Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[Gaidin]

My feeling on this is that it should be equal across the board, if your removing statues because of bad behavior(yes I realize the redeeming value of those of Washington, Jefferson, etc.), remove all that had bad behavior(excepting redeeming values apparently).

It’s impossible for it to work that way. They only have control of statues and monuments on their property.

[irontaino]

When did Malcolm X lead a massacre of white people? When did X lead terrorists on a campaign against newly enfranchised people? When did X have a career in trading slaves? Again, reaching really hard for a false equivalence there.

[Heathen Hammer]

The ironic part is that same division that Lee was talking about is now being brought back by the "progressive open-minded" folks who foam from their mouths at a mere sight of Confederate flags and other symbols. This has nothing to do with "protecting minorities", it is more about erasing local heritage and culture.

When did Malcolm X lead a massacre of white people? When did X lead terrorists on a campaign against newly enfranchised people? When did X have a career in trading slaves? Again, reaching really hard for a false equivalence there.

Malcolm X was just less "successful" as a violent movement leader, but he wasn't better then Forrest in terms of ideology, which of course you will reply with some easily predictable "progressive" argument about how it is okay to be racist against white people, therefore Malcolm X was better or something like that.

[irontaino]

Malcolm X was just less "successful" as a violent movement leader, but he wasn't better then Forrest in terms of ideology,

So surely you can provide examples of Malcolm X advocating for slavery and terrorism against white people the likes of which NBF committed. His views on black separatism and supremacy were indeed repugnant, but not on the same caliber as NBF, or the Confederacy that only existed so some rich people could keep their slaves.

which of course you will reply with some easily predictable "progressive" argument about how it is okay to be racist against white people, therefore Malcolm X was better or something like that.

Care to provide an example of me doing this?

[Heathen Hammer]

So surely you can provide examples of Malcolm X advocating for slavery and terrorism against white people the likes of which NBF committed. His views on black separatism and supremacy were indeed repugnant, but not on the same caliber as NBF, or the Confederacy that only existed so some rich people could keep their slaves.

They lived a century apart from each other, but truth is they were quite similar, with context in mind, only difference was that Malcom X was worse at putting his ideas to practice, thankfully. Saying that slavery was the reason why Confederacy happened is like saying that WW1 happened because Franz Ferdinand was assassinated, you are confusing official cause with underlying reasons. American Civil War was a result of variety of complex factors and even Lincoln admitted that if he could allow slavery to avoid Confederate secession, he would. And if he did, that wouldn't negate other factors that led to the war - such as ongoing "Cold War" with UK, industrialization, etc.


Care to provide an example of this?[/QUOTE]

[Aexodus]

It is a false equivalence, Malcolm X and General Lee lived 100 years apart, they aren't beholden to the same moral standards.

[Elfdude]

That's a terrible assumption based on out of context statements.

[Frostwulf]

When did Malcolm X lead a massacre of white people? When did X lead terrorists on a campaign against newly enfranchised people? When did X have a career in trading slaves? Again, reaching really hard for a false equivalence there.

It’s not a false equivalence, it’s a matter of degree. I should have made my point clearer. Pontifex Maximus mentioned that Forrest should be stricken from the “record” (understandably so), my point is what is the criteria for such things to happen. Malcolm X whom I would agree isn’t as egregious as Forrest still was repugnant in a lot of his earlier views. Would he be exempted from removal or does he meet the threshold of removal. And if he does/doesn’t how is that determined? That is what I was asking about.

It’s impossible for it to work that way. They only have control of statues and monuments on their property.

I understand that, but if the government is removing statues from government property of CSA, racist’s and slave owners, shouldn’t they also remove statues of rapists and murderers? If a University has removed a statue wouldn’t you think they would have the moral fortitude to do the same, though certainly not required to do so?

[irontaino]

It’s not a false equivalence, it’s a matter of degree. I should have made my point clearer. Pontifex Maximus mentioned that Forrest should be stricken from the “record” (understandably so), my point is what is the criteria for such things to happen. Malcolm X whom I would agree isn’t as egregious as Forrest still was repugnant in a lot of his earlier views. Would he be exempted from removal or does he meet the threshold of removal. And if he does/doesn’t how is that determined? That is what I was asking about.

I would say context is key here. As repugnant as Malcolm X's early views were, they arose from the (perfectly justified) anger of lack of civil rights and later black Americans being shipped off to kill rice farmers in Vietnam while at home, they were being hosed, beaten, arrested. And had dogs sicked on them for demanding their rights and being lynched. Nathan Bedford Forrest's views and actions came from anger at white supremacist power structures being challenged.

[Heathen Hammer]

delete this

[irontaino]

There was no such thing as "white supremacist power structure". Its an imaginary term, pretty much the leftist equivalent of belief in Protocols of Elders of Zion.

Ah yes, no white supremacist power structure in the country where photos of lynched black corpses surrounded by smiling white revelers became popular as postcards in white America. Edit: embed not working properly on those pics for whatever reason and they're highly NSFW, so I'll leave their source here.


Obviously no white supremacist power structure in the country where we're not even a generation removed from Jim Crow. Hell, we're not even a generation removed from when Native Americans gained religious freedom

We can even look at your own country, where the government does literally nothing about thousands of missing and murdered indigenous women, most of them victimized by non-indigenous men. Where starlight tours were/are a thing. But sure...no white supremacist power structures exist says the guy who likes to claim that racism is over because a piece of paper was signed.

Again, the only difference between Malcolm X and Forrest is former's better organizational ability to implement his ideas. If you want to look at far more effective implementation of such ideas then look no further then current Zimbabwe and South Africa, where local regimes allow non-Africans to be persecuted and targeted with violence.

As The Spartan has pointed out: you're really reaching for a comparison. It's like claiming that Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter is akin to Aktion T4

[The spartan]

Are we really comparing inflammatory rhetoric to literally preserving slavery? I am not entirely convinced this isn't a bad British comedy skit.

[irontaino]

Uh oh, you said the S word. Muh state's right's!

[Frostwulf]

I would say context is key here. As repugnant as Malcolm X's early views were, they arose from the (perfectly justified) anger of lack of civil rights and later black Americans being shipped off to kill rice farmers in Vietnam while at home, they were being hosed, beaten, arrested. And had dogs sicked on them for demanding their rights and being lynched. Nathan Bedford Forrest's views and actions came from anger at white supremacist power structures being challenged.

Racism is never justified! To hate because of someone’s skin color can certainly be understandable as in the case of many in the U.S. (Malcolm X). But someone you don’t know and you hate them because of their skin color is never acceptable.
The rest of my response is put together with The spartan.

Are we really comparing inflammatory rhetoric to literally preserving slavery? I am not entirely convinced this isn't a bad British comedy skit.

I’m obviously failing in my explanation therefore I will cut to the quick on what this is supposed to be about, what is the criteria for removing statues. Can either of you answer that? Would you remove statues of those that endorsed slavery? What of racism? Those that committed rape or murder?

[Aexodus]

A monument to mark the civil war =/= monument to glorify racism

[The spartan]

I’m obviously failing in my explanation therefore I will cut to the quick on what this is supposed to be about, what is the criteria for removing statues. Can either of you answer that?

Yes; statues should be removed if the citizenry who have the rights to the statue (the public ground it is on) go through their proper legal channels to do so. This isn't something that needs to be dragged in front of the Supreme Court. A statue is an expression of public sentiment, if anything. Citizens are allowed to have a voice on what sentiments represent them.

[mishkin]

Repeating the same idea, refuted again and again, you will not "win" a debate.

[Aexodus]

Repeating the same idea, refuted again and again, you will not "win" a debate.

Fair point. Let me elaborate.

I don't believe these statues were put in place as monuments to racism. I believe they were put there in the years following the civil war, and at the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the civil war, to commemorate it. Remembering someone for their part in history is not the same as glorifying and endorsing everything they did. Everyone, everyone has something dirty in their past. They shouldn't be simply thrown to the wayside from the public eye because of it. A statue of Thomas Jefferson is not an approval of his 500 slaves. Equally, a statue of Robert Lee is not an endorsement of slavery, in my view. If the South hadn't been allowed to put up statues of fallen generals, is that not akin to it being simply conquered by the Union? Rather than, being welcomed back into the USA. They were built as a way for people whose ancestors fought in the war to reconcile, it was hard for people to accept it was an ignoble cause.

[mishkin]

Fair point. Let me elaborate.

Why do you elaborate if it was a fair point? What you have said has been refuted several times, It does not matter if you say it with ten words or with a hundred.

[Aexodus]

When did the purpose of confederate statues change from being commemorative