WaPo reports.
The show of strength was about “allegiance . . . to the Constitution,” particularly the First Amendment, said Christian Yingling, leader of the Pennsylvania Light Foot Militia...
The fact that no shots were fired, Yingling said, was a testament “to the discipline of the 32 brave souls serving under me during this particular operation.” In a telephone interview Sunday, he sought to dispel “the absurd idea in the public’s mind” that his group of “patriots” was allied with or sympathetic to the white nationalists....
When his group arrived in Charlottesville, “we put our own beliefs off to the side,” Yingling said. “Not one of my people said a word. They were given specific orders to remain quiet the entire time we were there. . . . Our mission was to help people exercise their First Amendment rights without being physically assaulted. It was a resounding success until we were just so drastically outnumbered that we couldn’t stop the craziness. It was nothing short of horrifying.”...
“Jacka---s,” was how he described both sides, meaning the white nationalists, who billed the gathering as Unite the Right, and the counterprotesters, many marching under the banner of Antifa, for “anti-fascist.” Yingling also criticized police, saying that officers were poorly prepared for the violence and not assertive enough in combating it and that they should have enlisted the militiamen to help prevent the mayhem.
The second-highest-rated comment over there is:
Yingling calls both sides in the protest "jackasses'. Yingling and his kind are bigger jackasses; bringing that kind of firepower to a protest. A bunch of punk cowboys who get erections dressing up and playing with guns. And did they have any effect on the outcome? No. Militias are bullsh - t. They just salivate for the day they can pop somebody. Buncha sickos. Grow up little boys.
Third highest-rated:
This is terrifying. You have armed individuals roaming the street who are neither military nor law enforcement but unapologetic storm troopers. Whatever this is, it is not about the first amendment.
ADDED: What would have happened if these people were not there? Would it have been more violent, or would the police have stepped up and maintained order? Remember that Virginia Governor
Terry McAuliffe defended the inaction of the policy, seemingly on the basis of the scariness of the militia people:
“It’s easy to criticize, but I can tell you this, 80 percent of the people here had semiautomatic weapons. You saw the militia walking down the street, you would have thought they were an army.... I was just talking to the State Police upstairs; they had better equipment than our State Police had,” he said, referring to the militia members. "And yet not a shot was fired, zero property damage.”
I don't know where he got the 80% number. He weirdly blames and credits the militia.
Posts
142 comments:
Christian Yingling
Sounds like an alias. HIs favorite religion and his favorite beer.
Is Yingling related to the brewery? What an interesting name.
I think the two highlighted comments ignore the reality of what happened. But, nice to see it only took a new bogeyman to pop up for someone to forget people were assaulted and one person killed. But, yeah. These guys were the biggest problem.
So many people armed in such chaos and yet not one person was shot. Amazing
Yes! It should be terrifying. In the event of a second civil war, there will be many of these. And the ones on the right have a big headstart on the ones on the left. Think Serbs in Srebrenica if you want an analogy.
You have armed individuals roaming the street who are neither military nor law enforcement but unapologetic storm troopers. Whatever this is, it is not about the first amendment.
Inconveniently, the right to protect themselves while protecting the first amendment is in the second.
Scott Adams is sounding right again: It was an American sporting event, much like the Nika Riots complete with Greens , Blues, Reds and Whites. And like Byzantium, the Senators will use the riots as an excuse to remove Justinian-Trump.
time to pull this 1947 anti-fascist video out again
In History, private armies are not a good thing, but were necessary when government and self-government fail.
Militias aren't private armys. In this country if you are between 17 and 55 and own a gun congrats you're a member of the militia.
I did not know that the militia was there to provide some protection to the neo-Nazis. Like most, I expect, I assumed that they were there as part of the "Unite the Right" rally. Did they do this spontaneously? Was someone paying them? Why didn't some reporter find out?
In the end they lacked the numbers, authority, and training to do what they say was their (self-appointed?) task keep the groups apart. Sort of a waste.
Which fascists are you condemning Sunsong? The Anti-Fa fascists or the Neo-Nazis?
From a friend:
We are not with you, torch-bearers, in Charlottesville or anywhere.
We do no consent to this.
In fact we stand against you, alongside the very beautiful diversity that you fear.
We stand with people of every color and of all faiths, people of every orientation, nationality, and native tongue.
We are not going to have this. This is not the country we’ve built together and it will not become what you intend it to become.
So you can kiss our diverse, unified, multi-colored behinds because your racism and your terrorism will not win the day.
Believe it.
In the end they lacked the numbers, authority, and training to do what they say was their (self-appointed?) task keep the groups apart.
In the end they hurt no one, may have dissuaded some people from getting violent, and would have been valuable witnesses for the prosecution had the police been doing their jobs and arresting people.
I wonder what else sunsong's friend had to say about BLM.
Americanized form of the German surname Jüngling, from a diminutive of Jung
Interesting to me: there were several early baseball players named Yingling.
As for Jung: German: distinguishing epithet, from Middle High German junc ‘young’, for the younger of two bearers of the same personal name, usually a son who bore the same name as his father. Jewish (Ashkenazic): from German jung ‘young’, given to or assumed by people who were young at the time when surname became obligatory. Chinese , , : variant of Rong. Chinese , , : variant of Zhong. Korean: variant of Chong.
I wonder what else sunsong's friend had to say about BLM.
I wonder how excited Inga was this morning to log on and start discussing how her fascist friends tried to shut down a lawful assembly and free speech event because "they hate fascism".
The lack of self-awareness on this blog today will probably go to 11.
During the Clinton admin., I recall a story that the feds had so many undercover agents and informants acting as provocateurs in the white sup groups, they were informing on each other.
"The violence, chaos, and apparent loss of life in Charlottesville is not the fault of 'many sides.' It is racists and white supremacists"
Mark Herring VA AJ
"What a sad spectacle from such small people."
~ Mark Herring VA AJ
I find the governor's comment kind of appalling. "No gun shots, no property damage. Success!"
Someone died, governor. Other people hospitalized. How is that a success? This was a failure, on many levels.
These idiot militias get bored during Republican administrations. This was something for them to do.
Last night, I finally saw a pic of 2 hate group identifiers during the Tiki Parade. One was an 88 tee shirt half exposed and the other was more obvious. Some people are doxxing participants and one guy has been fired so far.
"they had better equipment than our State Police had,” he said, referring to the militia members.
Bullshit. This the kind of statement, if made by Trump, that would have our LLR going apoplectic with derangement. Really, Governor? The militia has better what? Crowd control equipment, better riot gear, better vehicles? What did they have that was so superior you couldn't deploy your law enforcement agency to protect Americans who are demonstrating?
Yesterday was just identity group on identity group violence. If only it could look in the mirror, the left would learn its anger at the Nazis is only an extension of what it has become.
I told you all before and I’ll repeat it now: the alt right is not conservative, and it is every bit as driven by identity politics and blood essentialism as the prog left.
Antifa, BLM, CAIR, the New Black Panthers, La Raza, the Pussy Hatters, the KKK — these are all identity movements and all formed and animated by the kind of identity politics championed by the left, and legitimated by the likes of Edward Said and other academic cultural Marxists who recognized the way to power was to divide, and then control, particular identity groups, whose narratives they seek to create and police.
BS. It appears no effort was made to keep the two groups separate - the most basic plan for this type of situation. I suspect the Governor and Mayor wanted the headlines of the day to be that the left rose up and successfully drove the evil whites from their town. One of the whites either fought back or freaked out. With dead and injured team left lying in the street, the message of triumph had to be replaced - so the media immediately stepped in to blame all the violence on the right.
I don't believe they had actually expected the right to fight back. If they had they would have made a serious effort to prevent the violence.
I don't know whether or not the militia leader's claim -- that they were there to keep the peace -- is true or not, but it's a new piece of information just coming out a couple of days after the events. A few news stories are now identifying some of the "counterprotesters" as members of antifa; that's significant. We are getting more reports about the failure of the police to keep the two groups apart. The Gov.'s claim that 80% of the protesters (on both sides?) were armed with firearms is also new.
I'm getting the feeling that we ought to suspend judgment about who is at fault until we know more about what happened.
I'm getting the feeling that we ought to suspend judgment about who is at fault until we know more about what happened.
Oh, but the political fundraising must go on!
All this shit over a statue of General Lee.
If the police had actually wanted to separate the National Socialists from the International Socialists, they could have asked the militia guys to give them some space to do so. There's no evidence that they even tried.
I condemn the people using the tactics of Hitler's Brown Shirts even more than I condemn the folks walking around with Nazi emblems and Nazi flags.
"The Gov.'s claim that 80% of the protesters (on both sides?) were armed with firearms is also new."
-- I believe the governor's claim is, specifically, "automatic weaponry."
The guy who said he didn't want violence was punched by a pro-fa person at a press conference. The punch ended the press conference.
Consider which side was speaking and which acting in light of the punch that ended a press conference.
"Consider which side was speaking and which acting in light of the punch that ended a press conference."
-- Consider also that an assault that happened in front of witnesses and police ended in... not an arrest.
"I wonder what else sunsong's friend had to say about BLM."
Threadwinner, for sure.
What I found most interesting about this is that the reporting didn't flat out condemn the militia presence. In the '90's they would have been damned as the scariest kind of folk-devils. The waters are being muddied in ways the Left never intended.
I don't believe they had actually expected the right to fight back. If they had they would have made a serious effort to prevent the violence.
More likely, that's what they were hoping for. Which side has won in the MSM? They've tied the Nazis around Trump's neck, too.
I believe the governor's claim is, specifically, "automatic weaponry."
Is he really that ignorant? Do you have a link?
Matthew Sablan said...
Someone died, governor. Other people hospitalized. How is that a success?
It was a success for the fascist murderous thugs from out of town with their tiki torches, they got what they wanted.
"It was a success for the fascist murderous thugs from out of town with their tiki torches, they got what they wanted"
Like BLM did in Dallas? Like the the Democrat Party did at the ballfield shooting?
Big Mike said...
I condemn the people using the tactics of Hitler's Brown Shirts even more than I condemn the folks walking around with Nazi emblems and Nazi flags.
Yeah, that's pretty much where I am
He got the 80% number out of his democrat media party ass, that's where.
" Blogger mccullough said...
All this shit over a statue of General Lee. "
You know it's more than that don't you? If is one group in the country actively attempting to purge the history and culture from another group.
Let's say we all decided that the north was just as complicit in the civil war as anyone else and we started removing all statues, memorials, etc. from our public spaces. What do you think would/should happen?
The group whose history and culture were being removed at the end of a gun might have a little something to say about it.
My memory was bad, he said semiautomatic.
AJC: Atlanta Protesters Deface Peace Monument
Oh well. Nothing ugly here, I guess.
There was virtually no police presence as demonstrators walked from Woodruff Park up Peachtree Street, snarling traffic as they went. When they arrived, some climbed the statue - which shows a Confederate soldier laying down his weapon at the end of Reconstruction - and defaced it. One protester was hurt by metal falling from the edifice.
Tensions rose as the lone policeman on the scene was surrounded by black-clad antifa protesters shouting “pig.” Black Lives Matter protesters put themselves between the police officer and the antifacism crowd.
Oh well.
"Let's say we all decided that the north was just as complicit in the civil war as anyone else and we started removing all statues, memorials, etc. from our public spaces."
Should we start putting up statues of Japanese and German generals too, because there are people with Japanese and German heritage in our country? I mean the US is just as complicit in WW2 as the Japanese and Germans, after all. Should we have a statue of bin Laden in New York because we're all complicit in the war in Afghanistan after all? Shall we put up a statue of Benedict Arnold? Because we're all complicit in the Revolutionary War and a statue of Benedict Arnold would help us remember our history. A lot of people in this country were loyal to Britain in the 1770s, after all. Why should their heritage be neglected?
Robert E. Lee was not an American when he chose to fight against the armies and navies of the United States. Indeed, even with all the grace of reconstruction, the leadership of the time never saw fit to give Lee his citizenship back. Lee represents a part of history sure, but his part in US history was directly responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Americans. That's his heritage, even as there's a complexity of motives and interest involved by people on both sides.
We have more than enough symbols and sites of the Civil War to never forget it. Try visiting Antietam or Gettysburg or any of the other battlefields. We don't need a statue that lionizes a traitor.
Paddy O said...Lee represents a part of history sure, but his part in US history was directly responsible for the deaths and maiming of hundreds of thousands of Americans. That's his heritage, even as there's a complexity of motives and interest involved by people on both sides.
Yup. They'll definitely stop tearing down monuments once they're done with those terrible Confederates. Once they're all gone the Left will be happy and agree that real Americans deserve monuments, yes sir. I can't think of any other American historical figures w/monuments that the Left will say are "directly responsible for the deaths and maiming" of many Americans.
It's just some redneck southern lost cause-ers, fuck 'em.
People are quoting Mark Herring. Where have I heard that name? Ah, one of the several Democrats who have somehow turned losing an election on election night into a victory as more votes turn up over the next few days. Why is it invariably the Democrat (Al Franken, Christine Gregoire) who picks up just enough votes after the polls close to pull ahead? Maybe this one is clean, but the overall pattern obviously stinks.
Here's Wikipedia: "On the night of the election, Obenshain held a 1,200 vote lead over Herring. Vote totals fluctuated as ballots were canvassed in the following days, and the race remained too close to call. On November 12, 2013, with all ballots counted, Herring held a 165-vote lead, or less than 0.01%, and Obenshain requested a recount.[8] Herring's total increased during the recount, so Obenshain conceded the election on December 18, 2013, and later that day, the recount ended with Herring winning by 907 votes, or 0.04%."
The other 20% had front-loading muskets. Expensive and difficult to find, prone to exploding on loading and firing, wildly inaccurate, and slow. But they're not semi-automatic, so that's good.
"I can't think of any other American historical figures w/monuments that the Left will say are "directly responsible for the deaths and maiming" of many Americans."
Well, like Lee knew it's always good to pick the time and place for a battle. In this case, the Left has a very good argument, as Lee himself intentionally, purposefully, actively made it his mission to kill and maim citizens of the United States of America.
When do we start talking about willful incompetence?
Paddy O said...Well, like Lee knew it's always good to pick the time and place for a battle. In this case, the Left has a very good argument, as Lee himself intentionally, purposefully, actively made it his mission to kill and maim citizens of the United States of America.
Good. The crocodile will eat you last. "The barbarians have a point this time, we'll stop them later when they pick a more respected target." Good. Congratulations.
Keep leading Pickett's Charge, Hoodlum.
Paddy O said...In this case, the Left has a very good argument,
Yeah. The people cheering for the removal and/or destruction of statues of Lee are the same people who cheer when the American flag is burned. They did that, again, this weekend in Portland at a rally "in response to Charlottesville." But you don't support that part--they don't have a "very good argument" for that.
Paddy O said...Keep leading Pickett's Charge, Hoodlum.
Is there a way we can all just agree that you're better--that you're morally superior and then move on?
You're better, Paddy O. Just like the Left--they're better. You're morally superior, the people you disagree with are backwards, ignorant, racist, xenophobic, homopohobic, redneck regressive deplorables. Yeah? We all agree.
Will tearing it all down put a dent in your desire to be told you're better? I guess we'll find out, huh?
Did I somehow miss the first highest rated comment?
"The people cheering for the removal and/or destruction of statues of Lee are the same people who cheer when the American flag is burned."
Binary thinking isn't very helpful. But it makes a person feel good. The people burning the American flag are wrong, the Left is often wrong, Antifa is wrong, but celebrating Lee is also wrong. For much the same reasons. Lee was a representative of the Left in his day.
People who carry Confederate flags and Nazi salutes are celebrating enemies of America. People who burn American flags are burning the very symbols of freedom and hope that America represents.
The statue of Lee makes for bad ground to fight on because Lee burned American flags and killed American soldiers too. If that's what you support, then you're at home with the contemporary Left.
If your moral cause is caught up with Lee and support of the confederacy then that's fine, just don't see is as somehow being more American or at all patriotic. It's just quite literally the opposite. If that's the ground you want to die on, that's all well and good. But it makes you exactly the same as the Left.
If your moral cause is caught up with Lee and support of the confederacy then that's fine
Yeah, we're all about the slavery.
It's more about standing up for our ancestors and against the Yankee invasion of the South in our lifetimes. Just as most of the Conf. soldiers were defending their region, not slavery. But slavery was obviously the root of the extreme regionalism that started secession.
Paddy O,
Just so we're clear, when students demanded the Lynch Building name be changed, what did you think?
People often think slippery slope arguments are wrong because of the form of the argument. But that is not true. The question is how steep and how slippery the slope and how many available off-ramps to safety the slope has.
HoodlumDoodlum seems to think the slope rather steep, rather slippery and has few or no off-ramps. He thinks the Left will never be sated no matter how many people are fired, how many bakeries and pizzerias are threatened and no matter how much rioting they do. HoodlumDoodlum seems to think the issue is less about General Lee specifically than picking any point in the culture wars to defend against the Left's totalitarian impulses. He wants to avoid the slope altogether by choosing not to give on an issue he might not personally want to defend.
Is that where your fundamental disagreement lies? No, it seems you just don't like General Lee. But that doesn't answer HoodlumDoodlum's point, if I understand him.
Paddy O claims: but celebrating Lee is also wrong.
Have you ever read any biographies of Lee? Do you really know anything at all about the War Between the States?
Lynch Building ridiculousness.
Many could care less about what statues are in place or are removed. They can come and go with changes in elected officials. Although think of the fun to be had if a small city erected a statue in honor of Bull Conner (D).
But, as in so many things, there is no end goal for the perpetually aggrieved. It's like "Rage Boy" from the middle east.
There have been efforts to remove all traces of people who owned slaves in the 1700's. For example, IIRC, Harvard has removed the family crest of an early donor because, though there are no racist symbols in the crest, someone learned the family owned slaves. Oh the horror. Of course both Washington and Jefferson owned slaves as well. And calls have come to begin the erasure of them as well. Ah well, what is the loss of a few more old, dead, white men.
Let's get a hyper version of ancestry (dot) com here. Let's scour all recorded information using Cray super computer power to find out if anyone in your ancestral past ever said an insensitive slur about whatever group is on the victim role today. Islamophobia, gay bashing, racism, sexism lets ferret out the bastards. Every diary, every news report, every tweet, every rumor. No source too anonymous, not dog whistle too high pitched.
What a lovely world.
If that's what you support, then you're at home with the contemporary Left.
That's me, Mr. Leftist. You nailed it, man.
Lots of Americans managed to reconcile themselves at the end of the Civil War--lots of the people who actually fought against each other in the Civil War managed to forgive each other and come together as Americans.
You guys know better, though--no forgiveness, ever. You're too morally correct for something like that--it'd be unAmerican. Anyway you win; you're better! "You" were better then, and you are better now.
Anyone who objects to tearing down monuments is a Nazi, a slavery supporter, a supporter "of the confederacy" (which doesn't make sense to me since there is no confederacy and hasn't been since the end of the Civil War, but what the fuck does an ignorant racist like me know?), and just less of a "real American" than you. We all agree, obviously--thank you for the reminder.
Hey, the Peace Monument in my city the one showing the Confederate soldier laying down his arms--the one that was defaced this weekend...can we keep that one? Or no, that's still too unAmerican, huh?
Well, you're my moral superior, so obviously I defer to your decision. Down it comes!
I'm with Paddy O. on this one. Lee statues are up specifically in honor of something we don't need to be honoring. These aren't statues erected to honor things we think are honorable that people want to tear down because the person had flaws.
"This is terrifying. You have armed individuals roaming the street who are neither military nor law enforcement but unapologetic storm troopers. Whatever this is, it is not about the first amendment."
Commented distinguished clueless WaPo commenter Miranda17, with a tingle up her leg as she typed "unapologetic storm troopers".
"Hey, the Peace Monument in my city the one showing the Confederate soldier laying down his arms--the one that was defaced this weekend...can we keep that one? Or no, that's still too unAmerican, huh?"
How is that comparable to statues honoring fighting by the Confederacy?
Naaaah. It's a slippery slope but no one cares. The confederate monuments make good targets because they're something all right-thinking Americans can agree on. Only racist crypto-Nazi southern rednecks object and we can all--Right and Left--agree those people aren't real Americans. Fuck 'em.
The slippery slope argument is one reason the non-Left should be less enthusiastic than they are about joining with the Left "just this once," but that point won't convince anyone.
The people tearing these monuments down aren't replacing what you see as racist pro-slavery white supremacy veneration with "real American values," they're replacing it with Leftism. You cheer now because you agree confederates shouldn't have monuments. Fine. You guys are all about cultural identity and never forget that the white southern identity is horrible (toxic, racist, etc) compared to your own. You cheer the destruction of that identity and don't seem to notice what's on offer to replace it.
Give it time. You think Jefferson and Washington are immune? Give it time.
Freeman Hunt said...How is that comparable to statues honoring fighting by the Confederacy?
I dunno; ask the people taking them down and/or defacing them. Comparable enough to the Left!
Freeman Hunt,
Please see my comment above at 10:42 AM.
Some of the graveyards around here have statues, too; graves of confederate soldiers. Better take 'em down. Wouldn't want to honor "something we don't need to be honoring."
UNC-Greensboro bowed to pressure to remove an early 1900's governor's name off an old building because he was a segregationalist back when that was popular.
It's been the favorite rallying point for leftists. Now they have Trump.
In Alexandria, Robert E Lee school was the all black elementary (many were mixed, mine had 1 black child in 6 grades). I believe they were able to close it after the school rolls dropped in half in one decade. For those who don't know, Lee grew up there.
JAORE @ 10:48: Two thumbs up! How is such a witch hunt any different from those of [other] totalitarian regimes? Or like the Terror in the French Revolution? Eventually, no one will be safe from from condemnation.
"Have you ever read any biographies of Lee? Do you really know anything at all about the War Between the States?"
Yes and yes. I was quite obsessed with Civil War history for a good portion of my life.
I'm not arguing that I'm morally superior for not liking Lee. I'm arguing that using Lee as a symbol of patriotism, etc. is incoherent. Lee burned American flags, he burned Americans. And that makes Lee a limited regional hero. If somehow being part of contemporary conservative debate means I have to defend a man who was responsible for the deaths of my great-great-great-great grandfather and his oldest son who fought caring the Stars and Stripes, if it means I have to defend the man who fought for the continued enslavement of a whole portion of Americans-whether or not that was his particular goal--then that's asking too much. Screw your slippery slope. Lee killed Americans.
He's everything that is wrong with identity politics in American history, a good man used for bad causes by misguided politicians.
If that's your hero, then great, but don't see that as something all people, especially all conservatives, should rally behind. I'll stand with the Republicans on this issue, for Union and against Secession, for Lincoln and against Lee.
Guys, why are we still talking about this? You've won. Love trumped hate--those monuments celebrated and honored hate and at long last love has won. They're coming down.
You are correct to feel smugly superior to anyone who has any problem with them coming down. Those people are bad people who want to honor bad things and you're better than them. We all agree.
The same arguments you're making now will definitely not be used to bring down more monuments in the future--once the horrible racist confederate monuments are gone that'll be the end of it. Your temporary alliance with the Left, and your full-throated adoption of their moral reasoning/judgement will certainly not give them any kind of power in other areas or on other topics. They just happen to have a point right now so your siding with them is really a coincidence of your own principled stand.
We all agree, ok? What else would you like? What else can we do to prove we might one day be good, real Americans like you?
I'm guessing that most of the Confederate Soldier monuments were put up to honor the dead several decades after the war ended, ie by their children's generation.
The one in the Peoples Republic of Alexandria was put there using state law just over a century ago, so the state legis. must vote to move it. The local government hates it, and not just because drunks drive into it.
"It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
Let's join in together with people who fight for this cause, whatever creed or party or philosophy they claim.
Let's not join in with people who fight against this cause, whatever creed or party or philosophy they claim.
Lee killed Americans.
NYT conservative Ross Douthat tweeted several pictures of Gen. Sherman this weekend. If I said "Sherman burned Atlanta" (the city where I live) I guess that'd make it ok for me to oppose a statue of Sherman, huh?
I mean, I don't oppose such a statue--there's a very nice one in DC and I took a picture of it the last time I was there. I'm not sure why chest-thumping by Douthat about the destruction Sherman brought to the south as part of the war is ok, though...but then again I'm not a real American in good standing anymore so it's understandable that I wouldn't "get it."
"Militiamen came to Charlottesville as neutral First Amendment protectors, commander says."
Ah! Virtue signaling. The Police are the folks we pay to make us forget that personal safety is our own individual responsibility. Who asked for your help?
Oh yes. By all means, the graves of Confederate soldiers should be dug up, their bones and gravestones pounded to dust. The sooner we forget history, the sooner we will be condemned to repeat it. I think we are just about there now.
Let's join in together with people who fight for this cause, whatever creed or party or philosophy they claim.
Which cause, Paddy O? There is no Confederacy, no one's fighting for it and you're not fighting against it.
I'm not sure why you have any more claim to Lincoln that I do, but fine, ok: you're right. Have I said that enough?
You're a real American and you're fighting for the right cause--I'm not a real American and somehow I am, or was, fighting for the wrong cause. The many Union soldiers and leaders who felt their defeated Confederate foes should be treated with respect were wrong--the people on the wrong side of that cause were evil and any attempt to honor any of them is in effect supporting evil and a declaration of opposition to America itself. Ok? We all agree.
Freeman Hunt: I'm with Paddy O. on this one. Lee statues are up specifically in honor of something we don't need to be honoring.
Other people don't look at Lee through the lens you're using. (Which buy the way, is a very recent lens, one not used by most Americans, Southerners or not, until well into my own lifetime.) You're getting perilously close here to question-begging SJW-think here: "I think X is bad because of Y, therefore those other Americans who disagree with me can't be doing so for any other reason than that they support or are indifferent to Y. So I'm justified in doing whatever I want to do, regardless of whether it distresses and antagonizes them, because they are supporters of bad things, and therefore bad people, so fuck 'em."
You're also being very naïve, if you think you've found a formula for distinguishing between "bad" and "flawed" that you and the Red Guards can agree upon, and which they will respect and adhere to. They will toss it aside as soon as they win this round, and move on. They're coming after Washington and Jefferson (actually, they already are.)
AReasonableMan said...
Matthew Sablan said...
Someone died, governor. Other people hospitalized. How is that a success?
It was a success for the fascist murderous thugs from out of town with their tiki torches, they got what they wanted.
8/14/17, 8:51 AM
So McAuliffe is a Nazi?
It is a bit confounding that nobody addressed my slippery slope argument.
It's almost as though people are conceding I might be right but that it is uncomfortable to admit the totalitarian impulses of the Left will not be sated. And every victory by the Left brings us closer to the slope after which we all will lose our footing.
Angel-Dyne....You're also being very naïve, if you think you've found a formula for distinguishing between "bad" and "flawed" that you and the Red Guards can agree upon, and which they will respect and adhere to. They will toss it aside as soon as they win this round, and move on.
That's silly, Angel-Dyne. The morally-correct real Americans understand that siding with the Left in just this instance makes the MORE principled--they support the anti-Confederate "cause" (even though there's no confederacy/no one fighting on the other side) despite the fact that it puts them solidly behind the Left and SJW attack on wrongthink--it's only just this one time, you see.
Everyone hates Confederate monuments. The Left hates them because they're just another example of America's white supremicist imperial sexist racist homophobic past and culture. Non-Left real Americans hate them because they honor people who fought against America and obviously that can never be forgiven--similarly anyone who identifies in any way with such people can never be thought of as "real Americans." See? It's a coincidence that they both line up the same way in this one case, and that they're both using the same kind of arguments in this one case--it doesn't have any larger meaning or import.
The real Americans will obviously oppose the Left when the Left comes for monuments to real Americans! It won't be too late by that point, and of course non-real Americans like me will happily stand up against the Left then...I mean, we would, if we hadn't already been so thoroughly expelled from the community of people considered valid participants in civic life. But anyway I'm sure the real Americans will prevail over the Left--they haven't been losing the culture way for five fucking decades or so already--they'll probably get around to actually conserving something at that point.
I know that we have a great number of progressives who would like to pretend that all old statues are the same, and that any statue of any person with any flaw should be erased. I reject that.
I submit that there are two very different types of statues that people might object to and that we need to distinguish between the two. There are statues of flawed human beings erected in honor of actions we wish to honor. For example, statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson erected to honor the founding of the country and its ideals. Then there are statues of flawed human beings erected to honors actions we DO NOT wish to honor. For example, statues of Robert E. Lee erected to honor fighting on behalf of the Confederacy.
We should do all we can to preserve the former but not the latter. Two different slopes.
Sure, Freeman Hunt, but you will have ceded the ground you would wish to defend by the time the statues of Washington and Jefferson are removed. And moving to recapture ceded territory is harder than maintaining that ground to start.
When the Left started their culture war it was against things people didn't want to protect. How else could one recruit adherents? You pick the low hanging fruit until you have sufficient leverage to remove the whole orchard.
Freeman Hunt said...For example, statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson erected to honor the founding of the country and its ideals.
American was founded on genocide, slavery, oppression, patriarchy, subjugation of women, and (somehow) hatred of homosexuals.
You want to HONOR that? Get woke, Freeman. Those founding fathers (so patriarchal!) have got to go.
Actually, for a highly armed group, they were extraordinarily civil, and exercised their rights with moderation and responsibility.
The conflict did not begin until the Antifa mob arrived armed with an intent to provoke a conflict.
Btw, Eisenhower made some appallingly admiring comments about Lee here, and even more appalling ones here.
Time to shit-can Eisenhower from history? Or at least make sure citizens present and future are not allowed to look at his monuments or read about him without the proper interpretive materials, explaining away or excoriating his opinions as the case may be, as the whims of this generation's blinkered "presentism" give way to the next's?
It's discouraging how the right in this country is every bit as bad as the left in considering themselves so fucking morally superior to people who came before them. Men who fought Lee, and suffered because of Lee, honored and respected Lee, and so did their sons and grandsons. But now we know better. Burn it all down. "Mystic chords of memory" are so in the way of progress, aren't they?
[class] diversitists vs color supremacists. Left vs Left. Hopefully, the Left will lose. Civil society can tolerate, but not normalize, people who judge others by the "color of their skin".
"Unapologetic storm troopers"?
No, O clueless internet commenter.
Actual "storm troopers" beat or kill people, not stand around not doing anything like that, let alone while calling both Nazis and Communists (because that's what "AntiFa" is - Communists, literally and historically) jackhats.
the reporting didn't flat out condemn the militia presence. In the '90's they would have been damned
The composition of the militias dismembered the prevailing narrative as a baby that is processed by the Planned Parenthood corporation.
Anyone think defacing offensive statues is the correct way to lodge a vote against them?
This situation feels more and more like working with communists to defeat socialists and fascists.
“Not one of my people said a word." Statue in my heart for the statute in Yingling’s.
Freeman Hunt: I submit that there are two very different types of statues that people might object to and that we need to distinguish between the two. There are statues of flawed human beings erected in honor of actions we wish to honor. For example, statues of George Washington or Thomas Jefferson erected to honor the founding of the country and its ideals. Then there are statues of flawed human beings erected to honors actions we DO NOT wish to honor. For example, statues of Robert E. Lee erected to honor fighting on behalf of the Confederacy.
The distinction you're trying to promote here was clear when you first posted it. But you're just repeating yourself here, not addressing any of the objections made.
We should do all we can to preserve the former but not the latter.
Whose "we"? People here are disagreeing with you about both the correctness and the utility of this distinction.
Two different slopes.
No, they're not. No such distinction is being recognized by your enemies, and a lot of your friends think it's false, too. That's what people are trying to get you to realize here.
How do you spell wannabe in deplorable?
Washington and Lee University is in for some handwringing. Named for not one but two slave owners. Does the entire college need to be razed? Probably.
These statues of Confederates have stood for a hundred years and suddenly left and right good-thinkers are eager to tear them down. The empty spaces will be monuments to the virtue signaling stupidity of this thinking and these actions. Appropriate empty spaces.
Get this around your heads: when monuments to Lee were erected the Civil War had been lost. As in not won. The statues of Lee were not erected in celebration of the Civil War, or to honor his losing or even his fighting. They were to honor the man.
And, by the way, why are you just this very moment deciding that you DO NOT wish to honor these "actions?" Why not two years ago or twenty or thirty or fifty or seventy five?
We should do all we can to preserve the former but not the latter. Two different slopes.
Who is 'we', Freeman? Lee was a proud Virginian and I daresay most Virginians are proud of him. Why may they not honor their native son?
You may change hearts and minds by destroying history but it won't change history, itself.
I'm reminded of the Fundamentalist argument about Scripture. Scripture has to be considered inerrant because if you admit one part is wrong, then the whole is suspect. It's a slippery slope from saying that maybe Quirinius wasn't the governor when Luke says he was to saying Jesus wasn't resurrected. You have to uphold the first to uphold the second. So, the Creation narrative has to be seven literal days, in order, world created in 4004 BC, otherwise we can't believe in God at all.
It builds the argument on difficult foundations, and isn't coherent. Because not all issues are tied together, and insisting they are really weakens the whole. Chip away at some minor point in the Bible and all of faith is lost? So, the method is to hide the problems, to cover over uncertainties, and makes the discussion all about very minor and debated questions, thus missing the main points again and again.
If you make freedom about a statue of Lee, you might feel like you're fighting against a slippery slope, but it's tenuous foundation, because while Lee may be still a hero to some, he's complicated and problematic. He also represents a lot of realities to many people in different ways. If you want to hold onto him, fine, but that means holding on and defending all that his symbolism represents. Slippery slopes exist, but the threat of them isn't enough to support controversial causes for their own sake. I have no problem, for instance, in saying there's some problems with elements in Scripture, that Genesis 1 isn't talking dates and times (it's about lordship), while still saying God is God and Jesus is resurrected. Complexity is how life works. Slippery slopes exist, but not all slopes are slippery. Sometimes you reposition to have the best possible ground that gathers together the widest range of forces.
That Lee was respected is true, but it's too much to say he was a hero to all and sundry. They never restored his citizenship, for instance, which is a pretty damning judgment on him. And maybe there are statues of Lee in the North somewhere, but I don't know about them. People respected Rommel, but that doesn't justify a statue.
Fighting every battle as if it's the absolute stand against loss is a good way to lose morale and lose supporters and give victories to opponents. That's the problem. Last stands should be a last resort not a standard approach. That way leads to loss, and that's my main point. If want to make a stand on that statue, great, but it's not a winning strategy, even if it feels good, even if it feels like you're standing up for a great cause. There's too many mixed messages and symbols that re-organizes society towards the Left's positions. Better to focus on themes and issues that draw people together, that de-emphasizes identity politics and regional hatred.
"General, you must look to your division."
"General Lee... I have no division."
While we're at it, let's take down Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Dartmouth. They were all founded by Puritans. And, you know, witch trials!
More people should run over progressive democrat party dirlewangers. Run them down! The Sunsongs, the ARM's/Shilohs, the Antiphones, all the Unknowns and Ingas and their scummy anti-American ilk blocking the streets and attacking innocent people are domestic terrorists- OWS, BLM, CPUSA, DNC- Run them down!
I think burning a flag is Constitutionally protected free speech. But burning a flag is not coherent speech, because it's burning the very flag that symbolizes freedom of speech.
I think having a statue of Lee is all well and good if that's what people want. But supporting keeping a statue of Lee as an expression of American freedom isn't coherent speech, because Lee represented fighting against America and for slavery.
Both issues simultaneous celebration of and rejection of the greatness of America.
Put up a statue of Kaepernick while you're at it. He's a bold example of American values. Don't like his speech? That's a slippery slope!
Michael: Washington and Lee University is in for some handwringing. Named for not one but two slave owners. Does the entire college need to be razed? Probably.
I think the cultural locusts have already been moving through that college. A few years ago, iirc, a student was claiming assault, or violation of his civil rights, or something from the name "Lee" being in the name of the college he had voluntarily attended.
And, by the way, why are you just this very moment deciding that you DO NOT wish to honor these "actions?" Why not two years ago or twenty or thirty or fifty or seventy five?
Good question. Conservatives(tm) don't know what they think until some lefty culture warrior kindly provides them with the moral instruction necessary to understand the pressing moral necessity of targeting whatever the lefties want targeted in any particular stage of the Long March. (Occasionally they may hem and haw a bit before getting fully on board, but they always manage to "grow in office".)
Paddy O @12:38 PM:
I send my condolences for your recent head injury and hope for a quick and complete recovery.
Seriously, Paddy, that was an astoundingly stupid comment.
"But supporting keeping a statue of Lee as an expression of American freedom isn't coherent speech, because Lee represented fighting against America and for slavery."
Look, I understand the foolishness of expecting, say, Ingabot or sunsong to understand the concept of "begging the question", but what the hell is wrong with you and Freeman today?
~
The Dems in Virginia will soon vote to replace Lee’s statue with a Mexicanized statue to Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph and his “New Virginia Colony,” an imperfect but forward looking solution, with infrastructure soon to be all the new rage.
Paddy O: [Lee] is complicated and problematic.
History is complicated and problematic. Better replace it with nice clean cartoon narratives.
"Look, I understand the foolishness of expecting, say, Ingabot or sunsong to understand the concept of "begging the question", but what the hell is wrong with you and Freeman today?"
Good sense? Perspective? Not committed to regional figures? Awareness. Wondering why people on the right want to embrace identity politics and regional division?
I don't understand what is begging the question. Who did Lee fight against? I might need to recheck my history books, but what was the flag that Lee directed artillery, cavalry, and infantry against?
What flag did he fight under?
If we're going to come up with examples about people who should be honored in America, I'm not sure Lee is the best choice. His statue inherently alienates a good many other people from all sorts of different categories.
Though maybe I have a subconscious fear of Virginians. I'm a Virginiaphobe!
"While we're at it, let's take down Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Dartmouth. They were all founded by Puritans"
In an earlier thread, I argued that Washington and Lee University should absolutely keep its name, because Lee was honored in his post-war role there. That is a fitting expression of Lee's stature and character.
"History is complicated and problematic. Better replace it with nice clean cartoon narratives."
I think there's an in-between. Cartoon narratives is what we're getting in the news and in these debates.
Paddy O, Freeman Hunt
"Lee statues are up specifically in honor of something we don't need to be honoring." Why the sudden umbrage? These statues have been in place for a hundred years. They were ignored during the real civil rights struggles of the 60s by those who marched and were beaten and who died in that real struggle, not the current faux civil rights "movement." Are you sad you missed the real deal and deciding now that you are willing to bravely march across the imaginary Pettus bridge there before you, smiting those objects "honoring" causes that have been dead for a hundred and fifty years? Robert E. Lee's horse had a name and it wasn't Smug and it wasn't Sanctimony.
Fucking Taliban
Paddy-O argues: Put up a statue of Kaepernick while you're at it. He's a bold example of American values. Don't like his speech? That's a slippery slope!
Gee, what a great parallel! Let's see now. Robert E. Lee was the commanding general of the Confederacy of the south during the Civil War; Kaepernick was, for a brief time, quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers. Yes, I'd say they are pretty similar in stature and historical importance.
Paddy O:
You can recognize that the Left believes it is a very steep and very slippery slope with few off-ramps based on how hard they are pushing to get society past where the footing will hold.
You think the Left will stop? What is the natural stopping point? Will it be when Washington, DC is renamed? I think you are conceding the whole game and you won't like the results.
Paddy-O said...Fighting every battle as if it's the absolute stand against loss is a good way to lose morale and lose supporters and give victories to opponents. That's the problem. Last stands should be a last resort not a standard approach. That way leads to loss, and that's my main point. If want to make a stand on that statue, great, but it's not a winning strategy, even if it feels good, even if it feels like you're standing up for a great cause. There's too many mixed messages and symbols that re-organizes society towards the Left's positions. Better to focus on themes and issues that draw people together, that de-emphasizes identity politics and regional hatred.
Yep. You'll get to that thing you'll fight for, eventually. Everyone can count on you then.
You won't remain neutral in THIS fight--THIS fight is over yucky symbols that are all mixed up and not clear and some of the wrong kind of people are on the side opposite the Left in THIS fight, so the winning strategy is to jump on board w/the Left THIS time.
But next time, in the REAL fight, you'll be there manning the barricades, yes sir. We can all count on you in that fight.
THIS one, after all, is just some regional thing. Not your problem. Let the people who are on the wrong side of history get condemned as wicked racists even if they're not...to do otherwise would be to taint your spotless moral mantle and you'd be defending a group that includes some really deplorable people. Not worth it, you see? Wouldn't want to get the hands dirty.
It's much more important to save your powder for the REAL fight, later. I don't know who you imagine will be left standing to help you at at that point, but the important thing is that you'll have demonstrated your superior moral worth. You're the monk keeping the candle lit--you're the Nockian remnant.
The rest of us are backwards regional identitarians. Of course you'll take common cause with the Left in stomping us out! How could you do otherwise?
You think there is an in-between but those on the Left do not. And that is why they have won the many Long Marches through the institutions. You are reasonable but they are not. And so they will push long past what you think is reasonable and it will come to be the status quo.
The Leftward ratchet operates in only one direction.
That is a fitting expression of Lee's stature and character.
What character? He killed Americans and burned American flags. He was a traitor, a slaveowner, and a mass murderer. I guess that ended when the war did?
Sorry, I'm too stupid to understand when it's ok to honor people. Probably a regional defect---thankfully real Americans know better. I'll trust that real Americans will stop the Left from tearing down valid real American monuments, whatever those might be. Moral relativism, context/nuance--all just a mystery to me. Good thing I don't have any moral standing to object to the much better judgement of my superiors. Oh, and that attitude definitely won't drive people to adopt "identity politics" or "regional identification" more strongly--everyone will just meekly submit to the superior moral standing of self-appointed real Americans. Me, I don't know nuthin' 'bout honorin' no dead men.
Birkel asks: Will it be when Washington, DC is renamed?
And Washington State? They'll probably just reapply the name to some minority person, like maybe George Washington Carver. Like in Washington State, King County, which was named King County after a former VP, was re-designated as being named for MLK, Jr. in 1986. No one got to vote on the change.
~
“One way to measure the success of an integrated community is how quickly and deeply the newcomers become involved in the economy. Virginia has the highest labor force participation rate for immigrants of any state, at 73 percent, above that of U.S.-born Virginians. From the 10 states with the most immigrants, Virginia has the highest share with a bachelor’s degree or higher. If you’re wondering, the state’s overall unemployment rate is 3.8 percent, below the national average, so it doesn’t seem immigrants are taking jobs away from natives.
“‘You won’t replace us’ was a rallying cry for the protesters, but the Virginia multicultural model has augmented the prosperity of the native-born. Of the nation’s wealthiest 10 counties in terms of per capita income, five lie in the immediate proximity of Washington. About 22 percent of the population of Northern Virginia was born outside of the U.S.
“About 9 percent of the population in the Charlottesville area is foreign-born. About 60 languages are spoken in the immediate area, and in 2015 the City Council declared Charlottesville to be a 'welcoming city' for migrants.
"In 2014, economic researchers found Charlottesville to be America’s happiest city.”
Virginia Is a Multicultural Success Story (Bloomberg)
I don't understand what is begging the question. Who did Lee fight against? I might need to recheck my history books, but what was the flag that Lee directed artillery, cavalry, and infantry against?
What flag did he fight under?
[Face palm.]
Okay, I am willing to take your word for it. You really don't understand how you're begging the question here. Apparently it is your understanding that the people who object to the removal of Lee's statue (or Confederate memorials in general), do so because it hasn't quite sunk in with them that Lee was waging war against the United States. Because otherwise I don't know what else your response is supposed to mean.
I'll give it one more try. Your premise is that Lee should not be honored because he waged war in defense of a slave society and against the United States. OK, I understand your premise (as much as I disagree with it) and your conclusion follows logically therefrom. Other people don't share your premise about what disqualifies a man from being honored by the following generations of citizens of the country he fought against. They have a set of premises that differs very much from your own. At times you say things that indicate that you understand that, and yet overall you argue as if, well, of course they share your premise: that Lee was a traitor and practiced slavery, therefore he does not deserve any kind of public honor.
This is logic 101, Paddy, not a dispute about historical facts. What's the problem here?
Eh, it's fine. I get it. I don't live in Charlottesville and by the time they start officially tearing down the monuments in my city (as opposed to just defacing them, spray painting them, etc like they do now) I'll be beyond caring.
I guess all I really wanted was for my allies on the Right and the nice centrist people to give me the benefit of the doubt and not immediately side with the Left in saying that anyone who has any problem with tearing those monuments down must be a stupid racist, a Nazi, an extremist, etc. I wasn't really expecting anyone to change their mind, but maybe I thought "hey, people on the Right know how quickly the Media and Left generally jump to label anyone remotely rightwing as racist/sexist/hompophobic/etc and declare their positions off limits and out of the mainstream, so I'll be they'll be really cautious about doing the same fucking thing to people who may be to their own right on this particular issue." Nope! I should have known better than that. People on the Right don't get a whole lot of opportunities to side with the majority in declaring other opinion "not who we are as American" and what not, so of course they're going to jump at the chance! When the people being so labeled happen to be from a region that's sneered at anyway, well, all the better.
That's fine. You're happy to tear down monuments, laugh about it, rub the "we won, we tore down your shit!" in people's faces, and simultaneously pat yourselves on the back for being so much more moral, upright, and enlightened...right next to the screaming garbage babies of the Left. I get it. Why not? It's a regional issue and it's not your region I guess, so everybody better get on board or get labeled a racist whose views are outside of allowable discourse.
It's cool. You're a real American; a good American. The mob won't ever come for you--won't ever come for the symbols or positions you actually care about.
HoodlumDoodlum:
Yep the statue of the surrendering Confederate soldier was defaced yesterday by people spontaneously being offended by its presence in a park that has housed it for decades, for longer than the spray painters have been alive. They did not know the soldier was laying down his weapon. It would be an idea too subtle for them. Wouldn't matter anyway. This is their Pettus bridge, HD, their chance to stand bravely against the...against the....bad things, the racism, the Civil fucking War.
Paddy: There's too many mixed messages and symbols that re-organizes society towards the Left's positions. Better to focus on themes and issues that draw people together, that de-emphasizes identity politics and regional hatred.
Yeah, 'cause nothing says "conservative" and "turning away from the Left's positions" like a society completely sundered from its deep, complex historical roots and stripped of any non-progressive approved symbols connecting it to its past.
Better to focus on themes and issues that draw people together, that de-emphasizes identity politics and regional hatred.
By all means, Paddy O. Let's steer people into a nice monolithic, group-thinking population that can be easily manipulated.
I've never gone to one of these protests or rallies, in my life.
Paddy O & Co. have convinced me, though: next time there's one nearby I should go down and get my fair share of abuse.
Maybe let some real Americans crack my skull with a bike lock, that kind of thing. Least I can do.
I usually try to post fun, funny pop-culture type links in an effort to "bring some humor" to the conversation. I guess I don't have a lot of that today.
Best I can do:
YT - The Band: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
YT - Joan Baez: The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down
You'd think it wouldn't matter, but frankly it was more fun being called a racist Nazi not-real American by Crack Emcee than by people on the Right. He was less smug about it, anyway.
Hoodlum Doodlum @2:56 PM:
Joan Baez, white supremacist.
Or, at the very least, she was committing hate speech (hate singing?) here.
Perhaps our right-think "conservatives" could form a coalition with the progs to determine what art, what architecture, which poems, which novels, which histories, which license plates offend. And together, in peace, they could dismantle, burn, ban, obliterate that which offended.
People want to equate someone who fought against the United States in a conflict over the greatest evil in the country's history with the people who founded the country. And that with great passion! Odd.
Call it what it is: A purge. The Soviets and Communist Chinese carried out purges on their cultures and that's what is happening here.
I'm an immigrant who did some schooling in Texas in the 80's. It was partly because of the founding creed of the Republican Party, and partly as a reaction to the illiberal Texas Democrats of the time, alternately progressive and conservative, occasionally in the same person, that I came to consider myself a Republican. I don't have sympathy for those who think the South should have won the Civil War, or that the War was not initiated to protect slavery. However, I also have little sympathy for those who believe everyone who fought for the South was solely or even primarily motivated by slavery. Do I remember incorrectly that most southern whites did not in fact even own slaves? There is plenty of debate to be had on the details, and a lot of lessons therein.
I'm reminded of the Dukes of Hazard TV show being very popular in those years, with their General Lee and his battle flag, without the subtext of slavery one way or another. "Johnny Reb" was not such a reviled figure then, simply a figure of regional pride, at least nowhere that I noticed in the People's Republic of Austin. So there was a time we were more able to contextualize symbols of the past.
So, what happened? Are people no longer able to hold more than one thought at a time in their heads about something? In this neo-Puritan age, are we no longer able to grasp that people are often conflicted and situations often complicated? There is nothing liberal about scouring our public sphere to annihilate any symbol, monument, or sign of a less than savory past. We should be capable of contextualizing these symbols, if only to remember that we're all impure creatures, that there is evil in all of us that doesn't go away if we just pretend it's not there.
Frankly, what separates those who want to remove the Lee statue from the Taliban who blue up the Bamiyan Buddhas, from their own perspectives? Or the Saudis who regularly destroy any symbol of the past that a Muslim may want to meditate on, leaving only a garish but otherwise santized present? They will say that these are "evils" they're destroying. But what they are trying to prevent is thought, reflection, awareness that the world is a complicated place, and people are complicated creatures. History is worth preserving, in all its complications and conflict, right and wrong, good and evil, because history is a reflection of humanity, of our best, our worst, and everything in between.
HoodlumDoodlum:
I very much appreciated your righteous and eloquent rage-dump in this thread, suh.
Rigelsen asserts: History is worth preserving, in all its complications and conflict, right and wrong, good and evil, because history is a reflection of humanity, of our best, our worst, and everything in between.
Hear, hear!
Do we really have to keep all statues, even those honoring acts we would not honor? If progressives litter the country with a bunch of stupid progressive cause statues, are we stuck with them forever? Are little towns with mail order Lee statues standing in the middle of their squares from the twentieth century expected to keep these statues for all time? Should Lenin's body stay on display 100 years hence? What is a liberated North Korea supposed to look like?
"Let's join in together with people who fight for this cause [this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.] , whatever creed or party or philosophy they claim."
In 2017, who are those "people"?
Freeman, we should keep permanent and public reminders of a time when millions of American men took their stand for freedom against appalling odds of surviving alive and un-maimed. Because the Confederates thought they were freeing their region from Northern control. Of course, it was something evil that drove the regions apart.
Charlottesville has lost most if not all of its Old Dominion population and character, so inevitably the statue will go.
It does sound like the militia was well regulated.
I'm confused. Isn't Yingling a panda?
"when millions of American men took their stand for freedom"
That's what you call the Confederacy? A stand for freedom? I think a particular group of people alive at that time might strongly disagree. Or do you mean the Union?
Some might call those "appalling odds" God pouring out his wrath.
Post a Comment