Right-wing vs. Left-wing Clashes [MOD NOTE POST #1]

Tony EH wrote: »

There are statues and monuments all over the world remembering people and events that are, these days, considered awful to a modern society. But, what would tearing them down achieve? It doesn't eliminate those events. It won't stop people having racist attitudes.

In fact, I would argue that these historical items should remain in their place as to spark interest and debate about national histories and let's be honest here, if one digs deep enough, theirs enough dirt on the hands of most countries in their attitudes and deeds from past events/people.

Pissing and moaning about flags, symbols and people from 100, 200, 2000 years ago is not going to change that. However, I believe that it does dull the historical record to a degree and as someone who's interests lie in history, I find that rather sad.

How do you think a black person must feel when they see statues of people who fought for slavery in prominent places in their hometowns? Seeing the confederate flag flying.
It must be awful.
Best get rid of them and replace with something more appropriate. Not saying they should be destroyed just put in a museum or somewhere less prominent.

Danzy wrote: »

You could start ripping down every statue of Washington for slavery, Engels for his frankly genocidal views on Slavs, Mao, Stalin, Lenin for the 100 million + that died at their hands.

.

This argument holds zero water. Washington and Jefferson, though slave-holders both, are commemorated for their more significant role as nation-builders. Lee and Jackson, traitors to the Union, rebelled and lost a war to maintain slavery. That is their legacy - they symbolize nothing except the South's struggle against being dragged into the civilized world. Trying to equate Washington with Lee is just whataboutery.

Also, I've mentioned this before but there seems to be a perception that these Confederate statues have been standing since time immemorial. The vast majority of these monuments were not constructed until the 20th century and their erection was directly tied to a reaction against reconstruction and an expansion of the Jim Crow laws. Trying to argue that these are just benign tributes to war leaders is naive or dishonest.

Tony EH wrote: »

It would be. But it doesn't change anything. Besides, black people wandering by that statue of Lee in Robert E. Lee park weren't even born when the Civil War was in effect.

I understand the sentiments and understand why people around the world would have issue with statues and symbols from history. But, whitewashing these things out of the public eye won't erase the historical record or even make those those hard done by feel any better in the long run.

It's just a gloss.

Taking down a statue isn't whitewashing, it won't change history or what happened. It might make people feel a bit more welcome in their hometowns and acknowledge that bad people shouldn't be honoured.

Honouring the guy who thought you were subhuman and should be a slave would be disconcerting even if it happened before you were born.

B0jangles wrote: »

For those arguing that the statues etc., should be retained as historical monuments, are you aware that the majority were erected long after war - most went up in the 1910s-20s (Jim Crow era, beginning of the NAACP) and there was another surge on the 1960's (Civil Right's Movement)

So, which other ones do you want removed? Where do you stop?

Tony EH wrote: »

And it's becomes more and more vague all the time. Which is a bad thing if you ask me.

I don't believe that a nation's history should be confined to the happy clappy versions.

Scratch deep enough and most country's have shame in their past.

And, I've asked this before. Who gets to be arbiter of what statues/symbols are ok and which ones aren't? Many, many have had negative conotations attached in their past. There are national flags today that carry those past negativities for many people.

The statues that are placed in your cities and towns are a reflection of what you value and how you want the world to see you.

In Ennis, we have a statue of Daniel O'Connell in the town square. We have a statue of De-Valera in front of our Courthouse. The other statues we have are mostly celebrating sporting achievement, music, culture and art.

If there are statues or memorials of historical tragedies or wars, they are somber in tone and remember those who died either for a good cause, or needlessly for a natural disaster or because of an atrocity committed against them.

If the South wants to remember slavery, there should be memorials remembering the suffering of the slaves, or honoring those who fought against slavery, there should absolutely not be triumphalist statues honoring the generals who fought to preserve slavery.

Tony EH wrote: »

AGAIN, I'll ask where do you stop?

There's a statue to Bomber Harris in London. A man who murdered German civilians in their sleep.

Why is that ok?

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Let's rip them down, shall we?

Whataboutery.
Give over.

Tony EH wrote: »

There are statues and monuments all over Rome remembering people and events that make Lee look like a liberal saint.

Lee was a traitor to the US, on that basis alone, its absurd that there are statues of the man. I do not understand why the US puts up with that nonsense. These confederate people need to get over the fact they lost the civil war decades ago, and that it was fought for the right to own people.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nope. They are moral principles not 'personality traits'. Moral principles are developed by logic and intelligence via education. That is why most people are able to develop the moral principles of tolerance, openess and inclusivity and see these principles as conjusive to a healthy society. Racists and fascists have developed an attitude of exclusivity, suspicion and intolerance.

I'm reading an excellent book at the moment called 'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst '
https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078

It goes in detail into brain development, and the parts of our brain that deal with morality, values, aggression etc are the latest parts to develop. These areas are not fully mature until adulthood, around the mid-twenties.

The reason for this is not because it's the hardest part of the brain for the body to build, biologically, it's no more complex than the other parts of the brain. In the 'Nature versus Nurture' debate one of the answers is that the frontal Cortex develops late in order to minimise the effects of genes, and maximise the influence of culture, environment, experience and the behaviors of the adults around them. Humans are so adaptable because children's personalities and judgements and values and inclination towards violence are not fixed at birth by their genes.

Children and young adults are much more vulnerable to being influenced by culture and environment than older adults are. This is why religion targets schools and richard Spencer and Steve Bannon spend most of their time trying to recruit students to their cause. It's why the majority of people who are radicalised are young, and those young people are much more likely to act on their ideology (adolescent brains are wired differently to adults, they experience emotion on a much more intense level and they crave novelty and adventure way more than mature adults (another evolutionary adaptation)

Children who are raised in households dominated by violence, racism, authoritarianism have different brain chemistry compared with children who are raised in an environment of compassion, altrusim, respect for logic education, reason and respect for others.

The culture of their upbringing has a real and long term influence on the personalities of children raised there.

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm reading an excellent book at the moment called 'Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst '
https://www.amazon.com/Behave-Biology-Humans-Best-Worst/dp/1594205078

It goes in detail into brain development, and the parts of our brain that deal with morality, values, aggression etc are the latest parts to develop. These areas are not fully mature until adulthood, around the mid-twenties.

The reason for this is not because it's the hardest part of the brain for the body to build, biologically, it's no more complex than the other parts of the brain. In the 'Nature versus Nurture' debate one of the answers is that the frontal Cortex develops late in order to minimise the effects of genes, and maximise the influence of culture, environment, experience and the behaviors of the adults around them. Humans are so adaptable because children's personalities and judgements and values and inclination towards violence are not fixed at birth by their genes.

Children and young adults are much more vulnerable to being influenced by culture and environment than older adults are. This is why religion targets schools and richard Spencer and Steve Bannon spend most of their time trying to recruit students to their cause. It's why the majority of people who are radicalised are young, and those young people are much more likely to act on their ideology (adolescent brains are wired differently to adults, they experience emotion on a much more intense level and they crave novelty and adventure way more than mature adults (another evolutionary adaptation)

Children who are raised in households dominated by violence, racism, authoritarianism have different brain chemistry compared with children who are raised in an environment of compassion, altrusim, respect for logic education, reason and respect for others.

The culture of their upbringing has a real and long term influence on the personalities of children raised there.

Very true. It's the high dopamine levels (usually tailing off in young adulthood) that encourage risk taking and excitement seeking. As you say, this makes teenage boys particularly susceptible to organisations with a whiff of cordite such as supremacists and fascists.

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

A core reason for the American civil war was slavery. The Confederates wanted to retain slavery. Statues commemorating confederate leaders who were defending slavery have no place in a modern democracy. Not least because of the messages such statues give to many American citizens who are descendants of slaves.

This isn't rocket science, it isn't hard to understand. Unless you do understand but choose to support the commemoration of segregation and human rights abuses anyway.

Many people throughout history owned and traded slaves. If you take down all their statues you'll have a lot of empty plinths. This is the left trying to extinguish history for their own political ends.

Where do you stop?

Where the local authority with the power to erect, remove and replace statues say you stop.

The decision here was a decision of the elected local authority. They can replace a statue of mickey mouse with a statue of Donald duck.

The decision of one local authority to remove a statue does not create a rule. So Trump's nonsense about Washington owning slaves is a non sequitur. If a local authority of a particular locality wants to remove a statue of washington and replace it with a statue of Donald duck, or worse, Donald Trump, that's their call.

That's where it stops.

Looks like some of the media is now going to start calling a duck a duck:

How to describe extremists who rallied in Charlottesville


--SNIP--
“alt-right”
A political grouping or tendency mixing racism, white nationalism and populism; a name currently embraced by some white supremacists and white nationalists to refer to themselves and their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race in the United States.
In AP stories discussing what the movement says about itself, the term “alt-right” (quotation marks, hyphen and lowercase) may be used in quotes or modified as in the self-described “alt-right” or so-called alt-right. Avoid using the term generically and without definition, however, because it is not well-known and the term may exist primarily as a public relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience.
Depending on the specifics of the situation, such beliefs might be termed racist, white supremacist or neo-Nazi; be sure to describe the specifics. Whenever “alt-right” is used in a story, include a definition: an offshoot of conservatism mixing racism, white nationalism and populism, or, more simply, a white nationalist movement.
--SNIP--

I think the rest of us need to follow suit, the "alt-right" are imo just re-branded Neo-Nazi's wearing polo shirts, and the bizarre political correctness, that we have for whatever bizarre reason have been observing towards them should end. They want to exterminate all non-white people and anyone who disagrees with them, we seen what there inspiration did the last time, so best to stop them here and now, or else our children will be fighting a war against these people.

Tony EH wrote: »

If we apply a certain rule to a statue of Lee, then that rule should be applied elsewhere in my opinion.

Only the historically illiterate would apply the same value to a statue of Lee as a statue Washington. To do so would be require you to strip the monuments of what they symbolize and the circumstances of their construction. If we do that, you're looking at all monuments as heaps of concrete and bronze.