Confederate Statues, Liberalism, Moral Relativism and White Supremacists

[NorseThing]

I hate to sink into moral relativism here of all threads. The antifa whatever and whomever they be should not be equated with their masked mob action and rioting acts as domestic terrorism. At least not in the same sense that a bomb in a subway or a mass shooting is considered a terrorist act.

[RubiconDecision]

When the right refuses to bake cakes for homosexuals then the Left demonizes us as monsters with every malevolent act out of Hannibal Lector. And this over baking cakes.

When the Left actively is assaulting citizens and LEOs, destroying public property, rioting, trashing private property, demolishing statues, etc then that results in a big zip. How Bizarre.

Who is the greater threat to the American Republic?

When wanton violence and mayhem is going on, let's use the distraction of Confederate statues and injustice over slavery of all things be paramount.

[IronBrig4]

Are you playing the conspiracy card?

And what's BAMM? I did a search and I just see an online book store, a Bay Area company, and "beat ass mullet mom" from Urban Dictionary.

Edit: And which group actually murdered someone at the rally?

[RubiconDecision]

Are you playing the conspiracy card?

And what's BAMM? I did a search and I just see an online book store, a Bay Area company, and "beat ass mullet mom" from Urban Dictionary.

Edit: And which group actually murdered someone at the rally?

What conspiracy???

BAMN is a similar group as Antifa except BAMN actually has ties to NAMBLA.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/28/do...-group-nambla/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/BAMN

The Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary, commonly shortened to By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), is an American left-wing militant^[1] group that organizes protests and litigation to achieve its aims.

Antifa murdered at least one person at the Berkley riots. They were stabbed to death. They encourage their members to carry short bladed knives that can easily be concealed.
They have been investigated for domestic terrorism.

See:
http://ktla.com/2017/08/19/unmasking...ough-violence/
It discusses the violent tactics of these black bloc groups.

[IronBrig4]

What conspiracy???

That academics, including historians, are "leftists" who are somehow in cahoots with agitators so they can destroy all that is good and pure in traditional Norman Rockwellian America and usher in a New World Order before the Rapture. I was raised Southern Baptist so I know all those conspiracy theories. That's why I'm glad to not be Baptist anymore. All that anxiety required to maintain a persecution complex is utterly exhausting.

BAMN is a similar group as Antifa except BAMN actually has ties to NAMBLA.

Oh, I read it BAMM. What does that group have to do with Confederate statues?

Antifa murdered at least one person at the Berkley riots. They were stabbed to death. They encourage their members to carry short bladed knives that can easily be concealed.
They have been investigated for domestic terrorism.

There were no dead at the Berkeley riots. There was a non-fatal stabbing.

See:
http://ktla.com/2017/08/19/unmasking...ough-violence/
It discusses the violent tactics of these black bloc groups.

Political violence is disturbing and it's being dealt with. Violent groups are being investigated. And the alt-right groups are probably thoroughly infiltrated with undercover FBI agents by now.

[Frostwulf]

It's not the same situation with the Confederacy. Again...they betrayed their country, their friends, and their principles. Do I need to post the picture again?

I used to call the confederate flag a traitors flag (though it was mostly to get the goat of my southern friends), but after this controversy I'm not so sure. The Southern succession may not have been illegal. Prior to 1869 there were discussions about states rights and some different views. A more modern view:

Donald Livingston has written that the Founders themselves held that "the states were republics, but the central government was not," and as such maintained the right to reclaim their sovereignty from "a central government limited to foreign affairs, declaring war, and regulating commerce."

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.^[54] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.^[55] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.^[54] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.^[56] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.^[57] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.^[55][58]

Texas v. White^[57] was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court's decision, on April 15, 1869.^[59] Australian Professors Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic write:

Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states." In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.^[60]

However, the Court's decision recognized some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States".^[60][61]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secess..._United_States
The link below is another analysis of the situation:
http://www.theamericanconservative.c...cession-legal/

And I'm sick of repeating myself, but it's not erasing history just to have a monument moved to a more suitable location. The largest professional organization of US historians has come out and said the monuments were put up in a deliberate attempt to impose upon the local black populations.

Whats bothersome is there is no talk of how they came to that conclusion. Where is it written that the purpose of these statues were to impose on the black population? I'm not saying it's not possible, but is this supposition or do they (AHA) have direct proof of this?

Decisions to remove memorials to Confederate generals and officials who have no other major historical accomplishment does not necessarily create a slippery slope towards removing the nation’s founders, former presidents, or other historical figures whose flaws have received substantial publicity in recent years. George Washington owned enslaved people, but the Washington Monument exists because of his contributions to the building of a nation. There is no logical equivalence between the builders and protectors of a nation—however imperfect—and the men who sought to sunder that nation in the name of slavery. There will be, and should be, debate about other people and events honored in our civic spaces. And precedents do matter. But so does historical specificity, and in this case the invocation of flawed analogies should not derail legitimate policy conversation.

This:
http://tribunist.com/news/pastor-cal...n-parks-video/
And this:
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/08...erson-statues/
Perhaps this:
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2017/...ton-monuments/
As the saying goes, "nothing to see here, move along, move along". Once the confederate statues are gone, off go Washington and Jefferson, of course that would never happen, right?

@Gen. Chris and IronBrig4
I'm sure you will join me on insisting that those who warred upon the US and killed and mutilated civilians, they should have their statues removed. The likes of Sitting Bull, Red Cloud and etc. should be removed as while they cannot be called traitors we can call them enemies of the state who murdered innocent people. You agree right?

[IronBrig4]

Whats bothersome is there is no talk of how they came to that conclusion. Where is it written that the purpose of these statues were to impose on the black population? I'm not saying it's not possible, but is this supposition or do they (AHA) have direct proof of this?

Yes, through many scholarly articles that you can find. You can also find dozens of articles and interviews (linked from that page) where they back up their statements. Anyways, the AHA statement wasn't "Eureka! We've just found that Confederate monuments were meant to intimidate blacks!" It was more like "historians have always known these monuments were meant to do that."

So the largest professional historian organization in the US publishes a statement against the monuments. And that statement is endorsed by dozens more historical associations. And all you can ask is where's the proof?

As the saying goes, "nothing to see here, move along, move along". Once the confederate statues are gone, off go Washington and Jefferson, of course that would never happen, right?

You know The Blaze is a conspiracy site, right? And yes, it's just the slippery slope fallacy again. You'll always find someone spouting off about removing the Jefferson Memorial, but their words hold no weight. The same historians you dismissed will defend those monuments because the figures they memorialize are much more ambiguous.

@Gen. Chris and IronBrig4
I'm sure you will join me on insisting that those who warred upon the US and killed and mutilated civilians, they should have their statues removed. The likes of Sitting Bull, Red Cloud and etc. should be removed as while they cannot be called traitors we can call them enemies of the state who murdered innocent people. You agree right?

The Plains Indians weren't Americans until after subjugation, so no betrayal. And their descendants did not commit terrorism for the next hundred years in their memory.

The Confederate states were never recognized as anything more than states in revolt, so there was definite betrayal there. And Confederates' descendants gleefully formed lynch mobs for the next century.

PS - Donald Livingston is not a good source. He's a neo-Confederate, not a historian. In fact, his degree is in philosophy.

[RubiconDecision]

What is this fascination with the relatively minor but obnoxious alt-right of which a tiny subset are white nationalists?

Are you as concerned with black nationalists?

It's clear that academia is utterly leftist. That is indisputable.

There have already been Confederate statues destroyed by black bloc groups.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Byst4aLEFYI
I like how you blithely ignore the documentable leftist mayhem but worry about the white nationalists who make up nearly no violence.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8QLT6tFWU

[The spartan]

It's clear that academia is utterly leftist. That is indisputable.

It's always nice when people try to politicize knowledge. 'Learning' is a leftist agenda, now.

[Cope]

It's always nice when people try to politicize knowledge. 'Learning' is a leftist agenda, now.

There has been a dramatic decline in the number of conservative professors in US academic institutions since the 1960's - particularly in the humanities. This report provides a pretty basic overview. It found that registered Democratic voters outnumbered registered Republican voters by an average of 33:1 in history departments across 40 US. universities.

Under such circumstances, no one should be surprised that many conservatives don't trust humanity faculties - and I say that as a history graduate.

[RubiconDecision]

There has been a dramatic decline in the number of conservative professors in US academic institutions since the 1960's - particularly in the humanities. This report provides a pretty basic overview. It found that registered Democratic voters outnumbered registered Republican voters by an average of 33:1 in history departments across 40 US. universities.

Under such circumstances, no one should be surprised that many conservatives don't trust humanity faculties - and I say that as a history graduate.

This guy gets it!

It's not that graduate education is leftist, nor professors should be, but systemic discrimination of those on the right has resulted in nearly no tenured professors who are conservatives.

How about them apples!

See this editorial about the four studies on the dearth of conservatives in tenured positions in academia.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/o...tolerance.html

[Cope]

This guy gets it!

It's not that graduate education is leftist, nor professors should be, but systemic discrimination of those on the right has resulted in nearly no tenured professors who are conservatives.

How about them apples!

Why the disparity exists is a different question entirely. It's easy to jump to the "systemic discrimination" conclusion, but right wing thinkers have traditionally cautioned against explaining away such disparities on that basis. Economists like Sorwell, whilst acknowledging the existence of discriminatory practices, have tended to maintain that demographic imbalances within certain fields are not typically caused by institutional favouritism. They've also often argued that said imbalances are not necessarily problems and that the affirmative action solutions exist only to satisfy the arbitrary need to have the world in a form of demographic balance.

[The spartan]

There has been a dramatic decline in the number of conservative professors in US academic institutions since the 1960's - particularly in the humanities. This report provides a pretty basic overview. It found that registered Democratic voters outnumbered registered Republican voters by an average of 33:1 in history departments across 40 US. universities.

Under such circumstances, no one should be surprised that many conservatives don't trust humanity faculties - and I say that as a history graduate.

But that is a weak argument to make as it doesn't actually point to bias, just that people are expecting it implicitly. What's more is that that seems directed more at the 'soft sciences' when a a good portion of the most socially decisive issues are from the hard STEM sciences. Climate change is one of the biggest, but also evolution and (to some extent) abortion.

[Cope]

But that is a weak argument to make as it doesn't actually point to bias, just that people are expecting it implicitly.

I'm usually hesitant to claim discrimination in cases where a political/intellectual imbalance exists. However, the figures being so skewed against conservatives strongly suggests that an institutional bias does exist: to reiterate its not a 60/40 or 70/30 difference, it's 33:1 in favour of registered Democrats.

As I mentioned to IronBrig, this does not mean that academic material emanating from liberal dominated historical faculties is redundant by virtue of its intellectual origin. Instead the figures indirectly suggest that the overwhelming majority of the research commissioned by these departments is being influenced, either subconsciously or deliberately, by a limited set of ideological frameworks.

What's more is that that seems directed more at the 'soft sciences' when a a good portion of the most socially decisive issues are from the hard STEM sciences. Climate change is one of the biggest, but also evolution and (to some extent) abortion.

There is a lack of political diversity in STEM fields. PEW data from 2009 suggests that 55% of scientists identified as Democrats whilst only 6% identified as Republican. It also found that 52% considered themselves to be liberal but only 9% considered themselves to be conservative. The American Sociological Review published a paper in 2010 in which it noted a steady but dramatic decline in conservative trust in STEM research since the 1970's.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The image above presents the information in graph form. What's interesting is that if you go back to the 1960's and early 1970's conservatives actually trusted scientific findings more than liberals did. There are many reasons for this, but there is a clear correlation between the decline of the number of conservative STEM scholars and the declining trust in science experienced by conservatives.

[RubiconDecision]

Well there was a huge number of leftists who didn't want to go to Vietnam and so a huge jump in graduate school students. I would bet a lot of them ended teaching. It's a product of student deferment.

Oh there is no doubt that discrimination has caused this. There are several professors interviewed about the phenomena. Being conservative is an automatic way to be eliminated from consideration.

And with publish or perish, a massive bias in academic journals and and then academics books. All of which then influences the entire education process and you have this giant elephant in the room that screams BIAS.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rvatives-12-1/
12 liberals to every conservative in academia in this article. Some reports in some departments state 2% conservatives. I think in history which is why I made the snarky post.

It's bad enough that it's massively expensive and yet so many part-time professors are teaching.

[Cope]

Well there was a huge number of leftists who didn't want to go to Vietnam and so a huge jump in graduate school students. I would bet a lot of them ended teaching. It's a product of student deferment.

Oh there is no doubt that discrimination has caused this. There are several professors interviewed about the phenomena. Being conservative is an automatic way to be eliminated from consideration.

And with publish or perish, a massive bias in academic journals and and then academics books. All of which then influences the entire education process and you have this giant elephant in the room that screams BIAS.

It's bad enough that it's massively expensive and yet so many part-time professors are teaching.

We can discuss the causes of liberal over representation in academia elsewhere. Within the context of this thread, what matters is how the liberal-conservative disparity affects popular trust in academia and how that trust (or lack thereof) influences the debate surrounding the Confederate monuments. In 2010 The American Sociological Review conducted research into the "politicization of science" in which it attempted to "explore time trends in public trust in science". Many of its findings, even though relating to STEM research, are broadly applicable to this debate.

[IronBrig4]

It's not necessarily due to discrimination. The fact is a lot of conservatives are simply not interested in pursuing a doctorate in a humanities field. It's the same reason why you don't find many Young Earth creationists in astronomy.

Over the course of studying history, a history grad student learns enough to question many key beliefs that Americans are raised with. History is ugly, harsh, and full of terrible things happening to people. If a history book makes you feel good, then you're reading the wrong kind of history. They learn that there was no such thing as the "good old days" and the traditional America never existed. And even if it did, then it wasn't that great. Most social conservatives I know are terribly uncomfortable with that.

I'm teaching modern world history this semester and my students are reading Destruction of the Indies. The descriptions of those massacres can make anyone's skin crawl. And my modern US history class is just finishing with the Gilded Age. Gotta love reading The Jungle right after breakfast.

[RubiconDecision]

It's not necessarily due to discrimination. The fact is a lot of conservatives are simply not interested in pursuing a doctorate in a humanities field. It's the same reason why you don't find many Young Earth creationists in astronomy.

Over the course of studying history, a history grad student learns enough to question many key beliefs that Americans are raised with. History is ugly, harsh, and full of terrible things happening to people. If a history book makes you feel good, then you're reading the wrong kind of history. They learn that there was no such thing as the "good old days" and the traditional America never existed. And even if it did, then it wasn't that great. Most social conservatives I know are terribly uncomfortable with that.

I'm teaching modern world history this semester and my students are reading Destruction of the Indies. The descriptions of those massacres can make anyone's skin crawl. And my modern US history class is just finishing with the Gilded Age. Gotta love reading The Jungle right after breakfast.

What a load of manure. Most Christians are not Creationists. Even in many evangelical churches it is not a litmus test of membership.

I find your answer to be smug and ridiculous and detached from reality. It is as if you presume Christians don't read Sinclair's The Jungle when it was frequently read in high school.

Growing up, I knew a tiny handful of students who were Creationists. That said I knew a ton who believed in Intelligent Design because it frankly was the most common idea once that an intelligent designer began the universe.

Only an atheist pretends that his belief is not equally faith based, because it is more illogical that nothing created everything.

Even basic philosophy discuss a Prime Mover and understands the fallacy of infinite regress!

[Cope]

It's not necessarily due to discrimination. The fact is a lot of conservatives are simply not interested in pursuing a doctorate in a humanities field. It's the same reason why you don't find many Young Earth creationists in astronomy.

This fails to explain the decrease of conservative representation in humanitarian and scientific fields over time. The insinuation that conservatives are inherently adverse to the study of history, for instance, is an obvious fallacy and is demonstrative of your own internalized bias.

Over the course of studying history, a history grad student learns enough to question many key beliefs that Americans are raised with. History is ugly, harsh, and full of terrible things happening to people. If a history book makes you feel good, then you're reading the wrong kind of history. They learn that there was no such thing as the "good old days" and the traditional America never existed. And even if it did, then it wasn't that great. Most social conservatives I know are terribly uncomfortable with that.

Anecdotal evidence isn't going to cut it. Unless humanitarian faculties start acknowledging that the disparity between liberal and conservative academics in their departments is unhealthy and results in widespread distrust of their research then many people will continue dismissing their findings - and with good reason. After all, as a historian you should know first that the source of information is often as important as the information itself and second that a lack of intellectual diversity dramatically reduces the scrutiny applied to academic works, which in turn reduces its value.

[IronBrig4]

I think you misread my post. I didn't say Christians were creationists. In fact, I didn't mention Christians at all. I just said that conservatives tend to avoid getting a PhD in humanities for the same reason that creationists tend to avoid astronomy; they will end up questioning their own beliefs.

I asked my students how many of them had read The Jungle. And I saw... one hand.

Are you a born-again Christian by any chance? This isn't intended as an insult but I've observed that born-agains have a massive persecution complex.