RugbyRebels

Wow. This is FOX of all people.

Looks like a warning to Trump, behave, or we'll start ignoring you and doing positive pieces on Paul Ryan as a for instance. Fox news likes the ratings maybe with Trump, but they're in this for the long haul and there's no point going down with Trump, especially not if Trump gets distracted from an actual conservative agenda

More penetrating social commentary from this clown Let's bring back Rolf Harris Memorial Park while we're at it.

It's not an entirely unreasonable point that one's history is one's history. And maybe we don't need to remove all such statues, though there'd certainly be a large group who'd go for removing various monuments, maybe not so many who'd favour removing all monuments, even ISIS don't go quite that far. But he can't possibly imagine this is the right way to go about addressing there are different points of view as to what should happen with regards to those statues and monuments which distress some and please others, at least he can't sanely imagine this is the right way to go about it. Once again he's showing he's a horrible politician, a horrible public speaker, and really not so pleasant as a person

Digby wrote:It's not an entirely unreasonable point that one's history is one's history. And maybe we don't need to remove all such statues, though there'd certainly be a large group who'd go for removing various monuments, maybe not so many who'd favour removing all monuments, even ISIS don't go quite that far. But he can't possibly imagine this is the right way to go about addressing there are different points of view as to what should happen with regards to those statues and monuments which distress some and please others, at least he can't sanely imagine this is the right way to go about it. Once again he's showing he's a horrible politician, a horrible public speaker, and really not so pleasant as a person

He's a fucking racist. Confederate flags and other circle jerk draw cards for racist southerners have been quietly removed from public spaces in a polite fashion for quite some time now, and the only people who really get upset over this are racist people, from all points of the compass.

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not an entirely unreasonable point that one's history is one's history. And maybe we don't need to remove all such statues, though there'd certainly be a large group who'd go for removing various monuments, maybe not so many who'd favour removing all monuments, even ISIS don't go quite that far. But he can't possibly imagine this is the right way to go about addressing there are different points of view as to what should happen with regards to those statues and monuments which distress some and please others, at least he can't sanely imagine this is the right way to go about it. Once again he's showing he's a horrible politician, a horrible public speaker, and really not so pleasant as a person

He's a fucking racist. Confederate flags and other circle jerk draw cards for racist southerners have been quietly removed from public spaces in a polite fashion for quite some time now, and the only people who really get upset over this are racist people, from all points of the compass.

I find it a little odd that there are so often pushes to remove references to things in our past that as we judge now seemingly fail a decent moral standard. But that doesn't mean I think we need to as a for instance remove all public references/monuments to someone like Cecil Rhodes. That we might have moved past some of the decisions taken in the past doesn't mean we need to dismantle public memorials, that'd be more so for monuments that have been around a decent while, if someone put up a statue last year rather than in 1908 as a for instance I'd be much less worried about it being taken down.

So Trump might indeed be those things, but it doesn't mean he's without a point. Our history informs who we are, for good and bad (and indifferent)

Digby wrote:Trump is trying to get his infrastructure plan up and running, and actually it's the one part depending on the use of private firms that I might be truly interested of his known (to me) campaign ideas.

He's not going to get far if he's disbanding the business committees that he set up.
Aside from the casual redneck feckers who voted for him his only allies were the business community. And they're saying bye-bye.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:Trump is trying to get his infrastructure plan up and running, and actually it's the one part depending on the use of private firms that I might be truly interested of his known (to me) campaign ideas.

He's not going to get far if he's disbanding the business committees that he set up.
Aside from the casual redneck feckers who voted for him his only allies were the business community. And they're saying bye-bye.

He seems to think he should simply with executive privilege without recourse to either house of congress, whereas being logically consistent he seemed to think Obama had too much power. And this really isn't funny if he's going to refuse to get down to agreeing a lot of detail when it comes to raising the debt ceiling, if he throws his toys out of the pram then even if he's then removed as a basket case he's going to do a lot of damage.

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not an entirely unreasonable point that one's history is one's history. And maybe we don't need to remove all such statues, though there'd certainly be a large group who'd go for removing various monuments, maybe not so many who'd favour removing all monuments, even ISIS don't go quite that far. But he can't possibly imagine this is the right way to go about addressing there are different points of view as to what should happen with regards to those statues and monuments which distress some and please others, at least he can't sanely imagine this is the right way to go about it. Once again he's showing he's a horrible politician, a horrible public speaker, and really not so pleasant as a person

He's a fucking racist. Confederate flags and other circle jerk draw cards for racist southerners have been quietly removed from public spaces in a polite fashion for quite some time now, and the only people who really get upset over this are racist people, from all points of the compass.

I find it a little odd that there are so often pushes to remove references to things in our past that as we judge now seemingly fail a decent moral standard. But that doesn't mean I think we need to as a for instance remove all public references/monuments to someone like Cecil Rhodes. That we might have moved past some of the decisions taken in the past doesn't mean we need to dismantle public memorials, that'd be more so for monuments that have been around a decent while, if someone put up a statue last year rather than in 1908 as a for instance I'd be much less worried about it being taken down.

So Trump might indeed be those things, but it doesn't mean he's without a point. Our history informs who we are, for good and bad (and indifferent)

I agree. There are plenty of monuments in this country which are morally iffy. There's a monument in Lincoln to a small child butchered by Jews in the 12th century which is basically highlighting the blood libel. It's complete Shute, but rather than remove it, there is some information highlighting why people believed this stuff and how wrong they were. To me, that's the way to go, not removing statues that we dint like.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

He's a fucking racist. Confederate flags and other circle jerk draw cards for racist southerners have been quietly removed from public spaces in a polite fashion for quite some time now, and the only people who really get upset over this are racist people, from all points of the compass.

I find it a little odd that there are so often pushes to remove references to things in our past that as we judge now seemingly fail a decent moral standard. But that doesn't mean I think we need to as a for instance remove all public references/monuments to someone like Cecil Rhodes. That we might have moved past some of the decisions taken in the past doesn't mean we need to dismantle public memorials, that'd be more so for monuments that have been around a decent while, if someone put up a statue last year rather than in 1908 as a for instance I'd be much less worried about it being taken down.

So Trump might indeed be those things, but it doesn't mean he's without a point. Our history informs who we are, for good and bad (and indifferent)

I agree. There are plenty of monuments in this country which are morally iffy. There's a monument in Lincoln to a small child butchered by Jews in the 12th century which is basically highlighting the blood libel. It's complete Shute, but rather than remove it, there is some information highlighting why people believed this stuff and how wrong they were. To me, that's the way to go, not removing statues that we dint like.

Fair point SD. The problem associated with some of the controversial statues in America and elsewhere, is that some idolise the subjects for what they were and try to live their lives under previous values rather than looking at them with contempt.

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I find it a little odd that there are so often pushes to remove references to things in our past that as we judge now seemingly fail a decent moral standard. But that doesn't mean I think we need to as a for instance remove all public references/monuments to someone like Cecil Rhodes. That we might have moved past some of the decisions taken in the past doesn't mean we need to dismantle public memorials, that'd be more so for monuments that have been around a decent while, if someone put up a statue last year rather than in 1908 as a for instance I'd be much less worried about it being taken down.

So Trump might indeed be those things, but it doesn't mean he's without a point. Our history informs who we are, for good and bad (and indifferent)

I agree. There are plenty of monuments in this country which are morally iffy. There's a monument in Lincoln to a small child butchered by Jews in the 12th century which is basically highlighting the blood libel. It's complete Shute, but rather than remove it, there is some information highlighting why people believed this stuff and how wrong they were. To me, that's the way to go, not removing statues that we dint like.

Fair point SD. The problem associated with some of the controversial statues in America and elsewhere, is that some idolise the subjects for what they were and try to live their lives under previous values rather than looking at them with contempt.

Idolise is right. All that nationalistic tub-thumping and religion that US kids are indoctrinated with from year dot.....in UK schools we started to ditch all that balls in the 80's.
At the time I believe a lot of people called it: 'political correctness gone mad'.

Don't look so mad now. I'm not a regular at the lesbian knitting circle but Red Ken was certainly right to spend money on the Knatterjack Toad.

kk67 wrote:

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
I agree. There are plenty of monuments in this country which are morally iffy. There's a monument in Lincoln to a small child butchered by Jews in the 12th century which is basically highlighting the blood libel. It's complete Shute, but rather than remove it, there is some information highlighting why people believed this stuff and how wrong they were. To me, that's the way to go, not removing statues that we dint like.

Fair point SD. The problem associated with some of the controversial statues in America and elsewhere, is that some idolise the subjects for what they were and try to live their lives under previous values rather than looking at them with contempt.

Idolise is right. All that nationalistic tub-thumping and religion that US kids are indoctrinated with from year dot.....in UK schools we started to ditch all that balls in the 80's.
At the time I believe a lot of people called it: 'political correctness gone mad'.

Don't look so mad now. I'm not a regular at the lesbian knitting circle but Red Ken was certainly right to spend money on the Knatterjack Toad.

No idea what that even means.

Is kitting circle a positive/negative, and does it being lesbian change that?

Digby wrote:

morepork wrote:

Digby wrote:It's not an entirely unreasonable point that one's history is one's history. And maybe we don't need to remove all such statues, though there'd certainly be a large group who'd go for removing various monuments, maybe not so many who'd favour removing all monuments, even ISIS don't go quite that far. But he can't possibly imagine this is the right way to go about addressing there are different points of view as to what should happen with regards to those statues and monuments which distress some and please others, at least he can't sanely imagine this is the right way to go about it. Once again he's showing he's a horrible politician, a horrible public speaker, and really not so pleasant as a person

He's a fucking racist. Confederate flags and other circle jerk draw cards for racist southerners have been quietly removed from public spaces in a polite fashion for quite some time now, and the only people who really get upset over this are racist people, from all points of the compass.

I find it a little odd that there are so often pushes to remove references to things in our past that as we judge now seemingly fail a decent moral standard. But that doesn't mean I think we need to as a for instance remove all public references/monuments to someone like Cecil Rhodes. That we might have moved past some of the decisions taken in the past doesn't mean we need to dismantle public memorials, that'd be more so for monuments that have been around a decent while, if someone put up a statue last year rather than in 1908 as a for instance I'd be much less worried about it being taken down.

So Trump might indeed be those things, but it doesn't mean he's without a point. Our history informs who we are, for good and bad (and indifferent)

That statue in Virginia was put in place after the civil war and is unequivocally associated with the persistence of Jim Crow laws in ex-confederate states up until the late 1960's. That is a direct fuck you to the civil rights movement, members of which live today. This isn't an academic discussion. That statue belongs in a museum, not a public space.

WaspInWales wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I find it a little odd that there are so often pushes to remove references to things in our past that as we judge now seemingly fail a decent moral standard. But that doesn't mean I think we need to as a for instance remove all public references/monuments to someone like Cecil Rhodes. That we might have moved past some of the decisions taken in the past doesn't mean we need to dismantle public memorials, that'd be more so for monuments that have been around a decent while, if someone put up a statue last year rather than in 1908 as a for instance I'd be much less worried about it being taken down.

So Trump might indeed be those things, but it doesn't mean he's without a point. Our history informs who we are, for good and bad (and indifferent)

I agree. There are plenty of monuments in this country which are morally iffy. There's a monument in Lincoln to a small child butchered by Jews in the 12th century which is basically highlighting the blood libel. It's complete Shute, but rather than remove it, there is some information highlighting why people believed this stuff and how wrong they were. To me, that's the way to go, not removing statues that we dint like.

Fair point SD. The problem associated with some of the controversial statues in America and elsewhere, is that some idolise the subjects for what they were and try to live their lives under previous values rather than looking at them with contempt.

And they were/are beacons for people that have killed in the name of an assumed racial superiority. You boys on here have to understand how fresh this wound is in the USA.

People don't like some public monuments, which is fine, some others do like them, which in a plural society is also fine. Trump's question about where does this end is a fair question no matter Trump is a tool, and just 'cause you don't like something isn't always good enough, at some point you're simply agreeing with the destruction of Palmyra

Digby brother, your efforts towards constructive dialogue are noted but contrast the Trumpet's hijacking of what just happened in Barcelona (and I mean within hours) to his contribution to leadership and calm heads in Virginia:
You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Digby wrote:People don't like some public monuments, which is fine, some others do like them, which in a plural society is also fine. Trump's question about where does this end is a fair question no matter Trump is a tool, and just 'cause you don't like something isn't always good enough, at some point you're simply agreeing with the destruction of Palmyra

If they're memorials, like Auschwitz or the Somme, it's a bit different. I don't think you can compare archaeological sites.
Lionising people who profited from human subjugation is wrong, no matter their wider influence on society. If you are responsible for human suffering you abrogate your right to a statue. That seems reasonable to me.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:People don't like some public monuments, which is fine, some others do like them, which in a plural society is also fine. Trump's question about where does this end is a fair question no matter Trump is a tool, and just 'cause you don't like something isn't always good enough, at some point you're simply agreeing with the destruction of Palmyra

When one side is made up of people literally brandishing firearms while waving Nazis and chanting "the Jews will not replace us," and trying to defend a statue of a racist icon, then no, that's not fine.

I wouldn't come close to assuming the only people who'd support the statue reaming, or even of a statue they don't like remaining are simply the same people as the arsehole who joined up to a white pride parade. And actually supposing you are in favour of having the statue taken down then such a simplistic piece of nonsense is going to harm rather than help such a cause, history isn't that simple, life isn't that simple.

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:People don't like some public monuments, which is fine, some others do like them, which in a plural society is also fine. Trump's question about where does this end is a fair question no matter Trump is a tool, and just 'cause you don't like something isn't always good enough, at some point you're simply agreeing with the destruction of Palmyra

If they're memorials, like Auschwitz or the Somme, it's a bit different. I don't think you can compare archaeological sites.
Lionising people who profited from human subjugation is wrong, no matter their wider influence on society. If you are responsible for human suffering you abrogate your right to a statue. That seems reasonable to me.

So no statue for Churchill, or Mandela, or Nelson... or?

Also just 'cause there's a statue doesn't mean everyone will infer affirmation, its just not that simple.

Digby wrote:

kk67 wrote:

Digby wrote:People don't like some public monuments, which is fine, some others do like them, which in a plural society is also fine. Trump's question about where does this end is a fair question no matter Trump is a tool, and just 'cause you don't like something isn't always good enough, at some point you're simply agreeing with the destruction of Palmyra

If they're memorials, like Auschwitz or the Somme, it's a bit different. I don't think you can compare archaeological sites.
Lionising people who profited from human subjugation is wrong, no matter their wider influence on society. If you are responsible for human suffering you abrogate your right to a statue. That seems reasonable to me.

So no statue for Churchill, or Mandela, or Nelson... or?

Also just 'cause there's a statue doesn't mean everyone will infer affirmation, its just not that simple.

Yeah. Fair enough. We all cause human suffering on some level. I think subjugation is the word I should have stuck with.

The US is so vast that lionising local heroes has probably been the most useful form of people control. There's a reason why Matt Groening made a character out of the Springfield founder,..Jeddadiah Springfield who is clearly a caricature of Davy Crockett.

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:People don't like some public monuments, which is fine, some others do like them, which in a plural society is also fine. Trump's question about where does this end is a fair question no matter Trump is a tool, and just 'cause you don't like something isn't always good enough, at some point you're simply agreeing with the destruction of Palmyra

When one side is made up of people literally brandishing firearms while waving Nazis and chanting "the Jews will not replace us," and trying to defend a statue of a racist icon, then no, that's not fine.

Lets not confuse the valid point about airbrushing history we don't like with the means of protest. I completely agree that the manner of this protest was obscene, both from the anti-semitism on display and the threatening nature of groups of people armed with automatic weapons protesting against a decision by a legitimate authority.

But one of the statues in question was that of Robert E Lee. As one of the the prominent Confederate generals of the civil war, I understand why he is seen as a racist symbol, but does that make him any different from other key figures of that period? Was Lee any more of a racist (as we understand it today) than other public figures of the day? Do we tear down all statues of prominent people from history just because they are a symbol to a racist today?

On one level, particularly initially, the American Civil War wasn't about the plight of the slaves. Plenty of Southerners fought for the Confederacy who didn't own slaves. Were they racist, by today's standard white probably, but any more so than many of those who fought for the Union. Its a bit like suggesting that all Italians who fought in World War 2 were Fascists to the core, other than people who volunteered to defend, or were conscripted, their country. Lee was a loyal Virginian who only resigned rom the US Army when Virginia voted to secede from the Union, which was post Fort Sumter whereas originally the state was opposed to secession. Lee saw himself as a loyal Virginian, less so a Confederate. To have a statue for a man who fought for his country is no bad thing; surely the better solution is to focus on the nature of slavery via education and not airbrush the bits of the past we don't like?

Sandydragon wrote:

cashead wrote:

Digby wrote:People don't like some public monuments, which is fine, some others do like them, which in a plural society is also fine. Trump's question about where does this end is a fair question no matter Trump is a tool, and just 'cause you don't like something isn't always good enough, at some point you're simply agreeing with the destruction of Palmyra

When one side is made up of people literally brandishing firearms while waving Nazis and chanting "the Jews will not replace us," and trying to defend a statue of a racist icon, then no, that's not fine.

Lets not confuse the valid point about airbrushing history we don't like with the means of protest. I completely agree that the manner of this protest was obscene, both from the anti-semitism on display and the threatening nature of groups of people armed with automatic weapons protesting against a decision by a legitimate authority.

But one of the statues in question was that of Robert E Lee. As one of the the prominent Confederate generals of the civil war, I understand why he is seen as a racist symbol, but does that make him any different from other key figures of that period? Was Lee any more of a racist (as we understand it today) than other public figures of the day? Do we tear down all statues of prominent people from history just because they are a symbol to a racist today?

On one level, particularly initially, the American Civil War wasn't about the plight of the slaves. Plenty of Southerners fought for the Confederacy who didn't own slaves. Were they racist, by today's standard white probably, but any more so than many of those who fought for the Union. Its a bit like suggesting that all Italians who fought in World War 2 were Fascists to the core, other than people who volunteered to defend, or were conscripted, their country. Lee was a loyal Virginian who only resigned rom the US Army when Virginia voted to secede from the Union, which was post Fort Sumter whereas originally the state was opposed to secession. Lee saw himself as a loyal Virginian, less so a Confederate. To have a statue for a man who fought for his country is no bad thing; surely the better solution is to focus on the nature of slavery via education and not airbrush the bits of the past we don't like?

Mussolini was shot and his corpse strung up in Milan. Again, the Lee statue is a beacon for racism if it is placed in a prominent public space in a confederate state, it's a piss take. Up until a little over a year ago, Columbia South Carolina had a confederate flag outside City Hall. A massive one. I've seen it in person. That is one in your face institutionalised "fuck you". It's not there for historical reasons. Forget your academic treatment of the causes of the civil war and your sliding scale of time Vs. racism. This issue is about the period 1965-now, which some people in some places are very upset about. There are two excellent historical museums in Philadelphia, The National Independence Center, with all constitutional and independence history, and an African American History Museum, which deals with the ugly shit following. If you suggested putting a Robert E. Lee statue anywhere in Philly but one of these museums, I can assure you the reaction would be overwhelmingly..."negative", and even then good luck getting it through the doors of the other two places.

There was something of a storm in a teacup recently in Toronto when a replica of the General Lee Dodge Charger from the Dukes of Hazard TV show turned up to a car show. Watching that TV show as a kid and being a fan of Dodge Chargers, my initial reaction was , wait, it's the general lee from the Dukes of Hazard man, what can you possibly be upset about?

Not sure what my point is really.