HuffPo: UNC Students Topple Confederate Monument

[Green Line]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

[ProudModerate2]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

[Sol]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Of course, the irony is is that the police had been watching it 24-7 for several years...

[IceSpear]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Devoting all that money and manpower to protecting a statue 24/7 doesn't sound very fiscally conservative.

[ProudModerate2]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Of course, the irony is is that the police had been watching it 24-7 for several years...

If you watch the video of them taking it down, I think you see either local city police or university police (or both) in the video. They did not interfere with the students, and it almost looked like they were also glad the stupid thing was destroyed.

[Green Line]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Devoting all that money and manpower to protecting a statue 24/7 doesn't sound very fiscally conservative.

Good, I can't stand fiscal conservatism.

[Progressive Pessimist]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Devoting all that money and manpower to protecting a statue 24/7 doesn't sound very fiscally conservative.

What fiscal conservatism really means is that taxes can be spent, so long as they're spent on things that perpetuate their culture war.

[Sol]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Of course, the irony is is that the police had been watching it 24-7 for several years...

If you watch the video of them taking it down, I think you see either local city police or university police (or both) in the video. They did not interfere with the students, and it almost looked like they were also glad the stupid thing was destroyed.

I'm quite familiar with the situation, thank you very much.

It's worth noting that the Police had been protecting the monument up until that point--they likely recieved the order to stand down from their superiors.

Is large scale police attacks on civilians worth it to prevent the minor crime of vandalism?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Devoting all that money and manpower to protecting a statue 24/7 doesn't sound very fiscally conservative.

What fiscal conservatism really means is that taxes can be spent, so long as they're spent on things that perpetuate their culture war.

Be fair. Fiscal conservatives are usually fine with wealth transfer from the general public to the wealthy, too.

[Beet]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Devoting all that money and manpower to protecting a statue 24/7 doesn't sound very fiscally conservative.

It's more fiscally conservative than allowing lawlessness.

But my solution is more simple- the statue should be re-erected and the students involved expelled.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The legislature should rebuild it and post a 24-hour armed guard.  The law is the law.

Devoting all that money and manpower to protecting a statue 24/7 doesn't sound very fiscally conservative.

It's more fiscally conservative than allowing lawlessness.

But my solution is more simple- the statue should be re-erected and the students involved expelled.

[nclib]

I'm a local. Normally, I don't support vandalism, but this is an extreme case that warrants extreme measures.

The vast majority of locals did not want it there and there were many opportunities to remove it, but the hyper-partisan hyper-reactionary state legislature (even though conservatives often advocate local control) stood in the way.

It's very uncomfortable for African-American UNC students to walk past it and I even know of one person who takes the long way across campus to avoid it.

Lol, at some people who have implied here that this was just a case of leftists looking for an excuse to be rebellious.

If the purpose of the statue was to honor Confederate dead, it would have been erected soon after the end of the Civil War. Rather it was erected in 1913 during the height of white supremacy.

As for people who are citing lawlessness, the statue itself was illegal as it violated anti-discrimination codes.

[fhtagn]

As for people who are citing lawlessness, the statue itself was illegal as it violated anti-discrimination codes.

Are you spandex? Because that's one heck of a stretch.

[Fuzzy Bear]

As for people who are citing lawlessness, the statue itself was illegal as it violated anti-discrimination codes.

Are you spandex? Because that's one heck of a stretch.

Which ones?  And exactly how does the mere presence of "Silent Sam" rise to the level of such a violation?

I would also suggest that the demonstrator's vandalous actions are illegal on their face.  That statue violating "anti-discrimination" codes would have to be determined by a Court for that individual case, would it not?  There is no Court finding to that effect to date regarding "Silent Sam".

In first grade, I (and my peers) were evaluated on "Respects the rights and property of others".  That criteria wasn't dependent on the political views of the "others".  These are college students that can't live up to the standards of first graders in terms of personal conduct.  They are a mob more self-righteous than the Religious Right so many despise here.

[nclib]

As for people who are citing lawlessness, the statue itself was illegal as it violated anti-discrimination codes.

Are you spandex? Because that's one heck of a stretch.

I wasn't saying that tearing down the statue constituted lawlessness, but that some here are implying tearing it down was wrong because it violates the law, and claiming that we should keep law and order above everything else, and I was pointing out that the statue was illegal in the first place. Or am I missing the point you are trying to make?

As for people who are citing lawlessness, the statue itself was illegal as it violated anti-discrimination codes.

Are you spandex? Because that's one heck of a stretch.

Which ones?

I heard that by word of mouth, though I'll try to see it if I can find a source.

[fhtagn]

As for people who are citing lawlessness, the statue itself was illegal as it violated anti-discrimination codes.

Are you spandex? Because that's one heck of a stretch.

I wasn't saying that tearing down the statue constituted lawlessness, but that some here are implying tearing it down was wrong because it violates the law, and claiming that we should keep law and order above everything else, and I was pointing out that the statue was illegal in the first place. Or am I missing the point you are trying to make?

As for people who are citing lawlessness, the statue itself was illegal as it violated anti-discrimination codes.

Are you spandex? Because that's one heck of a stretch.

Which ones?

I heard that by word of mouth, though I'll try to see it if I can find a source.

It's a stretch to suggest that the statue itself was illegal because it violated anti-discrimination codes. 

[💥💥 brandon bro (he/him/his)]

Why the hell do any of y'all care about this.

You're getting your labor laws smashed, your kids's school funding cut, your air and water polluted, your pensions gambled on risk-free by a bunch of vultures, and money that should go into your public services funneled instead into the hands of rich people who think y'all are a bunch of dumbass rubes. And based on the amount of mental energy you people spend talking about kids knocking over a statue instead of any of the above, I'd say they're probably right.

[Dr. Arch]

Why the hell do any of y'all care about this.

You're getting your labor laws smashed, your kids's school funding cut, your air and water polluted, your pensions gambled on risk-free by a bunch of vultures, and money that should go into your public services funneled instead into the hands of rich people who think y'all are a bunch of dumbass rubes. And based on the amount of mental energy you people spend talking about kids knocking over a statue instead of any of the above, I'd say they're probably right.

Don't forget getting really angry over David Hogg appearing on TV.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I know this post is pointless and Fuzzy will never respond to it (or if he does, it will be some 10,000 character digression that doesn't address my point), but it's extremely well-documented that Malcolm X had some problematic racial beliefs, but repented from them after going on the Hajj to Mecca. The passages that Fuzzy linked were written before the repentance.

I just don't think that someone could be familiar enough about Malcolm X to cite words from the autobiography without knowing about how he disavowed racism (remember, he was assassinated by a black supremacist, not a white supremacist), so I don't see how Fuzzy posted that in good faith.

First off, that quote was from the LAST chapter of Malcolm X's autobiography, a chapter AFTER his pilgrimage to Mecca.  

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/malcolmx/section5/

Chapter 10 of the book talks about Nation of Islam theology (rejected by the Muslims of the East) that speaks of Mr. Yacub, an evil scientist that unleashed a race of white people on the Earth 6,000 years ago.  

https://genius.com/Malcolm-x-chapter-17-mecca-annotated

At no time did Malcolm X renounce his hatred of Jews.  His views on white people changed when he met when he traveled to Europe and when he met with other Muslims who were white.  His racism racial hatred toward other Muslims disappeared, but his hatred toward American white persons and Jews did not.

Malcolm X was who he was.  And part of his being was as aspect of hostility and resentment toward Jews that he never overcame, and never really sought to overcome, once it set in.  His words speak for themselves.  My question is why Jewish students at Columbia shouldn't feel free to destroy the statue of him on Columbia's campus like the THBs (Tar Heel Brats) did to Silent Sam.  After all, many of them are aggrieved by its presence.  After all, Malcolm X was anti-Jewish.  Why shouldn't Jewish students upset with Malcolm X's statue be able to take matters into their own hands?

The right answer to that is, "Because that statue isn't theirs to destroy."  

As for 2,868,691, I know I've posted in good faith.  I've been familiar with The Autobiography of Malcolm X probably longer than you've been alive.  I found myself admiring him to a degree when I first read the book, but I couldn't get around the fact that (A) he truly disliked Jews and wasn't shy about expressing that, and (B) at the time I was reading this, my girlfriend was Jewish, most of my BEST friends were Jewish, and I could not square the idea of him being this heroic figure with his expressed beliefs toward Jews.  And as for me . . . I concluded that he could not possibly be capable of rendering justice to me, especially in a dispute against someone who was a racial minority or another Muslim.  That his life experiences may have given him a basis for his opinions did not make him a Just man.

If someone can tell me that being upset with that makes it OK to yank his statue down, I'll listen.  If someone thinks it's not OK, I'm curious to understand why one is and one isn't when no one posting owns either statue.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why the hell do any of y'all care about this.

You're getting your labor laws smashed, your kids's school funding cut, your air and water polluted, your pensions gambled on risk-free by a bunch of vultures, and money that should go into your public services funneled instead into the hands of rich people who think y'all are a bunch of dumbass rubes. And based on the amount of mental energy you people spend talking about kids knocking over a statue instead of any of the above, I'd say they're probably right.

I would put that question on the statue-smashers:  Why not let the statues be and work with working people to bring about better working conditions, and address the issues you raise?  In such an instance, one might actually win converts to your point of view.

Why not let folks have their Confederate Hero statues and convince them that they'd be better off joining a union, or convincing them that their water is toxic?  It's a lot easier to do when you haven't alienated the listener with your own vanity issue.

The THBs (Tar Heel Brats) don't care about those issues because they don't work.  They don't have to deal with an undemocratic workplace.  They don't have to deal with paying bills, raising kids, etc.  Most of them, at least, and especially the THBs.  The Tar Heels that actually do those things weren't at the Destructionfest; they probably realized that the criminal record they might incur in committing vandalism might work against their goals to better their lives and the lives of their families.  THOSE Tar Heels have borne the sort of burdens that relieves them of the burden of being full of themselves.

[Rules for me, but not for thee]

Because the erasing of history makes us doomed to repeat it.

Why the hell do any of y'all care about this.

You're getting your labor laws smashed, your kids's school funding cut, your air and water polluted, your pensions gambled on risk-free by a bunch of vultures, and money that should go into your public services funneled instead into the hands of rich people who think y'all are a bunch of dumbass rubes. And based on the amount of mental energy you people spend talking about kids knocking over a statue instead of any of the above, I'd say they're probably right.

[nclib]

FYI, the base is still there, but the statue is gone.

In terms of comparing Malcolm X to Silent Sam. Malcolm X statue was put up despite his hatred of Jews, not because of it. Silent Sam was put up in 1913 at the height of white supremacy to send that message. If it was done to honor Confederate dead, it would have been erected soon after the end of the Civil War.

[IceSpear]

Because the erasing of history makes us doomed to repeat it.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're talking about. They took down the Confederate monument in my hometown last year and I've forgotten what this "Civil War" was.

To be fair, this would be unironically true for many Americans. lol

[Fuzzy Bear]

FYI, the base is still there, but the statue is gone.

In terms of comparing Malcolm X to Silent Sam. Malcolm X statue was put up despite his hatred of Jews, not because of it. Silent Sam was put up in 1913 at the height of white supremacy to send that message. If it was done to honor Confederate dead, it would have been erected soon after the end of the Civil War.

So hating Jews is something one's reputation can overcome without the hatred being eliminatet?  Is that what you're saying?  Or are you saying that overt hatred of Jews is less abhorrent than overt hatred of blacks?

At a certain level, your argument raises these questions.

Monuments placed to honor the Confederate dead were scarce during reconstruction.  James Swanson's Bloody Crimes: The Chase for Jefferson Davis and the Death Pageant for Lincoln's Corpse details Jefferson Davis's role as a revivalist of sorts for the Southern Cause.  A good many of the monuments began in the 1880s, and, yes, I agree that these monuments were a political statement that the Confederate Cause was right.  There's no question that Jefferson Davis was an uncompromising racist who believed in more than White Supremacy; he believed in a caste system, and there is evidence to support this.

But to say that the Confederate soldiers themselves were all fighting for "White Supremacy" is to say that all of our troops in Vietnam were "fighting for freedom for South Vietnam".  Many were fighting because they were drafted, period.  Some fought because they were professional soldiers.  Our war monuments honor our troops' virtue, not the virtue of the cause.

Silent Sam was that kind of monument.  Unlike a statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest, it was giving honor where honor was due.

[fhtagn]

FYI, the base is still there, but the statue is gone.

In terms of comparing Malcolm X to Silent Sam. Malcolm X statue was put up despite his hatred of Jews, not because of it. Silent Sam was put up in 1913 at the height of white supremacy to send that message. If it was done to honor Confederate dead, it would have been erected soon after the end of the Civil War.

That logic is ridiculous. Since when is there be a requirement on how long after a war memorials can be erected?

For example, the World War II Memorial wasn't opened until 2004, which is a much longer time frame than it was for Silent Sam to be erected following the end of the Civil War.