The All Things Political Topic - As a Bright Lord bears Beacons of flame.

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:

We're alwaya been shaped by the world we live in though. The whole thing seems to be a bit of a dodge, because you can find people in ye olden tymes that concluded such things were bad. I mean it's impossible to speak for people who've been dead for centuries, but I'm pretty sure that the people who were owned by the founding fathers had a pretty good idea that the concept of slavery was ****ed before phrenology got debunked.

To be specific to Jefferson, the more you learn about the guy the slimier he is. I grew up being taught he was a brilliant hero, then learned about Sally Hemmings which brings both pedophilia and rape to the table, then of course the usual racism. I don't blame people who don't want to honor a guy like that with statues regardless of him being from a time when such was socially acceptable.

I say no statues of anyone. Except this one. That one we should keep.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

4 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

I say no statues of anyone. Except this one. That one we should keep.

I agree, unironically. Replace all statues with dogs.

[Gorth]

Statues... what's the point.

Build pyramids instead. If you want the world to wonder what the heck happened here...

[BruceVC]

5 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

With regard to the whole Jefferson, statue, founding fathers thing, they were men shaped by the times they lived in. As are we all. Declaring most people "good" or "bad" without consideration of the world they lived in does them a disservice. There are exceptions of course. 

I think its wrong that statues like this get removed for several reasons and I am opposed to it . It does surprise me how few US forum members are concerned with this culture of  " remove statues " in the US and what irritates me is how many activists who demand this on the streets in the US dont have an understanding or appreciation of their own history

For example the primary reason to remove statues like this is because of slavery, in other words anyone associated with slavery their statue must be removed because somehow " this is going to address systemic racism in the USA " or something similar

And what is a huge historical misunderstanding and normal lack of interest from most activists is " that only white people were involved in slavery and also only  Europeans must pay redress for the crimes of slavery " 

But all the  empires of man used slaves and slavery use to be  practised by basically every civilization since the dawn of time. This includes

• The Ottoman empire enslaved many cultures including the Serbs and Hungarians, Turkey are the descendants of the Ottomans. Good luck getting Turkey to accept redress for this, they dont even acknowledge the genocide of the Armenians in WW1
• The Arabs have always been  historically prolific slave traders throughout the world and Africa
• Many early immigrants to the US came across as indentured slaves to wealthy English people, why dont white people in the US demand redress from the UK
• Native American tribes and South American tribes like the Incas and Mayans also enslaved people they defeated in battle 
• Most of the great ancient sites, like the pyramids, were built by slaves
• And then in Africa during the Atlantic Slave trade their were some black tribes that were actively involved in selling other black tribes to European and Arab slave traders

Slavery is an appalling crime and one we should all condemn. But this focus only on the US and specifically white people as the only ones who were involved in slavery is historically inaccurate and doesnt reflect the reality of this  terrible  practice

I am not American obviously but I would be supporting Trump in this regard, unfortunately I doubt Trump knows or cares about the history of slavery himself so this is just theater for him but point he is making I agree with 

 

[Gorth]

But then, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

E.g. that (in)famous statue that got removed in a town in England. He was a prolific slave trader and the statue was there to commemorate how much his slave trade contributed to make the local community prosperous. Right or wrong to remove such a statue?

Slavery has also existed in the western world since the Industrial Revolution. It took a century of hard (and sometimes bloody) fights by various socialist uprisings and trade unions to get out of something that in some parts of the world still is and in other parts was no different from the power landowners wielded over serfs in medieval times. Workers to be exploited (that's what I call 12-16 hour work shifts with symbolic pay, often not enough to feed or house anyone), killed (deliberately, shot by local militias/police forces if unruly or incidental by cost cutting measures), traded as part of the property they were contractually bound to work at when getting new owners etc. without anyone batting an eyelid.

Yet, I'm sure you'll find the odd statue of those "great" industrialists in parts of the world. They aren't really any different from that slave traders statue that got removed in England. Why should they stay again?

[BruceVC]

34 minutes ago, Gorth said:

But then, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?

E.g. that (in)famous statue that got removed in a town in England. He was a prolific slave trader and the statue was there to commemorate how much his slave trade contributed to make the local community prosperous. Right or wrong to remove such a statue?

Slavery has also existed in the western world since the Industrial Revolution. It took a century of hard (and sometimes bloody) fights by various socialist uprisings and trade unions to get out of something that in some parts of the world still is and in other parts was no different from the power landowners wielded over serfs in medieval times. Workers to be exploited (that's what I call 12-16 hour work shifts with symbolic pay, often not enough to feed or house anyone), killed (deliberately, shot by local militias/police forces if unruly or incidental by cost cutting measures), traded as part of the property they were contractually bound to work at when getting new owners etc. without anyone batting an eyelid.

Yet, I'm sure you'll find the odd statue of those "great" industrialists in parts of the world. They aren't really any different from that slave traders statue that got removed in England. Why should they stay again?

Yes you can remove statues like Nathan Bedford Forrest, he founded the KKK,  in the US because he only represents slavery and racism, I support that. And that includes that UK statue of someone who historically only contributed towards wealth creation due to slavery

But Jefferson was the same as many  people in that time, he kept slaves but he also played a huge part in the foundation of the USA which nowadays  does not reflect slavery and oppression, the US is much more than that and plays  a very positive role and influence  in the idea of any Constitutional Democracy. So in other words you need to balance what a statue means directly with the historical significance of that persons contribution towards the country 

And you have also inadvertently raised another point, you right when you say " But then, who gets to decide what is right and what is wrong?" 

Who exactly gets to decide? I dont think some BLM activists with a selective view of history should be deciding 

Edited October 21, 2021 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

did blm activists kick bruce's dog into oncoming traffic or something similar?  

HA! Good Fun!

[majestic]

1 minute ago, Gromnir said:

did blm activists kick bruce's dog into oncoming traffic or something similar?  

HA! Good Fun!

I guess he's worried that if BLM succeeds it will give South Africans the wrong ideas and they'll come knocking at his door with pitchforks and torches, demanding their wealth back.

[BruceVC]

14 minutes ago, majestic said:

I guess he's worried that if BLM succeeds it will give South Africans the wrong ideas and they'll come knocking at his door with pitchforks and torches, demanding their wealth back.

You got me, you very astute

I am objecting to certain statues being taken down because I fear losing my colonial wealth 

[BruceVC]

20 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

did blm activists kick bruce's dog into oncoming traffic or something similar?  

HA! Good Fun!

Gromnir you know I respect your intellectualism and life journey so if you want to ask me something about my posts just ask me. I am more than happy to engage in a debate if you want?

[BruceVC]

I am having this debate about "should statues be taken down " on Codex and one member raised a very interesting reason why he believes  why some Americans are ostensibly unconcerned with statues being taken down and I would like to know if any US members agree with it or parts of it? It makes sense in certain ways to me but I am not American so I dont know for sure ? He said when I raised this concern and question

 

"I think one reason there is not a very strong reaction against taking down statues in America is that among the people who would be opposed to it, there is a very strong anti-aristocratic, anti-"monarchial" tradition. So it makes it a lot harder to muster arguments of sanctity, a lot of the people who think it's a bad idea in a general sense aren't sacrally offended by it because they have an (often unarticulated) disdain for the idea of authority figures that are put above the ordinary person.

There are still a few people who very strongly oppose it of course, but they are still small in numbers it seems. I think generally there is a lot of underestimation in America of the importance of unifying national myths. A lot of our national unity has been invisible in nature, like asking a fish to notice water, where people just sort of forget it exists, and only when it is gone will they notice its absence. " 

Edited October 21, 2021 by BruceVC

[Amentep]

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

But Jefferson was the same as many  people in that time, he kept slaves but he also played a huge part in the foundation of the USA which nowadays  does not reflect slavery and oppression, the US is much more than that and plays  a very positive role and influence  in the idea of any Constitutional Democracy. So in other words you need to balance what a statue means directly with the historical significance of that persons contribution towards the country 

But Jefferson also was a slave owner who had fathered children with at least one of his slaves* and had very mixed messages about slavery during his political career, fighting for its continuance while also stating he thought it was a bad idea; he ignored Washington's caution against creating political parties, and IIRC was pro-removal of native tribes to take their land for European settlers when he was a Virginia politico.

The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones;

One important thing to consider is, (a) does the community want to continue to celebrate the person (b) is the ability to celebrate the good things possible at this time in light of the bad things? If the answer to either is 'no', then perhaps its time to move the statue to a museum which can, perhaps, offer an education on the complex history of the person and what good an ill they did and allow the community to decide if they want to move the statue to a place of prominence after they've wrestled with the totality of the person's legacy.

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

"I think one reason there is not a very strong reaction against taking down statues in America is that among the people who would be opposed to it, there is a very strong anti-aristocratic, anti-"monarchial" tradition. So it makes it a lot harder to muster arguments of sanctity, a lot of the people who think it's a bad idea in a general sense aren't sacrally offended by it because they have an (often unarticulated) disdain for the idea of authority figures that are put above the ordinary person.

There are still a few people who very strongly oppose it of course, but they are still small in numbers it seems. I think generally there is a lot of underestimation in America of the importance of unifying national myths. A lot of our national unity has been invisible in nature, like asking a fish to notice water, where people just sort of forget it exists, and only when it is gone will they notice its absence. " 

National myths are also where you get justification for things like the Divine Right of Kings, Manifest Destiny, the New South and...well slavery in several cases (the religious justification in the US south was often the same we see in Muslim countries - that it was better for a heathen to be a slave in a Christian/Muslim house where their souls could be saved than to be free, for example) and many other destructive concepts that are taken for granted because the myth is pushed upon the population.  A unifying myth isn't really unifying if it only speaks to a part of the population.  The nice thing about the US is that we have the ability to reassess our myths and decide if we want to hold onto them or not.  We weren't, and aren't forced to worship anyone or anything (despite what some groups may think we should - and fair enough, free speech be upon them).

*Some people do argue, and fair enough, that all the genetic matching does is connect the Hemmings family to a male Jefferson relative - so his brother and nephews could be responsible.  I'm not sure I feel better about Jefferson allowing his family to have sex with his enslaved people than if he did it himself, personally.

[BruceVC]

4 minutes ago, Amentep said:

But Jefferson also was a slave owner who had fathered children with at least one of his slaves* and had very mixed messages about slavery during his political career, fighting for its continuance while also stating he thought it was a bad idea; he ignored Washington's caution against creating political parties, and IIRC was pro-removal of native tribes to take their land for European settlers when he was a Virginia politico.

 

 

One important thing to consider is, (a) does the community want to continue to celebrate the person (b) is the ability to celebrate the good things possible at this time in light of the bad things? If the answer to either is 'no', then perhaps its time to move the statue to a museum which can, perhaps, offer an education on the complex history of the person and what good an ill they did and allow the community to decide if they want to move the statue to a place of prominence after they've wrestled with the totality of the person's legacy.

National myths are also where you get justification for things like the Divine Right of Kings, Manifest Destiny, the New South and...well slavery in several cases (the religious justification in the US south was often the same we see in Muslim countries - that it was better for a heathen to be a slave in a Christian/Muslim house where their souls could be saved than to be free, for example) and many other destructive concepts that are taken for granted because the myth is pushed upon the population.  A unifying myth isn't really unifying if it only speaks to a part of the population.  The nice thing about the US is that we have the ability to reassess our myths and decide if we want to hold onto them or not.  We weren't, and aren't forced to worship anyone or anything (despite what some groups may think we should - and fair enough, free speech be upon them).

*Some people do argue, and fair enough, that all the genetic matching does is connect the Hemmings family to a male Jefferson relative - so his brother and nephews could be responsible.  I'm not sure I feel better about Jefferson allowing his family to have sex with his enslaved people than if he did it himself, personally.

You make some good  points and I particularly enjoyed your response to the question about US myths and slavery

But  just to clarify and ensure my point  is understood about why I dont support taking down of status like Jefferson. Slaver will always be an appalling practice and is also considered as a  crime against humanity and its recognised as such by the UN legal bodies. No one should try to defend this terrible practice

I am not denying  he was  a slave owner. Im saying that cannot be the only part of his life  he is defined as because every statue of basically every famous person anywhere in the world  will have sort of checkered past where they did certain things wrong, Ghandi for example in SA is unfairly and offensively criticized by  a few as a racist and anti-black. I cant think of anything wrong with Mother Teresa so yes some statues their would be exceptions ?

But what you should do with any historical figure is look at their life in totality, the good vs the bad and then reflect on their positive or negative influence in history. Two things can be true at the same time, Jefferson kept slaves and probably was  a racist ( I dont know enough about him to confirm ) but he was also a founding father of  the US

Now if the US was a failed state then their would be no point in statues of Jefferson but its not as we all know. Its the worlds most influential and important country in a positive way and it really gets compared by many, unfairly at times IMO, to the success and  foundation of much of what we follow in any Constitutional Democracy. The US is not  better than other countries as thats subjective but its important and that means people like Jefferson matter as one of the founding fathers

But I wouldnt support statues of Hitler in Germany because Hitler didnt contribute in a positive way to the great and admired country Germany is today

[Amentep]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I am not denying  he was  a slave owner. Im saying that cannot be the only part of his life  he is defined as because every statue of basically every famous person anywhere in the world  will have sort of checkered past where they did certain things wrong, Ghandi for example in SA is unfairly and offensively criticized by  a few as a racist and anti-black. I cant think of anything wrong with Mother Teresa so yes some statues their would be exceptions ?

But what you should do with any historical figure is look at their life in totality, the good vs the bad and then reflect on their positive or negative influence in history. Two things can be true at the same time, Jefferson kept slaves and probably was  a racist ( I dont know enough about him to confirm ) but he was also a founding father of  the US

Now if the US was a failed state then their would be no point in statues of Jefferson but its not as we all know. Its the worlds most influential and important country in a positive way and it really gets compared by many, unfairly at times IMO, to the success and  foundation of much of what we follow in any Constitutional Democracy. The US is not  better than other countries as thats subjective but its important and that means people like Jefferson matter as one of the founding fathers

But I wouldnt support statues of Hitler in Germany because Hitler didnt contribute in a positive way to the great and admired country Germany is today

There are criticisms of Mother Teresa.  The one I remember off the top of my head was that she used her charity to help poor people in India not to truely help them, but the convert them to Christianity.

The community should be able to decide who they want to celebrate; in a time like today, maybe the ability to be objective about a figures good & bad side isn't possible, so isn't it better to allow the community to move a monument aside, provide it with historical and educational context.  As long as the monument isn't destroyed, it can always be restored to a place of celebration if, after wrestling with the totality of a person, they decide that its worth doing.  And perhaps after they've decided on having a wider array of people being celebrated, rather than fixating on deifying a precious few.

[BruceVC]

21 minutes ago, Amentep said:

There are criticisms of Mother Teresa.  The one I remember off the top of my head was that she used her charity to help poor people in India not to truely help them, but the convert them to Christianity.

The community should be able to decide who they want to celebrate; in a time like today, maybe the ability to be objective about a figures good & bad side isn't possible, so isn't it better to allow the community to move a monument aside, provide it with historical and educational context.  As long as the monument isn't destroyed, it can always be restored to a place of celebration if, after wrestling with the totality of a person, they decide that its worth doing.  And perhaps after they've decided on having a wider array of people being celebrated, rather than fixating on deifying a precious few.

Yes, the community should have a voice in this. Is that what happened in NYC, did they do a vote or referendum?

[Amentep]

7 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Yes, the community should have a voice in this. Is that what happened in NYC, did they do a vote or referendum?

It was by vote of the Public Design Commission to relocate the statue to a museum.

As New York City’s design review agency, the Public Design Commission (PDC) has jurisdiction over permanent structures, landscape architecture, and art proposed on or over City-owned property. The mission of the PDC is to advocate for innovative, sustainable, and equitable design of public spaces and civic structures, with a goal of improving the public realm and therefore related services for all New Yorkers throughout the five boroughs.

The Commission is made up of 11 members who serve pro bono and meet once per month to review and vote on projects submitted by City agencies. Members include an architect, landscape architect, painter, sculptor, and three lay members, as well as representatives of the Brooklyn Museum, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York Public Library, and the Mayor. The PDC staff assists the Commission members in their duties and guides submitting agencies through the design review process.

So, they are the community's representation regarding city owned spaces.

[BruceVC]

12 minutes ago, Amentep said:

It was by vote of the Public Design Commission to relocate the statue to a museum.

 

 

Thanks for posting that because that is what I thought, the PDC made that decision and they 11 people. They not the residents of NYC who should have been able decide through an optional referendum or something similar

Because you 100 % right, the community needs to decide but where realistic so I dont expect the PDC of any city to have to do referendums for the running of the numerous tasks and decisions required to run a city as busy as NYC  but this is too important and emotional to just act without considering what the residents of NYC think

What would  you personally feel if they arranged  a referendum fpr the question " should we take down the Jefferson statue" and 62% of NYC citizens said No and 38% said yes ? Wouldnt you agree then it shouldnt be taken down because the community has spoken in the normal Demcratic way by voting ?

 

[Guard Dog]

I’ve been watching interest rates in the United States very closely. Over the last six months they are starting to trend upwards. Interbank rates are of course leading the way. I know this is something the Biden administration does not want to happen because it will have a negative short term impact with the election next year. But with inflation already in double digits and creeping higher this had to happen. Plus I will admit it would ease my mind greatly if one House of Congress changes hands. I don’t care which one.

as a man with real estate to sell however this is making me very nervous. The difference between selling with mortgage rates below 3% and over 3% is substantial. I have a very important decision to make and I’m going to have to make it sooner than I would like.
 

 

Edited October 21, 2021 by Guard Dog
Speech to text screwed me

[Amentep]

39 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Thanks for posting that because that is what I thought, the PDC made that decision and they 11 people. They not the residents of NYC who should have been able decide through an optional referendum or something similar

By that logic, no decision for government should be made without a referendum.  The point of governmental committees is that not everything needs to be a referendum.  IF the people are upset about the decision of the committee, they can make their voices heard in the polls by electing officials who would convene a new PDC who would, theoretically, review the decision.

[ShadySands]

27 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Plus I will admit it would ease my mind greatly if one House of Congress changes hands. I don’t care which one.

I'd be very surprised if the Dems held the Senate. I hope they do but right now I'd bet all my shinies against it between them not getting much done, normal midterm blowback, and Republicans killing the voter suppression game.

 

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, Amentep said:

By that logic, no decision for government should be made without a referendum.  The point of governmental committees is that not everything needs to be a referendum.  IF the people are upset about the decision of the committee, they can make their voices heard in the polls by electing officials who would convene a new PDC who would, theoretically, review the decision.

I respect that view but its not convincing enough  and I wouldnt be happy if I was  NYC resident with that  response from the PDC or mayor 

As I mentioned I am not suggesting referendums for the majority of rules and new laws but this is important and should be about the community deciding through a referendum type approach. It can be done and many countries implement referendums so I have  no reason to believe elected officials of NYC cant do it?

[Amentep]

6 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

I respect that view but its not convincing enough  and I wouldnt be happy if I was  NYC resident with that  response from the PDC or mayor 

As I mentioned I am not suggesting referendums for the majority of rules and new laws but this is important and should be about the community deciding through a referendum type approach. It can be done and many countries implement referendums so I have  no reason to believe elected officials of NYC cant do it?

Did they do a referendum before they put it up?  And if not, why do they need one to take it down?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

45 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

I'd be very surprised if the Dems held the Senate. I hope they do but right now I'd bet all my shinies against it between them not getting much done, normal midterm blowback, and Republicans killing the voter suppression game.

 

I think it's hard to say, I could honestly see them losing the house more than the Senate. If I'm not mistaken, of the 34 seats up for grabs Republicans have 20 to the Democrat 14. So maybe the Democrats defend those seats. With the voter suppression and gerrymandering though, I think we'll see less D seats in general so hanging on the the house is going to be a bit more difficult. It's a year away and who knows what could happen then?

[HoonDing]

Abolish all statues except for Holy Mary and topless ancient goddesses.

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Amentep said:

There are criticisms of Mother Teresa.  The one I remember off the top of my head was that she used her charity to help poor people in India not to truely help them, but the convert them to Christianity.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2003/10/the-fanatic-fraudulent-mother-teresa.html

Hitch-slapped.