Well, what about offensive historical public monuments?

[edwardmurphy]

Our state and local representative, typically, informed by feedback from their constituents.

[Hortator]

It's spreading overseas too

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia ... spartandhp

[Philip]

edwardmurphy wrote:
You guys are silly.

MLK was no more or less flawed than George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, or any other great American. Washington and Jefferson had slaves. MLK, FDR, and JFK had affairs. LBJ was always waving his junk at people. Reagan had Iran-Contra. Grant was a drunk. And on and on we go. Dig deep enough and you find that all of our heroes were flawed and fallible.

The question then, is whether or not those flaws were sufficient to nullify their accomplishments. If a guy owns slaves and is also the Father of our country or the author of our Constitution then we're talking about a flawed hero and his statue can stay. If a guy served honorably in the Mexican War and then led an armed rebellion against our elected government then we're talking about a traitor and he's undeserving of public monuments.

Seems simple enough...

Ed is correct, in that, these people considered heroes by people in the past, and to whatever extent in the present, are all very flawed human beings - some a whole lot more than others, having, to whatever degree, represented views that many of us abhor today. MLK did a whole lot of good - but he was no saint! But the REAL and URGENT question we should be discussing is not which "hero" was more of a devil than the other person's hero you detest - which is what I see this argument turning into - which also shows me that people are so ripe for taking that bait, instead of focusing on how society can achieve harmony, peacefully, over such hot-button symbols.

Paul: Who gets to decide these things Ed?

And THAT is part of the real issue! One is that there are people willing to use a protest of whatever statue or monument to cause violence and an uproar in the streets, cops, water cannons, lunatics of all political stripes coming out of the woodwork. Such manufactured public showdowns are almost never purely the good guys vs. the bad guys - as there are often some really bad people stirring up hatred and violence on on the various extremes of the political spectrum. Such agenda-laden groups are helping create a dangerous crisis, whipping up divisions and hatred where there should be none! They are trying to manipulate public opinion by demonizing others and tying them to the evil "hero" or monument and the aspects surrounding those historical people. That is indefensible, as we live in a democracy, there is a way to deal maturely with this. Of course, the media loves and thrives on controversy, so it helps feed the flames by bringing such destructive issues, front and center, 24/7. But cities, towns, states - they can all seek referendums on such public property symbols - let a majority decide. But, guess what, THAT would mean NO one gets their way entirely - you'll win some and lose some, per your personal sensibilities. And there ARE many such statues and monuments that belong in a historic / museum setting.

IF there is such a symbol that is unacceptable, or that should not be in a public square for a democratic society, beyond public referendums, it is the power of moral argument against them that can be far more effective, and will produce the best outcomes, and without the associated violence. In SC, the confederate flag flying over the state house caused so much controversy, that an initial compromise was made, way back, taking it down, and agreeing to put in a "place of honor" - which happened to be a ground level at the front entrance to the statehouse grounds. So the controversy just moved to ground level. After that white lunatic killed black people in a Charleston church, enough white peoples' hearts were touched, and they more fully realized that such symbols of the past were being adopted and used to represent hate and cause pain and division in the present. And so the legislature, realizing public opinion had shifted dramatically, per the moral argument, of pushing a symbol representing so much pain of the past, particularly for black people, voted to remove it to a museum. No violence, no riots, but a huge crowd of black and white people were at the ceremony bringing the flag down for the last time. The only people still worked up afterward were the usual racist and white hyper-culturalists. The reasonable people in majority middle, were finally won over by the moral argument. But it took a while for many of them. And realizing that those with the intense sickness of white racists were willing to kill their fellow black citizens, even in a house of worship - it woke a lot of people up! So sad that the murder of innocents by a racist is what it took to get that flag down.

But chaos in the streets, hate-baiting and giving, using such symbols - before a reasonable society can decide together, the violence must first stop, the haters reigned in, such groups should never be given permits to march, etc.

[Hortator]

IF there is such a symbol that is unacceptable, or that should not be in a public square for a democratic society,

Phillip, don't play their game.

Seeing a statue doesn't put you or I or other human beings into a foul mood. We are grown adults, we can control our emotions and don't allow hunks of rock to do that for us.

Just let them think that tearing down statues a la Baghdad in 2003 is somehow going to help John Everyman on Mainstreet USA.

[Philip]

Horator: Phillip, don't play their game.

Seeing a statue doesn't put you or I or other human beings into a foul mood. We are grown adults, we can control our emotions and don't allow hunks of rock to do that for us.

Just let them think that tearing down statues a la Baghdad in 2003 is somehow going to help John Everyman on Mainstreet USA.

But it is NOT "playing their game" to acknowledge that there are some statues and monuments to people that reasonable people can agree that should not be in the public square, or a place of honor. Were a monument to Hitler or Stalin be in my town, I'd want it out of there ASAP! But there's a civil way of settling such things. Besides, the MONUMENTS aren't really what the people attacking them care about - what they really care about is their modern political agenda and stirring up trouble, violence and mayhem. And then the mindless PC Police and the brain-dead media falls right in behind - yep, THEY are taking the bait. Even people on this forum getting caught up in whatever monuments more liberals accept vs. ones more conservatives are likely to accept - they are taking the bait as well.

These many symbols and monuments are from men and movements of a different time - maybe definitive of a person's last beliefs when still alive, maybe not. Look at some of our Bible heroes - people God used so well - people like the Apostle Paul - supporting murderers and the destruction and violence against those who disagreed with him. Moses, a killer. King David, adulterer and murderer by proxy. But that wasn't their end legacies. People in history are a mixed bag, with lives of various virtue and also of many sins - and some who were downright evil. To balance our strange, often inconsistent thinking about such historical characters, if we only puts saints upon on pedestals, doubt there'd be very many of them. I sure wouldn't be up there! But my main point is, don't allow the devils of the present to rip apart our society's peace per their evil agendas, conveniently using the past - as, mostly, they could care less about the silly monuments!

[PaulSacramento]

Our state and local representative, typically, informed by feedback from their constituents.

I agree.
Majority rules, put it to a vote.

[B. W.]

This is no more a revision of the Cultural Revolution of the Communist happening again.

This played out in Russia, and China, and Cambodia, and Cuba...

The stakes are that high...

George Orwell quotes:

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
― George Orwell

“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.”
― George Orwell, 1984


"Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently.

We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.

They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.

We are not like that.

We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end.

One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”

― George Orwell, 1984



-
-
-

[RickD]

I enjoy talking to you. Your mind appeals to me. It resembles my own mind except that you happen to be insane.
George Orwell, 1984

[B. W.]

These articles say a mouthful...

A warning from George Orwell on the ‘monument wars’

Tearing Down Monuments Demolishes Our Greatness

[melanie]

I'm entirely confused here...
Have you read 'Animal Farm' and '1984' ??
George Orwell was a dedicated socialist, yes he vehemently detested communism as most true socialist do.
How is it that we have become so confused and lost in our politics that we no longer understand what we even stand for??
George Orwell was a socialist, his body of work was dedicated to that principal, his writing and his quotes are all based of a socialist ideal.
Every single one.
We do not it seems collectively even remotely understand the essence of what it is we are fighting for??
We live in a society of borrowed outrage and misplaced agendas because we are not thinking for ourselves.
George Orwell is one of my favourite authors, his novel Animal Farm was instrumental in my life. I first read it when I was 10 then read it at least every couple of years. This book fundamentally influenced my political ideals.
So excuse my outrage when his quotes are being misused in a manner that totally disregards what he stood for.
Also it is a flat out falsity that socialist ideals are in any way attributed to communism because they are not. That is nothing more than fear mongering idiocy.
What George Orwell stood for was a socialist democracy which is so far removed from communism it's an embarrassment of intellect.
Australia is in essence a socialist democracy, not entirely but it has some clear distinctions as such in our education and healthcare system but the current government is changing that and I hope that will be short lived.

[B. W.]

I'm entirely confused here...
Have you read 'Animal Farm' and '1984' ??
George Orwell was a dedicated socialist, yes he vehemently detested communism as most true socialist do.
How is it that we have become so confused and lost in our politics that we no longer understand what we even stand for??
George Orwell was a socialist, his body of work was dedicated to that principal, his writing and his quotes are all based of a socialist ideal.
Every single one.
We do not it seems collectively even remotely understand the essence of what it is we are fighting for??
We live in a society of borrowed outrage and misplaced agendas because we are not thinking for ourselves.
George Orwell is one of my favourite authors, his novel Animal Farm was instrumental in my life. I first read it when I was 10 then read it at least every couple of years. This book fundamentally influenced my political ideals.
So excuse my outrage when his quotes are being misused in a manner that totally disregards what he stood for.
Also it is a flat out falsity that socialist ideals are in any way attributed to communism because they are not. That is nothing more than fear mongering idiocy.
What George Orwell stood for was a socialist democracy which is so far removed from communism it's an embarrassment of intellect.
Australia is in essence a socialist democracy, not entirely but it has some clear distinctions as such in our education and healthcare system but the current government is changing that and I hope that will be short lived.

As a progressive socialist, he knew what he was talking about and openly exposed, in story form, its ultimate tactic and goals so he is worth noting and taken seriously especially what we are seeing in the USA right now happening.

Basically telling what to expect from socialism...where it leads and its final global goals...

Both Nazism and Communism is of the far Left of Socialism. Those were experiments to get the kinks outs for a later more harsher socialism than these.

JRR Tolkien said it - "One ring to rule them all..."
-
-
-

[melanie]

B.W that's not correct
Your understanding of politicals is flawed due to a personal bias of only wanting or willing to see it through your lens.
The ideals of communism and fascism are opposite.
Communism is a classless system whilst fascism is a nationalist system that relies on the delegation of class.
The mere fact that you would attribute both ideals to a left wing idealogy shows me that you don't clearly understand the politics. I get that it's been subversived in the media to mean whatever one would like it too but in the fairness of history, politics and truth that's just not the case.
With all respect your understanding of politics is not accurate and I strongly suggest you independently research the history of communism and the history of fascism.
What is most important in the end is truth. That cannot be subversived or twisted by any side when we know the facts and can separate truth from fiction.

[Philip]

Seems a whole lot of otherwise reasonable people are taking the radicals' bait, thus getting sucked into the "which radicals are more evil'" syndrome! Look, it doesn't really matter the "ism" type - people of the far left and far right - really, they aren't terribly FAR apart in methodologies, hatred, causing divisiveness and violence. You'll never perfectly apply historical figures to the present, because our times are unique, and many of those past figures argued over were complex - many with some redeeming qualities mixed in with some very bad influences and actions. Some of those being demonized moderated in older age - Washington freed his slaves, Lincoln began to recognize much more fully the humanity and equal potential for people of color. Many historical figures initially reacted against bad elements in society, and yet their response made things worse. Of course, figures like Stalin and Hitler, these were people of extreme evil. But getting sucked into arguments over historical figures is currently being used quite effectively by all manner of extremists, and all sides of the political spectrum, to draw people into mindless hatred and divisiveness, intensely arguing over whichever side they think is worse. Yep, we can learn from those of the past, but we better be extremely wary about getting sucked into divisive talk - whether from the right or the left.

WAY too many Christians get sucked into "Political-think" - that is, they interpret things and solutions more through a political lens than a spiritual one. Of COURSE non-Christians will have all manner of wrongful values and thinking - so, what is the solution to that??? To demonize them as part of some label / group, as purely evil and irredeemable, or do we see them as people who need Jesus? Do they need to adopt the right politics first, or JESUS? Many Christian are a whole lot like Jonah: "Screw the Ninevites, as they are irredeemably evil." We as Christians need to guard our hearts per those who hold attitudes, views and politics different from our own - because devils from all sides want to suck us into their mindless vortex of chaos and anarchy! And that doesn't mean we don't respond appropriately, as needed, per keeping peace and stability. But it does mean our attitudes should desire them to change, to seek Christ. And you'll not do that if you must despise or hate them.

Just my two cents.

[edwardmurphy]

Based on all available evidence, B.W.'s entire understanding of literally everything can be summed up with two false syllogisms:

"The left" is bad.
X is bad.
Therefore, X is of "the left."

"The right" is good.
Y is good.
Therefore, Y is of "the right."

Take those misconceptions, season them with heaping spoonfuls of fear and rage, and that's B.W.

[PaulSacramento]

B.W that's not correct
Your understanding of politicals is flawed due to a personal bias of only wanting or willing to see it through your lens.
The ideals of communism and fascism are opposite.
Communism is a classless system whilst fascism is a nationalist system that relies on the delegation of class.
The mere fact that you would attribute both ideals to a left wing idealogy shows me that you don't clearly understand the politics. I get that it's been subversived in the media to mean whatever one would like it too but in the fairness of history, politics and truth that's just not the case.
With all respect your understanding of politics is not accurate and I strongly suggest you independently research the history of communism and the history of fascism.
What is most important in the end is truth. That cannot be subversived or twisted by any side when we know the facts and can separate truth from fiction.

This is true.
The paradox is, of course, the the end results end up being way to similar:
Oppression of free speech, free thought and of the rights of the people.