DECENCY, STATUES, AND GEORGE WASHINGTON – WHY TRUMP IS WRONG ABOUT THEM ALL

[leibowde84]

This line of thought could be used to demonize just about anyone.

How so?

 

[Akivah]

We cannot forget and we cannot forgive him for this unless he specifically asks for our mercy … which we all know will never happen, as our President sees apologies as a sign of weakness.

I think Trump never apologizes because he thinks he never makes any mistakes.

 

[leibowde84]

I think Trump never apologizes because he thinks he never makes any mistakes.

I agree. His narcissism knows no bounds. It is an extremely destructive, divisive, immature and dangerous way of thinking ... especially when you are a leader.

 

[Akivah]

Should Germany allow statues of Nazi leaders or generals? And, the Nazis weren't even traitors to Germany.

The Nazis believed that Jews (including citizens of Germany) were an inferior race, just the same as the Confederates believed that blacks were an inferior race. The Germans tried to transform their country based primarily on the superiority of the Aryan race and the enslavement of an entire planet. The Nazis were traitors to Germany.

 

[Kemosloby]

I'm sorry, but this might be the dumbest comment I've seen on this forum. The KKK was a group of confederate soldiers trying to make sure that black people were kept in submission to whites and did not achieve political equality. They were trying to keep black people in chains.

Who were they. Give the names of the confederate soldiers? Because Im thinking they were people disguised as confederate soldiers. They want you to believe the civil war was about freeing slaves because it makes their purpose look noble. When undermining states rights was the actual goal of the civil war. Supreme court judge said the civil war ended states rights to secede. Slavery was simply replaced by prison labor and a train ride on the midnight special.

 

[blü 2]

In what manner do you say Jefferson, Lee, Davis and Jackson deserve to be honored?

Jefferson championed democracy, and the rights of the individual, wrote the Declaration of Independence, was president, He can't be omitted from any answer to the question, how did the US come about?

Lee was personally an honorable man, who was offered the leadership of Union forces but declined because he felt his primary allegiance was to his native Virginia. His only crime was being an able and effective soldier. What do you know to his personal discredit?

Jefferson Davis was a slave-owner and a not very effective President of the Confederacy; but to wipe him out of history is to pretend the Civil War never happened. It did, and the sincerity on both sides was about equal. Indeed the hardships endured by Confederate troops outside of battle was much greater, their times much leaner, than their Union counterparts, but they kept turning out to fight.

Stonewall Jackson had a tough childhood in Virginia, according to some stories got on well with African Americans, and became a brilliant field commander.

Do you think the winners should simply write the losers out of history? Do you want to pretend that the US has conformed to 2017 standards of political correctness throughout its existence? What are your plans for making the Indian Wars disappear?

 

[Revoltingest]

How so?

Let's consider the recent riots in St Louis.
Would all people who demonstrated be bad people simply
because they knowingly associated with the violent elements?

 

[leibowde84]

The Nazis believed that Jews (including citizens of Germany) were an inferior race, just the same as the Confederates believed that blacks were an inferior race. The Germans tried to transform their country based primarily on the superiority of the Aryan race and the enslavement of an entire planet. The Nazis were traitors to Germany.

That isn't really a fair comparison, though. The Confederacy took up arms against the U.S. Government and attempted to create a new country, separate from the North. Hitler and his psychopathic cronies took over the German Government quazi-democratically and had the support of the German people (for the most part). Hitler had over 90% support in Germany before the tide of the war changed when things went bad in Russia. The Confederacy did not have nearly 90% support throughout the U.S.

 

[blü 2]

Davis was just like Hitler. He was a traitor to the US who tried to start a new country based primarily on white supremacy and the enslavement of an entire race.

I don't know any basis for doubting that Davis sincerely believed that the states were in a voluntary union and each had the right to withdraw from it. If that was his belief then he took no treasonous step as far as his conscience was concerned. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Sanzbir]

Trump’s comparison here is obviously ludicrous. It is true that Washington was a slave holder. But, the Confederate statues are not being removed simply because they depict men who owned slaves. They are being removed because they depict traitors to our young nation who fought a war, causing the deaths of over a million Americans, primarily to preserve the institution of slavery and the inferiority of black people.

Take down all the statues. Get rid of the statues of the Southern leaders, but also take down the statues of Northerners like Grant who committed war crimes against American civilians and targeted civilians openly in war. And take down the Vietnam Memorial, stop commemorating the men who carried out the My Lai Massacre. Get rid of the RAF monument in Britain, the disgusting wretches who burned alive countless refugees fleeing Nazi violence at Dresden just to destroy German art don't deserve such honors.

I agree. Let's get rid of monuments to war and warriors. War is an abomination. But you are unwilling to go far enough. Why?? Because you are blinded by ethnocentrism. You're unwilling to acknowledge that your side ever did anything wrong and unwilling to remove the monuments to horrible people who happened to be on your nation's side. In this way, you are no different from the Southerners who cling to their warmongers, as you blindly make exception for your own war criminals.

Let's get rid of the Confederate statues. And the Union ones. Take them all down. No monuments for war. The fact that you are unwilling to remove your own monuments just shows you to be blinded by bias. Washington himself was a slave-owner who rebelled against his rightful government. And he too likely deserves no public honors. Get rid of them all. In museums, if you want, but not in public. If you're not willing to take this to the conclusion it needs to be taken too, you're a coward and a hypocrite.

 

[leibowde84]

Let's consider the recent riots in St Louis.
Would all people who demonstrated be bad people simply
because they knowingly associated with the violent elements?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. There are bad people in BLM, for sure. But, there are perfectly decent people too. And, their official statements are not based on racism or black supremacy ... they are fighting for equality and equal treatment from police and holding rogue police officers accountable.

Otoh, nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, and the alt-right has official messaging based on racism. There are no decent, moral white supremacists or nazis. So, even if BLM was 50% racist and 50% decent, it is far more reasonable than nazis and white supremacists who are 100% indecent.

No decent person marches alongside nazis. But, a decent person can march with BLM in the name of racial equality.

 

[leibowde84]

I don't know any basis for doubting that Davis sincerely believed that the states were in a voluntary union and each had the right to withdraw from it. If that was his belief then he took no treasonous step as far as his conscience was concerned. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Yes. He took up arms against the United States. The Confederacy was not a sovereign nation, so the U.S. was still his nation. Taking up arms against your own country is the definition of treason. Doesn't matter what he thought. Treason is a crime and is against the law. Even if you don't think a law is fair or just, or you don't think you are breaking it, doesn't make you innocent.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. There are bad people in BLM, for sure. But, there are perfectly decent people too. And, their official statements are not based on racism or black supremacy ... they are fighting for equality and equal treatment from police and holding rogue police officers accountable.

But if your standard is that white nationalists who knowingly associate with Nazis
are bad, then all of BLM would be the same because of their associations.

Otoh, nazis, white nationalists, white supremacists, and the alt-right has official messaging based on racism. There are no decent, moral white supremacists or nazis. So, even if BLM was 50% racist and 50% decent, it is far more reasonable than nazis and white supremacists who are 100% indecent.
No decent person marches alongside nazis. But, a decent person can march with BLM in the name of racial equality.

It seems that your entire argument is based upon race, exculpating black folk
entirely from their associations, while not cutting the same slack for white folk.
And because blacks are historically victimized by whites, blacks should have
extra rights to attack whites.

 

[blü 2]

Yes. He took up arms against the United States. The Confederacy was not a sovereign nation, so the U.S. was still his nation. Taking up arms against your own country is the definition of treason. Doesn't matter what he thought. Treason is a crime and is against the law. Even if you don't think a law is fair or just, or you don't think you are breaking it, doesn't make you innocent.

You're not answering the question I asked you.

 

[Laika]

“There were decent people on both sides”

Trump on Tuesday claimed that there were decent people on both sides of the conflict in Charlottesville, VA on Saturday. While it could be said that there were some indecent people in both groups using violence as a means of expression, it cannot be said that there were decent people amongst the Nazis, White Supremacists, White Nationalists and other Alt-Right groups.

This should be obvious because any decent person arriving in Charlottesville on Saturday, even if they were ignorant to the Nazi style “torch rally” the night before, would have instantly turned tail and ran when they saw who their fellow protesters were. There are, of course, plenty of decent people who feel strongly that Confederate statues should be left in place throughout the country. But, at a protest where outspoken and obvious members of the KKK and other White Supremacist groups are present, any decent minded, non-racist would have the fortitude to instantly pack up and leave, not wanting to be associated with such scum.

Thus, anyone who stayed and protested with known racists cannot honestly be considered “decent”, according to what the term actually means. Protesting alongside Nazis is a clear sign that a person puts their southern pride ahead of racial equality and honor.

“Confederate statues should be left in place”

Thursday, Trump sent a series of tweets condemning the removal of “beautiful” statues memorializing and praising members of the Confederacy. While it can certainly be said that not all Confederate soldiers and officers were bad people and were merely products of their time, the Confederacy itself was primarily based on keeping blacks in chains, making sure that their society was one that recognized them as being strictly and legally inferior to whites.

This can clearly be seen in the Cornerstone Address, an oration delivered by Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens at the Athenaeum in Savannah, GA on March 21, 1861. Stephens made clear what the principal goal and purpose of the secession and the Confederacy actually was:

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

During and after reconstruction following the Confederacy’s loss in the Civil War, Confederate statues were placed throughout the South as a way for white racist leaders to make sure blacks knew their place. Regardless of the fact that they lost what they called the “War of Northern Aggression”, whites were still in charge. And, naming parks, buildings, roads and dedicating statues in prominent locations was their way of hammering in this shameful point.

Now, it is true that history should not be erased, and everyone should learn a lesson from the traitorous Confederacy and their subjugation of an entire race. That is why these statues belong in museums rather than in places of admiration, no matter how southerners feel about it. The mere fact that the Confederacy attacked our great nation as a band of racist traitors should be enough to avoid any praise of them. It’s time our children learned the truth about this part of American history. These statues are a reminder of the absolute horrors perpetrated by southern states during and prior to that time.

“If we take these statues down, who’s next … George Washington”

Trump’s comparison here is obviously ludicrous. It is true that Washington was a slave holder. But, the Confederate statues are not being removed simply because they depict men who owned slaves. They are being removed because they depict traitors to our young nation who fought a war, causing the deaths of over a million Americans, primarily to preserve the institution of slavery and the inferiority of black people.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were, indeed, slave holders who lived in southern states. But, they are founding fathers who never took up arms against us. They fought against a tyrannical king who taxed them without representation and treated colonists as lesser men and women. They were fighting for liberty rather than against it, and our country was born as a result. We celebrate them not for their owning of slaves, but for their courageous fight against oppression.

In short, men like Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and Stonewall Jackson were traitors fighting for racial superiority in their culture. George Washington, on the other hand, was fighting against tyranny and a monarchy that refused to be reasonable and was guilty of atrocities where innocent men and women were murdered. All in all, the Confederacy lost for good reason, both tactically and morally, and that truth should be recognized.

Traitors who fought for racism should not be celebrated. They should be studied and learned from, but honoring them is a ludicrous proposition that has gone on for far too long. Let’s make a museum to the Confederacy and be done with it. And, if it upsets White Supremacist groups and those who choose to protest alongside them, we can be confident we are doing the right thing.


The reasoning behind Trump’s words should be obvious. I don’t think our President is a racist or White Nationalist. I think he is a Trump Supremacist. Anyone who is not as successful as he is not his equal … in his words, they are “losers”. His reasoning has to do with the fact that White Nationalists and White Supremacists support him, compliment him, and, most importantly, voted for him. As has been made entirely too clear, Trump is willing to befriend any group that expressly supports him. And, he will do whatever he can to make sure they aren’t offended out of fear of losing that support.

Now, some may say that all politicians think like this. But, that is incorrect. Courting voters is all too common and expected, but when it comes to the Alt-Right, White Supremacists, White Nationalists, Nazis, and the KKK, the vast majority of politicians would do the right thing. They would speak honestly and state the obvious when it comes to any White Supremacist group. There were certainly decent people on the side of the counter-protesters. They were standing up against racism, attempting to stick up for blacks, Jews, and immigrants … an undeniably honorable pursuit, for we saw in the 1930s what can happen when we don’t stand up to brown-shirt Nazi thugs. But, there were absolutely no decent people who chose to stay and protest marching alongside obvious and outspoken racists using actual Nazi insignia and slogans to profess their love for a group of traitors who fought and killed to keep slavery in place and make sure that black people knew their inferiority to whites.

It’s time for all Americans to recognize how despicable Trump’s words and sentiments were regarding the protests in Charlottesville. He has sold his soul in exchange for support from the most vile, evil, despicable and un-American citizens our country has to offer. We cannot forget and we cannot forgive him for this unless he specifically asks for our mercy … which we all know will never happen, as our President sees apologies as a sign of weakness.

I find this very difficult to swallow even if I appreciate the sentiments behind it. The basic thesis of this is that the slavery under the Confederacy was bad, but the founding fathers had slaves but "didn't really mean it" so it doesn't deserve the same level of attention or moral judgement. There is absolutely no way that a similar "Moral accommodation" would be granted to any dictator or tyrant of the 20th century or currently in the world today based on them "not really meaning to" because they had good intentions, noble ideals or humane aspirations. Anyone who tried to do that would simply be condemned. This is an argument that would never be extended to any of Americans enemies, so it is doubtful that this is a morality that is going to be consistent at all times and all instances if we sincerely wish our morals to be worth the time and effort to live by. No such courtesy of "looking the other way" would be afford to ISIS or Al-queada, or North Korea. I just find this position deeply hypocritical and actually very weak.

This is bad politics because it is playing down the history of slavery and segregation in the United States and therefore its legacy in the present day, by dressing it up as "patriotic" cause against "traitors" to the nation (i.e. the confederates). In the end this will only serve to protect white supremacy as a political reality in the United States because it is not willing to admit the complexity of the issue. I think this position may actually help Trump because it means that we are downplaying racism as a reality in the US and have no intention of defending ethnic groups from racism but only in dealing with "traitors" to the United States government. It implicitly means treating Nazis and Neo-Confederates as enemies that are foreign to the United States, rather than domestic enemies born and bred on American soil- with all the complex civil rights implications of weighing up the rights of American citizens to have unpopular and despicable views. The big problem with that is that the US government is currently headed by a white supremacist and the branches of government are at a minimum enabling him. fighting white supremacy is the "Trump card" if you'll forgive the pun. If we aren't fighting against White Supremacy, its going to make it much harder to know what people are fighting against Trump for.

We have to concede that the Federal Government is currently failing to uphold the constitution as a body of law and principles and that America is going through a serious trauma as Republicans appease a white supremacist in the White House and Democrats throw around accusations of a coup by a foreign power without actually having the ability or even demonstrating the willingness to correct the situation. This is not an issue that neatly fits into celebrating the United States when we are so close to have an openly Fascist government in power. The difference between the current situation and fascism is the formal establishment of a one-party system. Framing this in terms of patriotism, of responding to enemies that are "foreign", if not to the territory than to the principles of the United States, and upholding the law as a means to suppress dissent and terrorism tries to cover the open wounds that America is currently inflicting on itself. The impulse to attack confederate monuments is not a patriotic but a revolutionary one directed against the federal government in which the confederacy is the symbol for current abuses not simply past ones. simply destroying the symbols of the confederacy does nothing to address the grievances at the root of present day resentment.

 

[Stevicus]

This is not entirely accurate. The KKK came around after the Federal Troops were taken out of the south during reconstruction. They should have remained there to enforce the rights of blacks to vote and keep electing black representatives. The North did not "allow" the KKK to run rampant. Southern lawmakers did. The North took the federal troops out in an effort to mend relations with the south.

I don't see how this refutes what I said. The North had the choice to keep the troops in the South, but they chose not to. Yes, it was precisely for the reason of mending relations with the South, as well as a way to settle the contested Election of 1876. The North turned the blind eye to the KKK because reunification was more important than justice, equality, or any of the other issues they fought over in the Civil War. The North betrayed their own principles, which may even be considered a worse form of "treason" than that committed by the Confederates.

But, that is neither here nor there. We now have the opportunity to remove these statutes that were, mainly, put up during the early 20th century in order to show black people who were still in charge.

That was the reason? Considering all the lynchings, cross burnings, Jim Crow laws, acts of terror, and blatant racism being part and parcel of mainstream popular culture until at least the 1950s, they really didn't need any statues to show black people who was still in charge. In my opinion, the statues exist primarily to propagate the "lost cause" version of history, to paint their cause as more "noble" than it actually was.

And why did the North go along with this? Why did the Northern perspective on the Civil War similarly de-emphasize slavery while saying it was all about preserving the Union? Perhaps they were trying to show people who was still in charge as well.

I don't really care about the statues all that much. Tear them all down; I won't stand in the way. The real question is whether we're learning the correct lessons from history. I prefer to look at history as a way of telling how we got to the point we're at now. When it's treated as a bunch of disconnected stories full of "heroes" and "villains," it gets treated more as a comic book.

And then we wonder why we still have these problems. The violence that occurred in Charlottesville was obviously over a deeper, more serious issue than an argument over differing interpretations of American history.

One thing that can be observed is that - these people who dress up as Nazis, KKK, etc., they're mostly poor, disaffected types - the kind who fit the profile of potential gang members. They're angry, angst-ridden, full of p. and vinegar, and spoiling for a fight. They were likely raised in abusive environments, had a poor education, and very few prospects or opportunities for advancement. If they were black, they'd likely join the Crips or the Bloods, but since they're white, they have to join some "gang" that will accept them.

That's what seems to be missed here. I think too many people are reacting to costumes, flags, and other imagery. They're just looking at pieces of cloth, without looking at the person underneath, along with the society/culture in which they're raised.

 

[columbus]

They want you to believe the civil war was about freeing slaves because it makes their purpose look noble. When undermining states rights was the actual goal of the civil war.

I believe this is exactly the case.

I think that the Yankees were about as interested in rescuing black people as the Bush administration was interested in rescuing the Iraqis.

And the results were about the same. Social disaster and destruction, leading to the rise of the KKK and ISIS.
Tom

 

[shunyadragon]

I would say that Thomas Jefferson doesn't belong in the list. He was not primarily fighting for white supremacy. Lee and Jackson could arguably be the same as someone like Rommel. But, Davis was just like Hitler. He was a traitor to the US who tried to start a new country based primarily on white supremacy and the enslavement of an entire race.

The Jefferson mention here is Jefferson Davis. Thomas Jefferson was openly hated by Confederate Leaders.

I do not believe there is any comparison with the Nazi leaders, but nonetheless they supported the Confederate cause for the preservation of slavery. Lee was an odd contradiction, because he supported the Confederate States, but opposed slavery. His final rational was supporting his home state of Virginia which seceded.

They remain traitors in rebelling against the Union.

 

[leibowde84]

But if your standard is that white nationalists who knowingly associate with Nazis
are bad, then all of BLM would be the same because of their associations.

Not true. As I said, all nazis and white supremacists are indecent, evil people. So, when you see them at a protest, you are knowingly associating yourself with a group that, officially, is evil. Any decent person would not associate themselves with a group that is officially evil.

BLM is not all bad. There are plenty in the group (a majority I would argue) that are fine people doing the right thing. Their official messaging is, in fact, admirable. So, the evil people in BLM are outliers rather than the norm. It is easy to see that decent people could be fine with being associated with BLM, because their official messaging is fine.

It seems that your entire argument is based upon race, exculpating black folk
entirely from their associations, while not cutting the same slack for white folk.
And because blacks are historically victimized by whites, blacks should have
extra rights to attack whites.

No, I am saying that it is far more understandable for blacks to feel physically threatened by racist whites, as history validates them feeling threatened.

Otoh, there is not nearly as much precedent for whites to feel threatened by BLM or black activists.

In other words, when a black person sees a nazi on the street screaming racist slogans at him, personally, he has every reason to feel physically threatened. Throughout American history, racist groups have been violent toward blacks without any provocation.

Otoh, when a white person sees a BLM member shouting "black lives matter" at them, they have absolutely no reason to feel physically threatened. There are plenty of white members of BLM. Whereas there aren't any black members of the KKK or neo-nazis.

 

[leibowde84]

You're not answering the question I asked you.

Yes I did. The evidence is that he took up arms against his own country. That is the definition of treason, legally. His own conscience and thinking have absolutely no impact. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.