PaulS

Well, I don't think it matters myself, but I do know Christians who feel threatened by any suggestion that the Noah's Ark story is a myth. Humans lived in the middle east for nearly 100,000 years before biblical stories were written. I have no doubt the various tribal and cultural stories were shared and built upon throughout the region over the decades. There is zero evidence of any worldwide flood only several thousand years ago, so clearly it didn't happen on a scale your conservative friends may want you to believe, but I expect on some local scale there was one or several significant floods that helped form these sort of stories and myths.

It's called "Burn One Down" but it is a song about smoking drugs. I can only say the words speak to me as they do, even if I am taking them out of context. Elen, I'm 52 and I still harm myself and others around me in many ways to this day! I think doing 'no' harm is an ideal, something to aim for, but also something to be a little relaxed about to some extent depending on what sort of harm we are discussing (drinking a little too much - okay, murdering others - not so okay, etc). Clearly harm to ourselves, to others, to our community, sits on a continuum that most will have a degree of difference on.

Personally, I read the Golden Rule in the context of the opening verses where it is found in Matthew 7 - "Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. 2 For with the judgment you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. 3 Why do you see the speck in your neighbor’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? 4 Or how can you say to your neighbor, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while the log is in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbor’s eye". So when in verse 12 I read Jesus as saying "In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets", I hear him calling one to action in a sense that he is saying "respect differences, love one another, get along, take a chill pill, nobody has all the answers". Now he might not have meant that (who knows if he even said it) but I think that is a good way to be. For me, Ben Harper's words sum it up nicely and for me possibly approaches it better because I don't think his words make people think they have to take action a certain way, because to me he is saying live and let live, love everyone for who they are, don't judge,". It's funny how it makes you sad but makes me feel happy. Each to their own I guess.

That's what I take out of it and for me, doing no harm doesn't mean only leaving others alone or not being active because indeed, failing to be active in itself can cause harm. Some might like to quibble over the precise words (and after all the song is largely about smoking weed) but the words themselves speak to me of actions such as not judging others. Not judging others is no action, and action, at the same time.

Thanks mate, that was indeed very thoughtful. And what a first paragraph! I like the way 'they' thought. Was that really the dominant theology of Christianity in the early 1900's, because Christianity in general seems to have moved away from that in recent decades?

Hi Vitarimor, I hope you enjoy reading and participating here. I think I'd enjoy reading more about what you mean about you finding the irony of how the dominant theology of the early 1900s is so relevant to our problems of today, if you should care to post about it sometime. Cheers Paul

I like that Ellen. For me, I think any 'word of God' can be summed up in the lyrics of my favorite Ben Harper song: My choice is what I choose to do And if I'm causing no harm It shouldn't bother you Your choice is who you choose to be And if your causin' no harm Then you're alright with me I can't imagine this being any less pure than the 'Golden Rule'.

They are all good points Ellen. It might be a bit simplistic but I see people around this matter in three broad groups - those that are happy with the status quo (which personally I think is becoming an out-of-date way of looking at the matter), those that will never be happy no matter how far things are taken (and probably sit in the group who are violent and destructive), and those that sit somewhere in the middle that perhaps say "we recognize that things can still be improved when it comes to race relations. Things are better, but they could still be improved - let's have the discussion". Personally, I'd like to see that group prevail. From my personal experience, I have found many people who feel agitated, angry, or distressed about something, really just want to be heard. I think there is a large element of the black community in the US and the indigenous community in Australia, that just want to be 'heard' on these matters. To have their hurt and offence recognized. To feel like they can be respected rather than ignored or expected to 'harden up' over history. I don't think it is a big ask and perhaps is an even greater demonstration of who is the bigger person for those who currently argue to keep such memorials and statues, to recognize that letting go could in many ways help heal and bring people together.

What do you think folks - these are the current odds on offer here in Australia for the election of the next US President. Is it worth backing Trump or do you think go the surer thing and back Biden? Who would you put your money on if you were a betting person?your

Now here is some great propaganda! Surely you don't agree with what she is saying? You are not a racist if you say all lives matter - the point the likes of BLM are trying to make is that by trying to diminish BLM with ALM is like trying to say all cancer kills when people are trying to draw attention to breast cancer. Of course all lives matter, but the movement is trying to get people to notice that black deaths are over-represented as a percentage of your population. But I would say, there is a wide range of opinions (on both sides) that take things to extremes. You don't have to apologize for standing for your flag, but there are some extremist who might hate you for it. You are allowed to go to church and no, you are not 'allowed' to burn churches to the ground. This is getting ludicrous. You are not allowed to go and loot other business just as much as you are not allowed to go and murder or rape people - but there are some who do that! Police are not all considered racist pigs - but some are. etc etc etc 'The' young speak out - God, I hope not, or you guys are in much, much worse shape than it already seems!

No, it didn't really. It seems you are still choosing to throw several different levels of debate/protest/violence into the same single dismissive pot. I liked the followup article Clarence Page wrote concerning this letter. I thought Page made a good point about the word 'Redskin' being a racial slur, as opposed to legitimate describing words such as Chiefs, Braves and Indians. I doubt you would agree with calling a native American a 'redskin' today, so I kinda think Page's original article was just acknowledging that people could apply some respect to the cultures that white people had ridiculed in the past and perhaps be mature enough to say "You're right. Redskin was once used as a racial slur, but we are bigger than that these days and we would like to show our native american brothers and sisters that we are all one nation, with equal dignity and equal rights". I just don't see it being a big deal myself. It seems the anti-change brigade get their shorts in a wad just as much as they think those who propose change do. I didn't really think it was humorous or quite true at all. I think the author misses the point altogether and distorts Page's intention - made clear where this letter writer can't differentiate between a racial slur and a legitimate describing word. But it makes good fodder for those so against considering the other point of view.

Australia has similar programs and positive-discrimination policies to help indigenous Australian's. These are good steps forward compared to what was in place (i.e. nothing) only several decades ago. It's not an issue that will be progressed or solved overnight or even within generations. I think we need to keep moving forward and I think removing barriers and obstacles such as monuments and memorials to white people who did their very best to keep black people down (and in the US's case in slavery), just shows blacks, and maybe more importantly, other whites, that we are trying harder to move forward and heal as a people. I don't think it's a big ask myself, but each to their own.

I didn't think we were arguing about whether the majority of whites are racist - I wasn't anyway. I'm just noting that many are and that racism is still a significant issues in the lives of black people.

I don't think it's that extreme - just demonstrating that people who feel they don't have a voice or aren't being listened to, took violent and destructive action back in the Tea Party days. I think you trivilaise the issue if you think it is only about some blacks being 'offended'. I think it runs a lot deeper than that, but each to their own opinion. There are discussions, e.g. New Orleans and others who have been driving this agenda for years and years. Unfortunately, the people who are now getting all the attention are the destructive vandals, which is clear to see has now become the issue getting in the way of what could be good discussion about moving race relations forward in the US. Alas now all the focus is on those who cause havoc and destruction as though they are the ONLY voice in this discussion. I disagree - It's not about cancelling historic culture, but rather about properly addressing history so that a large part of the population who's ancestors were abused, killed and tortured because of what these memorialized people stood for, might not be excluded from the story going forward. I think people need to recognize the harm that is caused by telling blacks to get over a statue that memorializes men who fought to keep slavery intact. Confederate monuments, as well as Confederate-named Army bases, are modern inventions meant to distort history and celebrate a racist past. These symbols serve one primary purpose — to honor figures of the past who upheld an undemocratic vision of America. They were created by white supremacists. And they function as a balm for white supremacists who long to return to a period when Americans regarded black people as property. History can be taught in books and schools - memorials can be placed in museums with balanced explanations about both what they stood for and what they stood against. I personally don't see the harm in empathizing with those that feel oppressed by such statues and accommodating their concerns in efforts to bring your nation together.

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.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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

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.

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?

I'm not sure one needs to study for 20 years to determine that peaceful protesters aren't the same as those who steal and set fires. I kinda think those actions speak for themselves as not peaceful. Unfortunately these people are taking away the from the discussion of what could be a great step forward for race relations in the US and the broader general healing of a nation. Perhaps greater minds, like the military hierarchy who are recognizing it is time to change names of certain military bases, may be able to bring the discussion sensibly to the table for those who are prepared to participate.

Actually, slavery was nowhere near universal in 1861: 1315 - Slavery was initially abolished in France but later found a resurgence (probably because so many other countries were taking advantage of it) 1803 -Denmark/Norway becomes the first country in Europe to ban the African slave trade. 1804 - Northern US states abolished slavery (your south hung on until it lost the civil war) 1807 - The British Parliament makes it illegal for British ships to transport slaves and for British colonies to import them. 1813 - Sweden, a nation that never authorized slave traffic, consents to ban the African slave trade. and on and on we go until 1865 with numerous countries abolishing slavery until the whole of the US finally got around to it (no thanks to the South of course who were fighting to keep it in place - many of those southern slave owners were Christians too). Christianity along with non-Christians in western civilization did indeed put an end to legal slavery. Slavery clearly existed long before Christianity (e.g. the Israelites took and used slaves) - Christianity just continued with the practice for some time until eventually it became unacceptable to various societies. Yes, but putting all protesters into the single BLM box is what I consider your error. It's like saying all Christians are identical, when clearly they're not (thankfully). But in trying to keep the thread on track, know that I'm not suggesting that the US or Australia currently support the historical poor treatment they have respectively metered out to black Americans and indigenous Australians, but rather that there are a significant number of these people that say today, that it is time to recognize that the historical significance of many of these historical figures, is actually antithetical to the human dignity of blacks and indigenous Australians. I think myself that we can finally understand and recognize that to hold these people up in memorials/statues/naming rights etc is to continue to say to blacks and indigenous Australians - "we don't care that they were historically bad for you - just get over it". You are welcome to deny that such arguments exists, but I think you are missing out if you actually do think that is the case. I think it is a valid point many black Americans and indigenous Australian's are making and I think it deserves discussion, not outright dismissal. But each to their own.

Can we just make it clear that I am not referring to looters and anarchists and those that just want to cause trouble. It seems clear to me, a mere onlooker, that there is a legitimate movement within the African American community to put some balance into the equation concerning what American society idolizes and recognition of the much pain such has brought the black community. There is a legitimate discussion to be had here but it seems the looters and violent protesters have distracted from genuine discussion. I think the US will be poorer for it if it misses this opportunity to come together with a large element of the community.

No winners and losers? I dare say black people were certainly the winners when the South was defeated, otherwise they most definitely would have remained in slavery for decades, if not centuries to come. Yep, telling black people to get over any offence they may be caused by white supremacist memorials, seems like a productive solution to such concerns.

So if the South had won, slavery would have ceased? Of course not. Who exactly is the 'current mob'? Which state are you referring to? Are you referring to every single individual that is protesting? Putting people in boxes and groups like that serves no purpose in understanding the issues. It is way too simple to lump violent anarchists in with peaceful protesters and lose understanding of the underlying issues in your society.