Racial Tension in the U.S.

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

It has zero relevancy to you. It's quite obvious that's not the case for those asking for their removal.

In other words as long as someone has a problem with something they should get their way and everyone else can kick rocks.

Sounds reasonable.

 

[gourimoko]

In other words as long as someone has a problem with something they should get their way and everyone else can kick rocks.

Sounds reasonable.

It isn't as though these aren't (directly) democratically elected city councils and directly elected mayors making these decisions within the public space. And in private spaces, wouldn't that be the purview of whatever body administers said space?

So.. given the vast majority of these removals are happening within that context; yes, it seems pretty reasonable, don't you agree?

 

[Huber.]

Kudos to Jim Brown, Lebron, and some of the others speaking out recently. I appreciate their message, I think they're speaking their mind and their hearts in a (generally) unifying way.

Did Jim Brown throw another female off a balcony in the name of equality?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I'm obviously not black so I don't know how it feels to walk by statues of Civil War heroes and the right call may be to put these in museums.

But @King Stannis, if I understand the Civil War correctly...Robert E Lee could have easily been a Union General or other high ranking officer, yes? And chose not to be one simply because of his sentiment, as that of many other people then, that states came before country and that they should be allowed to secede if they chose to do so.

And that THIS- the rights of a state to secede if they chose to do so- was what the Civil War was about more than slavery. That the abolition of slavery was a secondary (maybe even tertiary) effect of the Confederacy losing the Civil War.

If I'm understanding this correctly (may not be), Robert E Lee was not the terrible person he has been rewritten to be at all.

Help me on this one please before I develop an argument further. I flat out don't trust the information out there at the moment and don't feel like reading a book on him.

There are people still arguing the point you raised more than 150 years after the war.

My personal belief is that while the cause of state secession, in the abstract, was not inherently ignoble (and may even have been correct), the institution of slavery destroyed any moral case the South may otherwise have had. As far as I'm concerned, the North would have been morally entitled to invade the South to end slavery even if they were actually two separate countries.

Nothing -- not national borders, or even a Constitution, can eliminate the moral right to free any other person in bondage, by lethal force if necessary.

 

[-Akronite-]

It has zero relevancy.

False. Much of the current national discussion is about the value, negative and positive, of monuments to leaders of the rebellion during this war.

If you mean it's not relevant to modern life, also false. The end of slavery and Southern reconstruction led to the Jim Crow era and the Civil Rights Movement which are all highly relevant to what's going on today. If you think the current state of black Americans has nothing to do with the war and the way they've been treated since, both within and outside the confines of law, you're being ignorant.

I've visited several monuments and statues throughout my life that represented both good and bad. I've always viewed them in a historical context as many others do. History is interesting to a lot of people.

Neat? We're not talking about history like we're a bunch of buffs gabbing about our hobby. We're discussing the circumstances of the war, the history of these monuments themselves, and the effects this has on modern race relations.

I grew up in the south and I've never heard a Southerner say slavery was a good thing.

This misses the point so completely it's almost impressive.

This shit hasn't been an issue for decades upon decades until now.

This is not true. Maybe you're just hearing about it now. Did you think black people were peachy keen with it when these statues went up? No, but they were busy trying not to get lynched at the time.

We are so inundated with emotional ideas through the internet and media that we've become emotionally volatile toward anything and everything.

It's going to bite us in the ass one of these days.

How is this relevant to any of the facts that people have brought up? I don't see anybody getting hysterical in here over the Civil War or these monuments, we're just having a discussion on their merits and detriments.

 

[Kyrie4MVP0202]

It isn't as though these aren't (directly) democratically elected city councils and directly elected mayors making these decisions within the public space. And in private spaces, wouldn't that be the purview of whatever body administers said space?

So.. given the vast majority of these removals are happening within that context; yes, it seems pretty reasonable, don't you agree?

My argument isn't based on whether public officials should take them down or not. It's the source from which those ideas came from and the agendas attached to them.

The public pressure is coming from people who say these statues "represent ______" when in reality they are historical in nature. They are not monuments admired by white people because it reminds us of how great slavery was.

 

[Nathan S]

My argument isn't based on whether public officials should take them down or not. It's the source from which those ideas came from and the agendas attached to them.

The public pressure is coming from people who say these statues "represent ______" when in reality they are historical in nature. They are not monuments admired by white people because it reminds us of how great slavery was.

In case you're not aware, a big part of the problem with the statues is that (in most cases) they were not built right after the war by people memorializing the bloodshed, but several decades later by white supremacists seeking to glorify the confederacy and glorify racism.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Connecting back to the BLM topic though:

It seems like the government's attitude toward struggling rural (and largely white) communities is "oh no, 'real America' is dying, we need to do something to help these poor blue-collar Americans break out of the cycle of poverty......Making inner city communities great should be just as much of a priority as making rural communities great, i.e., black lives matter.

It seems like you're under the impression that the government didn't care when it was black people in poverty, and that people only paid attention recently because of these poor blue-collar white people. So I have to ask...did you miss the entire history of this country since the 60's?

While American manufacturing, mining, and all those jobs formerly performed in those now-struggling "rural (and largely white) communities" was still booming, the government that you apparently believe was doing nothing started the Great Society/War on Poverty that disproportionately benefitted minorities, including blacks. The programs changed over time but still remained in other forms, including CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) which was in effect for most of the 70's, then the Job Training Partnership Act, etc. Reagan and conservatives like Jack Kemp pushed urban "Enterprise Zones" of reduced taxes and a more business friendly-climate to try to bring more jobs into impoverished inner cities, which again would have disproportionately benefitted minorities.

It's really strange how much modern political/social narratives can leave people with completely flawed perspectives on actual history. Trying to get more jobs for poor black Americans has been a consistent focus of every Presidential Administration I can remember -- it isn't something that only self-congratulatory white liberals or black activists talked about. And the idea that nobody cared about the poor until we're talking about modern blue collar whites is just...ignorant.

 

[David.]

I think k they should be removed. Can anyone provide a good counter argument?

Even if it's from someone on the left providing a steel man

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

My argument isn't based on whether public officials should take them down or not. It's the source from which those ideas came from and the agendas attached to them.

The public pressure is coming from people who say these statues "represent ______" when in reality they are historical in nature. They are not monuments admired by white people because it reminds us of how great slavery was.

A friend of mine is very active in a local Civil War historical society (Ohioans, so pro-Yankee), and they're all obviously against this because they see it exactly as you do - as simply history.

But on the flip side, I don't think there is a single, objectively correct meaning to attach to those statues, either. And I don't see anything inherently flawed in viewing those statues (other than on battlefields) as a relic of discrimination, and wanting them removed. It is entirely possible for two different groups of people to attach different meanings to the same thing, and both be correct from their own perspective.

I just think that the decision should be made by vote, or by elected representatives, not by self-appointed statue vigilantes.

 

[Nathan S]

It seems like you're under the impression that the government didn't care when it was black people in poverty, and that people only paid attention recently because of these poor blue-collar white people. So I have to ask...did you miss the entire history of this country since the 60's?

While American manufacturing, mining, and all those jobs formerly performed in those now-struggling "rural (and largely white) communities" was still booming, the government that you apparently believe was doing nothing started the Great Society/War on Poverty that disproportionately benefitted minorities, including blacks. The programs changed over time but still remained in other forms, including CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) which was in effect for most of the 70's, then the Job Training Partnership Act, etc. Reagan and conservatives like Jack Kemp pushed urban "Enterprise Zones" of reduced taxes and a more business friendly-climate to try to bring more jobs into impoverished inner cities, which again would have disproportionately benefitted minorities.

It's really strange how much modern political/social narratives can leave people with completely flawed perspectives on actual history. Trying to get more jobs for poor black Americans has been a consistent focus of every Presidential Administration I can remember -- it isn't something that only self-congratulatory white liberals or black activists talked about. And the idea that nobody cared about the poor until we're talking about modern blue collar whites is just...ignorant.

Well, yeah, when poverty was primarily an urban phenomenon, anti-poverty initiatives were mainly centered around urban areas. No surprises there.

I'm obviously talking about the modern day though, where you see the government pushing through legislation to help struggling rural communities (often at the expense of the environment), while struggling urban communities are largely blamed for their own problems.

 

[WellYouNeednt]

It seems like you're under the impression that the government didn't care when it was black people in poverty, and that people only paid attention recently because of these poor blue-collar white people. So I have to ask...did you miss the entire history of this country since the 60's?

While American manufacturing, mining, and all those jobs formerly performed in those now-struggling "rural (and largely white) communities" was still booming, the government that you apparently believe was doing nothing started the Great Society/War on Poverty that disproportionately benefitted minorities, including blacks. The programs changed over time but still remained in other forms, including CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) which was in effect for most of the 70's, then the Job Training Partnership Act, etc. Reagan and conservatives like Jack Kemp pushed urban "Enterprise Zones" of reduced taxes and a more business friendly-climate to try to bring more jobs into impoverished inner cities, which again would have disproportionately benefitted minorities.

It's really strange how much modern political/social narratives can leave people with completely flawed perspectives on actual history. Trying to get more jobs for poor black Americans has been a consistent focus of every Presidential Administration I can remember -- it isn't something that only self-congratulatory white liberals or black activists talked about. And the idea that nobody cared about the poor until we're talking about modern blue collar whites is just...ignorant.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzHd5bmEdU4

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Well, yeah, when poverty was primarily an urban phenomenon, anti-poverty initiatives were mainly centered around urban areas. No surprises there.

Okay, so we're in agreement that the government has cared about poverty among urban black Americans.

I'm obviously talking about the modern day though, where you see the government pushing through legislation to help struggling rural communities (often at the expense of the environment),

But they haven't eliminated those other programs that still benefit urban areas. So new legislation would necessarily focus more on areas that were previously more ignored. I don't see how that supports any inference of discrimination or racial bias.

while struggling urban communities are largely blamed for their own problems.

But...isn't that kind of the same argument @Randolphkeys and others have made about those poor rural (mostly white) communities? That was my point earlier. If the argument is going to be that feeling victimized isn't going to improve your situation in life (with which I agree), then that applies to poor urban blacks no less than it applies to poor rural whites.

 

[Randolphkeys]

But...isn't that kind of the same argument @Randolphkeys and others have made about those poor rural (mostly white) communities? That was my point earlier. If the argument is going to be that feeling victimized isn't going to improve your situation in life (with which I agree), then that applies to poor urban blacks no less than it applies to poor rural whites.

I've got no problem being linked with this idea that victimization is a self-fulfilling mentality. At the same time, I felt some comfort from stories my family told me of finding my own path. I heard stories of ancestors who farmed in the South and struggled in the Restoration Period, eventually taking jobs in the North in steel factories. I heard stories of joining the military to secure the G.I. Bill and going to college. I heard stories of factories in Gary, Indiana and Pittsburgh, PA closing down, so the family moved to Cleveland. I'm sure some families are in a cycle of poverty without those stories. I bet outside forces like having a baby early makes bold moves like I made a lot harder. That said, nothing I've said about shaking things up and breaking a cycle should take away from a shift in our society away from racial prejudice, which is critical and has been far too slow moving.

 

[Nathan S]

Okay, so we're in agreement that the government has cared about poverty among urban black Americans.

Yup

But they haven't eliminated those other programs that still benefit urban areas. So new legislation would necessarily focus more on areas that were previously more ignored. I don't see how that supports any inference of discrimination or racial bias.

30, 40 years later those programs obviously haven't solved the problem. Is the thinking that the current programs are sufficient, they just haven't had enough time? That doesn't sound like a defensible position to me.

But...isn't that kind of the same argument @Randolphkeys and others have made about those poor rural (mostly white) communities? That was my point earlier. If the argument is going to be that feeling victimized isn't going to improve your situation in life (with which I agree), then that applies to poor urban blacks no less than it applies to poor rural whites.

I don't agree with blaming any poor community for their own problems. As I said before, if 50% of the people in a community are living in poverty, I don't think it's fair to say that all those people were just born lacking any drive and ambition and they could be successful if they just got over their victim's mentality.

If a disproportionate number of people in a certain area are struggling, basic statistics says that it's likely not the fault of the individuals, but the fault of their environment. It's the government's job to understand why that community is struggling and help it.