Protestors vs. Rioters

[wmLambert]

Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

Gugino has fractured skull and cannot walk

Good thing Gugino had that hidden bag of blood to cushion his fall....

And now, because he was old and weak enough to allow himself to be pushed over and have his skull fractured (and maybe more because irresponsible people like wmLambert repost libelous and easily disproven conspiracy theories) Mr Gugino will not be able to return home due to receiving death threats

So the tube that the blood came from is unimportant? Look at the photo. There was no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion?. The videos showed Gugino moved toward the police and then he propelled himself backward when the police officer held out his hand to keep Gugino away. According to his own social media (which were taken down) he bragged about how many times he was arrested and got away. Being threatened seems to be a goal - not a fear.

[DonaldD]

wmLambert, I'm pretty sure you don't realize how coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs you are making yourself sound.

I also have no confidence that you are capable of appreciating how far removed you now are from reality.  If, however, you have seen mental health assistance in the past, then I apologize: I would suggest that you at least talk to a family member about your current situation.

[Aris Katsaris]

Remember Martin Gugino, the elderly AntiFa agitator who fell to the ground when pushed back by the police?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaGb35_X0AAKo48.jpg

That pool of blood was evidently produced by a bag either in his mouth or under the mask. Premeditated all the way.

Gugino has fractured skull and cannot walk

Good thing Gugino had that hidden bag of blood to cushion his fall....

And now, because he was old and weak enough to allow himself to be pushed over and have his skull fractured (and maybe more because irresponsible people like wmLambert repost libelous and easily disproven conspiracy theories) Mr Gugino will not be able to return home due to receiving death threats

So the tube that the blood came from is unimportant? Look at the photo. There was no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion?

I've looked at the photo. I've also looked at the video. There is no tube, there is only an arrow saying there was one in a photo that people have deliberately blurred in portions (you can see the unblurred portion that prove this must have been deliberate) because clearly the unblurred photo wasn't convenient enough for the lying narrative people want to spew about this.

All you're saying is random nonsense -- stuff like "There is no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion" is to the point of utter and complete non-sequitur. Who ever told you you need "blood on the back of the head" to have a concussion? Is this now a medical fact. Please provide citation here.

Nothing you say is remotely SANE, let alone true. Open your own frigging eyes and stop spewing every single piece of lie you're being spoonfed.

[Kasandra]

Nothing you say is remotely SANE, let alone true. Open your own frigging eyes and stop spewing every single piece of lie you're being spoonfed.

Zealots can see the cosmic truth in the least grain of sand.  I've stopped responding to wmLambert's posts because you can't argue or even have a conversation with someone who thinks like that.

[TheDrake]

Well I saw a youtube video posted by the flat earth society that proves there weren't even any police near him, he threw himself to the ground in an empty courtyard.

[Kasandra]

Well I saw a youtube video posted by the flat earth society that proves there weren't even any police near him, he threw himself to the ground in an empty courtyard.

I'm oddly sympathetic with flat-earthers, as for one example the basketball would keep rolling away otherwise, but I am skeptical about this claim.

A city councilwoman posted a statement about the CHOP shooting.  Our conservative members (some of whom are good people) might liken this to a flat-earth belief, but I'm evenly sympathetic to the blue marble point of view.

Our deepest condolences go out to the loved ones of the black protester who was tragically killed this morning by gunfire at the Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP). Socialist Alternative and I stand in solidarity with the family and friends of the victim, and with the injured protester now in the hospital, as well as with all community members and fellow activists.

Though we await confirmation of the details of the killing, there are indications that this may have been a right-wing attack. If so, this would not be the first such attack on the Capitol Hill Black Lives Matter protest. As many recall, an armed man drove into the protest action on June 8, and shot black activist Dan Gregory, who had heroically intervened to stop the driver.

[TheDeamon]

Funny thing, when you block professionals from accessing a crime scene in a timely manner, anything that is found once they're "allowed" to access it becomes suspect.

They made the search for the shooter that much harder, unless there happened to be a half-dozen people running smartphone video recordings of the events as they happened, and they captured enough of the right kind of footage to ID the shooter.

[TheDrake]

He was probably a terrorist Antifa agitator who shot himself to make the right wing look bad.

[TheDeamon]

On another front, protesters have removed statues of Francis Scott Key and Ulysses S. Grant on the grounds that both of them owned slaves and were connected to families who owned slaves.

[Aris Katsaris]

I suppose that the nation who didn't want to remove Confederate statues, deserves getting even more statues than that toppled.

[Kasandra]

I suppose that the nation who didn't want to remove Confederate statues, deserves getting even more statues than that toppled.

Agreed.  By definition, statues of Confederate Army generals or the Confederate battle flag are symbols of treason.  The same people who proudly defend them now claim to do it in defense of everything those symbols opposed.  The added irony is that nearly all of the generals were losers of almost every battle they led their troops into and the troops themselves were almost never owned slaves.  To say they were misguided is being too kind. So, what are we supposed to call those who carry guns in defense of those things today?  Misguided doesn't come close.

[wmLambert]

..."There is no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion" is to the point of utter and complete non-sequitur.

Interesting. Then why was there a pool of blood if his head wasn't cut?

[wmLambert]

BTW; I am a former Creative Director and Animator.Producer, and have the skills to create such a doctored photo, myself. What is missing is the bio-history of Gugino which makes him the obvious point of interest.

[wmLambert]

...I've looked at the photo. I've also looked at the video. There is no tube, there is only an arrow saying there was one in a photo that people have deliberately blurred in portions (you can see the unblurred portion that prove this must have been deliberate) because clearly the unblurred photo wasn't convenient enough for the lying narrative people want to spew about this.

I went to the video and snapped a closeup of Gugino on the ground and the tube is there as is the pool of blood that dripped from the tube to the side under the ear, and not where his head supposedly hit the ground. You did not look at the video, because I did and saw it, exactly like in the photo. Quit covering up. I bet you don't even get paid for doing this like the other AntiFa agitators do. Please reconsider why you are doing this, and projecting your own chicanery onto me.

[DonaldD]

I also took a close up of the side of his head, and there was no tube. I also followed up with a friend of mine in the ambulance service - actually married to the medic who cared for Gugino afterwards - he saw the blood coming from his ear, and there was no evidence of either a bag or a tube.

 

[DonaldD]

..."There is no blood on the back of his head, so how did he get a concussion" is to the point of utter and complete non-sequitur.

Interesting. Then why was there a pool of blood if his head wasn't cut?

Google is your friend:

Healthline: skull fracture

Serious symptoms of a skull fracture include:

• bleeding from the wound caused by the trauma, near the location of the trauma, or around the eyes, ears, and nose

Johns Hopkins: Head Injury

Moderate to severe head injury (requires immediate medical attention)--symptoms may include any of the above plus:

• Blood or clear fluid draining from the ears or nose

Merck: Skull Fracture

Certain symptoms suggest a fracture at the base of the skull:

• Blood may collect behind the eardrum, or if the eardrum is ruptured, blood may drain from the ear.

[DonaldD]

BTW, are you really suggesting Gugino does not have a fractured skull, given that he has been hospitalized, you know, with a fractured skull?

Or are you positing that he prepared himself ahead of time by fracturing his skull before assaulting the police, or that he managed tp have somebody fracture his skull after the video was taken?  Or are you suggesting that he managed to fracture his skull during the fracas, of his own volition, and had prepared the blood bag in advance, just in case the skull fracture wasn't sufficient to cause bleeding?

[Kasandra]

Why yes, yes I am.

[ScottF]

I've been looking into the statue situation. If the purpose and motivation is to address the glorification and outright celebration of the US' racist past, there's a lot more work to do. Cases in point:

Berkley: George Berkley was a slave owner.
Stanford: Leland Stanford said “I prefer the white man to the negro as an inhabitant to our country. I believe its greatest good has been derived by having all of the country settled by free white men.”
Yale: Elihu Yale Was A Slave Trader.
Princeton: Named after a town that is named after dictator.
Harvard: Haven't found a direct connection to racism yet, but I'm sure it's there.

These are just our elite/ivy league schools, there must be hundreds more that need addressing.

[Kasandra]

Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.  The discussion around each person honored for the contributions and denigrated for their transgressions is how to weigh the balance.  Each should be judged independently and on their merits.  As for the Confederate Generals, their names wouldn't even be known except that they were traitors on the losing side of a war against the United States with the sole purpose of preserving the institution of slavery.  What do they have to balance that against?

This is not a new discussion and not specific to our national heritage.  One of the most famous anatomists whose amply-illustrated Atlas of Human Anatomy books have been used for generations to teach medical students did his "dissections" on both dead and living prisoners in Nazi concentration camps.  The medical field has struggled to answer the question of whether to ignore his contributions to the field since that was first recognized.  We have a copy but I never open it.  Is that enough?  Should I destroy it or donate it to the med school library for students to refer to?

[Fenring]

Washington and Jefferson were slave owners.  The discussion around each person honored for the contributions and denigrated for their transgressions is how to weigh the balance.  Each should be judged independently and on their merits.

Not sure if you think there is an objective way to do this, but just as the John Stuart Mill enthusiasts need to have it pointed out that there is no objective scoring system available to us to measure greatest good, I'll point out to you that any scoring on who has how much merit is going to be completely arbitrary and based on the whimsy of whoever is doing the judging. Ask an SJW-type whether a Confederate general who was a kind person and cared for his family should be seen, they will no doubt assign maximum penalty to the Confederate part and zero to the rest, content to brand him a villain. You, yourself, seem to blithely find the word "traitor" taken as a given.

At any rate, having a round-table discussion about the merits or demerits of a particular Confederate 'hero' is hardly on the menu of the current cancel culture.

As for the Confederate Generals, their names wouldn't even be known except that they were traitors on the losing side of a war against the United States with the sole purpose of preserving the institution of slavery.

You must be one of them Yankee Doodle Dandies!

[ScottF]

Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

[Kasandra]

Yankee Doodle Dandies

I hadn't thought about that epithet in a long time, but it was an insult directed at American colonists who identified with the anti-English cause.  In other words, gays and fops, aka liberals.

There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.  Another is the republican principle that all men are created equal, which they also lacked.  I won't bother with Christian prohibitions against the "particular institution" of slavery and racism, since the OT and NT mention slavery, servitude and bondage over 100 times and which Christian fundamentalists had no problem with when slavery was the law of the land and many don't now.

Nobody argues that Noah and his offspring, as well as Adam and Eve where white, except that they almost certainly were not.  So it is at deepest level of human morality and ethics a subjective question, but that doesn't mean we can't pare away a lot of more superficial considerations that make it seem subjective but don't really. 

It seems a pretty easy answer to me to the question of what did those generals do to balance against their treason on behalf of slavery.  Not much for some, nothing for the rest.  Good riddance.

[Fenring]

Yankee Doodle Dandies

I hadn't thought about that epithet in a long time, but it was an insult directed at American colonists who identified with the anti-English cause.  In other words, gays and fops, aka liberals.

I suspect the song "Yankee Doodle Dandee" was meant to be about how the North had no class and no 'society' in the sense of knowing how to dress well and be an enlightened gentleman. The song says that an idiot Yankee puts a feather in his cap and thinks that he's now dressed fashionably (macaroni). I expect it was a play on the general concept of the North having power and money but being otherwise uncultured. Maybe there was a gay connotation back then? But I'm not sure, as being a dandy in English culture was by no means a queer connotation or even negative; it basically meant you were monied and cared about physical presentation a lot. I think the idea here isn't that the Northerners were dandies (i.e. queer) but rather that they coveted the dandy refinement of Southern gentlemen and stupidly thought they could spent their new money to buy it. There's the antipathy towards nouveau riche and all that.

There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.

I think you're sort of proving my point here. This case in point is telling: just by using the term "patriotism" to mean loyalty to the Federal government above all, shows you are using a modern and also potentially partisan value judgement to assess the "character" of people who lived 150 years years ago, notwithstanding the fact that they saw the union as consisting of an alliance of a series of independent nations, called states. The idea that someone should have allegiance to the union over and above their own state seems obvious to many people now (especially in the North), but back then I doubt this would have been considered a normal standard for defining patriotism.

And this is why any so-called judgement of past people is just going to be an exercise in echo-chamber politics, where truth is buried under slogans mantras.

[Kasandra]

We could quibble endlessly about the meanings of phrases and words in historical vs. current usage, so I won't spend much effort on it.  Two people can have opposing views on who is or isn't patriotic, but patriotism doesn't and never has applied to one's state, even before the Civil War.  The simplest and most universal definition is "love of country."  I'll let you decide for yourself if the secessionists were patriotic.

[Fenring]

We could quibble endlessly about the meanings of phrases and words in historical vs. current usage, so I won't spend much effort on it.  Two people can have opposing views on who is or isn't patriotic, but patriotism doesn't and never has applied to one's state, even before the Civil War.  The simplest and most universal definition is "love of country."  I'll let you decide for yourself if the secessionists were patriotic.

So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'? I would suggest that the notion of the U.S. being one country and the states just being districts within that country is a fairly new one. I don't think this is quibbling about historical terms, this is literally the topic. Looking at anyone with revisionist history (which is by the way a no-no in history departments) and judging them only by today's terms and standards basically throws understanding out the window. By today's standards, every single human being basically prior to WWII was some kind of imperialist scumbag, or a racist, or etc etc. Great.

[TheDeamon]

Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.

[TheDeamon]

There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.  Another is the republican principle that all men are created equal, which they also lacked.  I won't bother with Christian prohibitions against the "particular institution" of slavery and racism, since the OT and NT mention slavery, servitude and bondage over 100 times and which Christian fundamentalists had no problem with when slavery was the law of the land and many don't now.

Your problem here is you immediately stepped into the problem of judging prior generation by modern standards rather than the standards of their time.

For 1860's America, you were a citizen of your state first, the United States seconds. In the case of Robert E. Lee for example, his failing was that he was a patriot to Virginia first, and a patriot to the Union second, so when Virginia parted ways with the union, his loyalty compelled him to honor the call of duty from his state.

In that era, if he had sided with the Union, while the northerners may have lauded him all the same, he would have also been deeply suspected by many on the north because of his dis-loyalty to his home state of Virginia and the Confederates would have regarded him as one of the most vile sorts of traitors imaginable. Even though in that scenario he never spent so much as a minute as a member of the Confederacy.

[yossarian22c]

There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.

I think you're sort of proving my point here. This case in point is telling: just by using the term "patriotism" to mean loyalty to the Federal government above all, shows you are using a modern and also potentially partisan value judgement to assess the "character" of people who lived 150 years years ago, notwithstanding the fact that they saw the union as consisting of an alliance of a series of independent nations, called states. The idea that someone should have allegiance to the union over and above their own state seems obvious to many people now (especially in the North), but back then I doubt this would have been considered a normal standard for defining patriotism.

And this is why any so-called judgement of past people is just going to be an exercise in echo-chamber politics, where truth is buried under slogans mantras.

I don't think we need to go back into history and remove honors and things named for everyone who ever owned a slave, was a racist, etc. However, removing honors and statues to the men who led a rebellion against the united states to preserve slavery isn't a hard sell to me. The civil war is still the war in which the most Americans died; more than all the other wars we've fought in combined. Honoring the men who led the war to dissolve the nation isn't justified in any way. There's no declaration of independence or constitution to point to like with the founders. You don't have things like the League of Nations that Wilson advocated, you have their sole leadership of an armed insurrection against the country.

I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.

[Kasandra]

So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but is the EU a country?  Do you want to answer my question whether secessionists were patriotic, since that's the word we're focusing on at the moment. 

Looking at anyone with revisionist history (which is by the way a no-no in history departments) and judging them only by today's terms and standards basically throws understanding out the window. By today's standards, every single human being basically prior to WWII was some kind of imperialist scumbag, or a racist, or etc etc. Great.

I have no idea what raw nerve I must have touched in you.

[TheDeamon]

I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.

Speaking of that, if the Democrats want to virtue signal on this, given many of their current targets also happen to be prior Democrats.

I'll take them much more seriously when they start going after anything attached to Woodrow Wilson. until then, they can pack sand. In my book, he was far worse than just about any Confederate General

[Kasandra]

Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.

How would you balance that against other aspects of his life?  FWIW, I'm not defending or arguing against taking down his statue.  There are very few people who I think should have a statue displayed in their honor in a public space.

[TheDeamon]

Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.

How would you balance that against other aspects of his life?  FWIW, I'm not defending or arguing against taking down his statue.  There are very few people who I think should have a statue displayed in their honor in a public space.

I was being slightly sarcastic in that response, but echoing the statements reported by the press at the time it happened. Grant's statue was taken down because he owned a slave, and his wife's family owned a lot of slaves.

The "additional material" beyond the immediately previous was information I discovered while doing some research of my own.

[Fenring]

So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but is the EU a country?  Do you want to answer my question whether secessionists were patriotic, since that's the word we're focusing on at the moment.

Actually I don't know to what extent there is a technical distinction between a "union", a "confederation", and a "nation" consisting of independent states. Really the devil may be in the details, in terms of which entities in the union have which powers and responsibilities. In comparing the U.S. to the EU, I suppose the question would be in how much infrastructure the EU has that is comparable to the Federal apparatus at the founding of the U.S. I don't really know the answer to that, and since I brought up the EU I suppose the burden is on me to support my analogy. So from that standpoint I'm not knowledgeable to back it up further other than to say that I think it is specious to define "patriotism" at the founding of the U.S. as loyalty to the union above all just because that's what it means now.

Looking at anyone with revisionist history (which is by the way a no-no in history departments) and judging them only by today's terms and standards basically throws understanding out the window. By today's standards, every single human being basically prior to WWII was some kind of imperialist scumbag, or a racist, or etc etc. Great.

I have no idea what raw nerve I must have touched in you.

This really had nothing to do with you, but you will increasingly see a tendency (I predict) in assessing past people and events by today's accepted morals. I don't think we're too far off from the Ancient Greeks being declared anathema because they had slaves.

[Kasandra]

There is no objective measure for the quality of someone's character, but we do have lines that we don't cross.  One this country honors is patriotism, which those generals sorely lacked.  Another is the republican principle that all men are created equal, which they also lacked.  I won't bother with Christian prohibitions against the "particular institution" of slavery and racism, since the OT and NT mention slavery, servitude and bondage over 100 times and which Christian fundamentalists had no problem with when slavery was the law of the land and many don't now.

Your problem here is you immediately stepped into the problem of judging prior generation by modern standards rather than the standards of their time.

Why is that my problem?  I understand how their loyalties were divided, but they chose their state and culture over their country.  And they fought and died to preserve the "peculiar institution" of slavery, not for any higher cause.  If you want to avoid imposing revisionist thinking, don't bring up "states rights," which is a purely modern invention.

For 1860's America, you were a citizen of your state first, the United States seconds. In the case of Robert E. Lee for example, his failing was that he was a patriot to Virginia first, and a patriot to the Union second, so when Virginia parted ways with the union, his loyalty compelled him to honor the call of duty from his state.

And that was a horrible error of misplaced loyalties on his part.  He chose treason over patriotism, given the definition of those terms both then and now.

In that era, if he had sided with the Union, while the northerners may have lauded him all the same, he would have also been deeply suspected by many on the north because of his dis-loyalty to his home state of Virginia and the Confederates would have regarded him as one of the most vile sorts of traitors imaginable. Even though in that scenario he never spent so much as a minute as a member of the Confederacy.

Doing the ethical and moral thing can be a bitch, but people of superior character and judgment do it anyway.  Cheering for the home team isn't a sign of ethics or morality, but identification.

[Fenring]

I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.

I think my point is less to do with me wanting to assess them with you, and more to do with the fact that the group doing the deciding right now is essentially a radical faction and does not represent the will of the majority. Imagine if a group from the Westboro Baptist Church got to make the decisions about whose statues in your town would stay up or go down? I bet you wouldn't like that very much. The actual reasons for their decision-making would be beside the point, and hey, maybe even some of their arguments could be good from time to time (I dunno about that, but...). But it's irrelevant to debate the particulars, because you know that it's a far-right religious group that is making value judgement that are highly idiosyncratic to its particular beliefs.

Having an actual public debate about whether there is value is such statues would be...ok, I guess. I don't find it that important a topic, but I suppose it's reasonable to ask whether some old statue should forevermore take up prime real estate in public areas. But this isn't that.

[Kasandra]

Down goes Grant! Maybe it's just statues in general (no pun intended)?

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jun/20/ulysses-grant-statue-toppled-in-san-francisco/

Grant owned a slave, and married into a family that owned a lot of slaves. That there are reports of his being a "soft touch" on the slaves and often being found working right alongside them in the fields is entirely immaterial to the fact that he participated in the institution.

How would you balance that against other aspects of his life?  FWIW, I'm not defending or arguing against taking down his statue.  There are very few people who I think should have a statue displayed in their honor in a public space.

I was being slightly sarcastic in that response, but echoing the statements reported by the press at the time it happened. Grant's statue was taken down because he owned a slave, and his wife's family owned a lot of slaves.

Would you please raise your hand next time?  My sarcameter has been registering a lot of false negatives lately.

[TheDeamon]

So in your view members of the EU can only be patriotic towards the EU, and an Italian person being patriotic towards Italy is 'not a thing'?

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but is the EU a country?  Do you want to answer my question whether secessionists were patriotic, since that's the word we're focusing on at the moment.

Actually I don't know to what extent there is a technical distinction between a "union", a "confederation", and a "nation" consisting of independent states. Really the devil may be in the details, in terms of which entities in the union have which powers and responsibilities. In comparing the U.S. to the EU, I suppose the question would be in how much infrastructure the EU has that is comparable to the Federal apparatus at the founding of the U.S. I don't really know the answer to that, and since I brought up the EU I suppose the burden is on me to support my analogy. So from that standpoint I'm not knowledgeable to back it up further other than to say that I think it is specious to define "patriotism" at the founding of the U.S. as loyalty to the union above all just because that's what it means now.

The better analogy would likely be to compare it to the former USSR in a lot of respects.

[yossarian22c]

I'm not saying they were all evil bastards, but I see nothing redeeming in confederate generals that we should be preserving monuments and honorifics to them. Its also worth noting most of these monuments went up in the 1920's-1960s (Jim Crow era), not immediately following the conflict because they were such great guys.

I think my point is less to do with me wanting to assess them with you, and more to do with the fact that the group doing the deciding right now is essentially a radical faction and does not represent the will of the majority. ....

I don't think tearing down statues is a great protest but I do understand its symbolic significance and while being destructive is largely non-violent and generally doesn't harm any individual or business. I wish there were better ways to remove the offending statues. However in much of the South the statues have been protected by state laws to prevent the cities where they are located from being able to remove them via a democratic process. This causes issues where a local city or college wants tries to remove a confederate memorial via a democratic process only to be overruled by the state government.

Two confederate statues in Raleigh were torn down and when the governor ordered the two remaining on the state capital to be removed to prevent more vandalism and destruction he was criticized by republican leaders in the legislature for violating the state law they passed 4 or 5 years ago specifically to make it nearly impossible to get confederate statues taken down or moved to areas of less prominence.

Bad laws at the state level have forced these statues to remain despite popular local support in having them removed. So while I'm not a fan of statues being toppled willy-nilly because mob removal isn't a good situation there is a specific reason for the frustration and impatience of the protesters.

[TheDrake]

What was the oath again? At the time, it read thus:

Officer and Enlisted Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the articles of war.

[Aris Katsaris]

The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

But they were fighting in an evil cause. And people who loved them for the fact they fought in that evil cause were the ones that erected statues of them.

If modern day Germany had statues of Adolf Hitler standing to this day, you'd look ascance at modern-day Germany for not toppling them. And the people most oppressed and murdered by Adolf Hitler (e.g. Jewish people or gay people) would see it as a reason to not feel any particular loyalty towards the modern state either. Same is the situation with the Confederacy and modern-day USA, and you guessed it, black people.

In regards to the question of whether it should have been a democratically elected government rather than a mob that should have taken the statues down -- yes, YES, the former would have been preferable by far. But that argument should only be made as a frigging point of condemnation towards those democratic government that DIDN'T take the statues down. WHY DIDN'T YOU? Why didn't you take the statues down, why didn't you rename the military bases named after Confederate generals?

Why did you, democratic governments of the past century, make a point to keep adding insult to injury against a segment of your population, and then gasping in surprise when that segment of the population REBELS against the continuing insult?

This is really a no-brainer -- *censored*ing take down the Confederate statues, you bloody scumbags. *censored*ing take down the statues to your Adolf Hitlers, your Goebbels, your Goerings -- if you want to have any chance of peace with the descendants of their victims. Treat the Confederate flag as you'd treat the Nazi flag. That'd be a start.

All governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed: Remember that. And if a segment of the population doesn't feel as if they've consented to how they're being treated, that's when the government loses legitimacy in its eyes.

[TheDeamon]

What was the oath again? At the time, it read thus:

Officer and Enlisted Oath: I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true faith and allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whomsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the president of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the articles of war.

Well, I guess I can see why the Oath was changed to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America" and further stipulated "all enemies, foreign and domestic" as well. Rather than "all their enemies or opposers"

And in the case of the Confederate Generals, I don't think any of them were ever viewed as traitors as they "honorably resigned" their commission when they felt they could no longer uphold their oath.

Rather than pretend to upholding that oath while preparing to betray the Union in some other way.

Yes, they took up arms against the Federal Government which made the rebels at best, insurrectionists at worst, but that isn't treason as defined by the Constitution. Some of them(Lee) even waited until the rebellion had already started before resigning(as Virginia didn't leave the Union until after things had gotten underway), so you can argue the merits of their resigning, when and how they did so at the onset of a war as being a betrayal of that Federal Oath. You'd even be right in large part. But it doesn't change the matter that for that time, especially for someone from the original 13 states, you were loyal to your state first, the federal government second.

[Fenring]

If modern day Germany had statues of Adolf Hitler standing to this day, you'd look ascance at modern-day Germany for not toppling them. And the people most oppressed and murdered by Adolf Hitler (e.g. Jewish people or gay people) would see it as a reason to not feel any particular loyalty towards the modern state either.

This isn't the best analogy, because Hitler and the Nazi party (if we agree their statues should not be up) were not "the Germans" during WWII. A better analogy if you're talking about Southern Civil War generals would be whether a statue of Rommel should be up in modern day Germany; a military commander who wasn't a Nazi. He fought for Germany, but was not of the faction specifically intent on killing Jews, for example. These are understood not to be the same thing in the WWII scenario. A better comparison if you want the Hitler/Nazi analogy would be to have a statue up of a Southern Plantation owner or slave trader; i.e. someone directly implicated in and in fact a supporter and participant in the slavery system. If you want to be technical then every man, woman, and child in the South was 'connected' to it, just like every German in WWII was 'connected to' the Holocaust in some way, but just being Southern didn't make someone an evil slaver ipso facto, even a Southern general. That they fought for their side was a geographical reality, and yes it did have to do with whom their highest allegiance was for, but fundamentally you might as well call every single person who lived in the South as evil and wicked if you're going to say that fighting for 'your side' meant you were fighting for evil. Reality doesn't work like that.

[DonaldD]

Now, before any snowflakes bring up Godwin's Law on Aris let's put this in context - the comparison to Hitler in this case may actually be an understatement - the population of slaves at the time of emancipation being on the order of 4 million people, and the many generations of abject misery those people and their forebears were subject to being arguably as bad as that suffered by the Jews in nazi Germany, not to mention Jim Crow laws eating another 100 years and the generational damage that is still being felt today.

[TheDeamon]

The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms as PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

[NobleHunter]

Anyone who was fighting for the Nazis or the Confederacy was fighting for evil. What that says about the person in question depends on their motivations and personality. How we should regard those people depends on what we know about why they fought.

[DonaldD]

If modern day Germany had statues of Adolf Hitler standing to this day, you'd look ascance at modern-day Germany for not toppling them. And the people most oppressed and murdered by Adolf Hitler (e.g. Jewish people or gay people) would see it as a reason to not feel any particular loyalty towards the modern state either.

This isn't the best analogy, because Hitler and the Nazi party (if we agree their statues should not be up) were not "the Germans" during WWII. A better analogy if you're talking about Southern Civil War generals would be whether a statue of Rommel should be up in modern day Germany; a military commander who wasn't a Nazi. He fought for Germany, but was not of the faction specifically intent on killing Jews, for example.

Not really, since these generals were very specifically fighting to implement the Confederate constitution, which contained these gems, among others:

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed

Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

So yes, they were very explicitly fighting to keep blacks enslaved.

[DonaldD]

The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

Yes, a person may be smart, but people are stupid, and mobs are morons.

[Aris Katsaris]

The discussion of whether they were "traitors" or "patriots" is actually rather irrelevant. If they were fighting for a good cause, they would be deserving honor regardless of whether they supported or opposed their country.

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

Your point being? That those specific statues shouldn't have been toppled? Or are you using the toppling of those specific statues (which I'm undecided about) to somehow discredit the toppling of Confederate statues too?

On the balance, it seems to me that the vast majority of statues that get toppled thoroughly deserve it, and the examples you gave are a minority -- and I'm unclear whether those specific examples deserve it or not btw.

(But that's just my impression, is there anywhere a complete list of statues that have been toppled, so that we may judge the balance?)

Either way, as I've indicated already -- your government has lost legitimacy on this issue. Even if the government represented the majority of the people, that'd mean the majority has lost legitimacy on this issue: It no longer gets to decide which statues will remain and which won't. If a significant minority of the people disagree, the statue goes down: and for some it seems, "held slaves" is a big enough offense that it can't be excused by any other positive accomplishments.

[TheDeamon]

Francis Scott Key(d. 1843) wrote the poem which became the lyrics to The Star Spangled Banner, he was dead long before the civil war started. His statues are being targeted now, because he owned slaves.

Ulysses S. Grant was the commander of the Army of the Potomac during the final years of the Civil War and was the one to accept Lee's Surrender ending the Civil War, he went on to serve two terms of PotUS where his administration was arguably one of the most ineffectual and corrupt in our history... But even his Statues are now under assault because he owned a slave for a little over a year before freeing him, and because his in-laws owned slaves.

Your point being? That those specific statues shouldn't have been toppled? Or are you using the toppling of those specific statues (which I'm undecided about) to somehow discredit the toppling of Confederate statues too?

On the balance, it seems to me that the vast majority of statues that get toppled thoroughly deserve it, and the examples you gave are a minority -- and I'm unclear whether those specific examples deserve it or not btw.

(But that's just my impression, is there anywhere a complete list of statues that have been toppled, so that we may judge the balance?)

Either way, as I've indicated already -- your government has lost legitimacy on this issue. Even if the government represented the majority of the people, that'd mean the majority has lost legitimacy on this issue: It no longer gets to decide which statues will remain and which won't. If a significant minority of the people disagree, the statue goes down: and for some it seems, "held slaves" is a big enough offense that it can't be excused by any other positive accomplishments.

In your case, those two were pointed out in case you didn't know they had no connection to the Confederacy and supporting its rebellion.

But with "they owned slaves" being grounds for removal. Then:

The National Anthem needs to be changed, it was written by a Slave Owner.
Washington DC needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.
The Washington monument needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of a Slave Owner.

The Declaration of Independence needs to meet a shredder, it was written by a Slave Owner and signed by many more slave owners.

The United State Constitution needs to meet a shredder, it was was signed by Slave Owners, and had significant input from them, in particular one James Madison.

The 1st Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights need to go as well, since Madison was involved in those too. So no more freedom of the press.

The Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC needs to be replaced, he owned slaves, can't be memorializing a slave owner.

The White House and the Capital Hill probably should be torn down, slave labor was likely involved in their initial construction and upkeep at times in the past.

The state of Washington needs to be renamed, as it was named to honor the first President of the United States, who was a slave owner.

Mount Rushmore needs to have two of its 4 heads removed(Washington and Jefferson), as they were slave owners.

Any statues of Benjamin Franklin need to be removed, anything that memorializes him needs to be removed, he owned slaves too.

Alexander Hamilton bought, sold, and traded slaves although it is unclear as whether or not he used any slaves himself.  So to be safe, he cannot be memorialized either.

Jacksonville, Florida needs to be renamed, it was named in honor of Andrew Jackson, he owned slaves. Likewise, any statuary of him needs to be purged.

Also in that vein, this means:
The $1 dollar bill(George Washington) needs to be replaced,
If we still had $2 bills, they'd need replaced as Jefferson is on those, he owned slaves
the $10 Bill has Hamilton on it so it needs replaced because of slaves,
the $20 bill has Andrew Jackson on it and he owned slaves, needs replaced
the $50 bill had Grant on it, he owned a slave, needs replaced.
the $100 bill has Ben Franklin on it, he owned some slaves, needs replaced.

Of the first 12 presidents of the United States only 2 of them, John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams never owned a slave. Two more of the first 12 (Martin Van Buren and William Henry Harrison) didn't own slaves while serving as PotUS but did own slaves at other points in their life.
Fillmore(#13) and Pierce(#14) did not own slaves at any point, there appears to be some dispute on if Buchanan(#15) owned slaves or not, Lincoln(#16) did not own slaves at any time, but Johnson(#17) had owned slaves before, as did Grant(#18), Grant was the last president to have ever owned a slave at any time in their life.

This new purity test they wish to impose upon the country is a farce, it needs to stop.