heywood on 14/8/2017 at 15:16
I agree about Trump. My first reaction was what's the big deal about his statement? It was short and generic and he failed to call out the terrorist who drove through the crowd, but I don't usually pay any attention to Presidents' statements after events like these. But the fact that he didn't come back with a stronger follow-up after taking heat from his own party, and then he refused to discuss white nationalism, that's just unacceptable. Now we have the white nationalists celebrating what they believe to be support from the President. Unless Trump reacts swiftly and strongly to correct that, I'm going to have to admit that Trump really is a white nationalist sympathizer. I had given him the benefit of the doubt.
heywood on 14/8/2017 at 17:08
Regarding the symbology, I was hyperbolic. What I should have said is that I partly blame the people who are systematically trying to erase all symbols of the Confederacy and the Civil War in the South.
If it's acceptable to have a memorial for Sherman right in front of the White House, surely it should be acceptable to have a memorial for Lee. Like most major figures of 18th and 19th century American history, there are many different ways to look at the legacy of Robert E. Lee. He was first a patriot, West Point grad, army engineer who distinguished himself during the Mexican-American war, and later superintendent of West Point.
Lee was against secession and initially pro-Union. When the Confederacy formed and offered him a command, he declined. He remained in the Union army and took a command position instead. Just before the start of the war, he was offered the rank of General and command of the Washington D.C. campaign, but ultimately his loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, so when Virginia seceded he resigned from the Union army. Shortly thereafter he took command of Virginia's forces, and later took the role of General in the Conferate army that everyone remembers him for.
I think it is a bit unfair to think of Lee as a symbol of slavery, although again his history is complicated. From what I've read, Lee was philosophically anti-slavery. However, he was more or less forced as executor of his father-in-law's will into taking a leave of absence from the Army to run his late father-in-law's plantation, and his principal challenge there was to find a way to emancipate his father-in-law's slaves within 5 years per the will's instruction, which was complicated due to the family's debts. He wrote at the time that slavery was morally evil, but he believed in the concept of white man's burden and that the slaves had to be prepared to become free men. He also whipped the slaves who tried to escape the plantation before they were emancipated.
I think people should accept their history and learn from it, not whitewash it or banish it. It seems somewhat hypocritical to me the way we tend to whitewash over the slave owning history of "founding fathers" like Jefferson and Franklin, who along with others wrote slavery into the Constitution, meanwhile demonizing everyone connected to the Confederacy. Similarly, I don't like the way the Civil War tends to be framed in simplistic good vs. evil terms, i.e. noble abolitionists from the North fighting against the evil plantation owners of the South to free the slaves. Slavery was obviously a central issue, and the Republicans' overwhelming victory in 1960 was the trigger that set off secession. However, abolition wasn't even one of the stated goals of the Union until 2 years into the war. Also, Southern grievances went beyond just abolition. There was an economic imbalance due to the industrialization of the North, tension over railroads and modernization, Northern dominance over tariffs & trade policy, states rights, the failure of the government to protect settlers on the Western frontier, and just Southern pride and Southern cultural identity.
The South had some legit grievances over the Civil War and Reconstruction period that unfortunately some modern Southerners still haven't gotten over. They were invaded by a conquering army and suffered brutally at the hands of the Union army, who sacked and razed cities and officially practiced collective punishment against the civilian population. And following that they were basically occupied by a bunch of Republican opportunists from the North.
None of this post was meant to excuse white nationalism, so I hope nobody takes it that way. I have objections to taking down this (and similar) statues. First, the effort to purge the South of monuments and synbols of the Confederacy and Civil War is a rallying point for white supremacists. It also provides a bridge of common ground between white supremacists and more mainstream Southern conservatives. Second, we're helping to turn historical figures and symbols into symbols of white supremacy, which not only helps their movement but it also makes it harder to teach the history. Finally, I'm just fundamentally opposed to reshaping/rewriting history to suit a preferred narrative or present day political views, and this is related to the debate going on between academics over the political correct-ization of Civil War history.
Trance on 14/8/2017 at 21:59
Just watched today's PDS and thought it was a pretty good recap of the important points of this event, for anyone who hasn't been following it closely.
[video=youtube;0RHBiRnWwRs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RHBiRnWwRs[/video]
driver on 14/8/2017 at 23:25
I really wish Youtubers would stop with the obsession with jump cuts. I find it hard to watch videos where the person talking is jerking about and appearing to stumble over the end of his/her last sentence. There's nothing wrong with short pauses here and there, if gives the audience time to digest what is being said. That guy might have had something interesting to say but I couldn't get through more than 20 seconds of lurching about before I had to stop.
Trance on 15/8/2017 at 00:30
Sorry. I don't mind it.
Nicker on 15/8/2017 at 01:52
Trump finally and reluctantly read a statement someone apparently wrote for him, like some guilty child being forced to apologise by an embarrassed parent. And while he specifically mentioned the KKK, Neo Nazis and White Supremacists, he still implied they were only a few among many hate groups, leaving open the implication that counter-protestors were equally to blame.
Given his shoot from the hip twitter reputation and his willingness to instantly respond to the slightest annoyance, the fact that it took him two days to fire a couple of blanks at the problem of his violent followers, speaks volumes more than any combination of 140 characters could.
Trump failed to instantly condemn claims by the alt-right, that he supports them. When various alt-right leaders seized on his faint damnation of them, and his walking away from questions about them, as proof of Trump's support for their cause, Trump was silent and has yet to refute them.
Trump's failure to remove two egregious symbols of right wing extremism presently sucking the tax tit in the White House (Steven Bannon and Nazi medal wearing shit-stain Sebastian Gorka) speaks louder than any rally chant, about the moral paucity of Trump and his administration.
Slasher on 15/8/2017 at 02:15
One of the BBC stories noted an old Department of WarDefense propaganda piece is making the rounds. BBC didn't post the whole 18 minute film, and I'd hope most of us in the U.S. have already seen in at least once by now, but in case not:
[video=youtube;L3WxDyYc_1I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3WxDyYc_1I[/video]
One wonders how the filmmakers would react if you told them their work would be just as pertinent seventy years later.
heywood on 15/8/2017 at 15:08
Methinks Trump's latest statement is too little, too late.
I think the media is amplifying white supremacist voices by quoting them, linking to their Twitter or Facebook, seeking interviews, calling them leaders, etc. On my way to work this morning, I heard a 10 minute segment about a "free speech" rally planned for this weekend in Boston. The reporter spent almost the whole segment going through what I would call fringe characters supposedly invited to be speakers at the rally, and echoed several of their statements. It gives these people notoriety and a chance to make their case in front of a wide audience. I know the media's job is to cover the news, but the way they are going about it seems to be helping to legitimize a fringe movement.
Starker on 15/8/2017 at 16:08
John Oliver's segment on the issue:
[video=youtube;bZkz2EO6bCY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZkz2EO6bCY[/video]