White Nationalists March on University of Virginia

[Stavros]

There is the wider issue of public monuments, when and why they were erected, and whether or not the individuals turned into Bronze or Stone should now be removed. In the UK in 2015 there was a lot of controversy over an attempt to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from an Oxford College, and many might be aware that a former MP (Ann Widdicombe) was amongst others who are offended by the statue of Oliver Cromwell that stands right outside the House of Commons an want it melted down or removed. Origins are important here, as the Cromwell statue was erected in 1895 to a fanfare of applause -and public hostility from Irish Catholics and Conservatives.

I ask myself what the statue or Robert E. Lee was supposed to commemorate and why it is in that place and not another. I am not an American so I ought not to care one way or another, but it does seem to me that a residual bitterness at the fact they lost the War, has enabled -for some people, and not all of them from the 'South'- a contemporary resentment at the reality of American life in Virginia and the 'South' to use the Civil War and its symbols as if the war never ended, even if neither 'States rights' nor slavery are the precise issue today. It appears to be some odd nostalgia for an America that maybe never existed, but which when cast in Stone or Bronze summons up what might have been as a replacement for what is.

Perhaps the most curious monument to an American is in Saratoga National Park, the 'Boot' monument that celebrates -but does not name or depict (other than his Boot, 'coz he broke his leg in the battle)- General Benedict Arnold, the man who defeated the British at the Battle of Saratoga before taking the King's gold and becoming one of 'the most hated' Americans of the revolutionary wars...
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/01/01/...nedict-Arnold/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35161671

[trish]

I would think very few countries have dedicated statues and memorials to treasonous generals or have allowed the citizens to fly and celebrate the flag of a treasonous rebellion. Our public schools teach that both sides of the Civil War fought bravely and honorably and that each side had heros that deserve the recognition of the nation as a whole. That such memorials exist is testimony to the will to set aside the grievances that led to (and accumulated throughout) the war between the states and heal the rift between the two opposing sides. It is worth noting that this reduction, (designed to placate the ‘two sides’) to some extent, leaves aside the newly freed slaves and their descendants.

These symbols of the attempt to knit together and forget old wounds have been corrupted by neo-nazis, white-supremacists, the alt-right and various amateur militia who imagine that they’re being oppressed by current civil rights laws, current immigration policies, a non-existent censorship on free speech, unfair taxation and threats to the second amendment. Others of them even complain their natural supremacy is neither recognized nor respected. Long thriving in the backwaters of the internet, these pathetically ignorant entities have come into some prominence thanks to the fact that our toddler in chief is all but one of them.

So it is not surprising that the statue of General Lee in Charlottesville came to be seen as representing a kind of racism and white nationalism that is repugnant to this largely liberal place. And so the town voted to relocate General Lee to a less prominent venue. There is some question as to whether the Charlottesville the authority to do so, or whether the authority rests with the State of Virginia. This is now being settled in the courts.

Why neo-nazis from Ohio, Missouri and elsewhere care about where General Lee stands in the town of Charlottesville is a question that unveils the symbolism behind the the statue. General Lee is no longer symbolic of the healing process between the states. He is no longer the heroic general of a vast and tragic war. He now represents racial purity, white-supremacy, hatred of immigrants, of Muslims, of Jews__ of everyone who isn’t white and Christian.

This why we can no longer have nice things.

[trish]

Correction: There is some question as to whether Charlottesville has the authority to do so, or whether the authority rests with the State of Virginia. This is now being settled in the courts.

[broncofan]

I have not encountered a Trump supporter who has any reason to support him other than intense dislike for large segments of society. I could not say that about any other politician without feeling I was being unfair. But think of his torch-bearers on this site: one posted Pepe with a swastika in front of Auschwitz, one posted about Muslims as though they are subhuman and called Ruth Bader Ginsburg a hooknose, and one claims that while she doesn't support neo-nazism she finds Pepe cute and wants Trump to build that wall.

The phrase white supremacism is one that describes the most extreme form of racial bigotry. I did not used to think it existed on a continuum, but it cannot just refer to people who carry the confederate flag or who believe all non-white people are innately inferior. It must also refer to those people who hear someone providing cover for it and cannot condemn them. Who react with the same outrage to rowdy antifa supporters as they do to Nazis. Who want to see black people arrested for protesting but don't even shrug when they see openly armed white men in military fatigues carrying flags of treason or symbols of genocide. For an example of this, check out the disparity in the number of people arrested in Ferguson and Charlottesville.

The white house bears responsibility for this outbreak of white supremacism because they have not condemned these supporters with the requisite force. They bear responsibility because they employ racist ideologues, namely Steven Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Jeff Sessions. They bear responsibility because they allow their views to subtly appear in speeches asking us to cherish our history after a march about the continued prominence of confederate statues turned deadly. And they bear responsibility because they first considered the political cost of denouncing racists before they considered racism's victims.

The reason I posted about people being fired from their jobs for appearing at this rally is because leadership is not coming from the top. If people want to live in a civilized society, then they will have to actively ensure they do not employ barbarians. Germany deserves a lot of credit for their refusal to allow any commemoration of the Nazis. We cannot take quite as strict an approach to racism as they do because some of their laws would violate our first amendment, but we can say that if you march with a torch yelling racist slogans, you can be excluded from fraternizing with the civilized people.

[broncofan]

http://www.inforum.com/opinion/lette...ic-and-actions

Thought this was in interesting letter from a father about his son stating that he's no longer welcome in his home as long as he's a white supremacist.

[blackchubby38]

I have always had an interest in history. I constantly read and watch documentaries about it. When it comes to American history, you have to accept the good with the bad. I also believe that the great things that this country has accomplished should not be diminished by the ugliness that has been part of our history. At the same time, that bad shouldn't be rationalized or defended as "well that's the way things were done back then".

When it comes to the symbols associated with the Confederacy, I think they need to be taken into context. When the Confederate flag is being used by the Klan, White Nationalists, or Neo Nazis during a march, it becomes a symbol of hate. The flag decal on the General Lee on the Dukes of Hazard television show, was no big deal and is not a reason to have a show that ran over 30 years ago yanked from a cable network. While I wasn't personally offended by the Confederate flag being flown over the South Carolina statehouse, it was time for it to come down.

When it comes to the people that were associated with the Confederacy, I think you have to look at them with historical perspective. While obviously I'm glad that the Union won the war, I can understand why certain people fought for the other side. As a person who likes reading about military history, I can appreciate their brilliance and valor in battle. But since they did lose the war, they shouldn't have been celebrated with monuments or have parks named after them.

[filghy2]

I would think very few countries have dedicated statues and memorials to treasonous generals or have allowed the citizens to fly and celebrate the flag of a treasonous rebellion. Our public schools teach that both sides of the Civil War fought bravely and honorably and that each side had heros that deserve the recognition of the nation as a whole. That such memorials exist is testimony to the will to set aside the grievances that led to (and accumulated throughout) the war between the states and heal the rift between the two opposing sides. It is worth noting that this reduction, (designed to placate the ‘two sides’) to some extent, leaves aside the newly freed slaves and their descendants.

I agree with your other points, but I think you're presenting a rather rose-coloured view of US history here. Rather than being an honourable struggle fought in a gentlemanly fashion, the civil war was characterised by many atrocities, eg http://listverse.com/2013/03/17/10-w...-us-civil-war/. In particular, captured black Union troops were routinely executed by the confederates.

Setting aside of grievances after the civil war largely took the form of the North acquiescing in the continuation of institutionalised racial discrimination in the South for the best part of 90 years. In effect, there was a Faustian bargain - don't try to secede again and we'll give you a free hand in the treatment of blacks (short of bringing back slavery).

I'm not raising this for academic reasons, but because understanding the present requires understanding the history that led up to here. Too many well-intentioned Americans want to believe in a 'shining light on the hill' version of their history that minimises the darker aspects. I think this may have contributed to an overly-complacent view that overt racism is an aberration at the margins that would naturally face away over time.

[Stavros]

A sequence of fascinating posts above. What occurs to me is that while I can see how the process of reconciliation may have dulled the ferocity of the division between the Union and the Confederacy and thus tended to reduce Confederate monuments to a benign status, in fact this obscures the latent hostility that appears to linger as a contemporary reflection on society rather than maintaining a direct link to the Civil War -I wonder how many of the alt-right activists who descended on Charlottesville have roots in the Confederate states. Critically, the Confederacy had more than one flag, and the flag the militants wave is the Battle Flag, which implies that the people waving it are prepared for 'war', and that is anything but benign, but a deliberate provocation to law and order and government.
At what point does free speech defend the right to display a flag of war, and at what point does waving the flag of war threaten free speech?

[broncofan]

I know it's better to get it right than to get it first. I did not watch Trump's most recent statement but I'm sure whatever he said will be compiled into an article shortly to summarize. I only opened my twitter feed and rational people are aghast.

From what I can gather he compared statues of Robert Lee to George Washington, saying about their removal, "what's next we remove statues of Washington." Apparently he also said that he is sure there were good people on both sides and then blamed the "alt-left" for much of the violence. Let me remind you a white supremacist plowed a car into a crowd of people and an African-American man was beaten with heavy sticks by multiple assailants who had shields with fascist insignia on them.

Just based on this it must be a breaking point. The rally was very obviously a white nationalist rally. There were not good people on both sides as the rally was organized by white supremacist haters. There is no alt-left and since Charlottesville Trump has been retweeting alt-right figures saying stuff like "nobody is talking about shootings in Chicago", which is racist code in my opinion.

Any company that remains on his business council must be boycotted. We'll find out more.

[filghy2]

This is the full statement, most notable for the claim that the 'alt-left' came charging at the people in the rally with clubs. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...41662?lo=ap_b2
I guess the only positive is that Trump just ripped off the fig leaf put in place by his previous statement, so that mainstream Republicans can't just pretend the issue has been dealt with and try to put it behind them.