Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[sadhatter]

Now some tit for tat idiots who want to make the left look equally bad (taking their cue from Trump no doubt) want the statue of Lenin removed from the Fremont neighborhood here in Seattle.

Five whole people protested and the ignorant mayor publicly called for removal if the statue.

Let me give you some background here. It's in the same town that has a giant troll under the bridge holding a VW. It's the town that has an annual Solstice Parade famous for painted naked bicyclists. There's a rocket ship and a sign marking the center of the Universe. There's a famous statue, Waiting for the Interurban which has a dog with a human face and the statue is regularly dressed up for various occasions.

The statue of Lenin is considered artwork by most people, not a celebration of Lenin.The mayor needs to review the reason the statue is there.

But this is what happens, if you tell group a "you can have statues removed if you are disruptive enough. ", group b wants in on the action.

It's not a slippery slope, it's human nature. And it's why we need to be very careful when trying to implement laws, or even social standards.

 

[pgwenthold]

I too agree in principle, but I also think that there may be limits of public taste and decency - as long as it applies to public land.

If the overwhelming local opinion is that really want to keep a Confederate memorial then I guess they can do that. I'd be less sanguine if there was a marginal decision in closed session to erect a statue to the KKK featuring figures in hoods carrying out a lynching outside the local court house.

Yeah, are we really going to suggest that the local community can be racist if it chooses to be?

 

[The Don]

Yeah, are we really going to suggest that the local community can be racist if it chooses to be?

Within acceptable bounds (such as retaining some statues), it would appear - yes.

 

[pgwenthold]

Within acceptable bounds (such as retaining some statues), it would appear - yes.

So how racist can we allow it to be?

We have federal and state protections preventing discrimination in many aspects of life. Is the overtly racist community contending it is not inherently discriminatory?

For example, creating a hostile environment that makes minorities not want to work at your company so they don't apply is not acceptable. How can a hostile community where minorities are not welcome have companies that comply with non-discrimination laws?

"I'm not racist but my customers are" has never been acceptable in discriminatory hiring.

 

[The Don]

So how racist can we allow it to be?

I simply don't know - not least because I come from and live in a different country with different hang-ups about race and with a vastly more centralised approach to this kind of thing.

As with most things, the threshold IMO is when the hassle of doing thing A (e.g. keeping the statue) becomes greater than the hassle of doing thing B (e.g. removing it).

If there's a small number of people quietly asking for the removal of a state and a large and influential group noisily ensuring that it remains, it's likely to remain in place.

We have federal and state protections preventing discrimination in many aspects of life. Is the overtly racist community contending it is not inherently discriminatory?

It comes down to what is "overtly racist" IMO. Something that, as a white person, I don't find racist at all - either because I don't fully understand the history of it or indeed am simply much less sensitive to - someone else from a different background could find deeply racist. An example may be a sports team name.

For example, creating a hostile environment that makes minorities not want to work at your company so they don't apply is not acceptable. How can a hostile community where minorities are not welcome have companies that comply with non-discrimination laws?

I don't know, but I'd wager that there are some communities in the "Old South" where people are made to feel much less than welcome.

"I'm not racist but my customers are" has never been acceptable in discriminatory hiring.

True.

 

[ponderingturtle]

So how racist can we allow it to be?

We have federal and state protections preventing discrimination in many aspects of life. Is the overtly racist community contending it is not inherently discriminatory?

For example, creating a hostile environment that makes minorities not want to work at your company so they don't apply is not acceptable. How can a hostile community where minorities are not welcome have companies that comply with non-discrimination laws?

"I'm not racist but my customers are" has never been acceptable in discriminatory hiring.

Piggie park seemed to get away with selling a lot of blatantly racist memorabilia for many years after they lost their religious claim to an exemption of having to seat black people in their restaurant.

 

[seayakin]

It is really hard to define where it would cross a line to become overtly racist, this is why I think it also has to be determined by the community. In the end, it would be difficult for a municipality to sponsor a more grotesque statue very overtly advocating for white supremacy with the intended purpose of intimidating people of color.

In Harry Potter, there was the Magic is Might Statue. If anything like that were sponsored and erected in a town, my guess is the oppressed class represented in the statue (in this case muggles) would make their cause known which would bring a lot of condemnation. In an open and democratic society, I still have some faith that it would mitigate some of the most extreme imagery. One of the things that has made the statues of the confederacy so controversial is that they did not overtly show African Americans as inferior or in a subservient position even though it is my opinion it was the intent of those statues to glorify a slave society and white dominance.

 

[ponderingturtle]

It is really hard to define where it would cross a line to become overtly racist, this is why I think it also has to be determined by the community. In the end, it would be difficult for a municipality to sponsor a more grotesque statue very overtly advocating for white supremacy with the intended purpose of intimidating people of color.

In Harry Potter, there was the Magic is Might Statue. If anything like that were sponsored and erected in a town, my guess is the oppressed class represented in the statue (in this case muggles) would make their cause known which would bring a lot of condemnation. In an open and democratic society, I still have some faith that it would mitigate some of the most extreme imagery. One of the things that has made the statues of the confederacy so controversial is that they did not overtly show African Americans as inferior or in a subservient position even though it is my opinion it was the intent of those statues to glorify a slave society and white dominance.

That is why the Daughters of the Confederacy is such a nice stand in. Gives everyone plausible denyability

 

[Gilbert Syndrome]

Some Antifa history.

(cops are pretty much always working for/with the fascists)

Tbf, having worked security on days when there has been massive rallies with the EDL, the issue is usually in the AntiFa turning up without notifying anyone, including the police or the security services.

This obviously causes havoc, because there aren't enough people to deal with the numbers, and it causes problems for the general public, the police and the security services.

The EDL make it known that they're marching, and though they're a gang of idiots, they don't tend to cause much trouble, in my experience. Trouble arises when the counter-protesters randomly turn up and create a problem.

This is why so many AntiFa people end up getting arrested, because they don't do themselves any favours; it's the same with the Anonymous crew and the Occupy crew, as they tend to cause trouble for a lot of people, generally walk around in masks, which in town centers is an obvious problem for the public, but also for shopping centers, and stores. They tend to get into trouble with security because they're being a public nuisance and are standing around disrupting everything, not to mention standing around things like jewelry stores whilst wearing masks and hoods.

Common sense should prevail, but it never does, and thus people get arrested.

 

[tyr_13]

But this is what happens, if you tell group a "you can have statues removed if you are disruptive enough. ", group b wants in on the action.

It's not a slippery slope, it's human nature. And it's why we need to be very careful when trying to implement laws, or even social standards.

Sure it's a slippery slope. Point out that the limit for removing monuments is not to be 'disruptive enough' and stand to it.

 

[Mumbles]

Given the length of this discussion (pardon me if I missed it), but how do others feel about who should make the decision to retain or remove a monument?

I personally oppose these monuments as symbol of Jim Crow, oppression of African Americans, and white supremacists but it is my opinion that the local community needs to decide not even the state and definitely not the federal government.

Well, first, let's not pretend that this white supremacy rally was *really* just about the statue. It was a show of force, and an attempt to align the pseudo-nazis, a small number of "leaders" like Spencer, and the angry, disaffected young white guys that had been radicalized over the internet. And it's not lost on me that it took the murder of a young white woman to mobilize so many people.

Having said that...these things should *generally* be controlled by local governments. There are clear exceptions - the Taney statue here in Maryland was on State House grounds, and thus is under the control of the state government rather than the Annapolis local government, and I'm pretty sure that the statues in the House Rotunda are also controlled by various state governments - each one given a certain area to decorate with a statue of their choosing.

 

[seayakin]

Well, first, let's not pretend that this white supremacy rally was *really* just about the statue. It was a show of force, and an attempt to align the pseudo-nazis, a small number of "leaders" like Spencer, and the angry, disaffected young white guys that had been radicalized over the internet. And it's not lost on me that it took the murder of a young white woman to mobilize so many people.

I agree that the protests were about a lot more than the removal of a confederate statue.

Having said that...these things should *generally* be controlled by local governments. There are clear exceptions - the Taney statue here in Maryland was on State House grounds, and thus is under the control of the state government rather than the Annapolis local government, and I'm pretty sure that the statues in the House Rotunda are also controlled by various state governments - each one given a certain area to decorate with a statue of their choosing.

I also agree that there are monuments sponsored by the state and would be a state decision. In my original question, it was not my intent to rule out this possibility.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree that the protests were about a lot more than the removal of a confederate statue.

I am shocked that nazi's would have ulterior motives.

 

[seayakin]

I am shocked that nazi's would have ulterior motives.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Given the length of this discussion (pardon me if I missed it), but how do others feel about who should make the decision to retain or remove a monument?

I personally oppose these monuments as symbol of Jim Crow, oppression of African Americans, and white supremacists but it is my opinion that the local community needs to decide not even the state and definitely not the federal government.

This to me seems to be the most reasonable solution - let the locals decide. And if statues are taken down, consider placing them in museums.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well if you really want to be charitable to the organizers you can call them white supremacists instead of nazi's.

 

[Giz]

I too agree in principle, but I also think that there may be limits of public taste and decency - as long as it applies to public land.

If the overwhelming local opinion is that really want to keep a Confederate memorial then I guess they can do that. I'd be less sanguine if there was a marginal decision in closed session to erect a statue to the KKK featuring figures in hoods carrying out a lynching outside the local court house.

Yeah - but any Confederate statues in front of public buildings (courthouse, townhall, etc) should go regardless.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah - but any Confederate statues in front of public buildings (courthouse, townhall, etc) should go regardless.

But how else are states supposed to show their continuing support of the supremacy of the white race?

 

[quadraginta]

I too agree in principle, but I also think that there may be limits of public taste and decency - as long as it applies to public land.
<snip>

Something which is on private land but in public view can also be subject to the limits of public taste and decency.

If, instead of Lenin, it were a statue of one of the more iconic scenes from Deep Throat I expect they could find a way to overcome the 'private land' hurdle.

Maybe the question is, "Is it sufficiently offensive to public sensibilities?".

I'm not trying to claim that is a reasonable standard. Nor an I suggesting that the statue of Lenin comes anywhere close to such a threshold.

Just pointing out that it is one which communities don't hesitate to use even when private property is concerned.

 

[Mumbles]

I agree that the protests were about a lot more than the removal of a confederate statue.



I also agree that there are monuments sponsored by the state and would be a state decision. In my original question, it was not my intent to rule out this possibility.

For my part, I didn't mean to accuse you of any ill will. The "state property" thing just stuck out in my mind because I've been following local removals of Confederate (and other white supremacist) monuments - particularly because Taney's statue was, in effect, a memorial from the 1860s-70s rather than an ugly artifact of the Jim Crow era (I have no clue whether or not Taney himself went to the Confederacy).