Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[TheGoldcountry]

Herein lies the problem.

You believe that there should be white power for the white people, black power for the black people and yellow power for the yellow people and so on, and that these people should live in their own designated countries with little to no mixing of races. Is that a fair and accurate summation?

this is why it's wrong.

We are all humans.

We have advanced science a lot in the past generation or so and we can say that all humans, the world over are i) descended from a single group of homo sapiens that arose in Africa and ii) that differences in skin colour, or eye shape, or nose size are insignificant. We are all the same species, we are all fundamentally the same, we all share vastly more in common genetically than we have things that differentiate us.

The more time that passes the more our DNA will get mixed up and we're all going to wind up the same shade of brown (assuming humans survive that long)

There's a long and bloody history of human conflict, humans have fought with humans for as long as we've been around. Humans are suckers for a good story. They'll believe any old crap if they think they'll get something good out of it (See religion or the recent US election) leaders have always played on peoples fears and vilified people who seem different. It's very easy to stir up hatred of people based on the colour of their skin.

A lot of the 'majority white nations' where stolen from indigenous people. (See Australia, the USA, the Roman Empire) A lot of slaves were imported into affluent nations to do menial work. "It's OK these people aren't humans they're subhumans because they look different to us"

It's just utter ******** though. Skin colour is no more or less important than the colour of your eyes, or how full ahead of hair you have, how big your nose is. It's just genetic mutations that were successful because they attracted mates.

One day, probably a great many days from now, humans will get over genetic differences.

I want to live in a world where skin colour isn't a factor. We're a long way from that and I will likely never get to see it. I kind of hope that my grandchildren might. There's generations worth of mis-education to overcome before that day will dawn.

Can you imagine how ridiculous it would be to be turned down for a job because your feet were too big? Skin colour ought to be as inconsequential as the myriad of other minor genetic differences among humans.

It's not. That makes me sad.

^^^ this a thousand times over.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Only if they weren't when they were doing their job should an employer have any grounds for taking action.

As much as Nazis are odious and have an abhorrent ideology they should be free to express that to the extent the law allows outside work and suffer no consequences in employment in doing that. Only if they bring it into the workplace should an employer have any ability to penalise them.

I know there are some grey areas - the type of "bring into disrepute" employment clauses but I think they have to be very carefully watched to not be an overreach into people's right of expression.

... If we have rights, we have rights even when they conflict with business profits.... So a business who employs someone in a town that is a Nazi may suffer some harm in terms of their business but the Nazi still has rights and they should be protected.

Very true. Rights and law apply to all. There are all kinds of caveats and problematic situations one can think of wrt extremists, but unless a law is broken, there is freedom to exercise those rights.

The irony lost on the Frightards is that the notion of universal rights depends on something they deny, equality. Beyond their wildest ken is the problem even a gathered gaggle of loony Aryans would face had they an ability to process thoughts instead of rotely repeating mantras: amongst them, they are unequal on the same grounds used to exclude others: too fat, too stupid, too lacking in all things manly.

 

[Craig4]

Apparently 62% of Americans polled favor keeping the Confederate monuments in place.

Surprised me, since this and other left-leaning sites led me to believe that most wanted them down.

I know my fallacies, so I'm not putting forth that the majority supporting something means it's right. Only that in a democracy, the will of the people has to count for something.

As an aside, I only know of this from listening to Rush Limbaugh today. In the area I'm in, he was on the only talk radio station I could receive. I'm not a fan, but sometimes leaving one's bubble does expose one to some interesting counter factuals.

As a further aside, I find myself marginally in that 62%, though I certainly understand the arguments against such monuments.

Why do you think we should keep the monuments? Did these people do anything that deserves to be honored and memorialized?

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Why do you think we should keep the monuments? Did these people do anything that deserves to be honored and memorialized?

I guess I would say it's possible to be brave and honorable in defense of a losing cause. I have no problem with commemorating said bravery and honor in spite of it being in defense of a cause I likely would not have supported. Though its hard to say - a state's right to secede, for any reason, might have been something worth fighting for. I doubt the average foot soldier or officer was fighting for the cause of slavery. I suppose one could put one's self in their minds and tease out their motives by reading letters sent home by them during the conflict.

Alternative histories are always intriguing to contemplate. I know there's a novel out there based on the conceit that the South won. I don't think slavery would have been long lived in a post-war south, and who knows what a Confederate States of America might have accomplished once the wounds of war had healed and the evil of slavery abolished, north and south.

And yet, I see the other side - and could argue for it as well. I guess my point is there are two sides, and I don't think it credible that all 62% in favor of keeping the monuments are racist or bigots When only a minority support your position, it might be wise to not paint the majority with too broad a brush - they might actually have a point!

 

[newyorkguy]

..If you can be sacked for having legally held political views that your employer does not share and you do not bring them into your workplace then you don't really have freedom of expression.

If you're using freedom from employer reprisals as the standard, then in most parts of the United States people really don't have freedom of expression. The quote below is from an article in a publication called Business Insider:

It's actually not illegal in the US for bosses to terminate employees based on speech. But what about the First Amendment? Well, as Sydney Ember at The New York Times reported in 2016, the Bill of Rights doesn't protect workers in the private sector from being fired over speech in or outside the workplace — it only prevents the government from infringing upon citizens' speech, according to the blog of the law firm Parks, Chesin, and Walbert. Link

If I discover Joe is a member of the Nazi party I am free to fire him. In a larger sense, this is the way a society works. It's not all theory and legalities. There's also decency and common values. If someone embraces the Nazi philosophy I don't want them around. I'm not going to debate with them, I'm going to shun them. I would bet most Americans feel the same way.

 

[phiwum]

I support allowing the local jurisdictions decide whether or not they want to take them down and/or relocate them.

Sure, doesn't that sound perfectly sensible?

 

[Darat]

If you're using freedom from employer reprisals as the standard, then in most parts of the United States people really don't have freedom of expression. The quote below is from an article in a publication called Business Insider: ...snip...

None of the countries that have "free speech" or "free expression" rights allow entirely free speech/expressions. Lots of countries and societies have their own wrinkles on what is allowed or not. From a UK perspective on the matter of employment the type of restriction you state is lawful in the USA is unlawful in my country, yet I wouldn't say the USA (nor the UK) don't have a right of free speech/expression.

 

[Parsman]

There is an excellent book by James Loewen called "Lies Across America" about how monuments are used to promote a particular view of American history. He discusses how Native Americans and Women and the Working Man are often misrepresented or not represented at all. When talking about Confederate Monuments he points out as others here have done that many of the monuments were not erected in the Post-Bellum period but were set up once reconstruction had effectively been killed and Jim Crow and Segregation had become the norm. These are not statues to brave men fighting for a misunderstood cause for the most part. They are political and power statements to warn the black man of the early to mid 20th century that they should know their place. They might nominally be free, but don't ever forget that armed white southerners wanted you to be kept in your place. So it is not as simple as "they are historic so they should stay". Like Soviet era statues in Eastern Europe it would probably be best to move them to sculpture parks where they can be studied for their historical context but are removed from the every day lives of the people they were designed to intimidate.

 

[phiwum]

I guess I would say it's possible to be brave and honorable in defense of a losing cause. I have no problem with commemorating said bravery and honor in spite of it being in defense of a cause I likely would not have supported. Though its hard to say - a state's right to secede, for any reason, might have been something worth fighting for. I doubt the average foot soldier or officer was fighting for the cause of slavery. I suppose one could put one's self in their minds and tease out their motives by reading letters sent home by them during the conflict.

Alternative histories are always intriguing to contemplate. I know there's a novel out there based on the conceit that the South won. I don't think slavery would have been long lived in a post-war south, and who knows what a Confederate States of America might have accomplished once the wounds of war had healed and the evil of slavery abolished, north and south.

And yet, I see the other side - and could argue for it as well. I guess my point is there are two sides, and I don't think it credible that all 62% in favor of keeping the monuments are racist or bigots When only a minority support your position, it might be wise to not paint the majority with too broad a brush - they might actually have a point!

I agree with your ambivalence. In principle, I have nothing against honoring men who fought for their states, even though they fought against the nation. At least, monuments to the typical soldier don't bother me.

On the other hand, I can sure imagine that many of these memorials are an affront to the African American community in the area, and that matters.

There's a monument to fourteen Confederate POWs who died on George's Island in Boston. Some are discussing whether it ought to be taken down. I haven't seen it, but it sounds like the sort of memorial that I'd tend to think should stay. It seems harmless to me to memorialize those who died in your care, no matter whose side they were on. (I'd say the same for dead Nazi POWs, unless we're talking about notably powerful, cruel and horrific individuals -- and I'd make the same exception for the Confederates.)

 

[Craig4]

The Confederate soldiers in the statues weren't fighting for their states, they were fighting for slavery. The States Rights argument was an unsuccessful ruse to try and get European recognition. The Articles of Secession were about slavery. They were about Southern fear that Lincoln was an abolitionist and Northern refusal to expand slavery (and slave state representation in Congress) and the various methods used to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

The people depicted in the statues are being honored because they fought for slavery and engaged in treason which is defined only as waging war against the US or providing aid and comfort to an enemy. There's a huge difference between honoring someone in spite of their flaws and honoring someone because of their crimes.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The Confederate soldiers in the statues weren't fighting for their states, they were fighting for slavery. The States Rights argument was an unsuccessful ruse to try and get European recognition. The Articles of Secession were about slavery. They were about Southern fear that Lincoln was an abolitionist and Northern refusal to expand slavery (and slave state representation in Congress) and the various methods used to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

The people depicted in the statues are being honored because they fought for slavery and engaged in treason which is defined only as waging war against the US or providing aid and comfort to an enemy. There's a huge difference between honoring someone in spite of their flaws and honoring someone because of their crimes.

Lee gets a lot of honor for the military sciences. But so does Rommel.

 

[Trebuchet]

Nazi chant: "Jews won't replace us!"

Why would they want to?

 

[The Big Dog]

Also, I see that people like The Big Dog are decrying the non-volent blocking of the fascists march as an offront to the fascist's free speech. In this case, the fascists had the option of letting the police clear their route and behaving within the law. They didn't, but went straight to violence against them.

You are correct,"they" meaning the cops, did not. As free speech advocates such as the ACLU have already pointed out and as I have shown.

 

[pgwenthold]

Nazi chant: "Jews won't replace us!"

Why would they want to?

Yeah, that "Jews won't replace us" chant is really disturbing. Then again, it is the honest version of the "Take America back!" line that you heard from Trumpkins before the election.

 

[Craig4]

Lee gets a lot of honor for the military sciences. But so does Rommel.

Why? Grant and Meade took him out and did the spanky dance on him.

 

[Craig4]

Nazi chant: "Jews won't replace us!"

Why would they want to?

Yeah, I suspect most Jews aren't interested in being the products of incest.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

The Confederate soldiers in the statues weren't fighting for their states, they were fighting for slavery.

You absolutely cannot know that.

At most you could point to individual letters sent by individual soldiers confirming that they were ready to die to defend slavery. Until I see such letters in numbers I don't buy the fact that that was their cause.

 

[paulhutch]

Strongly disagree. If we have rights we have rights even when they conflict with business profits. Sometimes that does mean "innocents" will suffer some harm. So a business who employs someone in a town that is a Nazi may suffer some harm in terms of their business but the Nazi still has rights and they should be protected.

If you can be sacked for having legally held political views that your employer does not share and you do not bring them into your workplace then you don't really have freedom of expression.

The justification for allowing firing the Nazi that rings true for me is that it minimizes total potential harm. Firing the one Nazi harms the one Nazi, forcing the employer to keep the Nazi can harm the business owner and all the employees of the business including the Nazi. I prefer the one person responsible for the situation losing their job over dozens of non-responsible people from losing their jobs.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Why? Grant and Meade took him out and did the spanky dance on him.

Have you never been exposed to the arguments on why he was a great general or do you dispute them?

 

[newyorkguy]

The justification for allowing firing the Nazi that rings true for me is that it minimizes total potential harm. Firing the one Nazi harms the one Nazi, forcing the employer to keep the Nazi can harm the business owner and all the employees of the business including the Nazi. I prefer the one person responsible for the situation losing their job over dozens of non-responsible people from losing their jobs.

Other than a potential economic impact on the business, you would have no moral or personal objection to employing a member of the Nazi party? I'm not sure that's what you meant but you seem to have avoided stating that.