• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

WSU MUP Student said:
It looks like Kelly is making sure the staff know that JJ DID TIE BUCKLE.
Click to expand...

Some USMC leadership training could do the West Wing a world of good. It's hard to imagine a less disciplined organization than this administration's junta. Headlines like "there's no chaos at the White House pretty much require a Bagdad Bob meme
 
Scaramouche! Scaramouche! Will you do the Fandango?


Also funny, look at the definition of scaramouche.
 
dvdneal said:
Scaramouche! Scaramouche! Will you do the Fandango?


Also funny, look at the definition of scaramouche.
Click to expand...

I think Trump is actively filming a new reality show and we are all a part of it. There's no other explanation for this farce.
 
AG74683 said:
I think Trump is actively filming a new reality show and we are all a part of it. There's no other explanation for this farce.
Click to expand...

Somebody briefly changed the opening of the Wikipedia entry for the cabinet to read:

The Cabinet of the United States is a game show featuring presidential term-long competitions. Each term begins with a new group of contestants vying to retain a place as one of the officials under the President of the United States. The contestants (who are referred to as "cabinets members") have come from business backgrounds in various enterprises, the backgrounds including real estate, accounting, restaurant management, management consulting, sales and marketing, hedge fund management, racist news outlets, and occasionally US politics. Members of the Cabinet (except for the Vice President) serve at the pleasure of the President, who can dismiss them at will for no cause. This format was enacted in 2017 and built off the premise of the reality TV show The Apprentice.
Click to expand...

Link to archived version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cabinet_of_the_United_States&oldid=793148119
 
AG74683 said:
I think Trump is actively filming a new reality show and we are all a part of it. There's no other explanation for this farce.
Click to expand...

"Hey Trump, I'm watching this really bad reality TV show with low ratings called Survivor White House. I can't change the channel. Sad!
- Vicente Fox
 
20431387_1102747393188573_5006423795053487294_n.jpg
 
World Leaders

In terms of global world leaders, I don't think that US has not been all that terrific the past couple of decades. But what about other countries? It seems that there are popular ones, but are they popular because of their leadership abilities? Let's face it, boundaries are there because people say there are there. The wind and water do not care. The birds and other animals find ways across them, and in some places of the world, people don't even realize that they left one county and entered into another country.

Many of the issues that we face also transcend these political boundaries. Illnesses, environmental issues, and even economic issues and have serious implications on both sides of any given boundary. Some divisions might be more pronounced but no boundary is absolute.

With that being said, who do you think are the best world leaders in the political realm today? Why do you think her or she is so effective?
 
There's a story out now that Jared Kushner owns part of his brothers health insurance company which relies heavily on ACA (Obamacare) credits & subsides. He was in the background lobbying to keep ACA in the midst of pResident tRump's demands to kill it.

I can't research the authenticity of the story right now but the reality show of our nation keeps running with another plot twist.
 
I'm not sure that ramping up the inflammatory statements to the other "Dear Leader" is the best move here. Going from sanctions to "fire and fury the world has never seen" seems like 0-60 in record time.
 
Not sure where to post this but here it goes... What about Foxconn building a plant in Wisconsin? 10 billion investment with a 3 billion incentive package plus waivers of some environmental laws and regulations. According to some reports it would take till 2043 to recoup the cost. With the amount of investment, and the possibility of addition investment by others in the supply chain, and competition to land the project, I am not surprised on the size of the incentive package. Foxconn isn't know for it being a great place to work so this should be interesting.
 
Big Owl said:
Not sure where to post this but here it goes... What about Foxconn building a plant in Wisconsin? 10 billion investment with a 3 billion incentive package plus waivers of some environmental laws and regulations. According to some reports it would take till 2043 to recoup the cost. With the amount of investment, and the possibility of addition investment by others in the supply chain, and competition to land the project, I am not surprised on the size of the incentive package. Foxconn isn't know for it being a great place to work so this should be interesting.
Click to expand...

Foxconn is also known for not following through on their commitments to build in the U.S. - I know there was an announced plant in PA a few years back and maybe another one somewhere in the Midwest that also never came to fruition.

I hope for the sake of the taxpayers in Wisconsin that there is some sort of mechanism for clawbacks for any amount that the state shells out before Foxconn actually meets their end of the commitment. I think I saw somewhere that the total incentive package that the state is providing works out to somewhere between $30k and $50k per promised job, annually, over the course of 10 years. I'm not anti-incentive, especially when it comes to luring in employers from foreign countries (instead of just shuffling them around within the region or state), but that's insane.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Foxconn is also known for not following through on their commitments to build in the U.S. - I know there was an announced plant in PA a few years back and maybe another one somewhere in the Midwest that also never came to fruition.

I hope for the sake of the taxpayers in Wisconsin that there is some sort of mechanism for clawbacks for any amount that the state shells out before Foxconn actually meets their end of the commitment. I think I saw somewhere that the total incentive package that the state is providing works out to somewhere between $30k and $50k per promised job, annually, over the course of 10 years. I'm not anti-incentive, especially when it comes to luring in employers from foreign countries (instead of just shuffling them around within the region or state), but that's insane.
Click to expand...

The PA plant wasn't built but they did locate a small office there with 50 employees; so that's a fair trade off, right?:r: I will be interested to seeing if this facility happens and the 30-50K jobs that Foxconn pledged 6 months ago happens.

I saw an article that stated that the incentives would cost $230,700 per job. It doesn't say the time period. I would imagine that's over the life of the incentive package. It appears that's based on all 13,000 jobs.

I know that a site in NC was being consider but I guess we weren't able to match Wisconsin's offer even after the state's general assembly adopted a budget that included an incentive for "transformative" projects, which are projects over $4 Billion and 5,000 plus jobs that would allow for partial refund of income taxes paid to the state for 25 years.

The incentive game is a necessary evil. You have to offer incentives when every one else does.
 
Last edited:
Planit said:
You can slip into Canada and stay at the former Montreal Expos/Olympic Stadium:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/03/...ng.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0

Terminator did it the old fashion way, but he has options too...
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAH The Big O has been sitting useless since 2004. I think asylum seekers deserve to be treated better than being warehoused in a (in this case white elephant, shoddily engineered) stadium a la Superdome during Katrina but Im glad the things finally seeing use.

Americans dont have any other option than to do it legit (I had to have a Canadian degree and learn a second language), if so than every American liberal would have already made the leap after Bush!

Canada has very similar immigration patterns as the UK and Germany. Ottawa prioritizes immigrants from human rights abuse prone and economically disadvantaged nations (hence why so many Muslims and South Asians have come to Canada since Trudeau I) and francophone Europeans who want to live the American dream without actually living in America. More and more Latino's are beginning to come to Canada in recent years, because they are realizing that it is a more compassionate and fairer society compared to our little "more perfect union" we got here. The cold still keeps many people away though.
 
Some time ago, I criticized president Obama for not calling out the Black Lives Matter people who were shooting at police officers for what they were... domestic terrorists.

Today I am criticising President Trump (I still can't type that without thinking it is a joke...) for not calling the alt-right/white supremacist/neo-nazi groups for being the same thing... domestic terrorists. I also think that we need to contact our congressional reps and senators requesting that they demand that Trump call it what it is or submit his resignation. We need someone in the WH who will say what needs to be said... there is a right and there is a wrong, and when a group does something like this, their actions will not be tolerated. I e-mailed mine last night.

I also think that this is a teachable moment for all parents. The mother claimed she had no idea of her son's thoughts on the matter. I think we as parents need to be sure that we teach our kids that no one group is better than another and that we should seek to learn from each other's differences instead of suppress one group or another. Yes someone can be unhappy that a town is taking down a statue of a confederate general, however no protest should turn to violence towards others who don't share that same belief.
 
When you show up to a rally/protest in riot gear, you are enticing a fight.

Thanks pResident tRump for continuing to Make America Great Again. :-x:-o:not:
 
Okay so I find this very ironic.

The 'alt-right' protesters were carrying TIKI TORCHES on Friday night.
Tiki torches, which came from Polynesian and Hawaiian cultures - no European white connection, unless you want to talk about the colonialism the Europeans had over those cultures.
Astounding - the cultural symbolism just floors me. Do they not see the hypocrisy in it? (that's rhetoric)
 
Planit said:
Okay so I find this very ironic.

The 'alt-right' protesters were carrying TIKI TORCHES on Friday night.
Tiki torches, which came from Polynesian and Hawaiian cultures - no European white connection, unless you want to talk about the colonialism the Europeans had over those cultures.
Astounding - the cultural symbolism just floors me. Do they not see the hypocrisy in it? (that's rhetoric)
Click to expand...

My question is how can they be "True Americans" and "Nazis" at the same time. Last time I checked, the Nazi's hated America and were opposed to all the freedoms that define America... I think there was even a little skirmish known as WWII that involved the two as opponents.

On a side note, in the safe and friendly community of Durham NC, :r: a group of protesters pulled down a confederate statue and mangled it. The videos are now being used to find those responsible and charge them with destruction of public property and a few other violations.
 
michaelskis said:
My question is how can they be "True Americans" and "Nazis" at the same time. Last time I checked, the Nazi's hated America and were opposed to all the freedoms that define America... I think there was even a little skirmish known as WWII that involved the two as opponents.

On a side note, in the safe and friendly community of Durham NC, :r: a group of protesters pulled down a confederate statue and mangled it. The videos are now being used to find those responsible and charge them with destruction of public property and a few other violations.
Click to expand...

There's an anarchist part of me that says, "Hell yeah! Tear down the hate!", but there's a bigger more rational part of me that says that's not the way to do it.
 
I was watching the NFL Network last night (rebroadcast of the Giants v. Steelers game). After it was over some talking head show played, and they were babbling on about these players sitting during the national anthem. Apparently Marshawn Lynch and Michael Bennett both sat during the anthem the other day. They were talking about what kind of "statement" this is, and how "powerful" it was.

Man look, I like sports as much as the next guy, but those players mean literally nothing to me. These are paid entertainers, whose career exists solely for our enjoyment. The only difference between Marshawn Lynch and a stripper is the paycheck. I don't understand why people are making such a big deal out of this stuff.
 
The protesters in Durham NC who damaged the statue were arrested and will be charged.

What do you think it will take for the both sides to just stop the stupidity. Granted racism is way beyond stupid and I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. However I also think that the protestors around the country that are damaging these statues should just stop, and change directions. There are proper methods to request that these be removed.

The NC Governor is now calling for them to be relocated to a place where they can be used in proper context (such as a museum to learn about the Civil War or something along those lines.) I personally don't care if they stay or if they go, but I think that there is a right way to go about it and a wrong way. The wrong way is just fueling the racist people and the sooner we shut them down, the better.
 
So...anyone know what happens to the confederate monuments/statues that get removed?

Destroyed? Stored in the government warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant? Something completely different?
 
The 'net appears to be abuzz with memes today like: "you can't be anti-participation trophies and pro-Confederate statues. They are the world's biggest participation trophies"
 
michaelskis said:
The protesters in Durham NC who damaged the statue were arrested and will be charged.

What do you think it will take for the both sides to just stop the stupidity. Granted racism is way beyond stupid and I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. However I also think that the protestors around the country that are damaging these statues should just stop, and change directions. There are proper methods to request that these be removed.

The NC Governor is now calling for them to be relocated to a place where they can be used in proper context (such as a museum to learn about the Civil War or something along those lines.) I personally don't care if they stay or if they go, but I think that there is a right way to go about it and a wrong way. The wrong way is just fueling the racist people and the sooner we shut them down, the better.
Click to expand...

I don't really disagree with the Governor calling for these monuments to be moved to a museum. It makes sense and I think it's a reasonable compromise.

I take some issue with people who maintain that these monuments, and even by extension the Confederate flag in certain circumstances, constitute a symbol of hate. Slavery was one of many issues that led up to the Civil War, and it was really more of an inflammatory issue to begin with. Owning slaves was a societal norm of the day. Does that forgive those who maintained plantations with a slave labor force? No, but it does lend credence to the fact that not all of those people were racists. Does that justify the horrendous treatment of slaves? Absolutely not. But, to think that the government was out to remove your livelihood and infringe upon what was your legal right at the time must have been terrifying, considering just 86 years prior we revolted against a government trying to do the same damn thing. We know now that this practice was abhorrent, but that does not mean that the average slave owner was a racist hateful person. Yes, the Confederate Flag has been used as a symbol of hate, but the history behind it doesn't necessarily represent those views. I don't mean to come across as a Confederate sympathizer, or that I condone the practice of slavery, but I think the beliefs of the day were vastly different than those we have now. To judge our ancestors on actions that society as a whole believed to be proper is an injustice to what they accomplished.

There is however no excuse for the use of the Nazi flag or memorabilia, because the only history tied to those items is hate, pure and simple. They exist solely to symbolize hate, and for no other reason. The use of Nazi items is simply to fan the flames of violence and perpetuate a desire to exterminate all those you disagree with. There is absolutely no place in a modern society for those who believe anyone is above another person.

All that said, I do not believe the place for these monuments is on public grounds, nor anywhere else where the general public can view them. These items mean different things to different people, and we are a nation of many. It's time to put the past where it belongs, in a museum where those who want to learn can, but those who want to forget have that ability.

AND, to clarify, Donald Trump is dead wrong when he says that there are "great people on both sides". If you want to parade around a Confederate or Nazi flag and scream out racial epithets and threaten others, you are human trash and don't deserve a place in our society. Sure, you had a permit to gather because that is your legal right, but it doesn't make your opinion valid, and it certainly doesn't protect you from the results of that opinion.
 
michaelskis said:
The protesters in Durham NC who damaged the statue were arrested and will be charged.

What do you think it will take for the both sides to just stop the stupidity. Granted racism is way beyond stupid and I don't think anyone is going to dispute that. However I also think that the protestors around the country that are damaging these statues should just stop, and change directions. There are proper methods to request that these be removed.

The NC Governor is now calling for them to be relocated to a place where they can be used in proper context (such as a museum to learn about the Civil War or something along those lines.) I personally don't care if they stay or if they go, but I think that there is a right way to go about it and a wrong way. The wrong way is just fueling the racist people and the sooner we shut them down, the better.
Click to expand...

I agree & those arrested should be.

In 2015, the NCGOP Legislature passed a bill making it illegal to remove any statues (including CSA) without the written consent of the NC Historical Society. Also in the bill it deemed it illegal to move those statues to cemeteries, parks, museums, etc. I applaud Governor Cooper's stance, but until the law is changed (by the same people who made it by the way and will veto anything Gov. Cooper signs) it is at an impasse.


Senate Bill 22, a state law passed in 2015 - here's a couple excepts:
"a monument, memorial, or work of art owned by the State may not be removed, relocated, or altered in any way without the approval of the North Carolina Historical Commission"
"An object of remembrance may not be relocated to a museum, cemetery, or mausoleum unless it was originally placed at such a location."
 
The "heritage, not hate" argument in support of the Confederate battle flag and various monuments is bogus.

The war was about slavery, plain and simple, and everyone with half a brain then knew it. Lincoln even stated it in his Second Inaugural Address.

HonestAbe said:
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Click to expand...

Lincoln said plainly and frequently, as he repeats here, that he had no intention of ending slavery, only "restricting the territorial enlargement of it". Just as Obama never came to get people's guns, so Lincoln never came to get their slaves. At least, not before the south committed treason and started an open war with the legitimate government of the United States.
 
Gedunker said:
The "heritage, not hate" argument in support of the Confederate battle flag and various monuments is bogus.

The war was about slavery, plain and simple, and everyone with half a brain then knew it. Lincoln even stated it in his Second Inaugural Address.



Lincoln said plainly and frequently, as he repeats here, that he had no intention of ending slavery, only "restricting the territorial enlargement of it". Just as Obama never came to get people's guns, so Lincoln never came to get their slaves. At least, not before the south committed treason and started an open war with the legitimate government of the United States.
Click to expand...

Agree, Gedunker. The history of the South in the century after the end of the Civil War in 1865 proves that the Civil War was absolutely about slavery. The argument of "oppression" of the agrarian South by the wealthy commercial interests in the North ignores the fact that the West -- states like Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, etc -- were also primarily agrarian at the time and should have also been "oppressed". The West, however, was staunchly pro-Union. Furthermore, in slave states, support for secession was strongest in areas heavily dependent on slavery and opposition to secession was strongest in the areas where slavery was less common. It's not surprising that the slave states that were not dominated by large slave holders -- Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri -- remained in the Union or that states dominated by slaveholders like South Carolina and Mississippi were among the first to bolt. Furthermore, after Reconstruction, in the 1880s and 1890s, the former Confederate states, led by former Confederates, systematically moved to re-establish defacto economic slavery through peonage and Jim Crow and the denial of voting rights to black Americans.

I think that the Confederate memorials should be allowed to remain on public property if they're already located there because they usually contain the names of local Confederate soldiers who served or died during the Civil War. They are historical records. I do think, however, that there should also then be plaques or monuments honoring any of the local men who served or died while serving with the Union. That includes black soldiers, mostly ex-slaves, who fought in the various regiments that made up the US Colored Troops. (FYI, more than 185,000 blacks served in the Union forces during the war.)

The Civil War in the South was much more of a true civil war than it was in the North; far more Southerners actively opposed the Confederacy than Northerners actively opposed to the Union. This was especially true in the Appalachians where slavery wasn't widespread. The state of West Virginia was created out of a local civil war when the pro-Union side gained the upper hand. In neighboring East Tennessee, the local union forces were crushed early in the war, but opposition to the Confederate cause continued.

As for the Confederate flag, it became a symbol of racism when it was adopted by the anti-Civil Rights side in the 1950s. That's when it was added to several state flags, and that's when it began to be displayed prominently by Southern racists and KKKers. Before that, it had mostly been displayed at historical events. Ban the thing from public property.
 
I have a question... where does this all stop? As I said before, I have no issues with the statues staying or going. However, at what point is it good enough? I now hear that some schools are changing their names because they were named after confederate generals or governors who were also members or supporters of the KKK or pro-slavery. I don't think that is an unreasonable request, however it is going to erase quite a bit of history.

But what happens next? Do we have to erase the names of all the signers of the constitution who owned slaves? Do be bulldoze the Jefferson memorial? Do Civil War Reenactments become illegal? What about Ben Franklin who is documented as being a sexest womanizing drunk? How many schools, streets, and even towns were named after this founding fathers of the US. What about other countries? Winston Churchill was no saint, should they do away with anything that has his name?

Just wondering where the line of being offended stops.
 
michaelskis said:
I have a question... where does this all stop? As I said before, I have no issues with the statues staying or going. However, at what point is it good enough? I now hear that some schools are changing their names because they were named after confederate generals or governors who were also members or supporters of the KKK or pro-slavery. I don't think that is an unreasonable request, however it is going to erase quite a bit of history.

But what happens next? Do we have to erase the names of all the signers of the constitution who owned slaves? Do be bulldoze the Jefferson memorial? Do Civil War Reenactments become illegal? What about Ben Franklin who is documented as being a sexest womanizing drunk? How many schools, streets, and even towns were named after this founding fathers of the US. What about other countries? Winston Churchill was no saint, should they do away with anything that has his name?

Just wondering where the line of being offended stops.
Click to expand...

To me, I think the context of what is being memorialized is important. The reason the confederate monuments are so troubling is because they represent pride in the side of a war that fought to oppress other people. A good distinction is that on the Washington & Lee University campus, they have a statue of Robert E. Lee, too. But in that context, he is being honored as being one of the early presidents of the university and did a lot of good for their success. I don't think that one needs to come down, because the reason he is memorialized there is not offensive.

Washington and Jefferson and Franklin all had some pretty serious flaws, and I don't think we need to try to white-wash those. But they are not memorialized for those facets of their "contributions." They are memorialized for their role as the Founding Fathers of our country. NPR actually covered this pretty well yesterday.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/16/54388...r-historical-figures-trumps-question-answered
 
gtpeach said:
To me, I think the context of what is being memorialized is important. The reason the confederate monuments are so troubling is because they represent pride in the side of a war that fought to oppress other people. A good distinction is that on the Washington & Lee University campus, they have a statue of Robert E. Lee, too. But in that context, he is being honored as being one of the early presidents of the university and did a lot of good for their success. I don't think that one needs to come down, because the reason he is memorialized there is not offensive.

Washington and Jefferson and Franklin all had some pretty serious flaws, and I don't think we need to try to white-wash those. But they are not memorialized for those facets of their "contributions." They are memorialized for their role as the Founding Fathers of our country. NPR actually covered this pretty well yesterday.

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/16/54388...r-historical-figures-trumps-question-answered
Click to expand...

Good points. It's also worth noting Lee himself was opposed to the idea of confederate statues and felt they would delay healing the national wounds of the war. Seems he may have been right.
 
There's a line between remembering and honoring. With the Confederacy, it is a pretty easy case to remove public references and honorariums outside of museum environments. Fundamentally, they were committing treason in the name of maintaining ability to enslave individuals. There is no honor in fighting for an immoral cause.

Washington, Jefferson, etc. are a different case as founders of this Republic. This country had not matured in its view of humanity, as many other countries hadn't as well. Doesn't make it okay--just a different reality then. They were imperfect, as all leaders are. They almost all universally have some kind of moral failing. There's a critical difference though between individual moral failings and leading a collective in advocating a moral failing.
 
Confederate statue timeline

This is very interesting.

"A striking graphic from the Southern Poverty Law Center revealed that the majority of Confederate monuments weren't erected until after 1900 — decades after the Civil War ended in 1865. Notably, the construction of Confederate monuments peaked in the 1910s and 1920s, when states were enacting Jim Crow laws, and later in the 1950s and 1960s, amid the Civil Rights Movement"

http://theweek.com/speedreads/71850...ents-peaked-during-jim-crow-civil-rights-eras


The one that was pulled down by the crowd, and collapsed like a cicada shell...

"The reasons there are so many of these statues, and why they're so easily toppled, are one and the same: Many of them were mass-produced in northern foundries and shoddily installed across the American South."

https://qz.com/1054062/statues-of-c...outh-were-cheaply-mass-produced-in-the-north/


Good piece about statues coming down, complete with a map.

WHY is there one in Montana? Statehood granted November 8, 1889

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...s-removed.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
 
We have a parade in our little town that has been going on continuously for 128 years. It began by the confederate veterans coming to the courthouse to get their pension checks. In the early 20th century it changed to remember & honor all veterans. However because of its origins and the region we live in, it still has a confederate slant. The parade is today and the heat index is around 110.

We have a confederate statue on the square. It's not all that big and does not depict a specific person. It honors the county natives that died in the war. On another corner of the square is a monument wall that honors county natives that died in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. In those contexts I believe they are fine and should remain.

We also have a guy on the main highway who has built a "private park" and named after a specific county native who fought for the confederacy. The key feature of this park is an 85' tall flagpole with a 20'x30' battle flag. In that context, its a big ole middle finger and shouldn't be there. However that's a free speech issue I'm told.
 
Planit said:
We have a parade in our little town that has been going on continuously for 128 years. It began by the confederate veterans coming to the courthouse to get their pension checks. In the early 20th century it changed to remember & honor all veterans. However because of its origins and the region we live in, it still has a confederate slant. The parade is today and the heat index is around 110.
Click to expand...

I had read that you guys were preparing for some "trouble" at the event. How's that looking so far?
 
AG74683 said:
I had read that you guys were preparing for some "trouble" at the event. How's that looking so far?
Click to expand...

No worries as it is. Last year there were rumors of trouble and a plan of action was created. This year will be the same. Multiple agencies met yesterday for a briefing.

Mrs. P is worried because The Girl is marching in the HS band for the first time. We shall see, you know the area AG...
 
gtpeach said:
To me, I think the context of what is being memorialized is important. The reason the confederate monuments are so troubling is because they represent pride in the side of a war that fought to oppress other people. A good distinction is that on the Washington & Lee University campus, they have a statue of Robert E. Lee, too. But in that context, he is being honored as being one of the early presidents of the university and did a lot of good for their success. I don't think that one needs to come down, because the reason he is memorialized there is not offensive.

Washington and Jefferson and Franklin all had some pretty serious flaws, and I don't think we need to try to white-wash those. But they are not memorialized for those facets of their "contributions." They are memorialized for their role as the Founding Fathers of our country. NPR actually covered this pretty well yesterday.
Click to expand...

So, what are your thoughts on reenactments?

What about things named after Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator? He left the KKK in the 40's but was not only a member, but also a recruiter in the 20's and 30's.

Personally, I don't care if the statues stay or if they go. I do think that we should apply equal treatment but I also think that things like reenactments that have an educational component should remain. I also think that monuments to particular battles, which one local group wanted to see removed at a confederate victory, should also remain for the educational factor.
 
michaelskis said:
So, what are your thoughts on reenactments?

What about things named after Robert Byrd, the longest serving senator? He left the KKK in the 40's but was not only a member, but also a recruiter in the 20's and 30's.

Personally, I don't care if the statues stay or if they go. I do think that we should apply equal treatment but I also think that things like reenactments that have an educational component should remain. I also think that monuments to particular battles, which one local group wanted to see removed at a confederate victory, should also remain for the educational factor.
Click to expand...

I don't really have an issue with re-enactments. I have an issue with the romanticizing of Confederate history/culture. I just don't really think most of the Confederate monuments were really erected for any educational purpose. They were erected to promote white supremacy during times when Black Americans were starting to move towards equal protection of their rights under the law. Not far from where I live we do have a Museum of the Confederacy. I actually haven't been, but I think that's the kind of thing that has real educational merit.

What is Byrd being memorialized for? Is it for his long-time service as senator where some good things came in the end of his career? Or is it for the work he did to promote a white supremacist agenda? What is the first thing that comes to mind when people see the statue?

I think that we also have to remember that we are not "erasing" history by removing some/all of these monuments. History has been presented in a skewed perspective in a lot of these places all along. And to the extent that the monuments are actual history of white southerners (mostly) opposing the civil rights of minority U.S. citizens, I think it's okay to want to remove those from our everyday exposure. Especially when they continue to reinforce those values to many who see them today. Especially now that it has become such a controversy.
 
gtpeach said:
I don't really have an issue with re-enactments. I have an issue with the romanticizing of Confederate history/culture. I just don't really think most of the Confederate monuments were really erected for any educational purpose. They were erected to promote white supremacy during times when Black Americans were starting to move towards equal protection of their rights under the law. Not far from where I live we do have a Museum of the Confederacy. I actually haven't been, but I think that's the kind of thing that has real educational merit.

What is Byrd being memorialized for? Is it for his long-time service as senator where some good things came in the end of his career? Or is it for the work he did to promote a white supremacist agenda? What is the first thing that comes to mind when people see the statue?

I think that we also have to remember that we are not "erasing" history by removing some/all of these monuments. History has been presented in a skewed perspective in a lot of these places all along. And to the extent that the monuments are actual history of white southerners (mostly) opposing the civil rights of minority U.S. citizens, I think it's okay to want to remove those from our everyday exposure. Especially when they continue to reinforce those values to many who see them today. Especially now that it has become such a controversy.
Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you said.

However, the stuff named after Byrd is a different situation. The good things he did later in life don't make up for the wrongs he did when he was younger. It is one thing to screw up a few times, but it is another to promote hate as he did. It would be like building a statue to Albert Speer recognizing his contributions to City Planning.
 
Tina Fey is a national treasure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVvpXZxXWZU
 
Back
Top