Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

Jim Crow Confederate Monuments Go Down in America


Recommended Posts

The print edition of The Atlantic has an article on Richard Spencer

the alt right kook.

 

Btw, right there is yet another crime against the Language.

 

Since when did the words "Alternative" and "extreme" come to mean the same freakin' thing, I ask.

 

(...oh and btw Vautrin and speaking of the Language...isn't the descriptive "alt/extreme right" and then adding the word "kook", pretty much redundant?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, right there is yet another crime against the Language.

 

Since when did the words "Alternative" and "extreme" come to mean the same freakin' thing, I ask.

 

(...oh and btw Vautrin and speaking of the Language...isn't the descriptive "alt/extreme right" and then adding the word "kook", pretty much redundant?)

 

Alt doesn't equal extreme. Alt(ernate) Right referred to the alternative media that tends to skew to the right. Bannon referred to his own Breitbart News as alt-right, not meaning "extreme right" but rather "alternative media right", and they also use the term "alt-left" for many of the online news sources that are left-leaning, like many of the videos darkblue posts.

 

But while alt-right and alt-left don't inherently mean extremist views, they usually end up that way. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw, right there is yet another crime against the Language.

 

Since when did the words "Alternative" and "extreme" come to mean the same freakin' thing, I ask.

 

(...oh and btw Vautrin and speaking of the Language...isn't the descriptive "alt/extreme right" and then adding the word "kook", pretty much redundant?)

I don't know if I'd call it a crime against language, more of an evolution in

language. I agree that alternative and extreme are two different words,

but someone came up with the tern alt right and it caught on. Alt Right

kook is redundant (except to alt rightists or is that alt righters), though

I think it intensifies the meaning.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Alt doesn't equal extreme. Alt(ernate) Right referred to the alternative media that tends to skew to the right. Bannon referred to his own Breitbart News as alt-right, not meaning "extreme right" but rather "alternative media right", and they also use the term "alt-left" for many of the online news sources that are left-leaning, like many of the videos darkblue posts.

 

But while alt-right and alt-left don't inherently mean extremist views, they usually end up that way. 

 

Thanks for the explanation here, Lawrence.

 

And so basically the ol' bottom line here is that while one may NOT start out being a "right or left wing kook" when they FIRST begin to watch those so-called "Alternative Media" sources, one usually DOES end up being one after long exposure to 'em, right?! ;)

 

(...is that about IT?!)

 

LOL

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation here, Lawrence.

 

And so basically the ol' bottom line here is that while one may NOT start out being a "right or left wing kook" when they FIRST begin to watch those so-called "Alternative Media" sources, one usually DOES end up being one after long exposure to 'em, right?! ;)

 

(...is that about IT?!)

 

LOL

 

Exactly!  :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the explanation here, Lawrence.

 

And so basically the ol' bottom line here is that while one may NOT start out being a "right or left wing kook" when they FIRST begin to watch those so-called "Alternative Media" sources, one usually DOES end up being one after long exposure to 'em, right?! ;)

 

(...is that about IT?!)

 

LOL

I look into each one on occasion to hopefully( and in vain) get info.

 

Bu sadly, TOO many pick one or the other in order to get "cued" as to which direction to take.  Their "so-called" personal thoughts merely being a "parroting" of soundbites they hear on those broadcasts.  Ask most of the people an EITHER side of the fence and you'll hear a RECITATION rather than what's off the tops of their heads.

 

Sort of like posting VIDEO CLIPS and online "headlines" from some iNet source rather than anything original.

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I was watching It it's Tuesday, This Must be Belgium and thought about statues in Rome.  Since they believed in and practiced slavery, torture and other vile things, shouldn't all those statues come down? Same for every other country in Europe.  They all practiced slavery at one time or another and have monuments, statues, memorials, etc. to the people and groups that practiced it.

Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching It it's Tuesday, This Must be Belgium and thought about statues in Rome.  Since they believed in and practiced slavery, torture and other vile things, shouldn't all those statues come down? Same for every other country in Europe.  They all practiced slavery at one time or another and have monuments, statues, memorials, etc. to the people and groups that practiced it.

Just a thought.

 

I dunno, Cid.

 

Perhaps the reason can be found in the second line that Tony Bennett sings in his signature song...

 

"The glory that was Rome, is of another day".

 

(...btw...ever feel "terribly alone and forgotten in Manhattan"?...I did once, but then I strolled over to Times Square and where some guy sportin' a Spiderman costume wouldn't leave me alone until I relented and gave the jerk a couple of bucks to have my picture taken with him...and oh yeah, both times I've been in Paris, I DID find that town somewhat "sadly gay" TOO...probably because both times I was there, it was rainin' to beat hell...that kind'a thing will always put a damper on your vacation fun, ya know)

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was watching It it's Tuesday, This Must be Belgium and thought about statues in Rome.  Since they believed in and practiced slavery, torture and other vile things, shouldn't all those statues come down? Same for every other country in Europe.  They all practiced slavery at one time or another and have monuments, statues, memorials, etc. to the people and groups that practiced it.

Just a thought.

 

Clearly the people in these areas (countries), don't believe these status should come down.  Clearly in New Orleans the majority of people DO believe Confederate monuments should come down or be placed in museums.    (otherwise those NO pols that voted to remove should be removed in the next elections).     Clearly in Mississippi the majority believe the monuments should remain (based on the recent bill that State passed). 

 

I firmly object to 'outsiders' (people NOT in the State, NOT in the county, NOT in a city) even being asked the  question of 'should all those status come down' or NOT.

 

The above is where I disagree with some on this forum that believe if the 'locals' don't take down such monuments those locals are wrong\racist\bigots etc....

 

If I was a 'local' I would vote to remove Confederate monuments but NOT because of slavery but because I don't feel people that took up arms against the USA should be honored (regardless of what Eisenhower wrote). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Clearly the people in these areas (countries), don't believe these status should come down.  Clearly in New Orleans the majority of people DO believe Confederate monuments should come down or be placed in museums.    (otherwise those NO pols that voted to remove should be removed in the next elections).     Clearly in Mississippi the majority believe the monuments should remain (based on the recent bill that State passed). 

 

I firmly object to 'outsiders' (people NOT in the State, NOT in the county, NOT in a city) even being asked the  question of 'should all those status come down' or NOT.

 

The above is where I disagree with some on this forum that believe if the 'locals' don't take down such monuments those locals are wrong\racist\bigots etc....

 

If I was a 'local' I would vote to remove Confederate monuments but NOT because of slavery but because I don't feel people that took up arms against the USA should be honored (regardless of what Eisenhower wrote). 

A majority in Louisiana probably believe the statues should have remained if it were placed on a state-wide ballot.

Your reasoning as to each city, county, etc. determining for itself is not a reflection of democratic republicanism as practiced in the good ol' USA.  If that were true, we would still have segregated schools in the South.

Even in California, municipalities and counties do not have unlimited authority to do as they choose based simply on a vote of the city council.  The state has tremendous power over the counties and municipalities.

As for New Orleans, it was really a matter of the current mayor and council pandering to the majority of people who vote in that cities elections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A majority in Louisiana probably believe the statues should have remained if it were placed on a state-wide ballot.

Your reasoning as to each city, county, etc. determining for itself is not a reflection of democratic republicanism as practiced in the good ol' USA.  If that were true, we would still have segregated schools in the South.

Even in California, municipalities and counties do not have unlimited authority to do as they choose based simply on a vote of the city council.  The state has tremendous power over the counties and municipalities.

As for New Orleans, it was really a matter of the current mayor and council pandering to the majority of people who vote in that cities elections.

 

It is grossly incorrect to equate segregated schools with removal of confederate monuments because the issue of segregated schools became a US Constitutional issue.    Of course local authorities can't pass unconstitutional laws (duh),   therefore you mentioning segregated schools is completed bogus as it relates to 'a reflection of democratic republicanism' and removal of monuments.

 

But clearly State Constitutions grant the state authority over counties and city (since as we have discussed before counties and cities are sub-legal-entries of the state).

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is grossly incorrect to equate segregated schools with removal of confederate monuments because the issue of segregated schools became a US Constitutional issue.    Of course local authorities can't pass unconstitutional laws (duh),   therefore you mentioning segregated schools is completed bogus as it relates to 'a reflection of democratic republicanism' and removal of monuments.

 

But clearly State Constitutions grant the state authority over counties and city (since as we have discussed before counties and cities are sub-legal-entries of the state).

You really don't understand do you.

You keep saying the voters in each entity have unlimited authority to decide what to do.  And by extension, the councils they elect have the same authority.  That means the states should be able to establish segregation, which they are not able to do.  Has nothing to do with monuments per se.

I am trying to point out that this is not how government in US works; not in S.C., not in LA, not in CA.

The will of the people is not unlimited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really don't understand do you.

You keep saying the voters in each entity have unlimited authority to decide what to do.  And by extension, the councils they elect have the same authority.  That means the states should be able to establish segregation, which they are not able to do.  Has nothing to do with monuments per se.

I am trying to point out that this is not how government in US works; not in S.C., not in LA, not in CA.

The will of the people is not unlimited.

 

When did I every say the voters in each entity have unlimited authority to decide what to do.    NOT.

 

I said that on issues like the monuments I WISH local politicians had the authority to decide,  but counties and cities are under the legal jurisdiction of the state and therefore the state dictates.

 

I read some of your other replies and since we are failing to communicate I'm done. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I every say the voters in each entity have unlimited authority to decide what to do.    NOT.

 

I said that on issues like the monuments I WISH local politicians had the authority to decide,  but counties and cities are under the legal jurisdiction of the state and therefore the state dictates.

 

I read some of your other replies and since we are failing to communicate I'm done. 

So am I.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

 

 

 

 

 

 

45]g4QmmkRQ_bigger.jpgThe HillVerified account @thehill

 

 

More

Lexington to speed up removal of Confederate statues after Charlottesville violence http://hill.cm/qBI9R7I

DHGj4WXW0AA69qq.jpg

 

 

 

DAY 205

 

 

The unite the right Alliance has decided in Charlottesville to make their last stand in front of the Robert E Lee Monument.

 

The Hoods and White Sheets have come off.

 

The Unholy Alliance between the Klan, neo-Nazis and various alt right groups is Downright Disgusting and Despicable.

 

The violence and hatred that they have Unleashed upon the small College Community is further aggravated by The President of the United States' refusAl to call it for what it is:

 

a deliberate attack and show of racist and

anti-Semitic force by white supremacists domestic terrorists, using the Confederacy of Jefferson Davis, Robert E Lee and John Wilkes Booth, an insurrectionist racist organization in history, as their legacy.

 

Terrorists have been running Vehicles into crowds in Europe and that's been considered to be an act of terrorism. When this was accomplished at the alt right rally, it was considered just to be one of those things by our president.

 

Our president is more concerned about the support that he has in the white supremacist alt-right groups then he cares about the welfare and civil rights of a majority of American citizens.

 

Yesterday we got a photo of one alt right white supremacist supporter wearing the Confederate flag on his T-shirt and swinging the Nazi swastika in his hands.

 

That is a marriage made in the hell of the belly of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

I read a comment from one older gentleman who said that he had fought the Nazis over 70 years ago in Europe and he was ready to fight them again in Charlottesville.

 

So many Americans have given their lives, not just in World War II, but also in the fight against the Jim Crow South during the Martin Luther King Non-Violent Civil Rights Movement - - which was indeed very violent against black people, Jews and anyone else who tried to help these Americans exercise their civil rights.

 

It was Joseph P. Kennedy III, a Congressman from Massachusetts, who did tell us yesterday also that too many Americans had already made sacrifices, some the ultimate sacrifice of their life, to help insure equality for all in this country.

 

For us to go backwards now is a denigration of those American Patriots who died in order that this country insure the ConstitutionAl rights of all Americans --regardless of race, religion or ethnicity.

 

 

Martin Luther King was not martyred so that the Klan, some hateful Relic from the South's filthy and putrid Jim Crow past and every other extreme right-wing group could March boldly and openly in our society attacking our young people, who have been taught about the Civil Rights Movement and who believe that all Americans have equal rights.

 

Maybe we should be teaching our young people something different on Martin Luther King Day. Maybe we should be teaching them about the reality of hate and racism in America and how every generation in this country has to be vigilant and continue fighting these extreme right-wing hate groups like the Breitbart supported Ku Klux Klan and the Neo-Nazis in order for all Americans to be able to exercise their civil rights.

 

As long as these groups are alive and well in America, all Americans have to fight them and demand that their message of hate is drowned out by our message of Constitutional Freedom, Liberty, and Equality for all Americans.

 

If you give a damn about what's going on in Charlottesville, then you have to condemn the laxidasical and downright Un-American response, by our so-called president, to this hateful exercise in white domestic terrorism.

 

As many are asking this morning again, whether it's a Vladimir Putin in Russia or a white supremacist in America, whose side is this President really on?

 

It appears that the only people in public that he will not humiliate and harangue are the Russian International Thug Putin and violent white supremacists, led by men like David Duke and Richard Spencer, who are promoted by Trump's top aide Steve Bannon.

 

Who do you side with? And why?

 

As a Patriotic American, I have no choice but to side with the Constitution and with all those Americans who have fought against the Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan, and every other hate-filled group or organization who would destroy our Freedom and our Democracy.

 

Who do you side with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand why there are counter-protesters there isn't any actual reason for them to protest since they are clearly winning from the political angle.

 

In most cases protesters have little political power.  This is clearly the case with hate groups protesting the removal of the confederate monuments.    These protest are not going to change the minds of local authorities to reverse course.    As we see in Lexington,  the authorities are speeding up the removal.

 

Yea, Mississippi did pass a state law that prevents local authorities from removing monuments but Mississippi has no major sports entities or corporations.    States that have these will not go in a similar direction because economic boycotts really impact those states.   E.g.  the NC reversal due to the NCAA removal of the basketball tournament.   

 

So let the hater have their protest and sit back and laugh at them when they amount to nothing.

 

PS:  The Trump Admin,  even with alt-right Bannon, isn't going to assist the haters in reversing the movement to remove monuments.    That would be political suicide and they know it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I understand why there are counter-protesters there isn't any actual reason for them to protest since they are clearly winning from the political angle.

 

In most cases protesters have little political power.  This is clearly the case with hate groups protesting the removal of the confederate monuments.    These protest are not going to change the minds of local authorities to reverse course.    As we see in Lexington,  the authorities are speeding up the removal.

 

Yea, Mississippi did pass a state law that prevents local authorities from removing monuments but Mississippi has no major sports entities or corporations.    States that have these will not go in a similar direction because economic boycotts really impact those states.   E.g.  the SC reversal due to the NCAA removal of the basketball tournament.   

 

So let the hater have their protest and sit back and laugh at them when they amount to nothing.

 

PS:  The Trump Admin,  even with alt-right Bannon, isn't going to assist the haters in reversing the movement to remove monuments.    That would be political suicide and they know it.

Not sure what you are talking about re: "the SC reversal due to the NCAA removal of basketball tournament."  Did you mean North Carolina?  North Carolina did reverse the "bathroom bill" in order to remove the NCAA ban.

 

South Carolina did remove the Confederate Battle Flag from state house grounds.  But, state law prohibits removal or changes to any "historic" monuments, street names, memorials, etc. unless 2/3 of both houses of legislature approve it.  This applies to Confederate statues, memorials and even flags.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are talking about re: "the SC reversal due to the NCAA removal of basketball tournament."  Did you mean North Carolina?  North Carolina did reverse the "bathroom bill" in order to remove the NCAA ban.

 

South Carolina did remove the Confederate Battle Flag from state house grounds.  But, state law prohibits removal or changes to any "historic" monuments, street names, memorials, etc. unless 2/3 of both houses of legislature approve it.  This applies to Confederate statues, memorials and even flags.

 

Yes, I stated 'SC' instead of 'NC',    but of course you knew that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I stated 'SC' instead of 'NC',    but of course you knew that.

Thought so, but just checking.  Many people get NC and SC confused.  Also, SC is often used for Supreme Court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2021 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...