over a150 years later.


I made no such claim.  Are you claiming that there's no precedent for a sovereign entity to sue the federal government in federal courts?  The South didn't have to acknowledge the court's authority over it in order to recognize that the federal courts did still hold jurisdiction over the rest of the Union.  If they were men of honor or peace, the would have sued in federal court for enforcement of their interpretation, rather than opening fire at Fort Sumpter.

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 16, 2017, 09:13:04 PM
The American Revolution had very faint glimmers of Class Struggle going on (mostly in regards to the bickering over slavery), considering that a number of very prominent men at the time on the revolutionary side of things were in the "Self-made man" category.

You're going to have to walk me through this one.  I don't see anything faint about the class struggle here.  You have a country of people fleeing the oppression of a landed aristocracy later rising up in revolt against a king and a class of overlords entitled by birth, with the majority of those rising up having built their influence through merit.  When they do create a country they expressly forbid the establishment of an aristocracy or nobility.  Seems pretty literally a class struggle, money isn't the only way to divide classes.

Where did they forbid the establishment of an aristocracy?

On the contrary, they merely forbade the federal government from establishing such.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 17, 2017, 12:10:28 AM
Seriati, even in 1860, reasonable people understood that conflicts over unsettled law could only be lawfully adjudicated through SCOTUS.

Pete, there is no legitimate merit to that argument.  If the states were States the act of succession terminated the SC authority to issue such a judgement.  The SC has not authority over sovereign entities other than the US.

You just begged the question.  Your question assumes that the Confederacy was a sovereign entity, and that's a question of interpretation.  You can interpret through the courts, or through military force of arms.  I also note as a point of history that the war didn't end until Sherman took the fight to the Southern Aristocracy.


The same argument could be made about the Continental Congress declaring its Independence from the Crown of Great Britain. Only they won their argument on the field of battle, mostly by not getting caught and eventually getting foreign assistance(in the form of France triggering something just short of a world war for Britain).

IF the Confederacy had managed to get tacit material and military aid from the major European powers of the time(in particular Great Britain), the outcome would have likely been a formally recognized Confederacy on the part of the United States. But Lincoln skillfully ensured the Brit's wouldn't be able to view the conflict outside the prism of slavery, so that never came to pass, but it was a close thing all the same. If Gettysburg had played out a little bit differently due to Lee listening to one of his Generals rather than ignoring the advice....
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 17, 2017, 09:47:01 AM
Quote
The same argument could be made about the Continental Congress declaring its Independence from the Crown of Great Britain.

Not reasonably made. Not by anyone acquainted with the law and facts. The FFs never made the argument that their secession was legal under the Magna Carta or any other body of English law. The South claimed that the Constitution tacitly allowed secession. 

Quote
IF the Confederacy had managed to get tacit material and military aid from the major European powers of the time(in particular Great Britain), the outcome would have likely been a formally recognized Confederacy on the part of the United States.

That's a reasonable inference. What is not reasonable: your suggestion that force/legitimacy has anything at all to do with my argument that you were citing, let alone being "the same argument." 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 17, 2017, 10:00:21 AM
Quote
If Gettysburg had played out a little bit differently due to Lee listening to one of his Generals rather than ignoring the advice

even if we suppose that reasonably likely facts could have played out differently resulting in Lee winning the Civil War, there would have been another, far more devastating war before the 1890s with Southern aristocracy grabbing for California and Nevada.

What, you think that the USA and CSA could have peacefully split up the rest of the territories when they couldn't even do so under the guise of being one country, with sumners'blood spattered over the Capitol floors, and ethnic cleansing against potential abolitionists in Missouri, Illinois, and bleeding Kansas?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on September 17, 2017, 10:55:00 AM
even if we suppose that reasonably likely facts could have played out differently resulting in Lee winning the Civil War, there would have been another, far more devastating war before the 1890s with Southern aristocracy grabbing for California and Nevada.

THAT would have been suicide on the part of the South, and there are legitimate questions as to how economically viable the South was going to be once it gained its independence. Reality was, with the rise of cotton(and tobacco) plantations in many other parts of the British Empire(as well as outside of it) in particular, they probably only had a couple decades before they would have had trouble competing even with slave labor.

The other retrospective aspect on playing that particular alt-history game is the matter of trying to justify a war of Independence vs a war of aggression/expansion. Sure, the US was party to two such wars with Mexico that I can recall off hand, although Texan Independence was only a tertiary involvement item. Their "problem" would be that they had a hard enough time(ultimately failing) getting foreign support during the Civil War. The odds of their getting foreign(--European) aid in an expansionary war approaches 0 rapidly. If for no other reason than there is no real benefit for other nations to get involved(as they could get cotton/tobacco elsewhere). I guess there is a possibility of an "unholy alliance" with Mexico, with very dubious, and dangerous outcomes to be had there in regards to the Monroe Doctrine.

With "reality" having been that the Union eventually regrouped, and ran roughshod over the top of the Confederacy forces after recovering from having its upper echelons gutted by their top shelf generals siding with the South. All while fighting an offensive war, where the defender has the advantage. You flip that situation around, where the Union has had even just a significant portion of a decade to regroup and fortify its borders against the Confederacy, and the odds for a Confederate offensive war going anywhere positive for them plummet rapidly.

Even trying to do a "proxy war" thing much like what happened with Texas and Mexico doesn't play out particularly well for the South, as they're not rebelling against a tyrannical Santa Anna who evidently wasn't even adhering to Mexican laws in many respects, and dealing with rebellions in numerous other corners of Mexico as well. Throwing in the advent of the railroad and telegraph communications, and the Union also enjoyed a lot more mobility and better communications than Santa Anna could have dreamed of in the 1830's. 

Quote
What, you think that the USA and CSA could have peacefully split up the rest of the territories when they couldn't even do so under the guise of being one country, with sumners'blood spattered over the Capitol floors, and ethnic cleansing against potential abolitionists in Missouri, Illinois, and bleeding Kansas?

Where did I claim the relationship would be peaceful, or anything close to resembling calm? I simply said that if the Confederacy could have obtained British support, they probably would have won their independence. That doesn't say anything about what happens after that.

Things would have been very tense(in particular as regards to escaped slaves), there would probably have been no shortage of "incidents" on and along the border. Probably even a concerted effort to try to pull a Texas-like rebellion in some of the US territories near the confederate border. But as far as direct hostilities are concerned, I still stand by saying the South would have been suicidal to launch an offensive war, even with 20-some years to build their own armaments industries and fortifications. The Union simply had too much of a population/industrial advantage at the onset to see that appreciably change.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on September 18, 2017, 01:57:54 PM
Seriati, even in 1860, reasonable people understood that conflicts over unsettled law could only be lawfully adjudicated through SCOTUS.

Pete, there is no legitimate merit to that argument.  If the states were States the act of succession terminated the SC authority to issue such a judgement.  The SC has not authority over sovereign entities other than the US.

You just begged the question.

I didn't beg the question.  I can see how you'd think I did though.

One of the primary characteristics of a State (and even more so prior to the UN formalization so much of this), was acting like a State.  Submission of the question of whether you are a State to an outside legal authority would be de facto proof that you are not.  It's not me begging the question to point out that for the States that succeeded from the Union submission to the US Supreme Court of the question would be automatically settle the question against them, as a true State does not need or tolerate the judgement of another's court over it (ie Sovereign Immunity).

Quote
Your question assumes that the Confederacy was a sovereign entity, and that's a question of interpretation.

I made no claim about the Confederacy.  My point was that Georgia claimed to be a soverign entity, and it's right of succession from a treaty, even one like the US Constitution, could not be subject to a higher court's than the SC of Georgia.   

Quote
You can interpret through the courts, or through military force of arms.

When two Sovereigns deal with each other, you can only interpret through consent or force of arms.  Whether the consent is embodied in a Court or otherwise is a matter of form, but no foreign court has authority over a Sovereign other than by such Sovereign's consent, which it is free to revoke if it chooses.  Focusing on the authority of a court is misplaced.

Quote
Quote
In any event, it actually was an issue in dispute so I'm not sure why you'd claim otherwise to me, over a150 years later.


I made no such claim.

Actually you did when you asserted that the SC would have been the agreed upon forum.  I think you completely missed the sovereignity point and how such submission would be both irrelevant and damaging with respect to a sovereign. 

Quote
Are you claiming that there's no precedent for a sovereign entity to sue the federal government in federal courts?

Of course not, only pointing out that the only reason they can do so is because the federal government has agreed to allow them, and the only reason we can ever breach sovereignity in the other direction (without their consent) is because as the preeminient financial superpower we have recourse to their assets held here, otherwise they'd be fully immune to claims of our court.

Quote
The South didn't have to acknowledge the court's authority over it in order to recognize that the federal courts did still hold jurisdiction over the rest of the Union.  If they were men of honor or peace, the would have sued in federal court for enforcement of their interpretation, rather than opening fire at Fort Sumpter.

I think you've actually begged the question.  I have no view on the attack of Fort Sumpter.  But the idea that men of honor would beg a foreign court to declare that their own country can do what's within it's authority to do is odd.  You seem to imply, for example, that the US would have to respond in a foreign court (rather than just ignore it's authority) if the foreign court claimed jurisdiction over the actions of the US.

It would actually be dishonorable in some ways to submit a question to a court where you'd only accept a favorable outcome (ie against the Union) but would reject the court's authority to reach a contrary conclusion.  This is one of the reasons that law suits against Sovereigns are fraught with peril, and really rely on a stronger Sovereign enforcing them.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 18, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Quote
You seem to imply, for example, that the US would have to respond in a foreign court (rather than just ignore it's authority) if the foreign court claimed jurisdiction over the actions of the US.

Again, you are begging the question as you continue to presume that the US was foreign.  And given that some confederate agents (military) DID in fact pursue court actions in Union Courts in matters related to runaway slaves after secession, shows the absurdity of your question.

The USA often does represent its own interests in various foreign courts, and vice versa.  You counter a straw man when you assert the obvious, that  a sovereign state is not "obliged" to do such a thing.  No, it's a choice. And when the other choice is war, one would have to be a bitch of extreme Chutzpah to accuse the other side of aggression for keeping its forces in place according to the word of your last preexisting agreement with that party.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on September 18, 2017, 07:37:28 PM
Pete, don't go all over the top on me.  Begging the question is a concept in argument, it's inapplicable here.  Though structurally it's similar it's actually irrelevant.  The State of Georgia either was or was not Sovereign, it's not a matter of an argument point, it's matter of who makes the determination.  If it was a Sovereign, then the US SC had no authority to rule on its decision to assert that Sovereignity.  If it was not a Sovereign, then Georgia had no right to act as if it was.  Submission to the SC is the act of a non-Sovereign on this issue, not the action that a Sovereign would take.

There is no world in which the US SC is the correct forum to decide that issue, anymore than the UK's Brexit could be overturned by the EU's Court of Justice.  It makes no difference what the treaties say, which is all the court could establish, as sovereign's are within their rights to repudiate a treaty.  Once Georgia determined it was a Sovereign and acted as such, it was the US government's (not it's courts) authority to argue the point that become relevant.  The same would be true today - by the way - if say CA or TX declares independence, they are not going to submit to the US SC about whether they have the authority to do so.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 18, 2017, 08:03:28 PM
Quote
There is no world in which the US SC is the correct forum to decide that issue, anymore than the UK's Brexit could be overturned by the EU's Court of Justice

Agreed. And that's a fantastic analogy. If you look at what I actually said, then you may find it supports my argument.

If the UK disagreed with the EU on the terms of its exit, it would more likely take the case to EU mediation or courts to plead its case rather than to shell some Interpol office.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on September 18, 2017, 08:19:58 PM
even if we suppose that reasonably likely facts could have played out differently resulting in Lee winning the Civil War, there would have been another, far more devastating war before the 1890s with Southern aristocracy grabbing for California and Nevada.

THAT would have been suicide on the part of the South,

Firing on Fort Sumpter was suicide for the South, and if emboldened by an actual victory in the civil war, no bloody way they would have held back on NV and CA. Don't forget 5hat Lincoln's "Tyranny" hitched of in the Confederate declaration of Independence constituted of his campaign promise to halt expansion of slavery to future territories.  THAT is what the rich bastards were sending dumb white poor folks to die over.  You think they would have backed off that goal in the face of victory?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on December 21, 2017, 01:02:37 PM
Two more statues go to an undisclosed location in Memphis

They sold the plot it stood on, kind of a sneaky maneuver but who can blame them for not wanting a riot over it?

Makes me wonder - should cash strapped communities hold an auction for these statues? Can you imagine the bidding war between people who want to preserve them and peopel who want to destroy them?  :P
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on December 25, 2017, 08:44:18 AM
Quote
The history of Republican Rome up to the Empire was one long story of class struggle between the Plebs and the Patricians

Yes, but until the modern age, it was a story told by Patricians. Spartacus didn't write history books.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 02, 2019, 03:53:01 PM
I think many of these monuments are fundamentally offensive and should be torn down. I think Josh's comparison to Hitler statues in Germany is an apt one.

However, the question is: 1) Who should do the tearing down and 2) What else are they going to tear down once they get a taste for it?

Well, it appears that George Washington is next:
Quote
A Northern California public school district may remove a mural of George Washington from the halls of George Washington High School due to concerns that it’s offensive and demeaning to Native Americans and African-Americans.

The controversy comes after a working group determined the mural, made up of several panels, “traumatizes students and community members.” But advocates for keeping the 83-year-old mural say that removing it ignores the intent of the artist and represents an attempt to erase history.

Allowing this behavior feeds a never ending hunger for more.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 02, 2019, 04:08:35 PM
You might have a point, if it weren't for facts.

Have a look at the murals (https://richmondsfblog.com/2019/04/09/historic-wpa-murals-at-george-washington-high-school-are-facing-destruction-due-to-controversial-depictions-of-native-americans-and-african-americans/)

This isn't Washington crossing the Delaware.

Quote
“He put those ghastly gray pioneers literally walking over the dead body of an Indian to demonstrate that the settlement of the west was an act of conquest that involved the slaughter of Native Americans,” Cherny said at a 2018 Board of Education meeting. “That was a very bold effort on his part to counter the kinds of textbooks that students were seeing.”

I might not want to see a mural that depicts genocide every day either.

Feel free to return to your hysteria over the imminent loss of George Washington from our  museums, historical sites, textbooks, and collective memory. I know by now that I can't stop you.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 02, 2019, 04:24:22 PM
Quote
In other parts of the mural, African-Americans are engaged in acts of manual labor like hauling large bales of hay and picking cotton in the fields, while Caucasian men are also laboring at other tasks with tools. Washington’s servant, who is pictured holding his horse, is also African-American. The mural is a clear depiction of slavery in the United States, and of George Washington as a slave owner.

George Washington as a slave owner. Right, they won't disappear Washington, of course they won't! No siree bobcat tail!
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 02, 2019, 09:42:49 PM
Here in augusta Georgia there is a section of Washington Avenue that until recently was named James Calhoun Avenue, named after Andrew Jackson's VP and the author of US white supremacy as construed for 150 years after him. Iimprovement methinks.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2019, 09:08:38 AM
James Calhoun, never heard of him. Sounds like a made up name. So this white supremacy thing they engaged in probably never existed.... says future generations.

Yeah, that’s a great improvement.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on May 04, 2019, 09:21:00 AM
Hitler sounds like a made up name too. I guess we're going to forget him since there aren't any monuments to him.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 04, 2019, 09:29:39 AM
Hitler sounds like a made up name too. I guess we're going to forget him since there aren't any monuments to him.

The name "Hitler" has itself been made into a monument. We changed the way we salute just to not be like Hitler.  German kids can't by law be named "Adolf". He-whose-name-cannot-be-decently-uttered." it's become a bigger mythic construct than "the.devil."

Why? Because Hitler is clearly the greatest *white* murderer in history. The more prolific persons are persons of color don't matter. That's white people, always taking the credit.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
Hitler sounds like a made up name too. I guess we're going to forget him since there aren't any monuments to him.

Hitler, you mean conservatives or republicans, right? They’re Hitlers. I suspect  there are a lot of people in America  that have no idea where that word comes from.  Check the definition on urban dictionary

Maybe you’re referring to the villain in some war movies? Like Dr Evil?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 04, 2019, 09:47:41 AM
Quote
Because Hitler is clearly the greatest *white* murderer in history.

See, already people don’t know the truth. Stalin had a lot more murdered.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 04, 2019, 10:00:50 AM
Quote
Because Hitler is clearly the greatest *white* murderer in history.

See, already people don’t know the truth. Stalin had a lot more murdered.

Yes but left-wits say that Russians aren't really "white" so Stalin doesn't count. Go figure. It's right in the Lefty bible next to why Islam is a race.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 04, 2019, 01:33:47 PM
Stalin was a piker compared to Hitler, only a couple of million.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DJQuag on May 04, 2019, 02:18:13 PM
Stalin was a piker compared to Hitler, only a couple of million.

I could be wrong here, but didn't he engineer the Ukrainian famine?

Whether he deliberately meant to starve a population, (which seems likely to me,) or he didn't realise what his policies were going to do, whole lot of people died in that alone.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on May 04, 2019, 03:12:03 PM
Stalin was a piker compared to Hitler, only a couple of million.

I may be misremembering (and can't be bothered to research it), but I recall it being something like 20 million.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 04, 2019, 03:20:16 PM
If you want to count famine, sure. That's not anywhere near the same thing. It is astonishingly unclear if that would have happened under a Czar.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 04, 2019, 03:41:04 PM
If you count famine then Mao's your man.

And if you don't count famine, then rethink Hitler's numbers because gas chambers and bullets combined didn't kill as many as starved. Most in the death camps died from starvation and exhaustion.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 05, 2019, 12:11:02 PM
That's true Pete, but there is a distinct difference between famine and taking someone's freedom and denying them food.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on May 05, 2019, 12:14:40 PM
That's true Pete, but there is a distinct difference between famine and taking someone's freedom and denying them food.

As I understand it that's basically what Stalin and the communists did anyhow: deliberate starvation of the population. It seems to me irrelevant whether such people are in literal prisons or not when being subjected to such things, to count them as murders.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 05, 2019, 12:33:13 PM
Academics dispute whether this should be treated as deliberate. While there were actual food shortages, they did export food. I stand corrected on the freedom part, though. I didn't know that the Ukrainians were prevented from emigrating.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 05, 2019, 12:52:30 PM
That's true Pete, but there is a distinct difference between famine and taking someone's freedom and denying them food.

In theory yes. In practice, that distinction blurs under a number of fact-sets.  My grandfather for example was taken prisoner at the battle of the bulge and many of his men starved because Nazis lacked the food supplies to feed their prisoners. This wasn't purposeful starvation but the imprisonment was purposeful and the Nazis knew that they lacked the food for all the prisoners they were taking.  And you pointed out the blur-inducing facts in the Ukraine.

Also, several groups murdered and starved by the Nazis did have a few years warning beforehand to get out of dodge. (The US and others sent back boatloads of Jews when Hitler was letting them escape.) this doesn't justify or excuse the starvation and atrocities aftethand but does place the atrocities on a sliding scale of malice.

Of all the groups threatened, gays probably had the least notice, since one day Nazis were all gay-friendmy with Roem running the SA and the SA half running Berlin, and the next day bam paragraph 175 night of the long knives and Hitler killed Roem with his own hands.

(My own theory is that Nazis got their cool uniforms from gay designers before going anti gay, just as Hitler's trademark trench coat was a pity gift from a Hungarian Jew during his Vienna days)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on May 05, 2019, 03:38:35 PM
Academics dispute whether this should be treated as deliberate. While there were actual food shortages, they did export food. I stand corrected on the freedom part, though. I didn't know that the Ukrainians were prevented from emigrating.

In the case of Ukraine, the Food Exports are what caused the famine
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DJQuag on May 05, 2019, 03:45:02 PM
ITT-

Liberals defend past Russian atrocities.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 05, 2019, 06:15:18 PM
I'm not a liberal, and I'm not about to defend Stalin. Everything about him was the worst of humanity. I was just responding to the specific claim of Stalin VS Hitler.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 05, 2019, 06:43:01 PM
I believe Dquag was speaking of the sources you referred to;  not to you.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Seriati on May 06, 2019, 09:53:44 AM
Quote
“He put those ghastly gray pioneers literally walking over the dead body of an Indian to demonstrate that the settlement of the west was an act of conquest that involved the slaughter of Native Americans,” Cherny said at a 2018 Board of Education meeting. “That was a very bold effort on his part to counter the kinds of textbooks that students were seeing.”

I might not want to see a mural that depicts genocide every day either.

You wouldn't want a reminder that even our heros did things that are atrocious by modern standards?  When you white wash history to eliminate the reminders of the bad, you set up a future that can idolize those times without having learned the lessons of history. 

To put it another way, if you eliminate the reminders of what you label a genocide in the conquest of the west, you then allow an entire generation to arise that doesn't see any risks from those policies.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 06, 2019, 12:34:11 PM
As a teenager I wouldn't want to walk by it several times a day on my way to class, no.

I also wouldn't put up depictions of Auschwitz in a school hallway in Berlin either. That wouldn't mean forgetting anything, or whitewashing it. I would expect plenty of class material on the reality of such terrible events, including the treatment of indigenous people.

You also have to recognize that most of the works are an homage to Washington, you'd have to be an unusually observant teen to pick up on the difference between glorifying the slaughter of Indians and criticizing it based on the color palette used to depict those colonists.

There's a fine line between a reminder and shaming people whose ancestors committed such acts, or enraging people whose ancestors were the victims of such acts.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 06, 2019, 12:36:44 PM
With respect to the famine in Ukraine, I've done a lot more reading and I no longer think there is much doubt about what Stalin was up to. I drop my original objection and will go with Stalin > Hitler, for what it is worth.

It's one of the things I like about this group, it prompts me to learn things I probably never would have known otherwise.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 19, 2019, 06:15:46 PM
You might have a point, if it weren't for facts.

Have a look at the murals (https://richmondsfblog.com/2019/04/09/historic-wpa-murals-at-george-washington-high-school-are-facing-destruction-due-to-controversial-depictions-of-native-americans-and-african-americans/)

This isn't Washington crossing the Delaware.

Quote
“He put those ghastly gray pioneers literally walking over the dead body of an Indian to demonstrate that the settlement of the west was an act of conquest that involved the slaughter of Native Americans,” Cherny said at a 2018 Board of Education meeting. “That was a very bold effort on his part to counter the kinds of textbooks that students were seeing.”

I might not want to see a mural that depicts genocide every day either.

Feel free to return to your hysteria over the imminent loss of George Washington from our  museums, historical sites, textbooks, and collective memory. I know by now that I can't stop you.

How about Jefferson and , well, everything:

Quote
Pete Buttigieg, who is running in a crowded Democratic field for president, said on Friday he believes renaming events and things named after President Thomas Jefferson is the “right thing to do.”

The South Bend mayor appeared on The Hugh Hewitt Show, where he was asked to weigh in on the name of the annual Indiana Democratic dinner, which was formerly named after party founders and former presidents Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. Indiana Democrats changed the name of the annual dinner in 2016…

“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,” Buttigieg said. “Over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor … Jefferson is more problematic. There’s a lot of course to admire in his thinking and his philosophy, but then again if you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew slavery was wrong.”

Anything and everything Thomas Jefferson, gotta go. Call it hystera if that makes you feel better, but we all know better.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on May 20, 2019, 11:08:57 AM
Jefferson - plagiarized most of the Declaration of Independence (https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/was-thomas-jefferson-plagiarist), failed to prepare Virginia military defenses resulting in his abandonment of the State.

John Quincy Adams called him a shirker and a coward (http://foxessa-foxhome.blogspot.com/2013/08/thomas-jefferson-shirker-and-coward.html).

Obviously not everything is negative. He did abolish the slave trade, thereby ending slave ships from Africa. The Louisiana purchase was a stroke of genius.

I would be bothered if the Library of Congress changed the name of the Thomas Jefferson Building since he directly contributed his personal library to its reconstruction.

I'm not sure how you get from "an annual Indiana Democratic dinner" to "anything and everything". It's very Trumpian though to treat a molehill as a mountain. Let's go the actual question though, shall we? I've added emphasis to make things more clear.

This is the actual context of Buttigieg's statements (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/fact-check-did-pete-buttigieg-call-for-jefferson-to-be-wiped-from-u-s-history/)

Quote
Hewitt: Let’s go to policy now. A very blunt question, because you talk about going to every Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Indiana when you were running statewide. Should Jefferson-Jackson dinners be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves?

Buttigieg: Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do. You know, over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor. And I think we know enough, especially Jackson, you know, you just look at what basically amounts to genocide that happened here. Jefferson’s more problematic. You know, there’s a lot to, of course, admire in his thinking and his philosophy. Then again, as you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew that slavery was wrong.

Hewitt: Yes.

Buttigieg: And yet, he did it. Now we’re all morally conflicted human beings. And it’s not like we’re blotting him out of the history books, or deleting him from being the founder fathers. But you know, naming something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor. And at a time, I mean, the real reason I think there’s a lot of pressure on this is the relationship between the past and the present, that we’re finding in a million different ways that racism isn’t some curiosity out of the past that we’re embarrassed about but moved on from. It’s alive, it’s well, it’s hurting people. And it’s one of the main reasons to be in politics today is to try to change or reverse the harms that went along with that. Then, we’d better look for ways to live out and honor that principle, even in a symbolic thing.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on May 20, 2019, 12:14:11 PM
Jefferson is a complex man and makes for a complex topic.

Andrew Jackson can be purged freely, about the only good thing about him is his role as a war hero. There isn't much else about that guy to warrant celebrating.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 20, 2019, 06:20:06 PM
So is Martin Luther King, you want to strip him from all public view?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 20, 2019, 06:47:51 PM
 8)
So is Martin Luther King,

What's your antecedent? MLK a war hero?

Are Lenin statues in Prague "cultural heritage"?

How about confederate flag toilet paper? Cultural, racist or both? I love some of the one star comments.


https://www.amazon.com/America-Flag-Toilet-Paper-Pattern/product-reviews/B00Q4IIF22
This is just wrong. What's the difference between wiping and burning the flag?" serious. Someone actually posted that.

Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on May 26, 2019, 10:23:32 AM
Quote
Secret FBI tapes that accuse Martin Luther King Jr of having extramarital affairs with '40 to 45 women' and even claim he 'looked on and laughed' as a pastor friend raped a parishioner exist, an author has claimed.

The civil rights hero was also heard allegedly joking he was the founder of the 'International Association for the Advancement of P***y-Eaters' on an agency recording that was obtained by bugging his room, according to the sensational claims made by biographer David Garrow - a Pullitzer prize-winning author and biographer of MLK.

Quote
The recording from the Willard Hotel near the White House shows how King was accompanied his friend Logan Kearse, the pastor of Baltimore's Cornerstone Baptist church who died in 1991, along with several female parishioners of his church.

In King's hotel room, the files claim they then 'discussed which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural and unnatural sex acts'.

The FBI document says: 'When one of the women protested that she did not approve, the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her' as King watched.

He is alleged to have 'looked on, laugh and offered advice' during the encounter.

FBI agents were in the room next door but did not intervene.

The following day, King and a dozen others allegedly participated in a 'sex orgy' engaging in 'acts of degeneracy and depravity'.

Alright, we’re tearing down everything MLK right? Sure, he can stay in history books but statues gotta go, schools renamed, wiped from the public view except for a museum or something. Everyone agrees I’m sure. Right?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on May 26, 2019, 01:14:01 PM
Quote
Secret FBI tapes that accuse Martin Luther King Jr of having extramarital affairs with '40 to 45 women' and even claim he 'looked on and laughed' as a pastor friend raped a parishioner exist, an author has claimed.

The civil rights hero was also heard allegedly joking he was the founder of the 'International Association for the Advancement of P***y-Eaters' on an agency recording that was obtained by bugging his room, according to the sensational claims made by biographer David Garrow - a Pullitzer prize-winning author and biographer of MLK.

Quote
The recording from the Willard Hotel near the White House shows how King was accompanied his friend Logan Kearse, the pastor of Baltimore's Cornerstone Baptist church who died in 1991, along with several female parishioners of his church.

In King's hotel room, the files claim they then 'discussed which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural and unnatural sex acts'.

The FBI document says: 'When one of the women protested that she did not approve, the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her' as King watched.

He is alleged to have 'looked on, laugh and offered advice' during the encounter.

FBI agents were in the room next door but did not intervene.

The following day, King and a dozen others allegedly participated in a 'sex orgy' engaging in 'acts of degeneracy and depravity'.

Alright, we’re tearing down everything MLK right? Sure, he can stay in history books but statues gotta go, schools renamed, wiped from the public view except for a museum or something. Everyone agrees I’m sure. Right?

Quite honestly, the FBI's involvement with sexing up MLK is precisely why Donald Trump's enemies in the Media-FBICIA complex scare me even more than Trump scares me. That's what it means to me to be a liberal.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2019, 11:49:14 AM
Quote
YouTube announced new rules around hate speech on Wednesday that prohibit videos promoting Nazi ideology or denying the existence of the Holocaust or other well-documented violent events like the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Thousands of channels are expected to be shut down. But now multiple teachers are complaining that videos uploaded to educate people about Nazi history have been deleted...

Slaveowners were bad and we must remove all trace of them from the public view. The Nazis were bad. Following the logic, shouldn't we be removing everything we can of the Nazis? Wouldn't the world be better if we never even knew they existed?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: D.W. on June 07, 2019, 12:19:15 PM
You make an excellent point.  I wasn't aware that stuff like civil war monuments and all these slave owner's names on buildings were intended as a cautionary tale.  Truly enlightened and civically minded sculptors and institutions naming their buildings and places.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 07, 2019, 12:31:33 PM
Binary Crunch can't tell the difference between a statue in the town square and a historical reference material.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on June 07, 2019, 01:23:31 PM
Quote
Secret FBI tapes that accuse Martin Luther King Jr of having extramarital affairs with '40 to 45 women' and even claim he 'looked on and laughed' as a pastor friend raped a parishioner exist, an author has claimed.

The civil rights hero was also heard allegedly joking he was the founder of the 'International Association for the Advancement of P***y-Eaters' on an agency recording that was obtained by bugging his room, according to the sensational claims made by biographer David Garrow - a Pullitzer prize-winning author and biographer of MLK.

Quote
The recording from the Willard Hotel near the White House shows how King was accompanied his friend Logan Kearse, the pastor of Baltimore's Cornerstone Baptist church who died in 1991, along with several female parishioners of his church.

In King's hotel room, the files claim they then 'discussed which women among the parishioners would be suitable for natural and unnatural sex acts'.

The FBI document says: 'When one of the women protested that she did not approve, the Baptist minister immediately and forcefully raped her' as King watched.

He is alleged to have 'looked on, laugh and offered advice' during the encounter.

FBI agents were in the room next door but did not intervene.

The following day, King and a dozen others allegedly participated in a 'sex orgy' engaging in 'acts of degeneracy and depravity'.

Alright, we’re tearing down everything MLK right?

Based on your rumor of an FBI tape somewhere?

Trusting the FBI on MLK? You are desperate.

Quote from: crunchcracklepop
Slaveowners were bad and we must remove all trace of them from the public view. T
No one said erase every trace of them.  The argument is don't sponsor their propaganda about themselves in the public square.

If the confeds had left us anything as useful as the Nazis had (Freeways and Volkswagen beetles) then wed leave that up. But early 20th century apologetics and propagandistic attempts to rewrite history do not constitute a culture that deserves yet more tax dollars to perpetuate.

 
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on June 07, 2019, 03:33:13 PM
You make an excellent point.  I wasn't aware that stuff like civil war monuments and all these slave owner's names on buildings were intended as a cautionary tale.  Truly enlightened and civically minded sculptors and institutions naming their buildings and places.

So you're thinking there are limits? Maybe some guidelines as to what is objectionable to remove from society's eyes and what is not? Is there a manual?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 10, 2019, 10:46:07 AM
Quote
YouTube announced new rules around hate speech on Wednesday that prohibit videos promoting Nazi ideology or denying the existence of the Holocaust or other well-documented violent events like the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Thousands of channels are expected to be shut down. But now multiple teachers are complaining that videos uploaded to educate people about Nazi history have been deleted...

Slaveowners were bad and we must remove all trace of them from the public view. The Nazis were bad. Following the logic, shouldn't we be removing everything we can of the Nazis? Wouldn't the world be better if we never even knew they existed?

That would be in line with the complaints from teachers. The YouTube policy summary is kind of funny in many respects.

1) You cannot deny ____ Events occured.
2) You cannot use materials related to events mentioned in item #1 because they can be considered as promotion of such activities.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on June 10, 2019, 10:54:09 AM
That would be in line with the complaints from teachers. The YouTube policy summary is kind of funny in many respects.

1) You cannot deny ____ Events occured.
2) You cannot use materials related to events mentioned in item #1 because they can be considered as promotion of such activities.

To apply Crunchian logic to the situation, YouTube is probably trying to a bad enough job at censoring Nazis that people decide it can't be done. That way they can keep that sweet white supremacy ad money.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on June 16, 2019, 09:28:45 PM
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2019, 12:16:53 PM
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.

So because people can't watch Alex Jones rant on facebook (while still being perfectly capable of going to his website and watch his rants), they started collecting Third Reich artifacts?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2019, 01:25:53 PM
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.

So because people can't watch Alex Jones rant on facebook (while still being perfectly capable of going to his website and watch his rants), they started collecting Third Reich artifacts?

 ::)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: ScottF on June 17, 2019, 01:27:47 PM
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.

So because people can't watch Alex Jones rant on facebook (while still being perfectly capable of going to his website and watch his rants), they started collecting Third Reich artifacts?

I think what he means is that nothing legitimizes people with kooky/conspiracist ideas more than seeing the powers that be attempt to silence them. But you knew that.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2019, 01:37:23 PM
I think what he means is that nothing legitimizes people with kooky/conspiracist ideas more than seeing the powers that be attempt to silence them. But you knew that.

Actually I took it to be more general than that, but Pete can say exactly which things he did or didn't imply. I sort of took it to mean that the general populace not 'on the side' of political correctness is going to feel the squeeze and will be upset by it to differing degrees. When this happens, the extremes at the end of the spectrum are going to be *upset enough* to form extreme opinions about it, or to be subject to radicalization, and the tiny extremist groups will begin sounding to them like they make sense.

Or maybe it has something to do with the fact that the tiny extremist group is suddenly getting lots of press (and therefore advertising) as a result of new crusades to 'do something' about them. Even if they got no new members out of this they nevertheless gain anti-prestige, which makes them look larger than life. That's a media funhouse-mirror thing more so than even a cultural thing.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2019, 01:48:12 PM
Quote
I think what he means is that nothing legitimizes people with kooky/conspiracist ideas more than seeing the powers that be attempt to silence them. But you knew that.

I think they are more legitimized by having the powers that be support them outright or by not denouncing them. I do acknowledge that they are more likely to act out when they perceive they are under siege, and that some portion of them may become radicalized. I don't think that's the driving factor.

Pete characterizes the banning of the white nationalist message as misguided. I think it is misguided to turn a blind eye to this, and tacitly support the spread of that message.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2019, 03:35:34 PM
I think they are more legitimized by having the powers that be support them outright or by not denouncing them.

Are you referring to the "Trump would not denounce them" meme again?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2019, 03:57:48 PM
Over and over again. But not one event, many. Starting with David Duke and moving on from there.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2019, 04:00:59 PM
Over and over again. But not one event, many. Starting with David Duke and moving on from there.

But didn't we debunk that Trump 'never denounced them'?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2019, 04:17:35 PM
On that one incident in Charlottesville, I'll allow it. I still think the entire message should have condemned the organizers of the rally in the first place. Full stop. We can rehash the whole thing over again, but there are the people who think Trump doesn't do enough and those who think he is unfairly criticized. I think it is quite clear that no matter what he is doing or why, white supremacists are being encouraged by it.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2019, 04:32:31 PM
I still think the entire message should have condemned the organizers of the rally in the first place. Full stop.

You mean that every time someone holds a public gathering in support of a topic you think is bad, the President should personally get on the air an denounce them?

Quote
We can rehash the whole thing over again, but there are the people who think Trump doesn't do enough and those who think he is unfairly criticized. I think it is quite clear that no matter what he is doing or why, white supremacists are being encouraged by it.

I see how one could have this opinion. But your reply to Pete seems to have entirely missed his actual point, which is that the encouragement isn't coming from the office of the President but rather from those who are overzealously trying to go after 'the Nazis'. Your answer of "boo hoo Alex Jones" seemed to misunderstand (at least as Scott and I took it) his post.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 17, 2019, 04:32:56 PM
On that one incident in Charlottesville, I'll allow it. I still think the entire message should have condemned the organizers of the rally in the first place. Full stop. We can rehash the whole thing over again, but there are the people who think Trump doesn't do enough and those who think he is unfairly criticized. I think it is quite clear that no matter what he is doing or why, white supremacists are being encouraged by it.

Best approach is to ignore them, putting them in circumstances where they're impossible to ignore just furthers their cause.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 17, 2019, 04:37:33 PM
I see how one could have this opinion. But your reply to Pete seems to have entirely missed his actual point, which is that the encouragement isn't coming from the office of the President but rather from those who are overzealously trying to go after 'the Nazis'. Your answer of "boo hoo Alex Jones" seemed to misunderstand (at least as Scott and I took it) his post.

It is how I understood it as well.

The best way to lend credence to a tin-foil hat conspiracy is for "the big guns" within society to start taking pot-shots at the crazies. It just provides the crazies with more grounds to claim they're right.

Yes, you can address the issues they bring up(such as anti-vaxxer stuff), but at all costs, you ignore the messenger.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2019, 04:40:19 PM
to be clear Pete said:

Quote
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.

I am rejecting that this is either the "whole reason" or even the biggest reason for such a resurgence, that it could have been avoided if we just kept from banning people engaging in hate speech like Alex Jones and all the rest.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 17, 2019, 05:28:42 PM
to be clear Pete said:

Quote
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.

I am rejecting that this is either the "whole reason" or even the biggest reason for such a resurgence, that it could have been avoided if we just kept from banning people engaging in hate speech like Alex Jones and all the rest.

Thing is, they didn't stop at Alex Jones. And reality is, he makes a decent benchmark unfortunately. If they're not censoring him, anybody more mainstream than he is should be safe as well.

It's the over-reach which is causing the problems.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 17, 2019, 05:33:45 PM
to be clear Pete said:

Quote
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.

I am rejecting that this is either the "whole reason" or even the biggest reason for such a resurgence, that it could have been avoided if we just kept from banning people engaging in hate speech like Alex Jones and all the rest.

Alex Jones is the one they've taken legal steps to censor (at least on "private" platforms), but he is by no means the prime example of the kind of censorship that I think Pete's referring to. Censorship doesn't have to come from government, and as we're learning, threats to liberty are at least as likely to come laterally instead of hierarchically.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DJQuag on June 17, 2019, 05:42:16 PM
In what way do you think privately owned communication systems should be controlled by the government so that "censorship" doesn't happen?

Also, I heard NAMBLA is wanting to take an add out in the New York Times, full spread. Guess it would be immoral censorship if they denied it.

I mean...I'll be honest, I'm not sure where you're coming from here. If you're just saying we should frown and wag our fingers, I understand that even if I disagree. If you're saying this becoming something government should touch on, I absolutely don't.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DJQuag on June 17, 2019, 05:44:31 PM
These are private companies. If you all are so worked up, encourage the government to set aside money to set up the servers for those poor downtrodden people to be idiots on.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: ScottF on June 17, 2019, 06:41:44 PM
I believe they will soon be regulated. The die was cast the moment they became content publishers vs open platforms. The key difference being an open platform would allow anything that wasn't actually illegal.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Pete at Home on June 17, 2019, 08:06:28 PM
to be clear Pete said:

Quote
To apply *my* logic, the whole reason for the Nazi microRennaisance was the clumsy heavy handed and misguided attempt to censor non progressive opinion.

I am rejecting that this is either the "whole reason" or even the biggest reason for such a resurgence, that it could have been avoided if we just kept from banning people engaging in hate speech like Alex Jones and all the rest.

The Drake translates my "non progressive opinion" into "Alex Jones."   :o   :'(   this sort of bs misrepresentation, on a massive scale, of anyone who stands up to progressive "Silver Chair" style institutional gaslighting, is censorship by obfuscation. Even though I've been here over a decade without promoting Alex Jones types Drake presumes that anyone at odds with progressive institutional gaslighting must be for Alex Jones. This is classic sophistry. And this is the environment which birthed the Nazi micro-rennaisance.

What sort of fool thinks that burning books harms Nazism more than fomenting it?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 17, 2019, 10:40:23 PM
Pick your favorite poster child, Pete. I have yet to see someone kicked off platforms that didn't deserve it. You can say non progressive all you like, but it's a much smaller subset that are violating their toc. Mike pence, focus on the family, and Paul Ryan are all non progressive who are not losing any access. Not allowing them on your platform is not equivalent to book burning. Anybody who wants to see that content can do so. It still is not the only or primary cause of the alt right resurgence.

I wonder if anyone here would object to kicking someone off ornery for using racial slurs?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 07:54:03 AM
We continue, HBO Max Removes Civil War Epic 'Gone With the Wind'
Quote
Long considered controversial for its depiction of Black people and its positive view of slavery, Gone With the Wind faced renewed scrutiny after an op-ed by 12 Years A Slave screenwriter John Ridley published in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday. In the op-ed, Ridley called on HBO Max to "consider removing" Gone With the Wind from its platform as the film had its "own unique problem." "It doesn’t just “fall short” with regard to representation. It is a film that glorifies the antebellum south. It is a film that, when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color," Ridley wrote.

The books are still out there, better burn them.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 10, 2020, 08:24:28 AM
They could be replaced with copies of "The Clansman" by Dixon.  Same thing, really.

So Much Love!
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 08:43:26 AM
Hattie Mcdaniel, actress in Gone With The Wind, was the first black person to win an academy award. Why don’t you go write a similar smarmy comment on her tombstone? smh
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 10, 2020, 09:00:34 AM
More smarmalade.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 09:59:00 AM
Apparently from last year:
Quote
The US Association for Library Service to Children (ALSC) has removed Laura Ingalls Wilder’s name from one of its awards over racist views and language.

The association had received complaints for years over the Little House on the Prairie author’s “anti-Native and anti-Black sentiments in her work”.

The ALSC board voted unanimously on Saturday to remove Wilder’s name from the children’s literature award.

The medal will be renamed as the Children’s Literature Legacy award.

The ALSC, a division of the American Library Association, said Wilder’s novels and “expressions of stereotypical attitudes” were “inconsistent with ALSC’s core values”.

Wilder’s children’s novels about pioneer life in the American West have been criticised for language that dehumanises indigenous peoples and people of colour.

Yeah, gotta get rid of Wilder and her terrible stories. After that, Mark Twain gotta go! I can believe he hasn't already been canceled. In fact, pretty much everything written pre-1990 is not going to be woke enough for modern standards so there probably needs to be a real culling of literature. Movies too.

I think you're all on board with this, aren't you?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 12:20:37 PM
We continue, HBO Max Removes Civil War Epic 'Gone With the Wind'
Quote
Long considered controversial for its depiction of Black people and its positive view of slavery, Gone With the Wind faced renewed scrutiny after an op-ed by 12 Years A Slave screenwriter John Ridley published in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday. In the op-ed, Ridley called on HBO Max to "consider removing" Gone With the Wind from its platform as the film had its "own unique problem." "It doesn’t just “fall short” with regard to representation. It is a film that glorifies the antebellum south. It is a film that, when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color," Ridley wrote.

The books are still out there, better burn them.
Yes, it truly sucks that you cannot get this particular serving of cultural racism immediately on HBO Max, and will have to wait until it returns to HBO Max "with a discussion of its historical context and a denouncement of those very depictions"
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on June 10, 2020, 12:24:36 PM
Cultural racism? What's that? Can you define it so I know what we need to cancel next?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 12:26:47 PM
define smarmy
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 10, 2020, 01:10:44 PM
Smarmy: Making smarmalade with smarm.
Smarmalade: Word salad containing smarm.
Smarm: See smarm.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 10, 2020, 01:19:07 PM
define smarmy

Yes, Cultural Racism is a smarmy thing. No argument there, Why is it the smarmy ones who think they can get away with such behavior by doubling down on it never get it?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 10, 2020, 09:33:40 PM
We continue, HBO Max Removes Civil War Epic 'Gone With the Wind'
Quote
Long considered controversial for its depiction of Black people and its positive view of slavery, Gone With the Wind faced renewed scrutiny after an op-ed by 12 Years A Slave screenwriter John Ridley published in the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday. In the op-ed, Ridley called on HBO Max to "consider removing" Gone With the Wind from its platform as the film had its "own unique problem." "It doesn’t just “fall short” with regard to representation. It is a film that glorifies the antebellum south. It is a film that, when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery, pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color," Ridley wrote.

The books are still out there, better burn them.

Quote
On Wednesday, the new streaming service HBO Max temporarily removed the 1939 classic “Gone With the Wind” from its lineup, announcing that they intend to bring it back with added material discussing the racist characterizations of enslaved plantation workers. The move came in response to an essay written by screenwriter John Ridley in the Los Angeles Times, in which he reminded HBO Max — owned by Warner Media, which also holds the rights to “Gone With the Wind” — that “when it is not ignoring the horrors of slavery,” the film “pauses only to perpetuate some of the most painful stereotypes of people of color.”
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 10, 2020, 09:35:36 PM
define smarmy

Yes, Cultural Racism is a smarmy thing. No argument there, Why is it the smarmy ones who think they can get away with such behavior by doubling down on it never get it?
Are you trying to make yourself sound like Papa Smurf, or are you actually oblivious?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Crunch on June 11, 2020, 08:43:37 AM
Quote

Rioters in Philly deface a statue of Matthias Baldwin, an early abolitionist who fought against slavery 30 years before it ended.


Sooner or later, the mob comes for everyone.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 12, 2020, 03:01:26 PM
https://patriotpost.us/opinion/71233

Quote
The crisis of the coronavirus-induced economic lockdown and now the violent protests in the streets have unleashed a depression-level financial crisis and unprecedented human suffering — especially in our inner cities. These events have also exposed a Grand Canyon-sized chasm that now separates how the left and the right see America today. To wit:

No. 1: The right believes that stay-at-home orders and social distancing requirements are counterproductive and should be repealed safely and immediately. The left believes that those orders must stay in place but should only apply to those on the right, not to liberal protesters.

No. 2: The right engages in nonviolence. The left shows tacit support for mob violence.

No. 3: The right believes the best way to revive the economy is to incentivize a dormant workforce to get back on the job. The left believes that the best way to revive the economy is to pay people more money not to work than to work.

No. 4: When the right protests against injustice, such as 40 million people losing their jobs due to lockdowns, it is always during the light of day so they can be seen and heard. The left protests in the dark so people can’t see what crimes some of the protestors are committing.

No. 5: When the right attends rallies, they carry the American flag. When the left protests (and riots), the only American flags you see are burned.

No. 6: The right believes there are limits to how much governments can spend and borrow to avoid national bankruptcy and financial ruin. The left believes that trillions of dollars of added spending and debt are advisable and benign.

No. 7: When the right holds rallies, the protesters clean up after themselves. When the left protests, they ransack and burn their neighborhoods, spray-paint obscene graffiti and leave a mess of litter and trash everywhere for someone else to clean up. Yet leftists say they are the environmentalists.

No. 8: The right stands in support of small-business people’s rights and has been asking businesses like hardware stores, run by immigrants or other minority owners, to open up. The left’s rallies lead to looting and burning down the hardware stores.

No. 9: The right believes the best way to get people back to work is by getting money straight to people’s paychecks through a payroll tax cut. The left thinks the best course is to give money to mayors, governors and other politicians.

No. 10: The right wants to help prevent racism in urban police forces by firing incompetent and bigoted police officers. The left stands by the unions, which prevent police from being fired.

No. 11: The right wants to make America look like Florida and Texas. The left wants the rest of the nation to look like New York and Illinois – which are crumbling from rioting, lockdowns, high taxes and an accelerating stampede of businesses leaving the state.

Those are the monumentally important choices America faces. This is what the 2020 elections are all about on Nov. 3.

COPYRIGHT 2020 CREATORS.COM
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 12, 2020, 03:07:11 PM
Ah, finally, a non-partisan take on the situation [tension headache relaxes]
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 12, 2020, 03:22:17 PM
wmLambert, is that meant to ridicule the supposed "right", or are you inadvertently parodying "the right" with that post?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 12, 2020, 03:37:30 PM
wmLambert, is that meant to ridicule the supposed "right", or are you inadvertently parodying "the right" with that post?

Do you really challenge any of those points? Ridicule and charges of parody don't cut it.

Let's look t just No. 2. Do you or don't you see the coverage of protests in general? Do you follow the knee-jerk complicit news reaction to protests that say: "both sides do it!'? Maybe you don't notice the news articles that mention how legal, licensed protests are well-mannered and self-policed, but when Left-wing activists gather to get in front of he news cameras, all Hell breaks loose? Have you seen the undercover videos of AntiFa training where they are encouraged to harm others and use violence?

Just wondering how smarmy smugness can look down at those who do it right, and ignore all the perfidy on the Left. Then laugh at those who call you out on it?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 12, 2020, 03:47:24 PM
It's a good primer on self-serving and delusional right wing propaganda, so thanks for sharing!
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 12, 2020, 03:47:38 PM
Ah, finally, a non-partisan take on the situation [tension headache relaxes]

Interesting. Your take is that the website that posted the points is conservative, which them somehow makes it incorrect and bothers you head. Can you argue that point No. 7 is wrong? Or do you deny that those who "ransack and burn their neighborhoods, spray-paint obscene graffiti and leave a mess of litter and trash everywhere for someone else to clean up" are not on the Left? My point is that the issue is irrelevant or secondary, no matter how spotlighted the Left can present it. The real goal is not redress of victimization, but pure savagery to threaten others to acquiesce to your own perceived power base. {Do it my way or else?"
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 12, 2020, 03:51:11 PM
One of your big gripes is that they aren't tidy? :D. Charlottesville, post-demonstration 2017:

Quote
But as the sky lightened on a cloudy Sunday morning, the statue of Robert E. Lee on horseback — ostensibly the reason for the clashes — seemed to be surveying a battlefield still strewn with the debris from Saturday's conflagration. And what was left behind tells much about Charlottesville's angriest day.

I don't know how you can stand the mess!
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 12, 2020, 03:52:10 PM
It's a good primer on self-serving and delusional right wing propaganda, so thanks for sharing!

You can't be so clueless. Do any of those spray-painted monuments to Civil Rights leaders who were defaced and torn down mean nothing to you? Why support the terrorism? That is on you, and I am calling you out on it.

It is not the Right doing this. It is not Trump's words or actions that cause it. It is purely the Left spoiling for a fight. Like you. We Await your smarminess and insult. Unless you have some logic you can provide?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 12, 2020, 03:53:42 PM
It's a good primer on self-serving and delusional right wing propaganda, so thanks for sharing!

You can't be so clueless. Do any of those spray-painted monuments to Civil Rights leaders who were defaced and torn down mean nothing to you? Why support the terrorism? That is on you, and I am calling you out on it.

It is not the Right doing this. It is not Trump's words or actions that cause it. It is purely the Left spoiling for a fight. Like you. We Await your smarminess and insult. Unless you have some logic you can provide?

As ever, wmLambert, your thought process is so psychophantically twisted that no response is justified or worth making.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 12, 2020, 04:04:06 PM
Quote
No. 5: When the right attends rallies, they carry the American flag. When the left protests (and riots), the only American flags you see are burned.

And Confederate flags.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 12, 2020, 04:09:37 PM
One of your big gripes is that they aren't tidy? :D. Charlottesville, post-demonstration 2017:

Quote
But as the sky lightened on a cloudy Sunday morning, the statue of Robert E. Lee on horseback — ostensibly the reason for the clashes — seemed to be surveying a battlefield still strewn with the debris from Saturday's conflagration. And what was left behind tells much about Charlottesville's angriest day.

I don't know how you can stand the mess!

More proof. The "Unite the Right" rally was hardly a Right-wing protest - regardless of the sloganeering. The KKK, David Duke, and all those White Supremacists are dyed-in-the-womb Democrats who eschew the correct nomenclature. It plays better on the six O'clock news to call yourself Right, when you're really Left. Projecting is not an answer. The GOP is the party of Lincoln and MLK, Jr. It was never the party of David Duke or any Left-wing sycophants. The Democrats invented the "Nixon Southern Strategy" to pretend the Right turned into its opposiite. It never did. In fact, the Democrats who were always the party opposed to Civil Rights never changed its stripes either.

What is more important, the rally was designed to grab attention and give the Left an excuse to riot and cause problems. Of course they did, and left behind the trash that is their trademark. No one on the Right did that. Thank you for pointing that out.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on June 12, 2020, 04:10:47 PM
Ah, finally, a non-partisan take on the situation [tension headache relaxes]

Interesting. Your take is that the website that posted the points is conservative, which them somehow makes it incorrect and bothers you head. Can you argue that point No. 7 is wrong? Or do you deny that those who "ransack and burn their neighborhoods, spray-paint obscene graffiti and leave a mess of litter and trash everywhere for someone else to clean up" are not on the Left? My point is that the issue is irrelevant or secondary, no matter how spotlighted the Left can present it. The real goal is not redress of victimization, but pure savagery to threaten others to acquiesce to your own perceived power base. {Do it my way or else?"

Asking whether the points are accurate is almost beside the point. We could debate each one, you wouldn't give way, but we could bypass that. It's easy enough for me to see plenty criticize on the right, and plenty on the left. One may be more in the news one day but that doesn't matter. Even an entirely accurate list of complaints against the left still makes it propaganda if only criticisms towards one side are presented. I could make you a long list taking both sides to the trash bin. But you don't do that because your side is always right and the other side always wrong. So that's how we know it's partisan; you're in this to win, not to find common ground. That's not irrelevant, and even though in it to win have things to say that matter, they just cannot see the box they're stuck in.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 12, 2020, 04:12:18 PM
"it's not the Left doing this. It is Trump's words and actions that cause it.  It is purely the Right kneeling on civilians necks, lynching black joggers, accosting Americans and telling them to go back to China, attacking peaceful protesters to clear a path for the Dear Leader to wave an upside down Bible in front of a church..."

See how silly that is?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 12, 2020, 04:16:06 PM
Quote
No. 5: When the right attends rallies, they carry the American flag. When the left protests (and riots), the only American flags you see are burned.

And Confederate flags.

Neh, more posers acting like idiots looking for publicity does not a Right-winger make.

Are you suggesting it's okay for the Left to burn both Current American flags, as well as historic American Confederate flags? I guess book burning and vandalizing our history will make it all history go away? I understand much is not taught in school, but you can't erase history. It needs to be there for history to be understood.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 12, 2020, 04:20:58 PM
"it's not the Left doing this. It is Trump's words and actions that cause it.  It is purely the Right kneeling on civilians necks, lynching black joggers, accosting Americans and telling them to go back to China, attacking peaceful protesters to clear a path for the Dear Leader to wave an upside down Bible in front of a church..."

See how silly that is?

No. My point was accurate, yours is just smarmy projection aimed to portray sardonic but invalid irony. Derek Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck - not the Right. Why do Leftist apologists believe they can nitpick history to score points? Look at those points I posted. Don't they embarrass you because you have no answer?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 12, 2020, 04:21:18 PM
"it's not the Left doing this. It is Trump's words and actions that cause it.  It is purely the Right kneeling on civilians necks, lynching black joggers, accosting Americans and telling them to go back to China, attacking peaceful protesters to clear a path for the Dear Leader to wave an upside down Bible in front of a church..."

See how silly that is?

I didn't bother to make the effort this time, but it's just as illuminating to switch left <-> right everywhere and like magic it works just as well :).
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 12, 2020, 04:25:02 PM
Quote
No. 5: When the right attends rallies, they carry the American flag. When the left protests (and riots), the only American flags you see are burned.

And Confederate flags.

Neh, more posers acting like idiots looking for publicity does not a Right-winger make.

Are you suggesting it's okay for the Left to burn both Current American flags, as well as historic American Confederate flags? I guess book burning and vandalizing our history will make it all history go away? I understand much is not taught in school, but you can't erase history. It needs to be there for history to be understood.

They are posing, but for the camera. Councilwoman (https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/community/northeast-tarrant/article243404061.html) backed by big money donors and the Lt. Governor.

Nobody is talking about taking the confederate flag out of history books, museums, and other historical contexts. We just don't want it flying over public buildings. It should be history, not current events. It should be soberly contemplated, not admired and revered.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 12, 2020, 05:00:47 PM
One of your big gripes is that they aren't tidy? :D. Charlottesville, post-demonstration 2017:

Quote
But as the sky lightened on a cloudy Sunday morning, the statue of Robert E. Lee on horseback — ostensibly the reason for the clashes — seemed to be surveying a battlefield still strewn with the debris from Saturday's conflagration. And what was left behind tells much about Charlottesville's angriest day.

I don't know how you can stand the mess!

A counter-point on that one:

Conservative Rallies are generally known for leaving their venues virtually pristine when they clear out.

Haggling over the matter of the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally rightfully belonging under the conservative banner. They were also ordered to leave by law enforcement before the rally otherwise would have concluded. So anybody who might have been so inclined as to clean up the mess of others never had the chance, police forced them out of the area before they could do so.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 12, 2020, 08:01:37 PM
Regardless of haggling over the matter of the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" rally rightfully belonging under the conservative banner. They were also ordered to leave by law enforcement before the rally otherwise would have concluded. So anybody who might have been so inclined as to clean up the mess of others never had the chance, police forced them out of the area before they could do so.

correcting an omission to my last post.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 12, 2020, 08:23:47 PM
Quote
They came, they partied, they left a mess. Downtown Orlando is slowly getting back to normal, after President Donald Trump’s visit on Tuesday evening to officially launch his 2020 re-election bid.

It’s time to take out the trash downtown. After Tuesday night’s party, downtown is feeling a bit hungover but many are happy about the money they brought in at the the “45 Fest” party.

Lots of items and trash were left behind. The city says it’s up to the Trump campaign to take out the trash and pay for it. Meanwhile, businesses nearby felt the effects of the rally Tuesday night.

so pristine (https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/after-trump-rally-comes-the-clean-up)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 12, 2020, 08:34:50 PM
New Jersey Trump Rally (https://www.nj.com/news/j66j-2020/01/e94812bb778746/beach-chairs-blankets-and-trash-massive-mess-left-after-trumps-wildwood-rally.html)

Sometimes they do clean up (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/a-birthday-present-for-ralph-northam-protesters-clean-garbage-off-streets-following-virginia-gun-rally)

Meanwhile, exposure of disinformation campaign about climate rally (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/protesters-hyde-park-rubbish/)

Environmental activists regularly clean up other people's trash (https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/world-cleanup-day-asia-climate-change-11930134)

Of course, you don't get a chance to clean up after yourself if you've been chased from the area with tear gas and rubber bullets.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 12, 2020, 08:52:43 PM
Derek Chauvin kneeled on Floyd's neck - not the Right.
Why do you think I just meant Chauvin?  Why, just look at these Trump supporters (https://www.instagram.com/p/CBMrdgBgQ5c/?utm_source=ig_embed).
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 12, 2020, 09:04:51 PM
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Trump's "base" is Conservative.

Trump has Conservative support for lack of any better option, and no, the Democrats aren't selling anything they're willing to tolerate.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDrake on June 12, 2020, 09:17:21 PM
I guess you'll have to explain the "No True Conservative" defense.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Trump's "base" is Conservative.

Trump has Conservative support for lack of any better option, and no, the Democrats aren't selling anything they're willing to tolerate.

No True Scotsman. Got it.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 12, 2020, 09:51:46 PM
I love how even "the right" is not "conservative" when it's inconvenient, whereas democrats/the left/liberal/antifa/black lives matter/the deep state/occupy wall street/the united nations/the deep state/the FBI are basically synonymous.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 13, 2020, 01:45:43 AM
I love how even "the right" is not "conservative" when it's inconvenient, whereas democrats/the left/liberal/antifa/black lives matter/the deep state/occupy wall street/the united nations/the deep state/the FBI are basically synonymous.

The AG for the state of Minnesota knowingly poses with AntiFa signage on Twitter. Democrats have been known to actively support AntiFa or otherwise be "more than sympathetic" to their cause.  You don't even need to look for "dog whistles" on those items.

Meanwhile, we can go back to 4 years ago, and see the Republcians, and even many Conservatives(not to be confused with the Republicans) complaining about the Trump supporters and "his base" which wasn't considered Republican then, and certainly wasn't overly conservative. Fast forward several years, and we have a Republican party that is generally under the thumb of Trump but it's still a very grudging thing because he's PotUS, he's a Republican, and he's more popular than the GOP in Washington, and they don't really have an alternative to offer right now. (Which says a lot about how bad the GOP Leadership is) Although part of the problem is Trump is still sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

If you're a Republican and trying to bill yourself as "the Trump alternative," your life becomes talking about Trump and that's a migraine waiting to happen. Especially as you try to differentiate your policies from the very tone-deaf Donald Trump, and get to "enjoy" being hammered by Trump and the Democratic press alike.

This also ignores the "lesson learned" by Republicans with regards to one Ross Perot back in the 1990's. They're not going to split their vote, as they know that'll mean the Democrat's win. And with what the Democratic platform appears to be, that's very bad news for the country.

Conservatives and much of the GOP support Trump not because they're pro-Trump, they anti-Socialist and the activists among the Democrats are chomping at the bit to push that frontier much further and much faster than is sane.

It isn't even really Biden that's the problem on that front, although he is running on a Socialism light platform, it's the other Democrats in Congress that makes it alarming. Pair them up with a President Biden and it's likely going to be time to fasten our seatbelts, and hope your upgrade to a 5 point restraining harness arrived in time.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 13, 2020, 06:49:13 AM
Thanks for making the point.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on June 13, 2020, 07:37:01 AM
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Trump's "base" is Conservative.

Trump has Conservative support for lack of any better option, and no, the Democrats aren't selling anything they're willing to tolerate.

They don't have to support him.  They would do better for the country if they voted for a ham sandwich.  Yesterday Robert Gates (Defense Secretary under Bush and Obama) said that he disagreed with virtually every position Biden held on foreign policy, but he's still the better choice because he's a decent human being.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: wmLambert on June 13, 2020, 12:40:50 PM
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Trump's "base" is Conservative.

Trump has Conservative support for lack of any better option, and no, the Democrats aren't selling anything they're willing to tolerate.

They don't have to support him.  They would do better for the country if they voted for a ham sandwich.  Yesterday Robert Gates (Defense Secretary under Bush and Obama) said that he disagreed with virtually every position Biden held on foreign policy, but he's still the better choice because he's a decent human being.

Robert Gates s another Never-Trumper. So many Swamp monsters.

Returning to Charlottesville, one of the very few examples used by Democrats to rationalize their own perfidy during literally  hundreds of protests and riots, Drake Daley, Michael Miselis, Cole White, and Thomas Gillen were members of an independent group known as "Rise Above Movement," who all plead guilty for conspiring to riot. They are a self described alternate far-right group, not a "Right" group, and no GOP condoned or apologized for their actions, the way Democrats defehd the looters and rioters. Out of the hundreds of protestors, these few stuck out like a sore thumb, but do not represent the Right. There were good people on both sides of the protest, and a few sickos. Do not use the sickos as more strawmen to deflect.

There was also one protest where environmentalists cleaned up after themselves, which made the news because of the rarity of it. You can use that also to rationalize how the Left behaves, but don't expect it to disprove the SOP.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on June 13, 2020, 01:13:28 PM
Good to see your deflector shields remain in place and fully powered, wmLambert - anybody who disagrees with Trump must be either a never-Trumper or a swamp-monster, because, well, they disagree with Trump, and Trump is without flaw...

Just wondering whether you can support this piece of misinformation yet:

Martin Gugino is openly named by his own mayor as a professional agitator for Antifa.

You should be able to provide a transcript of where the mayor made this statement.  At the very least, you should be able to provide a video recording, specifically of the mayor Byron Brown, making such a statement.

Can you do so, or are you really basing your accusation on a 'report' by the Russian apologist OAN, which itself is based on since discredited/retracted misstatements by other media outlets?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on June 14, 2020, 11:16:28 PM
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/calls-to-remove-controversial-abraham-lincoln-statue-in-boston/ar-BB15sMUJ?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280 (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/calls-to-remove-controversial-abraham-lincoln-statue-in-boston/ar-BB15sMUJ?ocid=ob-fb-enus-280)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Aris Katsaris on June 15, 2020, 12:10:05 AM
There were good people on both sides of the protest, and a few sickos.

Am curious, do you have any evidence that there were any "good people" in support of wanting the statue to remain? How did you determine this?

Can you name a few of those good people, so I can look them up and try and determine their goodness myself?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on July 01, 2020, 06:53:57 PM
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-protests-for-racial-justice/2020/07/01/885909530/columbus-ohio-takes-down-statue-of-christopher-columbus

Quote
"For many people in our community, the statue represents patriarchy, oppression and divisiveness," Ginther said. "That does not represent our great city, and we will no longer live in the shadow of our ugly past."

Ginther being the mayor of Columbus, Ohio speaking on the matter of the statue of the City's namesake having his statue removed.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on July 01, 2020, 06:57:49 PM
It's not easy coming to terms with the facts of colonialism, and how the birth of one's country depended on the subjugation and genocide of other races.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on July 02, 2020, 10:51:49 AM
I think we should eliminate all traces of chimpanzees from our society. Humans evolved from them, and as we know chimps are prone to territorial conflict, murder, and toxic masculinity. I don't think we should tolerate living in the shadow of this ugly past either. We can mention them in history books, but there should be no sign in our culture that we are ok with chimps or that zoos support their immoral practices through colorful pictures and positively-framed descriptions.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on July 02, 2020, 11:14:07 AM
Well... humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, though chimps and humans did evolve from a common ancestor.  Also, that would have happened millions of years ago, so could not be included in any history books - they would need to be pre-history books.  It's also interesting that you think of zoos, essentially concentration camps or prisons for chimpanzees, as being some kinds of marketing tools for chimp behaviour in nature...
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on July 02, 2020, 11:18:14 AM
It was a joke...
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on July 02, 2020, 11:34:14 AM
Yes, clearly.  Was the joke dependent on the mistakes, though?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on July 02, 2020, 11:37:05 AM
Yes, clearly.  Was the joke dependent on the mistakes, though?

Is your ability to understand the joke dependent on the technical data being accurate? Or were you just nitpicking to knock down a straw man?
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on July 02, 2020, 11:42:53 AM
I think we should eliminate all traces of chimpanzees from our society. Humans evolved from them, and as we know chimps are prone to territorial conflict, murder, and toxic masculinity. I don't think we should tolerate living in the shadow of this ugly past either. We can mention them in history books, but there should be no sign in our culture that we are ok with chimps or that zoos support their immoral practices through colorful pictures and positively-framed descriptions.

Good point, except for the minor correction that humans did not evolve from chimps.  In any case, protozoa are the real culprits, so...
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: TheDeamon on July 02, 2020, 11:46:12 AM
Good point, except for the minor correction that humans did not evolve from chimps.  In any case, protozoa are the real culprits, so...

I blame the stromatolites myself.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on July 02, 2020, 11:47:39 AM
Yes, clearly.  Was the joke dependent on the mistakes, though?

Is your ability to understand the joke dependent on the technical data being accurate? Or were you just nitpicking to knock down a straw man?
Was your joke a straw man?  I thought it was an awkward metaphor...
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on July 02, 2020, 11:50:38 AM
It was a joke...

I had prayed for that to be the case <whew!>
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on July 02, 2020, 11:57:40 AM
It was a joke...

I had prayed for that to be the case <whew!>

I'm amazed that you're all finding it so hard to glean the meaning of the joke. For my part I was concerned that it was too on the nose.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Kasandra on July 02, 2020, 12:10:44 PM
Perhaps the result of too much imagination on your part and not enough on ours ;)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on July 02, 2020, 12:21:58 PM
It was clearly an attempt at humour (as I said earlier) That it isn't funny has to do with why I don't think it was actually on the nose at all - that you think it was on the nose is probably why you think it is funny
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on July 02, 2020, 12:35:07 PM
It was a joke insofar as it wasn't meant as literally serious. It wasn't intended to be humorous. But I'm happy to explain a post the next time one goes over your head. Just ask :)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on July 02, 2020, 12:43:52 PM
But it was funny!  Probably not in the way you thought, in that it was funny that you clearly thought it was "on the nose", whereas you missed the whole face ;)
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on July 02, 2020, 03:24:26 PM
it was funny that you clearly thought it was "on the nose", whereas you missed the whole face ;)

I guess so! It's also funny how "comprehension" magically declines when it's a post counter to one's own predisposed beliefs.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: DonaldD on July 02, 2020, 03:30:54 PM
...or increases when it matches one's beliefs.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: Fenring on July 02, 2020, 03:34:31 PM
...or increases when it matches one's beliefs.

I suppose that would be a corollary, yes.
Title: Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
Post by: NobleHunter on July 02, 2020, 05:03:19 PM
Poe's law in action.