Political Roundtable Part XV

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Dat2U]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

We all know the civil war was about state's rights.

Spoiler:

State's rights to have slavery.

So it's only makes total sense to keep the monuments of these southern heroes who fought to preserve the rights of states in the south.

Spoiler:

'Hereos' who fought and died in the name of preserving the enslavement of entire race of people.

Why would anyone in the world want these monuments the be removed?

[payitforward]

1. "The question... is where are the boundaries and why?" This is completely misleading. There aren't "boundaries" of any kind. That's not how genomes work. We can find some things out about past contact (i.e. interbreeding) with other populations, & there may be some differentiation in that between "German" & "Polish" populations, or not, but there is nothing more we learn -- except that the presence or absence of something may indicate greater or lesser statistical likelihood of contracting one or another illness (or the equivalent). But we don't find two different subspecies with boundaries between them. We may find the same kinds of variations between German populations from Bavaria & German populations from around lets say Rostock or Luebeck.

You just totally undermined your own argument. Racial subdivisions are worthless and unimportant, except when they happen to be useful and important. If two ethnic groups who evolved in relative geographic isolation have different statistical likelihoods of contracting illnesses, what other behavioral, medical or intellectual differences may be statistically evident? How can that help in our understanding of the two groups? How can that help in the way we treat then in medicine, psychology, sociology, education?

No, I didn't. You just aren't picking up on the distinction I'm making. Let me try again.

We know that there are extremely minor, teeny-tiny specific variations at specific points on an individual's genome that affect the statistical likelihood of that individual contracting one or another specific disease. In itself, this is true of any individual.

We also know that different populations have lived w/ little contact w/ one another.

Because an individual's genome is constructed as a copy of its parents' genomes (obviously the process is complex: you have 2 parents but you only get 1 genetic makeup), over time one of those teeny tiny specific variations may start to occur more often in one of those two populations that have little or no contact than it does in the other.

Note how constrained that last point was. That's what the science gives us. No more. It's only when you assume (as you do) that these two populations are two different "racial subdivisions" that you can then conclude that this variation is a defining characteristic, is as it were the "subdivider."

But that's not science; that's racism. It's the opposite of science. & nothing could make it more evident than your conflating the likelihood that an individual in one of these populations may have a genetic variation that increases to some degree the still quite unlikely possibility that individual could get, for example, Epstein-Barr virus with the idea that *the group* (the "racial subdivision" you've just invented) has a higher likelihood, when in fact the group has no characteristic whatsoever in this case -- none, zero, zip -- and your subsequent leap to "other behavioral... or intellectual differences" of "the group."

I like you, nate, & I'm not going to tar you with a name. I don't know why you carry the set of beliefs you carry; I wish you didn't, but in fact it's none of my business.

You're a smart guy, so I know you can follow what I've written above (which is not to say that my exposition is all that clear!). But you may not want to, or you may not think it's worth your time to, or whatever. But, I'm not going to carry on trying to make this clear on an intellectual level, b/c the evidence tells me that you are not engaging with these issues on that level.

It's a given that we can't conclude from the Nazi era that Germans are "genetically" given to violence. It's a given that we can't say anything whatever about the relation of variations on the human genome to the seventy billion neurons of the human brain. It's a given, finally, that even to talk about populations "evolving" in isolation -- when we are looking at periods of a thousand or so years -- is a misuse of the term "evolution" which takes place on a completely different time scale.

[nate33]

No, I didn't. You just aren't picking up on the distinction I'm making. Let me try again.

We know that there are extremely minor, teeny-tiny specific variations at specific points on an individual's genome that affect the statistical likelihood of that individual contracting one or another specific disease. In itself, this is true of any individual.

True

We also know that different populations have lived w/ little contact w/ one another.

True

Because an individual's genome is constructed as a copy of its parents' genomes (obviously the process is complex: you have 2 parents but you only get 1 genetic makeup), over time one of those teeny tiny specific variations may start to occur more often in one of those two populations that have little or no contact than it does in the other.

I'm with you so far

Note how constrained that last point was. That's what the science gives us. No more. It's only when you assume (as you do) that these two populations are two different "racial subdivisions" that you can then conclude that this variation is a defining characteristic, is as it were the "subdivider."

But that's not science; that's racism. It's the opposite of science. & nothing could make it more evident than your conflating the likelihood that an individual in one of these populations may have a genetic variation that increases to some degree the still quite unlikely possibility that individual could get, for example, Epstein-Barr virus with the idea that *the group* (the "racial subdivision" you've just invented) has a higher likelihood, when in fact the group has no characteristic whatsoever in this case -- none, zero, zip -- and your subsequent leap to "other behavioral... or intellectual differences" of "the group."

But you are wrong here. For example, we know of the existence of the “warrior” gene. This gene variant has extremely high correlation with violent behavior. The gene is also statistically more likely to be active in certain "races" than others. That's just one example that has been nailed down by geneticists. For the most part, the impact of genes on behavior is extremely difficult to nail down because so many genes are involved in any type of behavior. There is no single "IQ gene" for example. But the "warrior gene" is one example of how genes affect behavior and that the presence of this gene exists in different frequencies among different races. Surely there are other, more complicated genetic combinations that affect behavior and that these combinations vary by race. Just because we haven't figured out the genetic mechanism doesn't mean we should assume they don't exist. They clearly exist in some cases. Lactose tolerance is another obvious example. I can look at a white Dutchman and know with almost 100% certainty that he is lactose tolerant. I can look at Filipino and be almost 100% certain that he is lactose intolerant. I can make these accurate predictions based solely on "racism".

[nate33]

I find the term slippery slope often gets thrown out as a shield to deflect a bit, and I feel you're doing that here. Zonk has sort of pointed out the issue here.

Zonker has done nothing of the sort. Zonker has merely declared that Confederate symbols can mean one and only one thing: pro-slavery and pro-black oppression. I disagree. And I think most in the former confederate states would disagree. Just because the great Zonker labels them racists, doesn't make it so.

So rather than addressing the valid points I raise you call me names and engage in ad hominem attacks. I win the argument yay!

What names and ad hominem attacks?

[nate33]

Yeah, but a monument to Robert E. Lee is obviously a monument glorifying the Confederacy. A monument to Jefferson is obviously meant to glorify the Constitution of the United States of America. I think it's laughable to compare what Jefferson STANDS FOR and what Robert E. Lee STANDS FOR and find them at all comparable. If we are not smart enough to tell the difference between those two things then we don't deserve any of the rights set out for us by the founding fathers. We might as well let the Nazis take over.

When you erect a monument to Robert E. Lee in your hometown, what is the INTENDED EFFECT on black people who live there? Is it to inspire admiration for someone who was clever in battle? Or is it meant to intimidate black people who have become too uppity? Would erecting a monument to Thomas Jefferson inspire black people to think "oh my god it's an endorsement of slavery"? Don't be ridiculous.

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

We all know the civil war was about state's rights.

Spoiler:

State's rights to have slavery.

So it's only makes total sense to keep the monuments of these southern heroes who fought to preserve the rights of states in the south.

Spoiler:

'Hereos' who fought and died in the name of preserving the enslavement of entire race of people.

Why would anyone in the world want these monuments the be removed?

I think reasonable people can disagree on why General Lee was considered great. One can admire General Lee and not be in favor of slavery. As I said before, I think there are monuments of some Confederate figures who achieved notoriety specifically for the cause of slavery. I would be open to arguments that some of them should be removed. I just don't think Lee falls under the category.

Just curious. Would you be in favor of removing monuments of Thomas Jefferson?

[dckingsfan]

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

We all know the civil war was about state's rights.

Spoiler:

State's rights to have slavery.

So it's only makes total sense to keep the monuments of these southern heroes who fought to preserve the rights of states in the south.

Spoiler:

'Hereos' who fought and died in the name of preserving the enslavement of entire race of people.

Why would anyone in the world want these monuments the be removed?

I think reasonable people can disagree on why General Lee was considered great. One can admire General Lee and not be in favor of slavery. As I said before, I think there are monuments of some Confederate figures who achieved notoriety specifically for the cause of slavery. I would be open to arguments that some of them should be removed. I just don't think Lee falls under the category.

Just curious. Would you be in favor of removing monuments of Thomas Jefferson?

Specificity Nate, specificity. Although obfuscation is your friend in this case.

Lee was only a famous because of the Civil War. Jefferson on so many other levels. But in my mind it would be fine to have something like this on all of the Jefferson Monuments: Although Jefferson was a constant critic of slavery - he only released a handful of his slaves.

Are you good with that?

[gtn130]

Did Nate really come back to this thread to defend confederate monuments? This is where he draws the line lol

Nate, my dude, have you ever NOT fallen on the racist side of the argument?

[gtn130]

We all know the civil war was about state's rights.

Spoiler:

State's rights to have slavery.

So it's only makes total sense to keep the monuments of these southern heroes who fought to preserve the rights of states in the south.

Spoiler:

'Hereos' who fought and died in the name of preserving the enslavement of entire race of people.

Why would anyone in the world want these monuments the be removed?

I think reasonable people can disagree on why General Lee was considered great. One can admire General Lee and not be in favor of slavery. As I said before, I think there are monuments of some Confederate figures who achieved notoriety specifically for the cause of slavery. I would be open to arguments that some of them should be removed. I just don't think Lee falls under the category.

Just curious. Would you be in favor of removing monuments of Thomas Jefferson?

Specificity Nate, specificity. Although obfuscation is your friend in this case.

Lee was only a famous because of the Civil War. Jefferson on so many other levels. But in my mind it would be fine to have something like this on all of the Jefferson Monuments: Although Jefferson was a constant critic of slavery - he only released a handful of his slaves.

Are you good with that?

Nate, do you think Thomas Jefferson is remembered BECAUSE he was a slave owner?

Robert E Lee is commemorated for fighting to preserve slavery. You can dress it up however you want, call it whatever you want, but Robert E Lee and Thomas Jefferson are not the same thing no matter how badly you want them to be.

[gtn130]

I guess the question is, which understanding of the word "race" is going to help us get rid of racism better? I think Popper was making a point that people have a mistaken understanding of just how different people are. We are not as different as we think. Does it help to say that "there is no such thing as race"? It does sound a little bit like "all lives matter." Which imo is racist. Does denying race exists help people justify demonizing the BLM movement?

I brought the topic back up because I believe an accurate grasp of the issue (prejudice and discrimination based upon physical appearance, be it skin color, eye shape, etc). can assist those living in the dark to understand just how insidious, cruel and illogical the practice is.

For example - I would bet that a large majority of Americans believe that they are a member of one of several groups (races). This belief justifies in their thoughts a separation from the whole of humanity. This concept of separation allows for the notion of superiority within one's group (race) and as it relates to other groups. Perhaps that's part of human nature, to compete group against separate group, as a survival mechanism (not sure about this but it makes sense). Once people understand that there are no separate groups (races) and that we are all members of the same group then the concept of superiority cannot stand (at least as it relates to physical appearance).

Yeah man I think we should also put up monuments of Hitler and Osama Bin Laden just so that we never forget! Imagine how much utility such statues would offer the people in understanding just how insidious, cruel and illogical their practices were!

[gtn130]

Confederate monuments are really just about practical utility, folks

[montestewart]

Robert E. Lee was opposed to secession. He only grudgingly agreed to lead the South out of duty to his home state of Virginia (state allegiance was much stronger then than it is now). He was not a political figure, he was a military figure admired for his military prowess.

The South was forcibly brought back into the Union by the North. By the North's own standards, the Southerners are Americans too. The descendants of the Southerners constitute roughly 1/4th of the population of America. They're not unpersons. They get to have heroes too.

Polls continue to show that the majority of Americans want the statues to remain, by a roughly 2:1 margin. If you want them removed, you need to convince another 50 million Americans to change their opinion.

We all know the civil war was about state's rights.

Spoiler:

State's rights to have slavery.

So it's only makes total sense to keep the monuments of these southern heroes who fought to preserve the rights of states in the south.

Spoiler:

'Hereos' who fought and died in the name of preserving the enslavement of entire race of people.

Why would anyone in the world want these monuments the be removed?

I think reasonable people can disagree on why General Lee was considered great. One can admire General Lee and not be in favor of slavery. As I said before, I think there are monuments of some Confederate figures who achieved notoriety specifically for the cause of slavery. I would be open to arguments that some of them should be removed. I just don't think Lee falls under the category.

Just curious. Would you be in favor of removing monuments of Thomas Jefferson?

I've chatted about this topic a bit on the OT board, and there are a few aspects that are worth mentioning regarding the history of the placement of the statues. Most of these statues went up well after the Civil War. Maybe the lack of funds or political power during Reconstruction had something to do with that, but the timing of the proliferation of the statues is interesting.

Monument Avenue in Richmond began with a Robert E Lee statue in 1890 and expanded through 1929 to include several more generals and admirals, along with Jefferson Davis. That parallels the proliferation, from the 1890s through the Great Depression, of statues commemorating Confederate generals, admirals, other officers, common soldiers, and political leaders. These statues tended to take some of the most high profiles spots in given towns, and in addition to statues, schools, city halls, parks, and other public buildings and spaces were named for Confederate leaders.

The reason the timing is interesting is that it is within this period, from the 1890s through the Great Depression, that blacks in this country experienced a great backlash, particularly in the South, against their rights under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, & Fifteenth Amendments. It was during this period that anti-black Jim Crow laws were introduced and quickly proliferated. It was during this period (1915) that the Ku Klux Klan reformed and within ten years had 6 million members. It was during this period that lynching and other anti-black violence proliferated. The "race riots" during this period generally were nothing less than gangs of armed whites entering black neighborhoods and attacking, raping, and murdering largely unarmed residents. And burning neighborhoods. And maiming corpses.

I can easily point to countless sources documenting these historical events, including contemporaneous newspaper accounts. These are facts. This is US history. It was a period of racial near-apartheid, separate-and-unequal application of the law, and frequently unrestrained white terror against black citizens. It is within this period that the vast majority of these statues went up, and it is hard to honestly regard Confederate monuments without regarding the history within which they were so prominently placed across the South.

I'm not one who advocates destroying all Confederate monuments, though a reduction in number, relocating many others from the most prominent spots, and contextualization of the remainder makes a lot of sense. But I can understand why a descendent of slaves, a descendent of citizens who lived under white supremacy and terror, might want them all removed. The monuments that went up during that period, and really all Confederate monuments, are inextricably bound to that history. The history of slavery, the history of racial terror, of Jim Crow, of separate and unequal, that is all a difficult history to contend with. There are no easy answers that would satisfy all.

Hopefully, the comments above explain why the subject of the Civil War statues is to me easily distinguishable from statues of Washington, Jefferson, George Mason and other founders (although I feel like more things could be named after Benjamin Franklin). For now, I live in Washington, and Parson Weems informs my untarnishable view of George.

[I_Like_Dirt]

But you are wrong here. For example, we know of the existence of the “warrior” gene. This gene variant has extremely high correlation with violent behavior. The gene is also statistically more likely to be active in certain "races" than others. That's just one example that has been nailed down by geneticists. For the most part, the impact of genes on behavior is extremely difficult to nail down because so many genes are involved in any type of behavior. There is no single "IQ gene" for example. But the "warrior gene" is one example of how genes affect behavior and that the presence of this gene exists in different frequencies among different races. Surely there are other, more complicated genetic combinations that affect behavior and that these combinations vary by race. Just because we haven't figured out the genetic mechanism doesn't mean we should assume they don't exist. They clearly exist in some cases. Lactose tolerance is another obvious example. I can look at a white Dutchman and know with almost 100% certainty that he is lactose tolerant. I can look at Filipino and be almost 100% certain that he is lactose intolerant. I can make these accurate predictions based solely on "racism".

Let's just run with your oversimplified analysis for a bit here. Why on earth are we picking out people based on some arbitrary "race" when we know it doesn't really exist, and why are we choosing to define said "races" based on something we can see with our eyes rather than DNA analysis. And if it's DNA analysis, why are we even concerned about "races" in the first place and instead not working on learning more about genetics in the first place? So where are all these disadvantaged white males lobbying in the name of science? To be honest, I'd actually love to see that. Instead we get a bunch of hate and superficial analysis papering over what obviously isn't an interest in science at all. It turns out there are actually far more concerning scientific issues at hand than trying to figure out how to define "race" so that we can then discriminate based on who might possibly be more likely to have a certain gene that might do something but also isn't something we totally understand, either.

[gtn130]

It's a very slippery slope. Ripping down the Robert E Lee statues solely because he fought on the side of the South opens up the option of eliminating any statue of anybody just because they have some tangential relationship to slavery or black oppression. As I said before, if Robert E. Lee goes, then surely Jefferson will be next. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, the founding document of our nation. It's possible to praise historical figures for the stuff they did well, without condoning the things they did that no longer are acceptable under current moral standards.

At the very least, I think we need more public discussions and voter referendums before we start ripping down statues at the behest of unruly mobs.

This is nonsense and 100% not true.

[gtn130]

I'm not one who advocates destroying all Confederate monuments, though a reduction in number, relocating many others from the most prominent spots, and contextualization of the remainder makes a lot of sense. But I can understand why a descendent of slaves, a descendent of citizens who lived under white supremacy and terror, might want them all removed. The monuments that went up during that period, and really all Confederate monuments, are inextricably bound to that history. The history of slavery, the history of racial terror, of Jim Crow, of separate and unequal, that is all a difficult history to contend with. There are no easy answers that would satisfy all.

Dude, you really lose me with this paragraph. You do NOT need to appease anyone or make both sides happy or craft some 'moderate' equivocating take regarding pro-slavery pro-confederacy monuments.

The side that wants to keep statues honoring Confederates is lying to you about their intentions. It's all concern trolling. Slippery slope nonsense, positive utility of confederate statues, preservation of history - no one believes that ****. The people making those arguments DO NOT believe what they're saying.

[payitforward]

No, I didn't. You just aren't picking up on the distinction I'm making. Let me try again.

We know that there are extremely minor, teeny-tiny specific variations at specific points on an individual's genome that affect the statistical likelihood of that individual contracting one or another specific disease. In itself, this is true of any individual.

True

We also know that different populations have lived w/ little contact w/ one another.

True

Because an individual's genome is constructed as a copy of its parents' genomes (obviously the process is complex: you have 2 parents but you only get 1 genetic makeup), over time one of those teeny tiny specific variations may start to occur more often in one of those two populations that have little or no contact than it does in the other.

I'm with you so far

Note how constrained that last point was. That's what the science gives us. No more. It's only when you assume (as you do) that these two populations are two different "racial subdivisions" that you can then conclude that this variation is a defining characteristic, is as it were the "subdivider."

But that's not science; that's racism. It's the opposite of science. & nothing could make it more evident than your conflating the likelihood that an individual in one of these populations may have a genetic variation that increases to some degree the still quite unlikely possibility that individual could get, for example, Epstein-Barr virus with the idea that *the group* (the "racial subdivision" you've just invented) has a higher likelihood, when in fact the group has no characteristic whatsoever in this case -- none, zero, zip -- and your subsequent leap to "other behavioral... or intellectual differences" of "the group."

But you are wrong here. For example, we know of the existence of the “warrior” gene. This gene variant has extremely high correlation with violent behavior. The gene is also statistically more likely to be active in certain "races" than others. That's just one example that has been nailed down by geneticists. For the most part, the impact of genes on behavior is extremely difficult to nail down because so many genes are involved in any type of behavior. There is no single "IQ gene" for example. But the "warrior gene" is one example of how genes affect behavior and that the presence of this gene exists in different frequencies among different races. Surely there are other, more complicated genetic combinations that affect behavior and that these combinations vary by race. Just because we haven't figured out the genetic mechanism doesn't mean we should assume they don't exist. They clearly exist in some cases. Lactose tolerance is another obvious example. I can look at a white Dutchman and know with almost 100% certainty that he is lactose tolerant. I can look at Filipino and be almost 100% certain that he is lactose intolerant. I can make these accurate predictions based solely on "racism".

But, this doesn't undermine my point at all, nate.

This point as well depends on the prior assumption of "race." Read your own writing, nate: "Surely there are other, more complicated genetic combinations that affect behavior and that these combinations vary by race."

Not to mention that the whole subject of the so-called warrior gene is a lot more fraught than you make it seem. You might read this from Scientific American.

[popper]

I guess the question is, which understanding of the word "race" is going to help us get rid of racism better? I think Popper was making a point that people have a mistaken understanding of just how different people are. We are not as different as we think. Does it help to say that "there is no such thing as race"? It does sound a little bit like "all lives matter." Which imo is racist. Does denying race exists help people justify demonizing the BLM movement?

I brought the topic back up because I believe an accurate grasp of the issue (prejudice and discrimination based upon physical appearance, be it skin color, eye shape, etc). can assist those living in the dark to understand just how insidious, cruel and illogical the practice is.

For example - I would bet that a large majority of Americans believe that they are a member of one of several groups (races). This belief justifies in their thoughts a separation from the whole of humanity. This concept of separation allows for the notion of superiority within one's group (race) and as it relates to other groups. Perhaps that's part of human nature, to compete group against separate group, as a survival mechanism (not sure about this but it makes sense). Once people understand that there are no separate groups (races) and that we are all members of the same group then the concept of superiority cannot stand (at least as it relates to physical appearance).

Yeah man I think we should also put up monuments of Hitler and Osama Bin Laden just so that we never forget! Imagine how much utility such statues would offer the people in understanding just how insidious, cruel and illogical their practices were!

Wow. None of my posts have anything to do with monuments or Hitler or Bin Laden. Not sure why you felt the need to introduce issues that I've never commented on.

[montestewart]

I'm not one who advocates destroying all Confederate monuments, though a reduction in number, relocating many others from the most prominent spots, and contextualization of the remainder makes a lot of sense. But I can understand why a descendent of slaves, a descendent of citizens who lived under white supremacy and terror, might want them all removed. The monuments that went up during that period, and really all Confederate monuments, are inextricably bound to that history. The history of slavery, the history of racial terror, of Jim Crow, of separate and unequal, that is all a difficult history to contend with. There are no easy answers that would satisfy all.

Dude, you really lose me with this paragraph. You do NOT need to appease anyone or make both sides happy or craft some 'moderate' equivocating take regarding pro-slavery pro-confederacy monuments.

The side that wants to keep statues honoring Confederates is lying to you about their intentions. It's all concern trolling. Slippery slope nonsense, positive utility of confederate statues, preservation of history - no one believes that ****. The people making those arguments DO NOT believe what they're saying.

I'm not trying to satisfy all sides, just saying that all sides will not be satisfied. The issue of removal is complicated among other things by 1) African Americans who are against getting rid of all the statues, or think there are far more important issues to be dealt with; 2) insufficient political power backing the complete removal of all the Confederate statues at once; and 3) Whether all the statues should be treated equally.

The way the Soviet era statues have been dealt with in post-Soviet times seems a good model, with many destroyed, many relocated, and those remaining given historical context.

[gtn130]

I'm not one who advocates destroying all Confederate monuments, though a reduction in number, relocating many others from the most prominent spots, and contextualization of the remainder makes a lot of sense. But I can understand why a descendent of slaves, a descendent of citizens who lived under white supremacy and terror, might want them all removed. The monuments that went up during that period, and really all Confederate monuments, are inextricably bound to that history. The history of slavery, the history of racial terror, of Jim Crow, of separate and unequal, that is all a difficult history to contend with. There are no easy answers that would satisfy all.

Dude, you really lose me with this paragraph. You do NOT need to appease anyone or make both sides happy or craft some 'moderate' equivocating take regarding pro-slavery pro-confederacy monuments.

The side that wants to keep statues honoring Confederates is lying to you about their intentions. It's all concern trolling. Slippery slope nonsense, positive utility of confederate statues, preservation of history - no one believes that ****. The people making those arguments DO NOT believe what they're saying.

I'm not trying to satisfy all sides, just saying that all sides will not be satisfied. The issue of removal is complicated among other things by 1) African Americans who are against getting rid of all the statues, or think there are far more important issues to be dealt with; 2) insufficient political power backing the complete removal of all the Confederate statues at once; and 3) Whether all the statues should be treated equally.

The way the Soviet era statues have been dealt with in post-Soviet times seems a good model, with many destroyed, many relocated, and those remaining given historical context.

Which Confederate statues *shouldn't* be taken down and why?