ChatterBank0 min ago
Apart From What Happened When A Single Mad Person Ploughed Into The Crowd And Killed One Woman And Injuring Others, Were The Far-Right Within Their Rights To Protest Against The Removal Of A Historic Confederate General's Statue?
98 Answers
http://
I believe they were, and if the Far-Left choose to violently oppose them, then they should be equally laid to blame, without the need for Trump or anyone else be made to blame just one side specifically.
So Mr Sajid Javid and Shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith, stop your talk about the President of the USA defending Neo-Nazis so should not be allowed a State Visit to the UK.
I believe they were, and if the Far-Left choose to violently oppose them, then they should be equally laid to blame, without the need for Trump or anyone else be made to blame just one side specifically.
So Mr Sajid Javid and Shadow defence secretary Nia Griffith, stop your talk about the President of the USA defending Neo-Nazis so should not be allowed a State Visit to the UK.
Answers
I raised this yesterday and true to form the left on here failed to condemn violent and criminal acts attempting instead to try and deflect to the utlra right. Unfortunatel
12:27 Wed 16th Aug 2017
Khandro, I have already said that I didn’t think it was as bad as some of the press are making out, though from the videos I have seen there appear to be a lot more neo-Nazis and white supremacists than ‘fine people’ in the protest group.
If you couple what he said here with his previous statement where he said “Racism is evil,” and “Those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” He does at least go some way to saying what most think.
If you couple what he said here with his previous statement where he said “Racism is evil,” and “Those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.” He does at least go some way to saying what most think.
The website linked to below seems to think that your right to say that you hate [person or group of persons] is protected under 1st amendment but that suggesting, to another person, that they drive a car into a crowd of such persons is incitement and that is not protected speech.
http://
Being an ass, the law has nothing to say about massed ranks of people "going equipped", so to speak: attending a so-called "peaceful protest" while openly carrying sheilds and sticks. (I've not yet seen photographic evidence of helmets or blades or guns - the permit to march likely prohibits these).
Robert E. Lee fought IN DEFENCE OF SLAVERY. Those marching to defend his statue clearly CONDONE SLAVERY although their chosen chant was directed at JEWS.
Please forgive me if I conflate the question "were they within their rights" with the idea that debaters may CONDONE the actions and speech of the right-wing elements at (or near) this rally.
http://
Being an ass, the law has nothing to say about massed ranks of people "going equipped", so to speak: attending a so-called "peaceful protest" while openly carrying sheilds and sticks. (I've not yet seen photographic evidence of helmets or blades or guns - the permit to march likely prohibits these).
Robert E. Lee fought IN DEFENCE OF SLAVERY. Those marching to defend his statue clearly CONDONE SLAVERY although their chosen chant was directed at JEWS.
Please forgive me if I conflate the question "were they within their rights" with the idea that debaters may CONDONE the actions and speech of the right-wing elements at (or near) this rally.
@Khandro
I picked a source at random and this Vox piece happens to have an interview transcript with the French guy who dreamt up the "you will not replace us" phrase.
He seems to be mortified to learn that the Charlottesville white-supremacist nazis have adopted it.
https:/
For the anti-Jewish chant, try BBC coverage. Presumably, German TV channels would be too squeamish to broadcast the clip or perhaps the nationwide ban extends to repetition of prohibited words in reportage?
I picked a source at random and this Vox piece happens to have an interview transcript with the French guy who dreamt up the "you will not replace us" phrase.
He seems to be mortified to learn that the Charlottesville white-supremacist nazis have adopted it.
https:/
For the anti-Jewish chant, try BBC coverage. Presumably, German TV channels would be too squeamish to broadcast the clip or perhaps the nationwide ban extends to repetition of prohibited words in reportage?
*Everything* he says, Khandro?
Including the Freudian slip at the start:
"…when the alt-left came charging at us…" ?
US???
He swiftly recasts the sentence.
Type "Trump 1927" into your favourite search engine, for interesting results…
Also, he asks the press to define the term "alt-right" but doesn't do likewise for his term, "alt-left" which he may well have just made up, on the spot.
No lefty group that I've heard of has dubbed themself in that way. The entirity of the left considers itself "an alternative" to the right-wing versus slightly less right-wing hegemony, in the Rep/Dem spectrum (famously, they swapped round their relative degrees of rightness, some time post ACW, enabling "blame the Dems for that" comments, pertaining to racial maltreatment, in the past).
So alt-left would seem to be a tautology.
Including the Freudian slip at the start:
"…when the alt-left came charging at us…" ?
US???
He swiftly recasts the sentence.
Type "Trump 1927" into your favourite search engine, for interesting results…
Also, he asks the press to define the term "alt-right" but doesn't do likewise for his term, "alt-left" which he may well have just made up, on the spot.
No lefty group that I've heard of has dubbed themself in that way. The entirity of the left considers itself "an alternative" to the right-wing versus slightly less right-wing hegemony, in the Rep/Dem spectrum (famously, they swapped round their relative degrees of rightness, some time post ACW, enabling "blame the Dems for that" comments, pertaining to racial maltreatment, in the past).
So alt-left would seem to be a tautology.
This post is doing the rounds.
"As an archaeologist and a Virginian, I feel like I need to weigh in on the question of whether or not we should preserve monuments relating to the Confederacy. Sorry, its long.
In theory, the whole point of radical white nationalists, the KKK, and Nazis descending upon Charlottesville was to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue from Emancipation Park (formerly Lee Park). These hate-filled groups consider this statue to be an important symbol of white heritage. Some less-radical folks, including some of my friends on FB, say that we should not erase America’s history simply because it is unsavory in contemporary times. President Trump made a similar argument about historic preservation in his remarks to the press on Tuesday and Thursday this week.
Here is the problem: the Robert E. Lee statue was commissioned in 1917 and dedicated in 1924. There is a history associated with that statue, but it is not the history of the Confederacy. Instead this statue is part of early twentieth century attempts to coalesce white power and terrorize non-whites. The Lee statue commemorates a resurgence in white supremacy not simply a general from a war in America’s national history. This historical context, not simply General Lee’s role in the Confederacy, refutes the President’s equivalence between statues dedicated to Lee and those dedicated to Washington.
The specific history of Lee statue is important. Paul Goodloe McIntire, a Charlottesville native, commissioned the statue and donated the park that surrounds it. McIntire donated generously to Charlottesville and the University of Virginia in the early twentieth century. There’s a deeper history here. McIntire’s father, George Malcom McIntire, was the mayor who surrendered Charlottesville to General Custer and his Union troops during the Civil War. It would not be too much to suggest that Paul McIntire had an interest in smoothing over this personal indignity. McIntire not only donated Lee Park. He also donated another park, named after Booker T. Washington, for “colored citizens” to use. While it might be possible to explain away these segregated parks as a “product of their time”, it is a bit more difficult to excuse the Lee statue when we consider what else was going on in Virginia at this time.
What else was going on in Virginia in 1924?
In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly passed two laws that were designed to re-affirm white supremacy in Virginia; “The Racial Integrity Act” and “The Sterilization Act”. The Racial Integrity Act (SB 219), popularly known as the “one drop rule”, defined “colored” persons on the basis of having any African or Native American Ancestry. It also criminalized marriage between whites and non-whites. Interracial marriage was only decriminalized in 1967 thanks to Loving v. Virginia, a landmark case that was the subject of a recent film, “Loving”.
The Sterilization Act (SB 281) provided for compulsory sterilization of those who were deemed “feebleminded”. It was used to control and reduce ethnic minorities and served as a model for subsequent eugenics acts across the country as well as in Nazi Germany.
Both of these laws grew out of strong lobbying. One powerful lobbying group was the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, which was founded by John Powell of Richmond in 1922. Powell was a firm believer in white supremacy and segregation. He also liked Appalachian folk music. One of the major goals of the club was to prevent the “amalgamation” of different ethnic groups through intermarriage. It also discouraged immigration to the United States from anywhere except for Northern Europe. Trump’s recent call to limit immigration to English-speakers echoes these sentiments.
Charlottesville is not alone in its Confederate heritage problem. The Southern Poverty Law Center found at least 718 confederate statues spread across the United States. 300 are in Virginia, Georgia, or North Carolina.
"As an archaeologist and a Virginian, I feel like I need to weigh in on the question of whether or not we should preserve monuments relating to the Confederacy. Sorry, its long.
In theory, the whole point of radical white nationalists, the KKK, and Nazis descending upon Charlottesville was to protest the removal of a Robert E. Lee statue from Emancipation Park (formerly Lee Park). These hate-filled groups consider this statue to be an important symbol of white heritage. Some less-radical folks, including some of my friends on FB, say that we should not erase America’s history simply because it is unsavory in contemporary times. President Trump made a similar argument about historic preservation in his remarks to the press on Tuesday and Thursday this week.
Here is the problem: the Robert E. Lee statue was commissioned in 1917 and dedicated in 1924. There is a history associated with that statue, but it is not the history of the Confederacy. Instead this statue is part of early twentieth century attempts to coalesce white power and terrorize non-whites. The Lee statue commemorates a resurgence in white supremacy not simply a general from a war in America’s national history. This historical context, not simply General Lee’s role in the Confederacy, refutes the President’s equivalence between statues dedicated to Lee and those dedicated to Washington.
The specific history of Lee statue is important. Paul Goodloe McIntire, a Charlottesville native, commissioned the statue and donated the park that surrounds it. McIntire donated generously to Charlottesville and the University of Virginia in the early twentieth century. There’s a deeper history here. McIntire’s father, George Malcom McIntire, was the mayor who surrendered Charlottesville to General Custer and his Union troops during the Civil War. It would not be too much to suggest that Paul McIntire had an interest in smoothing over this personal indignity. McIntire not only donated Lee Park. He also donated another park, named after Booker T. Washington, for “colored citizens” to use. While it might be possible to explain away these segregated parks as a “product of their time”, it is a bit more difficult to excuse the Lee statue when we consider what else was going on in Virginia at this time.
What else was going on in Virginia in 1924?
In 1924, the Virginia General Assembly passed two laws that were designed to re-affirm white supremacy in Virginia; “The Racial Integrity Act” and “The Sterilization Act”. The Racial Integrity Act (SB 219), popularly known as the “one drop rule”, defined “colored” persons on the basis of having any African or Native American Ancestry. It also criminalized marriage between whites and non-whites. Interracial marriage was only decriminalized in 1967 thanks to Loving v. Virginia, a landmark case that was the subject of a recent film, “Loving”.
The Sterilization Act (SB 281) provided for compulsory sterilization of those who were deemed “feebleminded”. It was used to control and reduce ethnic minorities and served as a model for subsequent eugenics acts across the country as well as in Nazi Germany.
Both of these laws grew out of strong lobbying. One powerful lobbying group was the Anglo-Saxon Clubs of America, which was founded by John Powell of Richmond in 1922. Powell was a firm believer in white supremacy and segregation. He also liked Appalachian folk music. One of the major goals of the club was to prevent the “amalgamation” of different ethnic groups through intermarriage. It also discouraged immigration to the United States from anywhere except for Northern Europe. Trump’s recent call to limit immigration to English-speakers echoes these sentiments.
Charlottesville is not alone in its Confederate heritage problem. The Southern Poverty Law Center found at least 718 confederate statues spread across the United States. 300 are in Virginia, Georgia, or North Carolina.
One might also add to that that Robert E Lee himself said, on the subject of war memorials, "I think it wiser to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, and to consign to oblivion the feelings it engendered."
It seems reasonable to suggest, therefore, that removing the statue would honour Lee's memory rather a lot better than keeping it.
It seems reasonable to suggest, therefore, that removing the statue would honour Lee's memory rather a lot better than keeping it.
Part 2 attempt 2
--
Charlottesville is not alone in its Confederate heritage problem. The Southern Poverty Law Center found at least 718 confederate statues spread across the United States. 300 are in Virginia, Georgia, or North Carolina. They also found that there were two peak periods when these monuments were built; the first two decades of the twentieth century and during the mid-twentieth century.
During the early twentieth century, states were enacting Jim Crow laws in order to disenfranchise African Americans. There was also a dramatic resurgence of the KKK following from the success of the film The Birth of a Nation (1915), which glorified the founding of the KKK. The mid-twentieth century spike in Confederate monument-building corresponds with the civil rights movement and the anniversary of the Civil War.
The historical context of these monuments is critical. Some preservationists argue that removing monuments of our past allows certain people to rewrite history. This is certainly true. Artifacts of American slavery, for example, should be preserved a constant, tactile reminder of a painful past. These material remains serve as critical testimony of a horrific past that some groups, namely white supremacists, seek to recast.
The preservation of America’s twentieth-century Confederate monuments preserves something else. These monuments preserve the rewriting of American history rather than the history of the Civil War itself. Charlottesville’s Robert E. Lee statue, and others like it, were built to terrorize African Americans while reinvigorating white nationalism. They continue to perform this role today as we so clearly saw in Charlottesville this past weekend.
It is time to think differently about American heritage and monument preservation. I suggest that we make our decisions about which monuments to preserve on the basis of their historical context. We should take down the twentieth-century Confederate monuments because they were erected to terrorize African Americans. While I do not condone vigilantism, I understand the public’s frustration with states that refuse to remove these emblems of white supremacy. If recent events have taught us anything, states must act to remove these statues immediately or the public will do so. In many places it already has.
#realsouthernpride #takedownconfederatestatuesnow #robertelee #trumpiswrongyetagain #Charlottesville #virginiaisforloversnothaters #travelleriscomplicit
--
Charlottesville is not alone in its Confederate heritage problem. The Southern Poverty Law Center found at least 718 confederate statues spread across the United States. 300 are in Virginia, Georgia, or North Carolina. They also found that there were two peak periods when these monuments were built; the first two decades of the twentieth century and during the mid-twentieth century.
During the early twentieth century, states were enacting Jim Crow laws in order to disenfranchise African Americans. There was also a dramatic resurgence of the KKK following from the success of the film The Birth of a Nation (1915), which glorified the founding of the KKK. The mid-twentieth century spike in Confederate monument-building corresponds with the civil rights movement and the anniversary of the Civil War.
The historical context of these monuments is critical. Some preservationists argue that removing monuments of our past allows certain people to rewrite history. This is certainly true. Artifacts of American slavery, for example, should be preserved a constant, tactile reminder of a painful past. These material remains serve as critical testimony of a horrific past that some groups, namely white supremacists, seek to recast.
The preservation of America’s twentieth-century Confederate monuments preserves something else. These monuments preserve the rewriting of American history rather than the history of the Civil War itself. Charlottesville’s Robert E. Lee statue, and others like it, were built to terrorize African Americans while reinvigorating white nationalism. They continue to perform this role today as we so clearly saw in Charlottesville this past weekend.
It is time to think differently about American heritage and monument preservation. I suggest that we make our decisions about which monuments to preserve on the basis of their historical context. We should take down the twentieth-century Confederate monuments because they were erected to terrorize African Americans. While I do not condone vigilantism, I understand the public’s frustration with states that refuse to remove these emblems of white supremacy. If recent events have taught us anything, states must act to remove these statues immediately or the public will do so. In many places it already has.
#realsouthernpride #takedownconfederatestatuesnow #robertelee #trumpiswrongyetagain #Charlottesville #virginiaisforloversnothaters #travelleriscomplicit
' “They had found a leader, Robert E. Lee—and what a leader! ... No military leader since Napoleon has aroused such enthusiastic devotion among troops as did Lee when he reviewed them on his horse Traveller.”
So wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in his magisterial “The Oxford History of the American People” in 1965.
First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people, and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.'
So wrote Samuel Eliot Morison in his magisterial “The Oxford History of the American People” in 1965.
First in his class at West Point, hero of the Mexican War, Lee was the man to whom President Lincoln turned to lead his army. But when Virginia seceded, Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people, and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.'
I wonder which side would attempt home invasions in a black neighbourhood (within bounds of the march's permit, I wonder?)
--
From an actual resident of Charlottesville:
"There seems to be a perception from people outside of Charlottesville that what is going on here is two opposing groups coming to town and fighting some ideological battle that has gotten messy. That is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that several hate groups from the extreme right have come together under the "unite the right" banner here in our town and basically started acting as terrorists. This may seem like an exaggeration but it's not.
A church service was held over because they had surrounded the building and police had to disperse them. People had to be escorted to their cars. My friend was there with her daughter. Everywhere they meet, businesses close. We had drive by shootings yesterday from a van marked kkk.
A car plowed into a huge group of people. I'm sure you saw that on the newsfeeds.
What you probably didn't see is that some of those people were on their way back from helping to repel a white supremacist march to predominately black housing development a few blocks away where they were attempting home invasions. I guess they were unfamiliar with the neighborhood. The residents repelled that one before antifa got there but there is some video of the alt-right folks getting run off on the daily progress twitter feed, if you're interested.
So, basically, what I'd like you to understand is, this IS NOT two side egging eachother on to unavoidable violence for more attention. This is one side of terrorists declaring that they can and will hold a town hostage (they've been saying it for over a month now, actually) and the town responding to that threat. The car that killed and injured people yesterday? Ohio tags. The medic tents (which treated both sides... turns out the alt right erst didn’t bring any medics. Guess they planned on doing all the injuring), water bottles, snacks, shade tents (all volunteer, donations, none shut down by police... all manned by that radical left you keep hearing about) yeah, we all live here. I saw a lot of people I knew yesterday, none of them were speaking for unite the right. None of them were escalating violence, most of them were offering some kind of aid and defending."
--
From an actual resident of Charlottesville:
"There seems to be a perception from people outside of Charlottesville that what is going on here is two opposing groups coming to town and fighting some ideological battle that has gotten messy. That is not what is happening here. What is happening here is that several hate groups from the extreme right have come together under the "unite the right" banner here in our town and basically started acting as terrorists. This may seem like an exaggeration but it's not.
A church service was held over because they had surrounded the building and police had to disperse them. People had to be escorted to their cars. My friend was there with her daughter. Everywhere they meet, businesses close. We had drive by shootings yesterday from a van marked kkk.
A car plowed into a huge group of people. I'm sure you saw that on the newsfeeds.
What you probably didn't see is that some of those people were on their way back from helping to repel a white supremacist march to predominately black housing development a few blocks away where they were attempting home invasions. I guess they were unfamiliar with the neighborhood. The residents repelled that one before antifa got there but there is some video of the alt-right folks getting run off on the daily progress twitter feed, if you're interested.
So, basically, what I'd like you to understand is, this IS NOT two side egging eachother on to unavoidable violence for more attention. This is one side of terrorists declaring that they can and will hold a town hostage (they've been saying it for over a month now, actually) and the town responding to that threat. The car that killed and injured people yesterday? Ohio tags. The medic tents (which treated both sides... turns out the alt right erst didn’t bring any medics. Guess they planned on doing all the injuring), water bottles, snacks, shade tents (all volunteer, donations, none shut down by police... all manned by that radical left you keep hearing about) yeah, we all live here. I saw a lot of people I knew yesterday, none of them were speaking for unite the right. None of them were escalating violence, most of them were offering some kind of aid and defending."
"Lee would not lift up his sword against his own people, and chose to defend his home state rather than wage war upon her.'"
He had three simple choices:-
1) White feather. Conscientious objection wasn't a thing, back then (afaik)
2) Capitulate rapidly, to save lives of own troops
3) Fight until losses of his precious compatriots begin to suggest a trajectory towards defeat.
Unthinkable but he could have defected to the Union and have died a righteous man, in combat or in his dotage.
He chose option 3).
He defended the landholding of people who owned slaves. "His people".
Unless you want to argue that the brown people fall in that bracket, too? (and I don't mean or intend to imply he owned any directly - I'll have to research more - I mean by virtue of their residence within the state.)
He had three simple choices:-
1) White feather. Conscientious objection wasn't a thing, back then (afaik)
2) Capitulate rapidly, to save lives of own troops
3) Fight until losses of his precious compatriots begin to suggest a trajectory towards defeat.
Unthinkable but he could have defected to the Union and have died a righteous man, in combat or in his dotage.
He chose option 3).
He defended the landholding of people who owned slaves. "His people".
Unless you want to argue that the brown people fall in that bracket, too? (and I don't mean or intend to imply he owned any directly - I'll have to research more - I mean by virtue of their residence within the state.)
@mikey4444
(l.t.n.s.)
It is only as a result of this riot that I learnt that the KKK wasn't founded until 1866. *After* the civil war ended.
(I've read the thread and naomi got this in first)
So it's a twisted support group for those who couldn't get over losing a war.
I mustn't trivialise or joke about them though because of all the murders and arson perpetrated by them, down the years.
I'll get my research hat on and try to catalogue all the equivalent crimes, attributed to Communist groups, within US territory.
(Gotta set boundaries because Stalin killed more than Hitler, if you add in the post-war count, gulags, POWs not freed, etc)
(l.t.n.s.)
It is only as a result of this riot that I learnt that the KKK wasn't founded until 1866. *After* the civil war ended.
(I've read the thread and naomi got this in first)
So it's a twisted support group for those who couldn't get over losing a war.
I mustn't trivialise or joke about them though because of all the murders and arson perpetrated by them, down the years.
I'll get my research hat on and try to catalogue all the equivalent crimes, attributed to Communist groups, within US territory.
(Gotta set boundaries because Stalin killed more than Hitler, if you add in the post-war count, gulags, POWs not freed, etc)
A POSTSCRIPT TO THIS THREAD, (maybe)
He was not an enthusiast to slavery at all, he was a slave owner by proxy, in other words he gained, like so many from it, but was not in any way directly involved and appears to have loathed the experience. 'In 1856 he wrote to his wife saying, 'In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral & political evil in any country'
He supported his wife and her mother in their campaign to liberate slaves and helped them set up a an illegal school for slaves at Arlington. All the Arlington slave were freed in1862.
It is sad that Lee has become politicised and a victim of 'identity politics' and you have to ask how much history those on either the left or the right actually know'.
He was not an enthusiast to slavery at all, he was a slave owner by proxy, in other words he gained, like so many from it, but was not in any way directly involved and appears to have loathed the experience. 'In 1856 he wrote to his wife saying, 'In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution is a moral & political evil in any country'
He supported his wife and her mother in their campaign to liberate slaves and helped them set up a an illegal school for slaves at Arlington. All the Arlington slave were freed in1862.
It is sad that Lee has become politicised and a victim of 'identity politics' and you have to ask how much history those on either the left or the right actually know'.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.