Best explanation yet for why the Confederate statues are falling.

[cnelsen]

From what I can tell the uproar and removal of confederate symbols in this country has little to do with "Disrespecting" history and more to do with a long standing problem this country created for itself long ago. The civil war was primarily centered on releasing black slaves from bondage and accomplished this end at the cost of the most Americans to die in any war, anywhere.
Unfortunately the southern states did not much care for defeat and began the Jim Crow/Segregation era in which these monuments were created and established. The free black population has yet to integrate into it's new society and tends to live within the tribal mentality instilled in it for thousands of years, leading to the poverty and violence it complains about. No business wishes to invest in a community prone to theft, drugs, and violence which leads to no local employment and perpetuated poverty.
Regardless, I see no reason to celebrate men who tried to destroy my country in the first place.

Did you read the OP?

 

[Conservative65]

From what I can tell the uproar and removal of confederate symbols in this country has little to do with "Disrespecting" history and more to do with a long standing problem this country created for itself long ago. The civil war was primarily centered on releasing black slaves from bondage and accomplished this end at the cost of the most Americans to die in any war, anywhere.
Unfortunately the southern states did not much care for defeat and began the Jim Crow/Segregation era in which these monuments were created and established. The free black population has yet to integrate into it's new society and tends to live within the tribal mentality instilled in it for thousands of years, leading to the poverty and violence it complains about. No business wishes to invest in a community prone to theft, drugs, and violence which leads to no local employment and perpetuated poverty.
Regardless, I see no reason to celebrate men who tried to destroy my country in the first place.

No one tried to destroy the country by seceding. They tried to leave and start their own country. When they were told no, they fought back. Wouldn't it have been simpler to let them go?

 

[Conservative65]

You play the same class war game blaming the rich for the violence.

Who do you blame?

The individual.

It is not my fault if their dumb ass doesn't have money. In fact, you give me any poor person, give me their life history and shit, I'll point out exactly why they don't have money, guaranteed it will /not/ be "some rich persons" fault. 99% of the time it's personal fuck-ups, stupidity, or failure to act in a fiscally responsible manner. That's not even covering why they're not /rich/ which frankly in America /anyone/ with some brains can do though very simple methods of a personal investment in their own future and a bit of reservation.

A look at the dropout rate provides just one reason why people don't have money. It's not a rich person's, an employer's, or anyone else's fault if they don't have money nor if they don't want to pay them more for doing a job most 5 years old could do.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Steve Sailer, the nation's most insightful essayist:

Francis Fukuyama hypothesized the ending of history, but he failed to foresee the increasingly popular practice of the mending of history to delegitimize the right of the politically weak to their pride and property.

Rewriting the past to help disinherit the powerless by demeaning their ancestors is an ancient practice currently growing in popularity. For example, this summer in Madison and Boston, government officials have obliterated or covered up grave markers commemorating prisoners of war who died in captivity.

This is justified as punching up against white supremacy. After all, who is more powerful than a dead POW?

Why are politicians today going out of their way to disrespect Confederate soldiers who died in Union prison camps more than 150 years ago? Because they can. Because this kind of vandalism is a classic turf-marking exercise understood by even the dimmest juvenile delinquents. Because desecration of memorials to the dead signifies that their living heirs are vulnerable to rapacity.

Further, this ISIS-like destruction of monuments can provoke individual losers in this struggle to overreact, which in turn is instantly used to justify more despoliation.

As a Hegelian, Fukuyama defined history as the struggle among ideologies, such as communism and fascism. He became famous for arguing that by 1989, history was over: Capitalist representative government had defeated its left and right rivals and nothing would ever change.

In reality, of course, what everybody who isn’t Fukuyama thinks of as history—the process that creates winners and losers—has been happening since Nineveh and Tyre, long before modernist ideologies ever emerged. Similarly, under whatever nominal rules of the game happen to be prevailing in the future, winners and losers will continue to be crowned after Fukuyama is forgotten. The game of power and property goes on forever.

A central political question since civilization began has been the inheritance of property.

Most societies that have ever accomplished much have treated property with respect. Property rights, both private and public, incentivize innovation and promote conservation by avoiding the tragedy of the commons.

The liberal political philosopher John Rawls explained:

Unless a definite agent is given responsibility for maintaining an asset and bears the responsibility and loss for not doing so, that asset tends to deteriorate. On my account the role of the institution of property is to prevent this deterioration from occurring.

History suggests that property works best when it exists in multiple forms, such as personal, corporate, and public.

Various ideologues on the left and right have tried to abolish one form or another of property. Marxists attempted to eliminate large-scale accumulations of private property, but communist states soon succumbed to economic stagnation and environmental degradation.

British socialists attempted to split the difference by allowing the accumulation of private property during one’s life, but expropriating it through ruinous death duties upon one’s death. But this led to a shoddy society. As Rawls observed:

The perpetuity condition is crucial.

Today, libertarian extremists of the Cato Institute ilk have been attempting to eliminate the concept of national property, the shared patrimony of Americans, by demanding open borders. But Rawls, despite his famous “veil of ignorance” liberalism, realized that permitting massive immigration would be disastrous:

...an important role of government, however arbitrary a society’s boundaries may appear from a historical point of view, is to be the effective agent of a people as they take responsibility for their territory and the size of their population, as well as for maintaining the land’s environmental integrity.

The preservation of national borders is crucial for preserving the well-being of self-regulating peoples by keeping out invading overpopulators:

People must recognize that they cannot make up for failing to regulate their numbers or to care for their land by conquest in war, or by migrating into another people’s territory without their consent.

While Marxism was nominally anti-nationalist, it most succeeded politically—such as in China, Vietnam, and Cuba, where Communist Parties still reign—by mobilizing nativism. Ironically, Marxists proved some of the most successful nationalists of the 20th century. Mao, Ho, and Castro were failures as economic leaders, but their political heirs remain in power because the founding tyrants drove out the foreign devils.

On the other hand, a lot of money can be made by importing foreigners, as Mark Zuckerberg’s vastly well-funded campaign for more immigration to drive down coder salaries has demonstrated.

Winners are successful at portraying themselves as deserving their property. The Bible, for example, goes to great lengths to honor Abraham. The reverence paid to him is seen as justifying his distant heirs’ possession of the Holy Land. Conversely, the wickedness of the Canaanites, as recounted in their enemy’s book, explains why they didn’t get to keep their possessions.

Not surprisingly, the individuals who dominate the means of communication today—such as Zuckerberg (net worth $70 billion); the Google guys, Sergey Brin ($43 billion) and Larry Page ($44 billion); Carlos Slim ($70 billion); Michael Bloomberg ($52 billion); and Jeff Bezos ($81 billion)—are seldom questioned in the media about the ethics of their monopolies.

After all, they more or less own the media. Thus The New York Times (bailed out in 2009 by Mexican telecom monopolist Slim) over the weekend praised CEOs for speaking “truth to power.”

In America in 2017, the rich have the whip hand to punish average Americans in the notional name of the poor, domestic and global.

Silicon Valley monopolists are currently on the warpath against those who speak up for national solidarity. Those blessed with an abundance of private wealth are paying to demonize those whose main asset is their American nationality. Those with all the money in the world want to debauch the scarcity value of American citizenship in order to get even richer. And they don’t take kindly to dissent.

This jihad by the rich against the one group competent enough to even potentially offer them effective resistance takes weirdly symbolic forms. For example, the defender of the common man, Andrew Jackson, is being booted off the currency, while the paladin of the plutocrats, Alexander Hamilton, has been retconned into a woke Person of Color in the most expensive Broadway musical in history.

This is class war disguised as race war.

History may or may not end, but the rewriting of history will never be over.

One can't help but notice the Kock Brothers and their cronies are conveniently left out of what is nothing more than a screed against the socially conscious wealthy that oppose the greedy wealthy. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates and the members of the Bill Gates Foundation, where are they on the list? Shifting billions of their own money for the betterment and happiness of humankind. Rather than the snake oil salesmen like Trump and his cronies whose whole existence in their minds is measured by how much more they have than someone else. Trump and his group operate on the concept of selfish dog-eat-dog debauchery.

Gates, Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg. These people operate on a paradigm that Trump and the other ghouls can't even comprehend.

 

[tecoyah]

From what I can tell the uproar and removal of confederate symbols in this country has little to do with "Disrespecting" history and more to do with a long standing problem this country created for itself long ago. The civil war was primarily centered on releasing black slaves from bondage and accomplished this end at the cost of the most Americans to die in any war, anywhere.
Unfortunately the southern states did not much care for defeat and began the Jim Crow/Segregation era in which these monuments were created and established. The free black population has yet to integrate into it's new society and tends to live within the tribal mentality instilled in it for thousands of years, leading to the poverty and violence it complains about. No business wishes to invest in a community prone to theft, drugs, and violence which leads to no local employment and perpetuated poverty.
Regardless, I see no reason to celebrate men who tried to destroy my country in the first place.

No one tried to destroy the country by seceding. They tried to leave and start their own country. When they were told no, they fought back. Wouldn't it have been simpler to let them go?

Perhaps our understandings of cessation differs.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Actually I did not leave out the data you giggle about, it simply had nothing to do with my commentary. Though I do quite understand your decision to avoid discussing the information provided in favor of pointless distraction. A very common if regrettable tactic.

You are getting even worse at this.
You spoke about how you believe the statues and Jim Crow laws etc., and specifically the statues set back black people to this day.
And I bounce back and point out the HUGE irony in that what REALLY set back the black race in this country, not just in the south, but pretty much every state in the union - was Democrat social engineering that destroyed any chance of black people catching up with everyone else for generations. (And yet unbelievably they vote Democrat to this day, now THERE is some magnificent marketing)
And you call this a distraction.
Hilarious.

 

[Conservative65]

From what I can tell the uproar and removal of confederate symbols in this country has little to do with "Disrespecting" history and more to do with a long standing problem this country created for itself long ago. The civil war was primarily centered on releasing black slaves from bondage and accomplished this end at the cost of the most Americans to die in any war, anywhere.
Unfortunately the southern states did not much care for defeat and began the Jim Crow/Segregation era in which these monuments were created and established. The free black population has yet to integrate into it's new society and tends to live within the tribal mentality instilled in it for thousands of years, leading to the poverty and violence it complains about. No business wishes to invest in a community prone to theft, drugs, and violence which leads to no local employment and perpetuated poverty.
Regardless, I see no reason to celebrate men who tried to destroy my country in the first place.

No one tried to destroy the country by seceding. They tried to leave and start their own country. When they were told no, they fought back. Wouldn't it have been simpler to let them go?

Perhaps our understandings of cessation differs.

By definition, whether you use the verb secede or the noun cessation, it means to leave, withdraw, no longer do or be a part of. Seceding doesn't destroy something. It means those seceding aren't part of (fill in the blank) anymore. The seceding states fought back when those that didn't want them to go told them no.

 

[Syriusly]

This jihad by the rich against the one group competent enough to even potentially offer them effective resistance takes weirdly symbolic forms.

This is class war disguised as race war.
.

So tell us more about this jihad by the Billionaire Donald Trump....

 

[Slash]

No one tried to destroy the country by seceding. They tried to leave and start their own country. When they were told no, they fought back. Wouldn't it have been simpler to let them go?

Absolutely. They took federal property. Federal military installations, weapons Caches, banks, gold, ports, ships, all US GOVERNMENT property that the states had ceded away. They bombed a US base for 24 hours to get the US to abandon a US military installation.

I'd hope that if someone rebelled, stole some carriers and subs and bombed a base, our President didn't say "lets just let them take it".

 

[Conservative65]

No one tried to destroy the country by seceding. They tried to leave and start their own country. When they were told no, they fought back. Wouldn't it have been simpler to let them go?

Absolutely. They took federal property. Federal military installations, weapons Caches, banks, gold, ports, ships, all US GOVERNMENT property that the states had ceded away. They bombed a US base for 24 hours to get the US to abandon a US military installation.

I'd hope that if someone rebelled, stole some carriers and subs and bombed a base, our President didn't say "lets just let them take it".

All that property was within the confines of a separate country.

 

[Slash]

By definition, whether you use the verb secede or the noun cessation, it means to leave, withdraw, no longer do or be a part of. Seceding doesn't destroy something. It means those seceding aren't part of (fill in the blank) anymore. The seceding states fought back when those that didn't want them to go told them no.

No they fought back when they asked the US to surrender Fort Sumter. US declined and they bombed it for nearly a full day straight until it was forced to surrender. Cuba changed it's government after giving the US the land for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. They've asked multiple times that we give it back. We've declined every single time. IF they chose to bomb our military forces there, that to me is declaring war against the US.

 

[Slash]

All that property was within the confines of a separate country.

No it was not. It was US Federal property. No different than trying to say Alaska is inside Canada. No, it's US property connected to Canada. You can't cede land to a government and then take it back because you thought it was a bad deal.

And you can't just take US Federal property because you want it either. I'm sure China would LOVE to have our naval ships. Just because they are visiting Hong Kong and in the port, doesn't allow China to take them. If China took ships from our 7th fleet while in Hong Kong, that would be a declaration of war.

 

[Slash]

Anyways none of that even matters because those thoughts are only valid if it was a legal secession, which it was not. The US Supreme Court ruled on that citing the Constitution. In The USA, while you may disagree with them, they have that jurisdiction as to law and fact on that case. It was a rebellion.

 

[tecoyah]

Actually I did not leave out the data you giggle about, it simply had nothing to do with my commentary. Though I do quite understand your decision to avoid discussing the information provided in favor of pointless distraction. A very common if regrettable tactic.

You are getting even worse at this.
You spoke about how you believe the statues and Jim Crow laws etc., and specifically the statues set back black people to this day.
And I bounce back and point out the HUGE irony in that what REALLY set back the black race in this country, not just in the south, but pretty much every state in the union - was Democrat social engineering that destroyed any chance of black people catching up with everyone else for generations. (And yet unbelievably they vote Democrat to this day, now THERE is some magnificent marketing)
And you call this a distraction.
Hilarious.

As it clear you do not wish to actually READ my post, understand it, or engage in civil debate, I am done with you.

Have A Nice Day

 

[Conservative65]

By definition, whether you use the verb secede or the noun cessation, it means to leave, withdraw, no longer do or be a part of. Seceding doesn't destroy something. It means those seceding aren't part of (fill in the blank) anymore. The seceding states fought back when those that didn't want them to go told them no.

No they fought back when they asked the US to surrender Fort Sumter. US declined and they bombed it for nearly a full day straight until it was forced to surrender. Cuba changed it's government after giving the US the land for Naval Station Guantanamo Bay. They've asked multiple times that we give it back. We've declined every single time. IF they chose to bomb our military forces there, that to me is declaring war against the US.

Fort Sumter was in SC and SC wasn't part of the U.S.

The difference is Cuba seems smart enough to know not to do that.

 

[Conservative65]

Actually I did not leave out the data you giggle about, it simply had nothing to do with my commentary. Though I do quite understand your decision to avoid discussing the information provided in favor of pointless distraction. A very common if regrettable tactic.

You are getting even worse at this.
You spoke about how you believe the statues and Jim Crow laws etc., and specifically the statues set back black people to this day.
And I bounce back and point out the HUGE irony in that what REALLY set back the black race in this country, not just in the south, but pretty much every state in the union - was Democrat social engineering that destroyed any chance of black people catching up with everyone else for generations. (And yet unbelievably they vote Democrat to this day, now THERE is some magnificent marketing)
And you call this a distraction.
Hilarious.

As it clear you do not wish to actually READ my post, understand it, or engage in civil debate, I am done with you.

Have A Nice Day

Typical run and hide excuse.

 

[Conservative65]

All that property was within the confines of a separate country.

No it was not. It was US Federal property. No different than trying to say Alaska is inside Canada. No, it's US property connected to Canada. You can't cede land to a government and then take it back because you thought it was a bad deal.

And you can't just take US Federal property because you want it either. I'm sure China would LOVE to have our naval ships. Just because they are visiting Hong Kong and in the port, doesn't allow China to take them. If China took ships from our 7th fleet while in Hong Kong, that would be a declaration of war.

Those ships aren't permanently there. Apples and oranges.

 

[Slash]

Those ships aren't permanently there. Apples and oranges.

No they are permanently in Japan. Still doesn't give Japan the right to take them either. But you are saying its ok to take US military weapons if you want?

 

[Conservative65]

Those ships aren't permanently there. Apples and oranges.

No they are permanently in Japan. Still doesn't give Japan the right to take them either. But you are saying its ok to take US military weapons if you want?

If the U.S. leaves any of the military installations they have throughout the world, do they get to take the buildings with them?

 

[Slash]

Fort Sumter was in SC and SC wasn't part of the U.S.

The difference is Cuba seems smart enough to know not to do that.

Yes and South Carolina Ceded that property that Fort Sumter was built on to the US Government. It no longer belonged to the state.

In fact all those forts, bases, banks, mints, etc were ceded land to the US Federal Government. The states relenquished their rights to that property.

Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory....

Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded."


You are literally arguing that you can't cede land to prove the legality of secession.


See how well that gets you "Well I know I sold you this house 20 years ago, but looking at the real estate value it really jumped more than I thought it would. Sorry I am going to have to back out of that agreement and say it's mine again".