Too late?

[Beutlin]

Who won the engagement in the 1770's and who won the engagement in the 1860's?

As yov noted, my post was rather off-topic, so maybe this discussion should be moved to a new thread. That said, both of your answers (Primula and River) touched upon the difference between successful and non-successful acts of treason (--> outcome). And while this might explain how certain events are seen in subsequent times, modeled along the lines of the (overly-reductive) truism of "history is written by the victor", it does not explain the ethical differences between certain acts; that is, when is treason justified for you and when is it not?

[Angbasdil]

I'm an American. I swore an oath to the Constitution. My perspective is based on that.
If your perspective differs, that's your right. I can only present my own.

And yeah, history is written by the winners. So there's that.
Which is part of why I call the monuments "participation trophies". (The other part is that it pisses off their advocates.)

In any case, I don't want to osgilliate the thread any further. Seeing as how I've said pretty much all I have to say.

[Frelga]

That's probably a separate topic.

If there is an intersection with this thread, it is perhaps in a reminder that "I was only following orders" is not a defense when on trial for war crimes. Refusal to commit atrocities may be treason, technically, but committing them on the orders of your government is something worse.

Take the Statues Down

The myth of reunion was built around this understanding, that the nation should treat both sides in a war that killed three-quarters of a million Americans as equal, or at least not inquire too closely into the merits of each cause. And that unity would come not from honestly grappling with events, but from studiously ignoring injustice, and condemning those who oppose it as hateful.

But the swift backlash against the president’s remarks by leaders of his own party and leading figures of his own administration signaled that the United States of 2017 is not the same nation it was in 1924. Republicans and Democrats alike saw the white nationalists in the streets of Charlottesville for what they were, and rejected their vision of a nation built on white supremacism.

This is why the city council of Charlottesville voted, a century after it was commissioned, to remove the statue of Robert Edward Lee.

And ultimately, it is why the others will come down, too. The statues will be moved, the streets renamed, and the military bases will honor patriots who fought for their country and not against it. Because a century and a half after Reconstruction began, America is still working on the project of constructing a more equal society, and reinvesting in the experiment of a multi-ethnic democracy.

[Angbasdil]

Exactly, Frelga. This is America. We should honor the soldiers who fought for America, not against it.

And we should also punch Nazis. Cuz Captain America said so.

Just trying to get back on topic.

[yovargas]

Damnit, Ang, stop being so thoughtful and eloquent.
(But not really though.)

[Túrin Turambar]

To me, it all represents treason, plain and simple. A nation of traitors.

To take the position of the devil's advocate here: In the 1770s, were not the United States of America a nation of traitors, founded on the principles of defying their king and homeland? What was the fundamental difference between these two acts of treason?

I think as a general principle, the language of the Declaration of Independence leaves open the possibility that a group of Americans could decide to form their own country if the existing government had failed them. In my view, breaking up the U.S. would be a bad thing, as American power has been critical to the survival and spread of liberal democracy throughout the 20th century, but I don't think there can be a general argument that secession from U.S. is never right under any circumstances.

Of course, given that the U.S. has a government elected by universal adult suffrage and constrained by a Constitution it's difficult to envision a situation where the same circumstances which led to the American Revolution could apply again. And I obviously have a particular issue with the Confederacy because their leaders attempted to secede from the U.S. not to create a free society but to maintain an authoritarian state where only a minority of people had political rights and a third of the population had no rights whatsoever. Had black people been given a say, there would have no secession and no Civil War.

(Good post by the way, Ang).

[Frelga]

Brief note for clarity, that my "separate topic" comment was in response to Beutlin, not Ang.

[Túrin Turambar]

True, although I also think the topics are closely-related. Where Confederate monuments should be displayed or removed obviously depends on people's attitudes to the Confederacy.

[Angbasdil]

My father punched Nazis.
With artillery shells.

True story.

I really am trying to get back on topic.

[Sunsilver]

To get back to what happened on the weekend, this eyewitness description of what really happened in Charlottesville should totally debunk anyone saying the anti-fascist protesters were equally guilty for the rioting. Yes, there WAS a small handful that came armed with shields and body armour and pepper spray, but for the most part, the antifascists followed Dr. King's creed of non-violence. They took part knowing there was a very good chance they could be injured or even killed. Many different religious groups were represented, including Jews. As I said earlier, a group of university students also showed great bravery on Saturday night, when they did their best to keep the White Supremacists away from the Lee statue by linking arms.

Please have a look - this is one of the best accounts I've seen online of what really happened:

http://auburnseminary.org/what-i-saw-in ... ttesville/

[Cerin]

So if it's okay to punch a Nazi, is it okay to kill one?

[Beutlin]

Where Confederate monuments should be displayed or removed obviously depends on people's attitudes to the Confederacy.

This should not be misconstrued as a defense of the CSA or the way people saw the Civil War in the reconstruction era,* but as an historian I tend to view the removal of historical statues and memorials (as in artifacts that were erected generations ago) rather critically. If one wants to make a statement regarding historical monuments, additional plagues are in most circumstances a better solution (so for example an accompanying text which historically contextualizes the statue). The sheer ubiquity of Confederate memorials might still warrant the removal of several artefacts but the wholesale removal of all monuments strikes me as sheer historical revisionism. It resembles a quasi-religious ritual to amend the past, to cast out the demons of history. But this is wrong: for even then the dead remain dead, and the demons alive.

Of course, societies change the perception of their own history and in times of turmoil this often leads to a radical remodeling of public self-image(s). It is well known that in revolutionary times statues are the first to fall. But we should remember that these statues are first and foremost reflections of a bygone era, and all the emotions and thoughts which we project into these statues have more to do with our own times than with these statues and even their creators. And images such as these from Durham, North Carolina, today where protestors kicked and spit on a toppled statue have more in common with a religious movement* which destroys the effigy of a foreign god, thereby ritually killing the god. (https://twitter.com/DerrickQLewis/statu ... 7485901825).

* let alone last week's march
* referring to religious movements in general

[Frelga]

Ang, as did mine. And his two brothers. And many other members of my family.

True story - some years ago, a Russian newspaper published a photo of the charred walls of Reichstag, similar to this one.

a2f55d7ae0a5t[1].jpg (89.71 KiB) Viewed 8364 times

Among the names of Russian soldiers was my husband's last name. We were not able to figure out if it was anyone related to him.

Beutlin, I believe they were going to move the statue to a museum, where it would be put in the proper historical context. That seems reasonable to me. In general, the article I quoted above is pretty much how I feel.

American tourist gives Nazi salute in Germany, is beaten up

BERLIN (AP) — Police say a drunken American man was punched by a passer-by as he gave the stiff-armed Nazi salute multiple times in downtown Dresden.

Dresden police said Sunday the 41-year-old, whose name and hometown weren’t given for privacy reasons, suffered minor injuries in the 8:15 a.m. Saturday assault.

Police say the American, who is under investigation for violating Germany’s laws against the display of Nazi symbols or slogans, had an extremely high blood alcohol level. His assailant fled the scene, and is being sought for causing bodily harm.

[Frelga]

So if it's okay to punch a Nazi, is it okay to kill one?

If it's OK to allow Nazis yell antisemitic slogans in a city square, is it OK to allow them to build gas chambers?

If you want to play the slippery slope card.

[Cerin]

Your analogy doesn’t really work, Frelga, because we know that anyone petitioning for permits to build a gas chamber in which to kill people would be refused. Look at the almost universal condemnation of the events in Charlottesville; even the Pres. was forced to fall in line because of the political pressure that was generated. Can you tell me you seriously believe there would be the slightest chance of a gas chamber for persons being approved and built anywhere in this country today? Imagine the rally that would take place there.

On the other hand, my question is completely serious and valid under the circumstances. I had originally taken the title of this thread to be somewhat in jest, but it quickly became apparent that it represents a real social phenomenon. Clearly some people have decided that certain speech should be disallowed and met with violence. I am seeking to understand the underlying principle here.

If one punch is good, how about two? Three? Beating his head to a bloody pulp? Kicking him in the kidneys? Putting him in the hospital in a coma? And what is the purpose behind the punch? Is there a practical aim to it, or is it a symbolic gesture, or merely an expression of righteous anger?

There’s another associated slippery slope to be considered, too. Is it only someone expressing Nazi rhetoric who can be punched? Are Nazis alone uniquely punchable, or is other speech that one might deem dangerous (is ‘dangerous’ the key characteristic?) regarded with equal urgency? Is ‘Nazi’ being used loosely as a large tent term, or is it being defined narrowly? Does any white supremacist qualify to be punched, or just those using the Nazi symbols and gestures? Am I a candidate for punching because I believe the word ‘marriage’ should not have been re-defined, and because I believe, according to Scripture, that people of same gender should not engage sexually with each other? I know these stances have publicly been declared to be hate speech, and are regarded as a threat to people’s civil rights.

Who decides what speech and ideas are worthy of a punch? Are we all to go around punching those whose speech we deem representative of unacceptable thought, or representative of a potential threat? I think these are questions that need answering.

[Sunsilver]

I find it so hard to nail down where I stand on this topic of punching a Nazi. Basically, I am a pacifist. I believe killing is wrong, and that war is a bloody waste of (mostly) young lives.

But when I read about that tourist being punched for giving the Nazi salute, something in me says "YESS!! YOU ASSHOLE, YOU F***ING DESERVED IT!!"



We are just not logical beings sometimes!

Or maybe I AM being logical for thinking that. How could someone be SO insensitive to the culture and history of the country they are visiting? It really IS a moronic thing to do!

[Lalaith]

I think these are questions that need answering.

And many of us already did, yourself included.

It is my take on this thread that it has evolved into a place to discuss the Charlottesville incident more than a place to rehash the original thread title.

YMMV, and, if so, carry on.

[Dave_LF]

Clearly, the real lesson to take from this weekend is that the poor, persecuted Nazis don't have enough political protection.

Certainly to hear them tell it.

My position: In the absence of a(nother) declaration of war or an immediate physical threat, punching a Nazi is wrong. But if one should get up in my face someday, I can't promise I wouldn't do it.

[Maria]

This is what my daughter posted on facebook yesterday. She's far more eloquent than I.

"I'm not going to say a lot of the things I think about the current administration. But here is something I hope most can agree with.

I'm not saying every Republican is racist. But this country put a man in charge on an agenda that has hate and fear at the center.

I'm not saying that the hate we're seeing in Charlottesville is new. It didn't spring up overnight based on anything that has happened recently. This hate is old. It's ingrained in this country like dog shit that a Roomba enthusiastically tried to clean and rubbed it into the carpet. It's in the fibers of people who live next to you. It's in the bedtime stories children are still hearing today. It's in your grandmother's sidelong glance at your black neighbor. It's in those little remarks like "Well, I guess this person is a decent human, despite the color of their skin. See I have a black/gay/Muslim/brown friend!" that people make about the person who hides their culture around white people because they're either afraid or tired of getting sidelong glances at the store from people who think they're shoplifting or carrying a gun because of the color of their skin.

And here's the problem today's administration presents. The election of someone who is outwardly ok with profiling and discrimination tells these people, who, until now have known that they better keep the worst of their comments to themselves, that their hate is ok. It tells them that their WASP neighbors won't actually stop associating with them if they share their hate. They are coming right out and hitting people with cars because they don't think their peers will despise them for it. Once again, they know that enough people agree with them on some level that they are banding together.

It's the mob effect. Most people would never burn a family's home because someone thought they were a witch. But once you have a crowd that they think is listening, they grab a torch. Then someone else does.

Then the country burns.

We need voices of reason more than ever. We need everyone to step in every time and say "That's a fucked up thing to say. I can't believe you think something so despicable."

We need to shame the mob back into their homes. The people who started the mob will never change their hate, but maybe we can put out the fires before the people who don't realize they've been swept up by their fear and hate take those steps they'll regret once the fires all burn out and they are on the wrong side of history.
So no. I will not sit idly by while anyone says something questionable. I won't sideeye them and wonder if they meant it like it sounded. And you shouldn't either."

[Griffon64]

As you may be aware, the Twitter account "Yes, You're Racist" has been busy identifying and outing white suprematists.

Here is an article about one such man, Peter Tefft, and his father's response.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/north- ... li=BBnb7Kz

A couple things from this article. First, after explaining that "he taught all of his children that all men and women are created equal." the father wrote this:

Evidently Peter has chosen to unlearn these lessons, much to my and his family’s heartbreak and distress. We have been silent up until now, but now we see that this was a mistake.

It was the silence of good people that allowed the Nazis to flourish the first time around, and it is the silence of good people that is allowing them to flourish now.

That right there is why I speak out loudly and condemn velvet glove treatment for white suprematists and other haters who do not believe that all people deserve equal treatment and equal justice. If you stay silent, you support them. ( Oh, you think not? Read about the gleeful celebration of white suprematists over Donald J Trump's initial weaksauce response to Charlottesville. They knew it was support. They read it as support. Read about their anger when someone made him read something off a teleprompter. )

Oh, sorry, maybe you just want to stay out of it? Philosophize in the abstract about this stuff? It touches real people. It makes real people's lives miserable. It endangers real people's lives. Being able to calmly and aloofly argue semantics with real people at the short end of this stick is privilege. Yes, that trigger word, privilege.

And here's something else from that article, this time from Mr. White Suprematist himself:

Peter Tefft's Facebook posts remain public and now largely are filled with comments mocking him with various vulgarities.

But none of the comments come close to the final line of Pearce Tefft's letter to his son.

"He once joked, 'The thing about us fascists is it’s not that we don’t believe in freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want. We’ll just throw you in an oven,' " his father wrote. "Peter, you will have to shovel our bodies into the oven, too."

Am I going to respect free speech like that? I ******* will not.