Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst 123456
Results 51 to 59 of 59
  1. #51
    Silver Poster hippifried's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    3,968

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    I agree with most of what you say, but the present situation is generated by the tussle over monuments to the Confederacy, so as far as day to day news goes, it has become, if temporarily, a 'Southern' specific issue.
    Next week, however the focus could shift to Phoenix Arizona where the President plans to hold a rally -organized by his re-election committee (!). Will you be going? For the Do-nuts, if nothing else?
    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/po...ump/index.html
    Apparently, the Klan/Nazis have been hard at work here in the desert too. But the fruit of their labor got vandalized Wednesday night. The bronze statue, dedicated to the soldiers of the Confederacy, in the park across the street from the front door of the State capital building, got a coat of white paint. Then out on US 60, a roadside monument (bronze plate set in stone) to Jefferson Davis was tarred and feathered. Those horrible liberals are making it harder and more expensive to use State funding to appease the knuckle draggers who moved here from the eastern cities, during the "white flight" of the'80s.

    This is the southwest. We're not a southern state. Arizona didn't even exist when the plantation owners attempted to steal a big chunk of the country.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  2. #52
    Gold Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    4,699

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by Yvonne183 View Post
    In most cases the cities you mentioned that are segregated, it is white liberals who segregate themselves from blacks. Go to Baltimore and go to the white enclaves and you'll find mostly liberals.

    From George Orwell:

    Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book has been rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street and building has been renamed, every date has been altered. History has stopped. Nothing exists except in an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
    Hi Yvonne, nice to see you back. I'm not sure the critique of white liberals is fair. I am very familiar with Baltimore and some of the areas you refer to are dangerous enough that neither white liberals nor white republicans would want to live there. In fact, the neighborhoods are not considered desirable by African-Americans or anyone else.

    The reason is that they are very poor areas where there is drug trafficking and other crime. It is likely that these areas are the way they are because of structural racism and the effects of generations of bigotry. But if a person's reason for avoiding an area is safety, it's not really hypocrisy.

    Either way, you seem to be equating the failure of liberals to single-handedly eliminate the effects of generations of structural racism with active racism. In fact, most of the more aggressive efforts to address these problems are opposed by Republicans and supported by Democrats.

    You're right that white liberals avoid certain areas in Baltimore but is that really worse than equating people who march yelling "blood and soil" and "Jews will not replace us" with people who came out to oppose them? Why is it you think Republicans tend to poll so badly with African-Americans? I'm not suggesting that because African-Americans tend to vote for the Democratic party that we cannot be better on civil rights, but there is clearly a perception among minorities that Republicans do not care about these issues.

    You also seem to indicate that removing a statue of Robert Lee is historical erasure. But there are museums which contain artifacts from both sides of the civil war and there are books that meticulously and accurately document what happened. The statues themselves only glorify people who fought to dissolve our nation and came closer than any other enemy to doing so. Their motivation for engaging in that fight was to preserve the ownership of other human beings. Nobody should feel obligated to memorialize an enemy or to venerate racism and its defenders.


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.
    Last edited by broncofan; 08-18-2017 at 08:35 PM.

  3. #53
    Verified account Silver Poster Ben in LA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    3,659

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    Hi Yvonne, loved the Orwell quote!

    Here is the curious thing about Baltimore, dominated by Democrats since the 1960s - consider this from Newt Gingrich:
    All Americans should care enough about their fellow citizens trapped with bad leadership, bad government, selfish bureaucrats, and misleading news media. All of us should care about creating a much better future for poor Americans. That future has to start with a fact-based analysis of how we got here and who has been responsible.

    In Baltimore City, the answer is Democrat officials, who for a half century have crippled and weakened what was once a great and vibrant city.
    http://thefederalist.com/2015/05/18/...ores-collapse/

    -then ask -so why don't citizens in this failing city vote Republican?
    Gingrich could answer that in view of the industrial decline of the city and a significant loss of its population, leaving behind a largely Black and unemployed population, the Republicans offer nothing but more of the same, so they may as well vote Democrat. His own version of capitalism is in fact responsible for the economic decline that has had such a devastating impact on Baltimore, but he won't accept any responsibility for it, and blames it on Democrats instead.

    Here, for example, is a snapshot of what happened in a city which was once the 6th largest in the USA and an important source of steel, shipbuilding and motor manufacture:

    In 1971, when Sparrows Point was the largest steel mill in the country, a surge in steel imports led to massive layoffs among domestic producers. Three thousand workers at Sparrow Point lost their jobs that year, followed by another 7,000 in 1975.6 By the late 1980s, the workforce had dwindled to 8,000, accompanied by a decline in wages and benefits as the union conceded on many pay and benefits issues.7 Baltimore workers could no longer look to steel as a source of middle-class wages and job security.
    The story of Bethlehem’s steel mill at Sparrows Point is a microcosm of economic changes that profoundly affected Baltimore and other “rust belt” cities across the US during this period. The manufacturing industries, having long been the economic base for employment and output for nearly a century, dwindled and disappeared.
    Baltimore lost over 100,000 manufacturing jobs between 1950 and 1995, 75% of its industrial employment — not to mention most of the jobs with union representation. Currently, only 6% of all jobs in the City are in manufacturing. The collapse of industry led to a number of changes in the demographic makeup of the City and the surrounding region, contributing to a crisis in urban poverty that lingers today.

    http://www.nathanielturner.com/rober...1199union3.htm

    -And note that this decline began in the early 1970s when Nixon was President. Somewhere in these stories of the US and the rage against a system that has not provided secure well-paid jobs is a simple fact about capitalism: it has no nationality, it has no colour, and it has no mercy. When it is more profitable to produce in Sector B than Sector A, then production will move from one to the other, and is unlikely to return.
    And THAT'S why trump's bullshit promise of bringing manufacturing jobs back won't happen. Companies have no insentives to do so.

    On the topic of the monuments, not only are they monuments to traitors, they're also intimidation pieces. Many of them were erected during the Civil Rights era, with spikes around the time major civil rights legislation was being passed. The chart below shows this. Just look at the time around the decisions of Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education.

    Another angle. Imagine if Jews of today in Germany had to attend a high school called Hitler High or Goebbels's Elementary. If Italians had to attend Mussolini University. Not cool, right? Yet that's EXACTLY what's going on right now.

    Some on the right are now complaining about the timing of the calling for the removals. They obviously haven't been paying attention Because said call has been going on for YEARS. Charlottesville just accelerated it and made it louder.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	IMG_6084.JPG 
Views:	59 
Size:	32.8 KB 
ID:	1024451

    EDIT: A larger version of the photo can be found at this link.


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.
    Last edited by Ben in LA; 08-18-2017 at 11:39 PM.

  4. #54
    Silver Poster fred41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Queens, N.Y.
    Posts
    3,899

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    You need to prove that the people responsible identify themselves as 'left' -and are 'left' by a more objective set of criteria- with the problem that it is not clear to me what it means in the USA. The kind of people who smash windows are mostly anarchists, who are not thought of as 'left-wing', so I am not sure who it is you are talking about. We have had plenty of demos in the UK which resulted in the smashing of windows, defaced monuments, violent acts against the police -though none intended to kill or even severely injure. The socialist movements of Europe have existed for a long time and are embedded in our politics in a way that did not take root in the US notwithstanding the wobblies and occasional examples of union militancy such as in the auto industry in the 1920s. A large grouping of anti-fascists again might lead people to assume they are all left-wing, but this also may not be true. The ACLU is often derided as a left-wing organization by its critics 'on the right' yet it supported the right of the rally to take place in Emancipation Park as a defence of the First Amendment.

    It seems to me that a diverse group of people opposed to nationalism, white nationalism, white supremacy etc may not by definition be 'left' as the default position to 'the right', not in the US. In Europe the left bases its programme on a critique of the state and capitalism, it has an agenda in which control of the state apparatus is used to re-structure the economy so that the benefits of production are distributed more evenly, and believes that public services should be provided by the state rather than the market. The left is also opposed to nationalism replacing it with the belief that international co-operation is the only guarantee of world peace. There is a lot of laziness and obscurity in the use of labels, but few which can mistake what the groupings under 'alt-right' intend, and that is also because of the additional dimension in the USA of its deeply woven divisions between ethnic identity groupings which make it hard to place them on the left. The UK may have been deeply involved in the slave trade, but we never had slavery in the form it existed in the US, and that has created a profound cultural difference. Again, consider the Black Panther Party in the 1970s which attempted to fuse Marxism with Black Nationalism, even though the two are in contradiction. Is Black Lives Matter a left-wing organization? It is a complex problem but I don't know if a more nuanced definition of terms will make a difference when people become polarized by differences around which they gather for solidarity even when they don't actually agree on a lot of things. Another example would be feminism -are all feminist movements left-wing? I hope you see the problems of definition here.
    I see the problems with definition, I think many people do. But for the purposes of argument and news articles the simple labels work easier. When you are willing, perhaps even chomping at the bit, to use violence as a form of protest, then you are an extremist. You are not a violent moderate. So that leaves the middle out of it. The alt. right and the antifa movement are not two extreme right groups going at it. What you probably need is an in depth study of what the different sides are composed of, but that is left to the scholarly and not going to always come up in your average news article. The left fringe is going to be anti establishment (which a lot of the extreme right are also...I wouldn't be surprised if there were some occasional cross over) with a smattering of more extreme socialism (feel the Bern...you will probably get more of this added to the group).
    The reality is what motivates a protestor? If a protestor gets off mostly on the adrenaline rush caused by breaking the law...and then really gets off even more on the violence, then ideology really doesn't matter. It's then simply a rationale. It makes you an extremist with only two side to choose for simplicities sake. Right or Left.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/18/us/unm...eft/index.html


    3 out of 3 members liked this post.

  5. #55
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,446

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben in LA View Post
    On the topic of the monuments, not only are they monuments to traitors, they're also intimidation pieces. Many of them were erected during the Civil Rights era, with spikes around the time major civil rights legislation was being passed. The chart below shows this. Just look at the time around the decisions of Plessy vs Ferguson and Brown vs Board of Education.
    This is a key point because even on the BBC yesterday or the day before their North America correspondent made a passing reference to the monuments as a 19th century legacy, whereas if more people were made aware of these dates, they might be shocked into realising the context in which they were erected -often with no direct connection to the Civil War-, and not feel so bad about seeing them go, assuming that is their preference.

    By contrast, one of the most intriguing and in its own way, moving of monuments is the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington DC. I had read an article on it a few years before I saw it, but was surprised at how effective it is, I would even go so far as to say that it is one of the finest memorials of its kind I have seen, using memorials in London, Paris, Rome, Moscow and St Petersburg as comparisons. In part it is because of the quality of the stone (sourced from Bangalore in southern India for its reflective qualities), in part the symbolic position of the wall whose edges point at one end towards the Washington monument and the Lincoln Memorial at the other, and because there is no ornamentation, it is 'simply' a wall covered in names.

    The controversial question could be why should there be a memorial to a conflict that so damaged the reputation of the USA, was a military failure, and one that caused so much unnecessary destruction of human life and the environment in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia? Yet on another level, the Vietnam war became a conversation, or an argument, in the USA about the USA by the people who live there, and though it was not a civil war that challenged the integrity of the USA, there was -perhaps has always been- a need for 'closure' because the wounds that were opened by the war and its conduct were at their most sore in the USA itself.

    I wonder if the moral interrogation that followed the Vietnam war has since been replaced by something more dangerous, because it is so cynical -the acceptance of the unacceptable in Iraq, not once but twice, and the ease with which the armed forces intervene directly or by drone in numerous countries without a trace of regret. I don't know if it is 9/11 that changed the moral agenda as well as the old arguments about the causes of war, and the conduct of war, but it seems there is an assumption that wars can now be fought without accountability or oversight, and that is a world away from Vietnam, and I can't see how any monuments would help, which may be why I believe US administrations have so far resisted creating monuments for veterans of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  6. #56
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,446

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by fred41 View Post
    I see the problems with definition, I think many people do. But for the purposes of argument and news articles the simple labels work easier. When you are willing, perhaps even chomping at the bit, to use violence as a form of protest, then you are an extremist. You are not a violent moderate. So that leaves the middle out of it. The alt. right and the antifa movement are not two extreme right groups going at it. What you probably need is an in depth study of what the different sides are composed of, but that is left to the scholarly and not going to always come up in your average news article. The left fringe is going to be anti establishment (which a lot of the extreme right are also...I wouldn't be surprised if there were some occasional cross over) with a smattering of more extreme socialism (feel the Bern...you will probably get more of this added to the group).
    The reality is what motivates a protestor? If a protestor gets off mostly on the adrenaline rush caused by breaking the law...and then really gets off even more on the violence, then ideology really doesn't matter. It's then simply a rationale. It makes you an extremist with only two side to choose for simplicities sake. Right or Left.
    I agree because it is always easier to collapse complex arguments into a slogan, and the news at the pace it goes today is not really going to pause to unravel the true idenity of the participants in demonstrations and riots unless they do a 'deep background' piece aired at 11pm when most people have gone to bed.

    I think the violence at demonstrations may be a symptom of the deeper problem that we rely on established political parties to manage the state, yet they have presided over change that has not brought or sustained prosperity for most of those in work while the political system itself seems gridlocked and unable to make clear decisions, with no new policies and no new parties emerging to 'break the mould' and take us in a new direction. Meanwhile, capitalism continues to innovate rather than collapse, but creates new ways of making money without creating millions of new jobs to do it. Most people do not support the violent fringe, but do wonder if change is going to happen, if it will be positive, and where it will come from. And will it bring jobs and economic growth to places like Baltimore? A question to which I don't have an answer, but I suspect any economic revival there will never again create jobs in the volumes it once did, though it does mean some will benefit.

    Or, the US could end the 'war on drugs', and legalize narcotics so that all those gangs selling drugs on street corners can go legit, open shops and factories and make an honest buck from something that, like alcohol a century of so ago was also illegal and integrated into organized crime.


    3 out of 3 members liked this post.

  7. #57
    filghy2 Silver Poster
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    3,158

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    It seems that even Robert E Lee may not have been keen on building these monuments http://econospeak.blogspot.com.au/20...ert-e-lee.html


    2 out of 2 members liked this post.

  8. #58
    Senior Member Veteran Poster
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    937

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by Stavros View Post
    You need to prove that the people responsible identify themselves as 'left' -and are 'left' by a more objective set of criteria- with the problem that it is not clear to me what it means in the USA. The kind of people who smash windows are mostly anarchists, who are not thought of as 'left-wing', so I am not sure who it is you are talking about. We have had plenty of demos in the UK which resulted in the smashing of windows, defaced monuments, violent acts against the police -though none intended to kill or even severely injure. The socialist movements of Europe have existed for a long time and are embedded in our politics in a way that did not take root in the US notwithstanding the wobblies and occasional examples of union militancy such as in the auto industry in the 1920s. A large grouping of anti-fascists again might lead people to assume they are all left-wing, but this also may not be true. The ACLU is often derided as a left-wing organization by its critics 'on the right' yet it supported the right of the rally to take place in Emancipation Park as a defence of the First Amendment.

    It seems to me that a diverse group of people opposed to nationalism, white nationalism, white supremacy etc may not by definition be 'left' as the default position to 'the right', not in the US. In Europe the left bases its programme on a critique of the state and capitalism, it has an agenda in which control of the state apparatus is used to re-structure the economy so that the benefits of production are distributed more evenly, and believes that public services should be provided by the state rather than the market. The left is also opposed to nationalism replacing it with the belief that international co-operation is the only guarantee of world peace. There is a lot of laziness and obscurity in the use of labels, but few which can mistake what the groupings under 'alt-right' intend, and that is also because of the additional dimension in the USA of its deeply woven divisions between ethnic identity groupings which make it hard to place them on the left. The UK may have been deeply involved in the slave trade, but we never had slavery in the form it existed in the US, and that has created a profound cultural difference. Again, consider the Black Panther Party in the 1970s which attempted to fuse Marxism with Black Nationalism, even though the two are in contradiction. Is Black Lives Matter a left-wing organization? It is a complex problem but I don't know if a more nuanced definition of terms will make a difference when people become polarized by differences around which they gather for solidarity even when they don't actually agree on a lot of things. Another example would be feminism -are all feminist movements left-wing? I hope you see the problems of definition here.
    Black Lives Matter could be definitely considered a far left wing organization. Just look at the political platform they tried to push forward last year.

    As for the people who destroyed public property on Berkeley, they did it in response to Ann Coulter having a speaking engagement on campus. Considering Coulter's politics, some of the people who did it would identify themselves as being left wing.

    Look do I see the problems with definitions? Yes. Many discussions are more nuanced more than others. Feminism is a great example of this because depending on you ask, you will get a different answer as to what it means.

    But sometimes the definition does fit and not just because of simplicity and the brevity that comes with an article on the internet. Sometimes its just simple common sense.


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

  9. #59
    Senior Member Platinum Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    13,446

    Default Re: White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

    Quote Originally Posted by blackchubby38 View Post
    Black Lives Matter could be definitely considered a far left wing organization. Just look at the political platform they tried to push forward last year.
    As for the people who destroyed public property on Berkeley, they did it in response to Ann Coulter having a speaking engagement on campus. Considering Coulter's politics, some of the people who did it would identify themselves as being left wing.
    Look do I see the problems with definitions? Yes. Many discussions are more nuanced more than others. Feminism is a great example of this because depending on you ask, you will get a different answer as to what it means.
    But sometimes the definition does fit and not just because of simplicity and the brevity that comes with an article on the internet. Sometimes its just simple common sense.
    I would not describe Black Lives Matter as a 'far left' organization, but that is because I would consider its attitude to the State to be a key factor and I don't see any challenge to state power in their manifesto though it does challenge the way in which power is shared in the US- in this context it is less 'left-wing' than the original Black Panther Party. It is probably the difference in definition that comes from a European rather than an American perspective. Saul Alinsky would see BLM as a radical movement, and I see BLM in this context and in that American tradition of protest rather than from a 'left-right' viewpoint. The BLM website does help in this regard.
    https://web.archive.org/web/20151006...ng-principles/


    1 out of 1 members liked this post.

Similar Threads

  1. Tia Phoenixx: touring Vienna on March 19 to March 21 only!
    By asianphoenixx in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 03-21-2011, 01:39 PM
  2. BEING WHITE IS GREAT,TIME MACHINE :Louis CK - Being White
    By natina in forum Politics and Religion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-06-2010, 01:33 AM
  3. MIA FEVER IN NYC MARCH 8TH TO MARCH 12TH
    By wombat33 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-05-2008, 04:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •