silver gurl
Kiss it....
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2006
- Posts
- 22,228
There is an MLK boul in every major city. I support that.
I have my half dollars.
I have my half dollars.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Before or after he was shot?Imagine if they swap those statues with statues of MLK.
I highly doubt that most of the counter protestors at Charlottesville were there to protest the statue. I think that they were there to protest the hate groups.It's just that this monuments saga got turned into such an extreme "the racists" versus "the non- racists" fight,
it's sometimes comical.
I saw this question posed by another member in a different thread and its a good one. The short answer is you cant stamp out hate. Nothing you do can stop a person from hating except kill them. People will hate regardless if there are any statues, busts, plaques or memorials to the confederacy or the soldiers who fought for the south.
The thing is by attacking the Symbols, the ideas one group sees as their heritage you actually feed their hate. It doesn't matter what you think or feel because of the emotional investment they have, right or wrong. Tearing down Symbols will only fuel their rage and deepen their hate and desire to resist. If there was no counter protest in charlotte, nobody would have got hurt. The counter protestors (who had no permit to be there) gave the haters exactly what they wanted, a confrontation and innocent people paid the price.
Apart from whatever legal issues are involved, you've identified what has been nagging at me about the removal of confederate statues and symbols. Essentially, it is a "hollow," virtually meaningless victory. It accomplishes nothing, other than continuing to fuel hatred by the "offended" group. Why would the other side celebrate that exacerbation?
It feels like a social class war over who can exert the most power. Getting rid of a confederate statue seems little more than a victorious effort in exercising that power. What else does it really do?
Far from reclaiming the message, it seems far more productive to me to appropriately minimize and simply ignore that which is largely ineffectual socially. While I certainly support counter-protests as an appropriate expression of First Amendment freedoms, showing up armed and ready for physical conflict only plays into the very thing racist groups are trying to achieve.
The best counter-protest to a Klansman screaming "white power" on a public street is to probably walk by, glance his way, laugh out loud and keep walking.
I remember a time growing up when these people really WERE a domestic terrorist organization. They ruled government and law enforcement in the South. I remember the four civil rights workers murdered in Philadelphia, Mississippi. I remember Emmett Till, Viola Liuzzo and Medgar Evers.
Thankfully, that's not the South today. But if we continue to overreact by oppressively denying every vain, pointless expression of racism that racists attempt to express, we might very well succeed in bringing it back.
I'd prefer doing something else. Like NOT killing flies with elephant guns, and focusing anti-terrorism efforts against real terrorist plans and conspiracies wherever they may be forming.
I agree with that part. I think that groups like KKK or neo- nazis, or certain Islamic groups from EU that preach "death to jews" should be labelled as hate groups and banned. Like they did in Germany.I highly doubt that most of the counter protestors at Charlottesville were there to protest the statue. I think that they were there to protest the hate groups.
Confederate flags in 2015 and early 2016, now the statues.
Where does it go from here?
Street names, names of businesses, parks?
Confederate flags in 2015 and early 2016, now the statues.
Where does it go from here?
Street names, names of businesses, parks?
Yes, in Boston they want to change street names, buildings etc.
Confederate flags in 2015 and early 2016, now the statues.
Where does it go from here?
Street names, names of businesses, parks?
Like "Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves"?And the park in Charlottesville where the Lee statue is has already had a name change--from Lee Park to Emancipation Park.
Well, yes, the names of schools are already being changed. There's no difference between what a statue on public land depicts or a public school is named. And the park in Charlottesville where the Lee statue is has already had a name change--from Lee Park to Emancipation Park (a little pretentious, I think. I suggested the two parks be renamed East and West. Jackson Park has been changed to Justice Park, which at least is logical, as the Albemarle County Courthouse is in the park.)
Of course, at least in Virginia, it's going to be easier to change street, school, and park names than it is to move the statues. A 1950 Virginia law protects the statues where they are. The Republican-control legislature has to change the law before the statues can legally go anywhere.
Not sure why you include "businesses." You aren't aware that businesses are private and choose their own names? (How long have the Washington Redskins chosen to hang onto their name by right?)
Seems you are firing from the hip without doing research.
Like "Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves"?
I agree with tearing down Confederate monuments or symbols of slavery, but why not change them to neutral ones?
That's how the Russians did it during their purges... statues disappeared, then portraits, then they burned textbooks... it all sounds familiar...
I know… .
One of my parents was Eastern European, and many things that I read about here are reminiscent of their history.
It's fascinating for me to watch America gradually go that way (communism). They're just using minority groups to achieve their goals.
So true and spot on. This whole episode boils down to 2 groups wanting to draw attention to themselves. One are haters, the other not very smart. Why the police did not keep them apart is beyond comprehension. Thanks for adding some thoughtfulness to the discussion.
Do you have any thoughts about the public law I cited? I'm curious if I interpreted it correctly.
Like "Lincoln's Emancipation of slaves"?
I agree with tearing down Confederate monuments or symbols of slavery, but why not change them to neutral ones?
Well, I would think that my suggestion that they be renamed East and West (to help tourists navigate the area) was a hint that I would agree with you.
An interesting note--the city council leading with its chin on this again--they ran a contest to rename the parks and "Emancipation" wasn't proposed by anyone in teh contest. The city council went there on their own.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Abraham Lincoln - Monday, March 4, 1861
Odd thing about rewriting history, as the Civil War was not about slavery until 1863.
That view isn't anywhere close to being agreed to by everyone (or by very many, actually).
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Abraham Lincoln - Monday, March 4, 1861
Lincoln wasn't the only one around, and you just aren't paying attention if you think that a majority of people will agree with you that slavery wasn't the major sticking point for the Civil War.
I don't think it was the only issue, but I think your position is just off the wall and you're not researching this objectively. I think you have an reactionary agenda.