America

[Puja]

Why do you think attacking Grants statue was a stupid ill educated mistake?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Because they clearly did not know his history and instead took the pretty reasonable assumption that a statue put up of an 18th Century man was of a racist (although further reading on the matter suggests that while he was great as an opponent of slavery and the KKK, Native Americans might have an issue with him having a statue, although I doubt that was why his statue was defaced).

Where I take issue is using it to mock the movement and the civil disobedience as a whole. There's enough, "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things," from the Trump campaign without other people taking shots.

Puja

Ok, so leaving aside the fact that they have given no end of ammunition to the "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things" crowd, which may be considered a bit daft, in a nutshell making my point about the short comings of mob mentality...

You've called the BLM protestors stupid and ill educated and that's not racist

You've agreed with me that it was a stupid thing to do and that's not racist

BUT me saying it was a stupid thing to do, that's the racism here?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

As mentioned, my issue was that your take was to attack the movement, using it as "Look how stupid all this statue toppling and civil disobedience is," rather than, "That particular example's a bit unfortunate and ironic - maybe an indictment of the way history is taught in schools," which was mine and Mikey's take.

Puja

[Digby]

As I recall the commentary on destruction started with positive comments from some on the destruction of property because it was property they disapproved of

[Mikey Brown]

As I recall the commentary on destruction started with positive comments from some on the destruction of property because it was property they disapproved of

"People tell me they LOVE to do the property damage."

[morepork]

Man, did someone touch a nerve or what?

[Sandydragon]

As I recall the commentary on destruction started with positive comments from some on the destruction of property because it was property they disapproved of

Correct.

Rioting is fine when you agree with it. Apparently.

[Mikey Brown]

Jesus Christ.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000k2l3

This is excellent. Anyone spouting off on "rioting" or "mob mentality" needs to listen to it. If you don't I can only come to the conclusion that you're acting in bad faith. Warning: contains expert.

[Stom]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000k2l3

This is excellent. Anyone spouting off on "rioting" or "mob mentality" needs to listen to it. If you don't I can only come to the conclusion that you're acting in bad faith. Warning: contains expert.

Thank you, Eugene, a very good listen and the concept of putting the police into the crowd and just talking to the protestors is just so obvious in a humanist society.

[Digby]

As I recall the commentary on destruction started with positive comments from some on the destruction of property because it was property they disapproved of

Correct.

Rioting is fine when you agree with it. Apparently.

And is distinct to the overwhelming part of the protests, even most policing of the riots will not have been the violent panicked morons we've seen at times

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000k2l3

This is excellent. Anyone spouting off on "rioting" or "mob mentality" needs to listen to it. If you don't I can only come to the conclusion that you're acting in bad faith. Warning: contains expert.

Thank you, Eugene, a very good listen and the concept of putting the police into the crowd and just talking to the protestors is just so obvious in a humanist society.

An excellent interview.

It makes a lot of sense. The police need to be friendly (as far as circumstances allow). They need to be seen (by the protesters) as acting reasonably. They need to talk to the protesters. Which is difficult when you bring the cavalry. And the theory implies that riots are most likely when the protests are against the police themselves. In the states, it looks like the police are too quick to take up positions which make police/crowd dialogue impossible.

[Donny osmond]

yes, a very interesting and enlightening interview about preferred tactics to avoid violence; I would like to hear more about tactics that may be employed when violence has already started.

the ending does *rather* undermine a lot of the points made on here about the police, and I say this as someone who is disgusted by a lot of what we've seen from the (US) police in recent times.

[gransoporro]

#ALLSTATUESMATTER

#FOCUSONDAMAGEDSTATUESNOTKILLEDPEOPLE

#RULEIS1CRIMINALPROTESTERDISQUALIFIESTHEIRISSUES

#STATUESDISMISSPROTESTS

#PEPPERSPRAYISOKWHATABOUTTHEMSTATUES

[cashead]

Why do you think attacking Grants statue was a stupid ill educated mistake?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Because they clearly did not know his history and instead took the pretty reasonable assumption that a statue put up of an 18th Century man was of a racist (although further reading on the matter suggests that while he was great as an opponent of slavery and the KKK, Native Americans might have an issue with him having a statue, although I doubt that was why his statue was defaced).

Where I take issue is using it to mock the movement and the civil disobedience as a whole. There's enough, "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things," from the Trump campaign without other people taking shots.

Puja

Way too many assumptions. Despite his abolitionist stance, he and his wife were still slave owners, and like you said, he was involved in the brutal repression of Native Americans. Like, I'm not sure why you'd think that Indigeneous American activists won't be involved with the current protests, when they, in fact, are.

At least Grant was on the right side of history in the Civil War, but slave owners are slave owners are slave owners are slave owners, and fuck him for the way he treated the Natives.

[cashead]

#ALLSTATUESMATTER

#FOCUSONDAMAGEDSTATUESNOTKILLEDPEOPLE

#RULEIS1CRIMINALPROTESTERDISQUALIFIESTHEIRISSUES

#STATUESDISMISSPROTESTS

#PEPPERSPRAYISOKWHATABOUTTHEMSTATUES

This is a good and cool post.

[Stones of granite]

Why do you think attacking Grants statue was a stupid ill educated mistake?

Sent from my CPH1951 using Tapatalk

Because they clearly did not know his history and instead took the pretty reasonable assumption that a statue put up of an 18th Century man was of a racist (although further reading on the matter suggests that while he was great as an opponent of slavery and the KKK, Native Americans might have an issue with him having a statue, although I doubt that was why his statue was defaced).

Where I take issue is using it to mock the movement and the civil disobedience as a whole. There's enough, "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things," from the Trump campaign without other people taking shots.

Puja

Way too many assumptions. Despite his abolitionist stance, he and his wife were still slave owners, and like you said, he was involved in the brutal repression of Native Americans. Like, I'm not sure why you'd think that Indigeneous American activists won't be involved with the current protests, when they, in fact, are.

At least Grant was on the right side of history in the Civil War, but slave owners are slave owners are slave owners are slave owners, and fuck him for the way he treated the Natives.

Oh, that must be awkward for the Native American Nations that kept slaves.

[cashead]

Because they clearly did not know his history and instead took the pretty reasonable assumption that a statue put up of an 18th Century man was of a racist (although further reading on the matter suggests that while he was great as an opponent of slavery and the KKK, Native Americans might have an issue with him having a statue, although I doubt that was why his statue was defaced).

Where I take issue is using it to mock the movement and the civil disobedience as a whole. There's enough, "Lol, stupid protestors ruining things," from the Trump campaign without other people taking shots.

Puja

Way too many assumptions. Despite his abolitionist stance, he and his wife were still slave owners, and like you said, he was involved in the brutal repression of Native Americans. Like, I'm not sure why you'd think that Indigeneous American activists won't be involved with the current protests, when they, in fact, are.

At least Grant was on the right side of history in the Civil War, but slave owners are slave owners are slave owners are slave owners, and fuck him for the way he treated the Natives.

Oh, that must be awkward for the Native American Nations that kept slaves.

Considering the diversity among indigenous Americans, it's fucking stupid to paint them all with the same brush, and it wasn't unusual for those same tribal groups to have abolitionist groups among them, not to mention the prevalence of Native women who bought men, immediately freed them and married them.

You don't get to choose your ethnicity or your ancestry, any more than the descendants of Confederate slave holders get to. But, glorifying the pre-Civil War South and the Confederacy, and downplaying slavery? That is 100% the choice of the person or people doing it.

[Stones of granite]

Way too many assumptions. Despite his abolitionist stance, he and his wife were still slave owners, and like you said, he was involved in the brutal repression of Native Americans. Like, I'm not sure why you'd think that Indigeneous American activists won't be involved with the current protests, when they, in fact, are.

At least Grant was on the right side of history in the Civil War, but slave owners are slave owners are slave owners are slave owners, and fuck him for the way he treated the Natives.

Oh, that must be awkward for the Native American Nations that kept slaves.

Considering the diversity among indigenous Americans, it's fucking stupid to paint them all with the same brush,

Aye, 'cos that's exactly what I did when I wrote "for the Native American Nations that kept slaves

and it wasn't unusual for those same tribal groups to have abolitionist groups among them, not to mention the prevalence of Native women who bought men, immediately freed them and married them.

Now who's generalising? You're talking here about one very specific form of slave holding amongst the Native Americans as if that was all there was to it. Some of them held African American slaves in the same way that "European" Americans did, and then tried to fuck them off after abolition.

You don't get to choose your ethnicity or your ancestry, any more than the descendants of Confederate slave holders get to. But, glorifying the pre-Civil War South and the Confederacy, and downplaying slavery? That is 100% the choice of the person or people doing it.

I can't disagree with that.

My point here wasn't idle whataboutery, I'm just getting a bit tired about the presentation of this complex topic being a binary one. It isn't as simple as being portrayed and this is highlighted by the inconvenient fact that while some Native American Nations were being dispossessed of their land and exiled from traditional lands to shitholes like Oklahoma, some of the goods and chattels that they took with them were African American slaves.
Sorry that it doesn't fit into a three word soundbite or a Porky snappy one-liner.

[Digby]

I wonder how many protesters around black lives matter and other movements happily participate in modern slavery, buying clothing based on slave labour, eating foods based on slave labour. Often times that's the cheap end of the market, but as we see with clothing sold by Ivanka Trump the high end can be just as guilty as profiting on the back of slavery in our lives right this minute.

[gransoporro]

Grant owned the grand total on 1 slave, given to him by his father in law. And he freed the slave before the civil war started, a couple of years after the gift.
His wife was given slaves by her father that were freed after the emancipation proclamation, 1863. Not clear if she actual owned them legally, she probably did.

Grant’s record is clearly blemished, but he is hardly a slaver. Let’s remember the laws and morals of the time.

You also can go after the founding fathers: the first president, the main writer of the Declaration of Independence, the main writer of the constitution all owned a lot of slaves. The Adams did not, on the other side. I cannot judge them for the morals and laws of 240 years later.

Still, when we raise statues, what do we celebrate? The general and president, the whole man, what we see in him? They are hardly saints.
Should we limit the statues to saints only? We are deep in the gray here. The above applies when tearing down a statue as well.

I am ok in removing confederate statues: most were raised during the Jim Crow period and are symbols I reject. Less so in generalizing “slave owner=>tear down”.
I am also ok removing statues of those that stole the land of native Americans by breaking their own treaties. I am not ok with the mob tearing them down: it steals the Opportunity to reflect and decide from the community.

Still, tearing down statues is a far lesser crime in my eyes than systemic racism. I won’t lose sleep over them statues.

[Digby]

Still, when we raise statues, what do we celebrate? The general and president, the whole man, what we see in him? They are hardly saints.
Should we limit the statues to saints only?

A decent number of actual saints have some horrific records on the human rights front, and right now as of today the church is still busy, and happily so, protecting rapists and paedophiles, it also partakes in a substantial amount of money laundering helps keep people in poverty the world over.

[gransoporro]

You mean canonized saints? I meant actual saints, free of sins.

Let’s not add more meat to the fire here. We can discuss the Church of England in another thread.

[Stom]

I wonder how many protesters around black lives matter and other movements happily participate in modern slavery, buying clothing based on slave labour, eating foods based on slave labour. Often times that's the cheap end of the market, but as we see with clothing sold by Ivanka Trump the high end can be just as guilty as profiting on the back of slavery in our lives right this minute.

This is a good point and does show the hypocrisy of modern capitalism

[Digby]

I wonder how many protesters around black lives matter and other movements happily participate in modern slavery, buying clothing based on slave labour, eating foods based on slave labour. Often times that's the cheap end of the market, but as we see with clothing sold by Ivanka Trump the high end can be just as guilty as profiting on the back of slavery in our lives right this minute.

This is a good point and does show the hypocrisy of modern capitalism

More the hypocrisy of people for me than it being either a modern or capitalistic thing. Though on a societal/governmental level we're also seeing precious little action on food waste, on disposable fashions, on the environment on.... Maybe now the idea of people going to the shops for a few quality items that last much longer is an even better plan we'll see some action on the disposable fashion, but for now at least the emphasis is on getting the consumer back spending and one assumes for that spending to be debt, and actually I doubt we'll see any change on the fashion front.

Even Greta at this point has only advanced a few trees being planted, and most of those plans to plant trees are stupid and far too often counter productive anyway, and even if they worked as intended (which doesn't seem likely) isn't close to enough

[paddy no 11]

thats some sidetrack digby

If you've an issue with the race to the bottom take it up with our current capitalist system and it's slavery to growth not with BLM protestors seriously

and yes i am completely opposed to the race to the bottom and never buy orimark etc.....thing is there's actual poor people who have to shop there

[Stom]

thats some sidetrack digby

If you've an issue with the race to the bottom take it up with our current capitalist system and it's slavery to growth not with BLM protestors seriously

and yes i am completely opposed to the race to the bottom and never buy orimark etc.....thing is there's actual poor people who have to shop there

I don’t think you can blame someone being opposed to one thing and not thinking about another.

But yeah, that’s why I said the hypocrisy of capitalism. It pushes westerners into relative poverty, and they then have to rely on modern slavery to survive.

That’s why I feel we need a drastic culture change. Places like the US and China should be excluded until they change practices around modern slavery. Prison labor is terrible.