Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
PaulS

Cancel Culture?

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, PaulS said:

What I am talking about is the real life hero worship of actual people who for a large part of your society, were effectively evil.  Again, because it is the most succinct example, towns demonstrating the heroic General Lee are saying to black people - we don't care that he wanted to keep you enslaved!  For what reason other than white supremacy is their value in displaying memorials of General Lee?

 

Exactly, for what other reason? The civil war was about slavery - all other 'reasons' are an attempt to rewrite history. This heritage was wrong in itself, this heritage was defeated, yet this heritage still has 'hangers-on' who see this heritage as glorious, its generals sterling examples of honorable gentlemen - yet it is all a mirage for those who broke their oath, who committed treason and who were defeated and their way of life judged to be a failure.

The confederate flag is symbolic of nothing more than this failed heritage and support for slavery. I applaud the SEC and the NCAA in their stance toward those colleges that fly and honor such a flag: they will never be honored with highly visible, financially rewarding Championship games. Let's see how fast those flags change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Burl said:

Lee is considered a hero because he turned down Lincoln’s offer to lead the Union army as it would cause Him to war against his State of Virginia.

And he thereby committed treason .................in the cause of southern dependency on slavery.

And he lost so there is no reason for the winners to have to suffer monuments to men who committed such treason, fought against the United States and were soundly defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, JosephM said:

General Lee's statue is a part of history. Part of the evolution of our country and collective consciousness. There were no winners and losers of the Civil war in my view as Thomas seems to portray.

Well, that's rich. Please check the surrender. Hint the losers surrender, the winners don't.

This is rewriting and ignoring (or simply not understanding) history as its worst: we now have those who declare, regardless of the facts, that the Confederacy didn't lose 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

There are efforts to remove statues beyond the direct intervention of protestors but what is a statue compared to the the defeated heritage and support for slavery that has continued to give space to violence against black men and women (again when were this 'heritage' constructed?). Sometimes protestors, of necessity, go the extra mile. I'm sure the British didn't like our tea party but did it make the protestors a mob? was it a necessary step in their process? was it merely reveling in destruction or did the  destruction have a larger purpose? 

Are some over zealous? Are they human beings who are flawed and make mistakes? Yet, their instinct to remove the staues of a treasonous heritage that fought to continue to enslave human beings, statues that were put up in a Jim Crow era (unless you support that stuff) is on the mark. And it is inevitable: the day will come when all such statues are removed, when forts are named for those who fought for the union/the constitution and when the entire confederate movement will be looked on as a low point in US history and the history of the world.  

Southern cities handled this well years ago with public meetings, removal and repositioning of statues, etc.  All legal and with full and engaged public discussions.  No problems.  New Orleans is a good example.

The vandalism now foist upon us is centered in a few northern liberal cities.  Slavery was not legal in Seattle or Minneapolis but still churches are burnt and synagogues defaced there while the mayors refuse to enforce the law.  No Confederate statues or schools of course so terrorists tear down statues of Lincoln, women and abolitionists because they were white.

The Christian churches and the abolitionists ended slavery yet they are attacked?  Jews were leaders in the civil rights movement.  This is criminality, not protest.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thormas said:

Exactly, for what other reason? The civil war was about slavery - all other 'reasons' are an attempt to rewrite history. This heritage was wrong in itself, this heritage was defeated, yet this heritage still has 'hangers-on' who see this heritage as glorious, its generals sterling examples of honorable gentlemen - yet it is all a mirage for those who broke their oath, who committed treason and who were defeated and their way of life judged to be a failure.

The confederate flag is symbolic of nothing more than this failed heritage and support for slavery. I applaud the SEC and the NCAA in their stance toward those colleges that fly and honor such a flag: they will never be honored with highly visible, financially rewarding Championship games. Let's see how fast those flags change.

No, the history you learned about 1816 is incorrect but widely taught in middle schools.   Read up. The causes were the economy and the desire to grab geopolitical power, as is the case in all wars.   
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, thormas said:

Well, that's rich. Please check the surrender. Hint the losers surrender, the winners don't.

This is rewriting and ignoring (or simply not understanding) history as its worst: we now have those who declare, regardless of the facts, that the Confederacy didn't lose 

I guess you might not understand the statement concerning there being no winners.  Yes Thomas, the Confederate army surrendered. Families were divided and the toll on both sides was horrific. There were no real winners. One could say the Blacks won  freedom or argue the West won but to the Union and Confederacy the losses were great on both sides and The United States alone was the real winner which included both the Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers. That's when the healing started and that is history. To argue that the north really won in my view is open to debate and that simplistic view that either side won  doesn't take a lot of factors into account.

"Lincoln's decision to fight rather than to let the Southern states secede was not based on his feelings towards slavery. Rather, he felt it was his sacred duty as President of the United States to preserve the Union at all costs." ( From his Biography)  If the issue was slavery alone would there have been a Civil War at that time? I don't know but from studying history, i doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Burl said:

Southern cities handled this well years ago with public meetings, removal and repositioning of statues, etc.  All legal and with full and engaged public discussions.  No problems.  New Orleans is a good example.

Excellent.  Now maybe we're getting somewhere close to the original question that I posted, hopefully now having done away with the distraction of illegal acts - riots, looting and vandalism.  Those people don't own the discussion.

It seems New Orleans identified an issue close to what I am talking about and chose to deal with it in a constructive way.  Perhaps then there are other states that could now be following suit as it does seem there are still those asking for such action to be considered.  Perhaps not a homogeneous black community voice (or perhaps it is - who knows), but a large one nonetheless.

So again I ask, is the removal of statues, memorials and other uses such as "naming rights", commemorating people who have played a major part in the historical  repression, segregation and overall discrimination of black people (and by that term I mean African Americans in the US as well as indigenous Australians here in Oz) something whose time has come and should be considered for removal?  

Whilst some of these historical figures mean something to many white people, they also mean something very dark and bad to black people (again, let's not get hung up on whether it is all or just many black people).  In the interests of healing and bringing our people together more, is it time to shine a light on this issue and maybe rectify it? (New Orleans seemed to think so, as you point out).

What do you actually think about the issue of maybe it is time for more of these memorials, statues and names to be removed, legally?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 10:25 AM, JosephM said:

Some people may  just need to get over taking offence where none was intended.

That TIME article I quoted earlier pointed out that many of these memorials were indeed raised as a symbol of white supremacy and victory in the face of defeat.  It seems that in many instances offence was indeed intended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the transcript of the speech the Mayor of New Orleans delivered after the people decided to remove confederate memorials.  It certainly begs the question that if the people of New Orleans can recognize these issues with such statues and memorials, what's the issue with all of us understanding that?  Anyway, I think this speech is a very good read and accurately says what I have in mind about issues in the US and what I am trying to say about a similar issue here in Oz for indigenous Australians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/opinion/mitch-landrieus-speech-transcript.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked beside Mitch on Hunger Project stuff and the anti-David Duke campaign.  Makes me miss the old New Orleans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 11:48 PM, PaulS said:

Here's the transcript of the speech the Mayor of New Orleans delivered after the people decided to remove confederate memorials.  It certainly begs the question that if the people of New Orleans can recognize these issues with such statues and memorials, what's the issue with all of us understanding that?  Anyway, I think this speech is a very good read and accurately says what I have in mind about issues in the US and what I am trying to say about a similar issue here in Oz for indigenous Australians.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/opinion/mitch-landrieus-speech-transcript.html

It is a great speech Paul, speaks eloquently to the issue and reflects nicely what you have in mind and what you have said.

 

Good Find!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 3:02 PM, Burl said:

No, the history you learned about 1816 is incorrect but widely taught in middle schools.   Read up. The causes were the economy and the desire to grab geopolitical power, as is the case in all wars.   
 

1816?

The economy was built on slavery and as put it in the Landrieu speech, "the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous ‘cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

 

You fight a losing cause  as did the condereracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 6:10 PM, JosephM said:

I guess you might not understand the statement concerning there being no winners.  Yes Thomas, the Confederate army surrendered. Families were divided and the toll on both sides was horrific. There were no real winners. One could say the Blacks won  freedom or argue the West won but to the Union and Confederacy the losses were great on both sides and The United States alone was the real winner which included both the Union soldiers and Confederate soldiers. That's when the healing started and that is history. To argue that the north really won in my view is open to debate and that simplistic view that either side won  doesn't take a lot of factors into account.

"Lincoln's decision to fight rather than to let the Southern states secede was not based on his feelings towards slavery. Rather, he felt it was his sacred duty as President of the United States to preserve the Union at all costs." ( From his Biography)  If the issue was slavery alone would there have been a Civil War at that time? I don't know but from studying history, i doubt it.

Of course I understood your intent Joseph and we can get into philosophical/ethicak discussions of many human actions over the course of our history.

 

But historically, the confederacy lost. As you stated clearly, "Yes Thomas, the Confederate army surrendered." The historical really it that the Confederate cause was defeated and should have stayed in the ruins of history except for some who never accepted that they were wrong, who insisted their case was noble, who continued to believe that black men and women were inferior and who erected their monuments and wave their flag in order to recapture a glory that never was.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, thormas said:

1816?

The economy was built on slavery and as put it in the Landrieu speech, "the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous ‘cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

 

You fight a losing cause  as did the condereracy.

Grasping at out of context proof texts? 😶

Google causes of the civil war.  Especially note the role of tariffs.  Historians understand this period well.  There was plenty of documentation.

And the condereracy WAS in 1816 😉

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Burl said:

Grasping at out of context proof texts? 😶

Google causes of the civil war.  Especially note the role of tariffs.  Historians understand this period well.  There was plenty of documentation.

And the condereracy WAS in 1816 😉

No grasping - there for all to see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Another example of cancel culture (wondering about his position on the statues) combined with ruining the neighborhood.

Are his kids mortified, is his wife fit to be tied, are the neighbors making themselves scarce?

What was this guy thinking and, even more so, what was the trumpster thinking: didn't see/hear the chant. Sure?

 

Edited by thormas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/27/2020 at 11:29 PM, PaulS said:

That TIME article I quoted earlier pointed out that many of these memorials were indeed raised as a symbol of white supremacy and victory in the face of defeat.  It seems that in many instances offence was indeed intended.

Unfortunately Time magazine is a left leaning periodical. Not a wimpier was heard during my lifetime til recently and suddenly now that many Americans have all kinds of free time with the coronavirus and fueled by left leaning media it has become a 'big thing'. The majority of Americans have no problem with historical monuments. The vocal minority is trying to push things onto the majority. It seems to me that each community should take a consensus of people in that area and if they don't want a monument then vote it out but this rampant destruction is offensive to every law abiding American. Communities have the power to peacefully remove what they deem offensive and i have no problem with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obama on 'Cancel Culture'. I would agree with him. 1 minute long   ------>                     Cancel Culture

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is going to be a memorable Fourth of July.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JosephM said:

Unfortunately Time magazine is a left leaning periodical. Not a wimpier was heard during my lifetime til recently and suddenly now that many Americans have all kinds of free time with the coronavirus and fueled by left leaning media it has become a 'big thing'. The majority of Americans have no problem with historical monuments. The vocal minority is trying to push things onto the majority. It seems to me that each community should take a consensus of people in that area and if they don't want a monument then vote it out but this rampant destruction is offensive to every law abiding American. Communities have the power to peacefully remove what they deem offensive and i have no problem with that.

Left leaning or not, the points that the Time article make out would still seem valid to many.  Do you think it is possible that you are being hoodwinked by the Right, who may be pretending there is always a 'leftist' agenda when people are simply saying things the Right don't want to hear?

I don't think it is just the coronavirus or Left-leaning media that is generating this 'movement' (which incidentally I don't see as a single, united movement).  As can be seen in the New Orleans example, action was taken over three years ago.  And I'm pretty sure there would have been a fair bit of momentum required in getting to that point, so I don't see this as something just to blame on idle hands and an agitating Left.  Although I do think the lack of ability of Trump to intervene and try and bring people together has fueled the fires most certainly.

That you have heard very little in your lifetime about this matter does not surprise me.  77% of your nation is white (66% if you exclude Latinos and Hispanics), 12% is black - is it any surprise that the voice of 12% doesn't get far?  The fact that years ago other states had to enact new laws to prohibit the removal of historic statues seems to indicate the issue has been around for some time.  Is it possible that largely 77% of people aren't really all that concerned about addressing this issue?  Can you entertain the notion that you might have a different view if say you were a black man in Alabama or another state that glorifies the slavery-protecting Confederacy?

I listened to a talkback radio conversation here the other day where the guest was an aboriginal woman asking that a particular memorial be addressed as it glorified a white version of history but ignored the black version.  The local government representative said 'all the right things' about looking into the mater (read - very little action) and then capped it off with "this hasn't been a major concern for our community".  Of course it hasn't - your community is only 2.5% aboriginal!  Honestly, how can white people think all is okay just because their world isn't affected.  It does get affected eventually - as you are seeing now in the US.  

I think also the fact that we are living in the information age and an age of disruption to so many 'norms' is another reason why we see people now making an issue of these things.  In many ways I am encouraged but in some ways scared for society.  Unity is required, not division.

Indeed a consensus would be a start, but again, if the black vote can't exceed 12% and the white vote can allow for up to 77%, I'm not sure a simple consensus is fair.

Again (and again) I agree the rampant destruction is not a good way to make your point, and again I say these people don't own the discussion, they are one element to it.  Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater, I would suggest.  Although I must say I do find it amusing that destruction such as that caused by the Sons of Liberty back in 1773 and the later anarchy and revolt against the legitimate government of the time, even going to war against it, is something idolized by Americans.  It seems the victors are the ones who write history and breaking laws seems acceptable when one is on the side for breaking the laws.  People just need to be on the right side of history to accept law-breaking I think.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, PaulS said:

Left leaning or not, the points that the Time article make out would still seem valid to many.  Do you think it is possible that you are being hoodwinked by the Right, who may be pretending there is always a 'leftist' agenda when people are simply saying things the Right don't want to hear?

Being hoodwinked is always a possibility. 🙂 To me it is not a political thingy but rather personal experience. I do see such a media bias on both sides however 90 percent of mainstream media is slanted to only report the left side of things. My personal experience with people show the majority clearly does not oppose the statues but as i said it should be left up to the consensus of each community in which they reside and done peacefully. 

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't think it is just the coronavirus or Left-leaning media that is generating this 'movement' (which incidentally I don't see as a single, united movement).  As can be seen in the New Orleans example, action was taken over three years ago.  And I'm pretty sure there would have been a fair bit of momentum required in getting to that point, so I don't see this as something just to blame on idle hands and an agitating Left.  Although I do think the lack of ability of Trump to intervene and try and bring people together has fueled the fires most certainly.

There is nothing to stop the majority voting out statues and monuments. What we have now is an agitated minority trying to push their agenda on the majority. Sure it has been said before in times past with no change but that is because most people are not offended. When most are, then vote it down. I have no problem with that . Until then 'cancel culture' and destruction of property will get us no where except further division.

 

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

That you have heard very little in your lifetime about this matter does not surprise me.  77% of your nation is white (66% if you exclude Latinos and Hispanics), 12% is black - is it any surprise that the voice of 12% doesn't get far?  The fact that years ago other states had to enact new laws to prohibit the removal of historic statues seems to indicate the issue has been around for some time.  Is it possible that largely 77% of people aren't really all that concerned about addressing this issue?  Can you entertain the notion that you might have a different view if say you were a black man in Alabama or another state that glorifies the slavery-protecting Confederacy?

I might have a different view if i were a black man. But at the present i don't see color and would hope many of those of different color, creed, etc will get past such distinctions. Do you have a problem with if you are in a minority voice and don't get your way?  🙂

 

12 hours ago, PaulS said:

Indeed a consensus would be a start, but again, if the black vote can't exceed 12% and the white vote can allow for up to 77%, I'm not sure a simple consensus is fair.

Who said the world was always fair? What is fair? If we are going to be a democratic republic, we must listen but we can't allow a vocal minority to dictate over such a matter or you will upset the majority and have even worse a situation.  Do you think we need a civil war over such a matter?  People will always be offended if things don't go their way and we have agreed that we are a democracy of sorts. (Actually a Republic)

PS  Did you listen to the Obama 1 minute video on "cancel culture"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a YouTube video by a black man that i believe is worth watching about this whole racism issue. Worth watching to the end.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, JosephM said:

My personal experience with people show the majority clearly does not oppose the statues but as i said it should be left up to the consensus of each community in which they reside and done peacefully. 

Again, how can anyone expect 12% of a population to have an equal voice to 77%?  Sure, the 12% can win over a percentage of the 77%, but the odds are stacked against them I would suggest, particularly when a large number of the 77% are happy with the staus quo because it doesn't really affect them.

Quote

There is nothing to stop the majority voting out statues and monuments. What we have now is an agitated minority trying to push their agenda on the majority. Sure it has been said before in times past with no change but that is because most people are not offended. When most are, then vote it down. I have no problem with that . Until then 'cancel culture' and destruction of property will get us no where except further division.

The only thing that stops them is the practicality of getting legislation heard and in place when you are a subsequent minority.  Yes, there is an agitated minority - just as there was in the days the US began to reject the rightful English government of the day.  The minority wasn't being listened to then, so they took action.

Quote

I might have a different view if i were a black man. But at the present i don't see color and would hope many of those of different color, creed, etc will get past such distinctions. Do you have a problem with if you are in a minority voice and don't get your way?  🙂

It's not about 'seeing' color I think, but rather about having empathy for the reality that 'color' does actually exist.  Do you have a problem if you are a minority voice and don't get your way - perhaps ask the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party.

Quote

Who said the world was always fair? What is fair? If we are going to be a democratic republic, we must listen but we can't allow a vocal minority to dictate over such a matter or you will upset the majority and have even worse a situation.  Do you think we need a civil war over such a matter?  People will always be offended if things don't go their way and we have agreed that we are a democracy of sorts. (Actually a Republic)

I don't say the world is fair, but that doesn't mean we don't strive for fairness.  I am not suggesting anybody be dictated to a vocal minority, but am simply suggesting there is a genuine place for discussing this matter and moving forward with a little more empathy for black people who are saying that memorials to white people who were a evil to black people, no longer have a place in a modern world (other than maybe a museum).  I don't think you need a civil war, but I do think there needs to be more discussion around the matter and not a simple dismissal of the issue because a minority are violent and destructive.

Quote

PS  Did you listen to the Obama 1 minute video on "cancel culture"?

I did, but he's not talking about looking at a broader issue such as how memorials to white imperialists affect black people, he is referring to modern individuals either being called out or doing the calling out over minor issues.  He quite rightfully acknowledges that it is easy to make a mistake, to say something slightly in the wrong context, to make a poor choice in words, and that we need to be really careful thereafter labeling somebody because of this.  Such words of wisdom are a genuine effort to bring people together rather than drive them apart, but he's simply not talking about addressing longstanding issues such as memorials on display of those who wanted to keep slavery intact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JosephM said:

Here is a YouTube video by a black man that i believe is worth watching about this whole racism issue. Worth watching to the end.

For one so concerned about biased media, you seem a bit quick to promote this MAGA cap-wearing, Trump supporter.

Not to say that he doesn't make some legitimate points that I also agree with, and I am very glad that as a black man he has never experienced racism (see below for some research comparison), bit it is a little hard to not think he may just be a little bit politically biased when some of his other YouTube videos are titled "Why black men choose white women over black women", "Democrats hate black people", Democrats have no message for the black community", Democrats want to destroy America", and a few other gems.  I wonder which YouTube market, I mean audience, he is catering to?

I have no doubt we could play tit for tat and produce videos with opposing views from different people about the same subject.  Some blacks may not experience racism, but many do.  Some blacks may not care about memorials celebrating white people who wanted to keep blacks in slavery, but obviously many do.  

Personally, I think you could all do with discussing the matter more rather than dismissing one argument over another and continuing with the division that your society is experiencing.  Australia has its own racial issues also.

Back to your YouTuber who has never experienced racism in his life.  I don't know if the Pew Research Centre is what you consider a leftist organisation who's research should be disregarded, but their research does seem to portray a different picture than happens to be your YouTuber's experience.

image.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, PaulS said:

It's not about 'seeing' color I think, but rather about having empathy for the reality that 'color' does actually exist.  Do you have a problem if you are a minority voice and don't get your way - perhaps ask the Sons of Liberty and the Boston Tea Party.

Frankly, i think your analogy is a bit extreme. We are talking about some people being offended not about

 

9 hours ago, PaulS said:

I don't say the world is fair, but that doesn't mean we don't strive for fairness.  I am not suggesting anybody be dictated to a vocal minority, but am simply suggesting there is a genuine place for discussing this matter and moving forward with a little more empathy for black people who are saying that memorials to white people who were a evil to black people, no longer have a place in a modern world (other than maybe a museum).  I don't think you need a civil war, but I do think there needs to be more discussion around the matter and not a simple dismissal of the issue because a minority are violent and destructive.

Discussions are fine but this here in the US is not discussions. Even many Blacks object to what is going on.

 

10 hours ago, PaulS said:

I did, but he's not talking about looking at a broader issue such as how memorials to white imperialists affect black people, he is referring to modern individuals either being called out or doing the calling out over minor issues.  He quite rightfully acknowledges that it is easy to make a mistake, to say something slightly in the wrong context, to make a poor choice in words, and that we need to be really careful thereafter labeling somebody because of this.  Such words of wisdom are a genuine effort to bring people together rather than drive them apart, but he's simply not talking about addressing longstanding issues such as memorials on display of those who wanted to keep slavery intact.

Well, it seems to me this whole issue is about "cancel culture" . The monuments and statues are part of our historical culture and there is a clear movement to cancel them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service