The monuments should come down

[Rockfish1]

The white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville because the city is beginning to take down its Confederate monuments. This antagonizes the white supremacists, because unlike the monuments' mainstream defenders, they understand perfectly well that the monuments aren't about any mythical heritage, but are instead expressions of white supremacy:

Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights.

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.
​

This is more explaining than ought to be necessary. The Confederate rebellion was all about slavery and white supremacy, as the Confederates' own words abundantly establish. And as a matter of historical fact, the Confederate flag came back up and the Confederate monuments mostly went up during periods in which white racists felt particular need to keep black people down.

​

Defenders of the Confederate flag and the Confederate monuments frequently claim that those who want to take them down are somehow trying to erase history. That's ironic, because they're the ones who don't know their history. By all means let's teach that history. Let's make certain that everyone knows why there was a Civil War and what "heritage" these monuments actually celebrate. But that doesn't remotely require us to venerate white supremacy -- as the Confederate flag and these Confederate monuments unequivocally to do.

​

 

[Circlejoe]

Look for many more confrontations like yesterday's as more monuments come down. This will happen in dozens of cities across the south in the next few years. And we have Trump in the White House to lead us through the conflict.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

Look for many more confrontations like yesterday's as more monuments come down. This will happen in dozens of cities across the south in the next few years. And we have Trump in the White House to lead us through the conflict.

1) Rich Lowery said today that before, he wasn't for bringing down these statues.....now he is.

2) I read today these neo-Nazi's have now "declared war" and plan on spreading these "rallies" across the country and feel that Trump is in their corner.

3) I also read, as a joke, that Sessions had to recuse himself into any investigation involving racism.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

The white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville because the city is beginning to take down its Confederate monuments. This antagonizes the white supremacists, because unlike the monuments' mainstream defenders, they understand perfectly well that the monuments aren't about any mythical heritage, but are instead expressions of white supremacy:

Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights.

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.
​

This is more explaining than ought to be necessary. The Confederate rebellion was all about slavery and white supremacy, as the Confederates' own words abundantly establish. And as a matter of historical fact, the Confederate flag came back up and the Confederate monuments mostly went up during periods in which white racists felt particular need to keep black people down.

​

Defenders of the Confederate flag and the Confederate monuments frequently claim that those who want to take them down are somehow trying to erase history. That's ironic, because they're the ones who don't know their history. By all means let's teach that history. Let's make certain that everyone knows why there was a Civil War and what "heritage" these monuments actually celebrate. But that doesn't remotely require us to venerate white supremacy -- as the Confederate flag and these Confederate monuments unequivocally to do.

​

The South's participation trophies need to be gathering dust in museum somewhere at best. Taking down a monument doesn't prevent people from reading and studying the Civil War: as these jagoffs know, the First Amendment is alive and well. Monuments exist for those who contribute to the greater good and lift up society, not for treason, murder, rape, torture, human trafficking, etc.

 

[hoot1]

The white supremacists rallied in Charlottesville because the city is beginning to take down its Confederate monuments. This antagonizes the white supremacists, because unlike the monuments' mainstream defenders, they understand perfectly well that the monuments aren't about any mythical heritage, but are instead expressions of white supremacy:

Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights.

A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20th century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.
​

This is more explaining than ought to be necessary. The Confederate rebellion was all about slavery and white supremacy, as the Confederates' own words abundantly establish. And as a matter of historical fact, the Confederate flag came back up and the Confederate monuments mostly went up during periods in which white racists felt particular need to keep black people down.

​

Defenders of the Confederate flag and the Confederate monuments frequently claim that those who want to take them down are somehow trying to erase history. That's ironic, because they're the ones who don't know their history. By all means let's teach that history. Let's make certain that everyone knows why there was a Civil War and what "heritage" these monuments actually celebrate. But that doesn't remotely require us to venerate white supremacy -- as the Confederate flag and these Confederate monuments unequivocally to do.

​

Rock, in the past I have taken the position that the monuments were both the results of local decisions and a reminder of a history which shouldn't be repeated.

After much reflection, I agree with you and others about those wanting to keep the monuments as being a sign of white supremacy. In other words pure racism, as in thinking there is a white culture and those with darker skin have a inferior culture.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

If the monuments are on a National Battle Field they stay, if the are in a American city they come down.

 

[Accuro]

And every one of them should be replaced by a statue of MLK.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

And every one of them should be replaced by a statue of MLK.

Or Grant and Sherman or Lincoln.

 

[hootch1]

Memphis has had an ongoing debate about getting rid of the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue for a few years. When the idea came up initially, a Klan group from North Carolina threatened a march on the city. The city council enacted laws that all protest marchers may not have their face covered.

That was three or so years. We may have another bunch of yahoos come out now.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Memphis has had an ongoing debate about getting rid of the Nathan Bedford Forrest statue for a few years. When the idea came up initially, a Klan group from North Carolina threatened a march on the city. The city council enacted laws that all protest marchers may not have their face covered.

That was three or so years. We may have another bunch of yahoos come out now.

Was not his statue at his grave?

 

[bawlmer]

If the monuments are on a National Battle Field they stay, if the are in a American city they come down.

Probably best to leave them to the local jurisdictions to decide, as in Charlottesville.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

And every one of them should be replaced by a statue of MLK.

Or Obama (just to watch their heads explode).

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Or Obama (just to watch their heads explode).

What the hell did he do other than overcome? Not to belittle the accomplishment.

 

[RBB89]

And every one of them should be replaced by a statue of MLK.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

What the hell did he do other than overcome? Not to belittle the accomplishment.

1) Brought us back from the biggest meltdown since the Great Depression (some say it was actually worse) with the entire GOP trying to make sure he failed

2) No major terrorists attacks on his watch

3) Got the entire world (basically) to sign on for the Paris Accords

If we could have an election right now between Obama and Trump and/or Bush Jr, he's probably win 75% of the vote.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

1) Brought us back from the biggest meltdown since the Great Depression (some say it was actually worse) with the entire GOP trying to make sure he failed

2) No major terrorists attacks on his watch

3) Got the entire world (basically) to sign on for the Paris Accords

If we could have an election right now between Obama and Trump and/or Bush Jr, he's probably win 75% of the vote.

If you say so. The great depression, really, the reality was times were worse in the 70's.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

If you say so. The great depression, really, the reality was times were worse in the 70's.

I never saw one bread line in the 70's.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

What the hell did he do other than overcome? Not to belittle the accomplishment.

Anymore, it is just nice that Obama was qualified and not a mental case.

There was 25% unemployment during the Great Depression.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

I never saw one bread line in the 70's.

13 percent interest and gas shortages.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

13 percent interest and gas shortages.

Not sure how that was worse than the Great Depression.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Not sure how that was worse than the Great Depression.

It wasn't but it was worse that 07 and 08.

 

[UncleMark]

It wasn't but it was worse that 07 and 08.

Not hardly. The economy wasn't shedding jobs by the millions.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

It wasn't but it was worse that 07 and 08.

I graduated in 2008: it sucked ass. I don't think I had ever heard of college graduates moving back in with their parents before that.

 

[Rockfish1]

If you say so. The great depression, really, the reality was times were worse in the 70's.

We've had recessions before, but not since the Great Depression have we had anything like the Great Recession. Here's a chart of real GDP.

Unlike all the prior recessions, we've not regained our baseline. We didn't lose ground, regain it, and move on. Instead, we lost it, we never got it back, and now we're growing from a lower long term baseline. You could imagine a ruler running up the previous trend line and see what a huge loss we've suffered, or you could check out this interactive set of charts.

The Great Recession still lives with us today. It isn't over yet.

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

When it happened, I saw some experts say it would take at least 10 years to get out of......and that was before Righties did everything they could to sabotage the recovery because they didn't want Obama to have any victories.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Demographist.

 

[Rockfish1]

Demographist.

Gesundheit.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

We've had recessions before, but not since the Great Depression have we had anything like the Great Recession. Here's a chart of real GDP.

Unlike all the prior recessions, we've not regained our baseline. We didn't lose ground, regain it, and move on. Instead, we lost it, we never got it back, and now we're growing from a lower long term baseline. You could imagine a ruler running up the previous trend line and see what a huge loss we've suffered, or you could check out this interactive set of charts.

The Great Recession still lives with us today. It isn't over yet.

There were debates during the great recession about it breaking the economy's elasticity. Judging by the way growth has happened, it seems likely to me it d id.

 

[DrHoops]

Gee....why do people think you're a racist???

SMH

And every one of them should be replaced by a statue of MLK.

 

[DrHoops]

Why do we need to monument the exploits of traitors?

If the monuments are on a National Battle Field they stay, if the are in a American city they come down.

 

[DrHoops]

Nonsense

If the monuments are on a National Battle Field they stay, if the are in a American city they come down.

 

[hootch1]

Was not his statue at his grave?

yes

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Here is a Confederate monument in Helena, built in 1916. I am totally unsure of the number of Montanans who fought for the Confederacy, anyone with a guess?

 

[hootch1]

It wasn't but it was worse that 07 and 08.

I'm sure the people that lost their jobs and homes disagree with you.

Unemployment was worse in the aftermath of the Great Recession than in the 70s. Inflation was higher. The impact of that depended on whether you were a net debtor or saver.

 

[Rockfish1]

Here is a Confederate monument in Helena, built in 1916. I am totally unsure of the number of Montanans who fought for the Confederacy, anyone with a guess?

What "heritage" could Montana possibly be celebrating with this "loving tribute" to "our Confederate soldiers"?

 

[Rockfish1]

Brian Beutler makes a good point about Trump's remarks:

In his remarks on Saturday, when he infamously condemned bigotry “on many sides,” Trump also admonished citizens to “love each other, respect each other, and cherish our history.” This all sounds banal enough until you place it in the context of the unrest itself. Nazis and neo-Confederates gathered in Charlottesville, nominally at least, to protest plans to remove a monument to Robert E. Lee from a city park. The generic appeal to history is the pretext racists use to support the valorization of a slave society and its military leaders. Trump didn’t just draw a moral equivalence between Nazis and counter-protesters, but took the Nazis’ side in the dispute that motivated their violence.

Trump is most likely not literate enough to have composed those words. His affinity for white supremacists is more atavistic than intellectual. It is almost certain, though, that this particular coded language was written into his prepared text by one of three fascistic advisers: Stephen Miller, a one-time fellow traveler of Richard Spencer, who coined the term “alt-right”; Sebastian Gorka, the bellowing ogre who was affiliated with the Nazi-aligned Hungarian nationalist order of Vitézi Rend; or Steve Bannon, the anti-modernist Breitbart impresario who idolizes Nazi propagandists
​

The white supremacists liked Trump's statement, because members of the alt-right almost certainly wrote it for him. #nothingburger

 

[Rockfish1]

Meanwhile, a growing number of conservatives have figured out who's really to blame for Charlottesville: liberals. Here's an example from Rod Dreher:

Finally, we on the Right have to start speaking out without fear against identity politics — and calling out people on the Left, especially those within institutions, for practicing it. The alt-right has correctly identified a hypocritical double standard in American culture. It’s one that allows liberals and their favored minority groups to practice toxic identity politics — on campus, in the media, in corporate America, on the streets — while denying the possibility to whites and males. By speaking out against left-wing identity politics, and by explaining, over and over, why identity politics are wrong and destructive, conservatives strengthen their position in chastising white nationalists on the Right.

But none of this will matter at all as long as the Left refuses to oppose identity politics in its own ranks. As I keep saying here, you cannot have an identity politics of the Left without calling up the same thing on the Right. Left-liberals who want conservatives to stigmatize and denounce white nationalism, but conservatives who do so will be sneered at by white nationalists as dupes and fools who advocate disarmament in the face of racist, sexist forces of the Left.

When the Left indulges in rhetoric that demonizes whites — especially white males — it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left punishes white males who violate its own delicate speech taboos, while tolerating the same kind of rhetoric on its own side, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left obsesses over ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, but ignores the plight of poor and working-class whites, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left institutionalizes demonization of white males in college classes, in political movements, in the media and elsewhere, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left attributes moral status, and moral goodness, to persons based on their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, or any such thing, it summons up the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left refuses to condemn the violent antifa protesters, and treats their behavior as no big deal, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left refuses to stand firm against aggressive manifestations of illiberalism — like we have seen over the past several years on certain college campuses — it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left encourages within its ranks identification as a victim, and stirs up political passions based on perception that one is a victim of other groups in society, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

And on and on.
​

According to this view, the left has summoned the demons that came to Charlottesville by arguing for an inclusive America in which legal protections extend to everyone, including groups that have historically been discriminated against. Thus the party of personal responsibility looks for accountability everywhere except in the mirror.

 

[bawlmer]

Meanwhile, a growing number of conservatives have figured out who's really to blame for Charlottesville: liberals. Here's an example from Rod Dreher:

Finally, we on the Right have to start speaking out without fear against identity politics — and calling out people on the Left, especially those within institutions, for practicing it. The alt-right has correctly identified a hypocritical double standard in American culture. It’s one that allows liberals and their favored minority groups to practice toxic identity politics — on campus, in the media, in corporate America, on the streets — while denying the possibility to whites and males. By speaking out against left-wing identity politics, and by explaining, over and over, why identity politics are wrong and destructive, conservatives strengthen their position in chastising white nationalists on the Right.

But none of this will matter at all as long as the Left refuses to oppose identity politics in its own ranks. As I keep saying here, you cannot have an identity politics of the Left without calling up the same thing on the Right. Left-liberals who want conservatives to stigmatize and denounce white nationalism, but conservatives who do so will be sneered at by white nationalists as dupes and fools who advocate disarmament in the face of racist, sexist forces of the Left.

When the Left indulges in rhetoric that demonizes whites — especially white males — it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left punishes white males who violate its own delicate speech taboos, while tolerating the same kind of rhetoric on its own side, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left obsesses over ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, but ignores the plight of poor and working-class whites, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left institutionalizes demonization of white males in college classes, in political movements, in the media and elsewhere, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left attributes moral status, and moral goodness, to persons based on their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, or any such thing, it summons up the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left refuses to condemn the violent antifa protesters, and treats their behavior as no big deal, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left refuses to stand firm against aggressive manifestations of illiberalism — like we have seen over the past several years on certain college campuses — it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left encourages within its ranks identification as a victim, and stirs up political passions based on perception that one is a victim of other groups in society, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

And on and on.
​

According to this view, the left has summoned the demons that came to Charlottesville by arguing for an inclusive America in which legal protections extend to everyone, including groups that have historically been discriminated against. Thus the party of personal responsibility looks for accountability everywhere except in the mirror.

He is right about one thing. There are too many hateful and angry white folks looking for excuses to cause trouble.

 

[wiede]

Meanwhile, a growing number of conservatives have figured out who's really to blame for Charlottesville: liberals. Here's an example from Rod Dreher:

Finally, we on the Right have to start speaking out without fear against identity politics — and calling out people on the Left, especially those within institutions, for practicing it. The alt-right has correctly identified a hypocritical double standard in American culture. It’s one that allows liberals and their favored minority groups to practice toxic identity politics — on campus, in the media, in corporate America, on the streets — while denying the possibility to whites and males. By speaking out against left-wing identity politics, and by explaining, over and over, why identity politics are wrong and destructive, conservatives strengthen their position in chastising white nationalists on the Right.

But none of this will matter at all as long as the Left refuses to oppose identity politics in its own ranks. As I keep saying here, you cannot have an identity politics of the Left without calling up the same thing on the Right. Left-liberals who want conservatives to stigmatize and denounce white nationalism, but conservatives who do so will be sneered at by white nationalists as dupes and fools who advocate disarmament in the face of racist, sexist forces of the Left.

When the Left indulges in rhetoric that demonizes whites — especially white males — it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left punishes white males who violate its own delicate speech taboos, while tolerating the same kind of rhetoric on its own side, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left obsesses over ethnic, sexual, and religious minorities, but ignores the plight of poor and working-class whites, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left institutionalizes demonization of white males in college classes, in political movements, in the media and elsewhere, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left attributes moral status, and moral goodness, to persons based on their race, their sex, their sexual orientation, or any such thing, it summons up the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left refuses to condemn the violent antifa protesters, and treats their behavior as no big deal, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left refuses to stand firm against aggressive manifestations of illiberalism — like we have seen over the past several years on certain college campuses — it summons the demons of white nationalism.

When the Left encourages within its ranks identification as a victim, and stirs up political passions based on perception that one is a victim of other groups in society, it summons the demons of white nationalism.

And on and on.
​

According to this view, the left has summoned the demons that came to Charlottesville by arguing for an inclusive America in which legal protections extend to everyone, including groups that have historically been discriminated against. Thus the party of personal responsibility looks for accountability everywhere except in the mirror.

It's not the man who raped the woman. The woman asked for it. Even though the man had been whistling and hollering at the woman (maybe even grabbed her) that night at the bar, without any interest returned from the woman.

Claim that you (as a white male) are actually the victim. And completely ignore your bad behavior, and claim someone else caused it and made you do it.

It amazes me that people truly believe this stuff. Isn't the pub party allegedly the party of personal accountability?

 

[TheVegasHoosier]

Brian Beutler makes a good point about Trump's remarks:

In his remarks on Saturday, when he infamously condemned bigotry “on many sides,” Trump also admonished citizens to “love each other, respect each other, and cherish our history.” This all sounds banal enough until you place it in the context of the unrest itself. Nazis and neo-Confederates gathered in Charlottesville, nominally at least, to protest plans to remove a monument to Robert E. Lee from a city park. The generic appeal to history is the pretext racists use to support the valorization of a slave society and its military leaders. Trump didn’t just draw a moral equivalence between Nazis and counter-protesters, but took the Nazis’ side in the dispute that motivated their violence.

Trump is most likely not literate enough to have composed those words. His affinity for white supremacists is more atavistic than intellectual. It is almost certain, though, that this particular coded language was written into his prepared text by one of three fascistic advisers: Stephen Miller, a one-time fellow traveler of Richard Spencer, who coined the term “alt-right”; Sebastian Gorka, the bellowing ogre who was affiliated with the Nazi-aligned Hungarian nationalist order of Vitézi Rend; or Steve Bannon, the anti-modernist Breitbart impresario who idolizes Nazi propagandists
​

The white supremacists liked Trump's statement, because members of the alt-right almost certainly wrote it for him. #nothingburger

I agree that one of those kkklowns wrote it for him, because Trump can't write above a 3rd grade level, and that it was code that they support what they're doing....which is why they're openly bragging Trump supports them.

Wish I had saved the article, but I read that Bannon is telling people he won't be fired because "Trump is one of us"......which should be no surprise because Trump has been a raging racist his entire life.

He doesn't just say it to "pander to his base".....he actually believes it.