New Orleans tearing down racist monuments. Racists object.

I just heard about this yesterday, but it's some story. If you haven't heard. N.O. took down a confederate monument the other day, in the dark of night, under cloak-and-dagger.

http://www.npr.org/sections/th...

Naturally, the racists around the country objected to this destruction of "history" and blasphemy against "Southern honor".

More monuments to follow. Mayor Landrieu impressively defended his decision to dismantle without community input. No wishy/washy crap from him. "This sh!t is racist. And now it's gone. Next question." (my paraphrase.)

For me, it can't be soon enough until every piece of public paean to slavery/white supremacy is gotten rid of.

Racists and confederate enthusiasts need to learn that their beliefs are unacceptable.


I commuted to New Orleans/Hammond for 10 years, spending at least one week a month there.  The attitude expressed by those who object to the removal of the monuments is wide spread and pervasive.  

One elderly churchgoing lady asked me where I was from.  When I told her that I was visiting from NJ, she snarled: 'OH, a YANKEE' with a voice that dripped with venom.


New Orleans has better relations between races than most, if not all, of New Jersey.


What country do we live in where workers need flak jackets and masks to tear down racist monuments?


One that's racist af.

GL2 said:

What country do we live in where workers need flak jackets and masks to tear down racist monuments?



apart from the white supremacy statuary, I suppose.

truth said:

New Orleans has better relations between races than most, if not all, of New Jersey.




truth said:

New Orleans has better relations between races than most, if not all, of New Jersey.

Not really.  The angry old white men have just learned not to speak up in front of strangers.  The 6 managers in the plant all called minorities 'Democrats' (between themselves), and owned an average of 25+ guns each.



tomcat said:



truth said:

New Orleans has better relations between races than most, if not all, of New Jersey.

Not really.  The angry old white men have just learned not to speak up in front of strangers.  The 6 managers in the plant all called minorities 'Democrats' (between themselves), and owned an average of 25+ guns each.

Each of them have an average of 25+ guns?

For each person, what was the highest and lowest number of guns at any given time?


What plant?

What?

ridski said:



tomcat said:



truth said:

New Orleans has better relations between races than most, if not all, of New Jersey.

Not really.  The angry old white men have just learned not to speak up in front of strangers.  The 6 managers in the plant all called minorities 'Democrats' (between themselves), and owned an average of 25+ guns each.

Each of them have an average of 25+ guns?

For each person, what was the highest and lowest number of guns at any given time?



Ridski:   Those were the numbers they were tossing around when talking between themselves (on one of their favorite subjects)

DB:         The plant (= factory) I worked for.



ridski said:
Each of them have an average of 25+ guns?

For each person, what was the highest and lowest number of guns at any given time?


tomcat said:

Ridski:   Those were the numbers they were tossing around when talking between themselves (on one of their favorite subjects)

I would suggest that we take it with a grain of salt when any man brags about the size of his



gun collection.


except if you're in the U.S., the land of the gun fetishist. There are plenty of people with 10's of guns.

I'll see if there's data....

South_Mountaineer said:



ridski said:
Each of them have an average of 25+ guns?

For each person, what was the highest and lowest number of guns at any given time?



tomcat said:

Ridski:   Those were the numbers they were tossing around when talking between themselves (on one of their favorite subjects)

I would suggest that we take it with a grain of salt when any man brags about the size of his







gun collection.




GL2
said:

What country do we live in where workers need flak jackets and masks to tear down racist monuments?

The United States of America.  We were built on slavery, murdering native people, marginalizing women, and exploiting immigrants.  It's part of who we are.  It's not surprising that the problems associated with those things persist, is it?  We're only a couple hundred+ years old.  As far as countries go, that's pretty young.


Hopefully this young country will survive. Hopefully the attempts to "Make America Great Again", whatever the hell that means, won't be fatal.


Sorry, I was being sarcastic.  I know that some people own a lot of guns.  My comment was about listening to a random man brag about size - of his gun collection or otherwise.   cheese 

drummerboy said:

except if you're in the U.S., the land of the gun fetishist. There are plenty of people with 10's of guns.

I'll see if there's data....

South_Mountaineer said:

ridski said:
Each of them have an average of 25+ guns?

For each person, what was the highest and lowest number of guns at any given time?

tomcat said:

Ridski:   Those were the numbers they were tossing around when talking between themselves (on one of their favorite subjects)
I would suggest that we take it with a grain of salt when any man brags about the size of his







gun collection.



It's always puzzled me (and obviously others) how the view that the Civil War was about state's rights, not slavery, could be so widespread despite ample, uncontested evidence slavery's the only thing it was about. Then I stumbled on this enlightening story about how the United Daughters of the Confederacy undertook he most successful marketing campaign in American history.  Beginning in the late 1890s, they erected memorials throughout the south and at major battlefields with the "lost cause" fiction of Southern harmony shattered by the North. Their control textbooks indoctrinated Southern youth with this guilt salve, which holds sway nationwide, even among educators, to this day.  

http://jasoncochran.com/blog/t...

http://www.salon.com/2013/03/1...

After the UDC's activities waned, publishers seeking nationally acceptable textbooks still incorrectly claim both state's rights and slavery were causes.  The UDC helped spread the idea the North concocted the slavery myth to cover their unconstitutional invasion.  And it provided an alternate source of the fake but happy history to overcome the supposedly false story peddled by the winners.  Sound familiar?

As @angeak says, slavery plays a central role in American history.  The pervasiveness of its role in how our Nation was governed and conducted foreign affairs isn't accurately taught to this day.  I highly recommend James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me to see how we are still very much living with its legacy and particularly its aftermath.  And I never miss a chance to remind everyone the only reason Trump is President is slavery.  

http://time.com/4558510/electo...



South_Mountaineer said:

Sorry, I was being sarcastic.  I know that some people own a lot of guns.  My comment was about listening to a random man brag about size - of his gun collection or otherwise.   cheese 
drummerboy said:

except if you're in the U.S., the land of the gun fetishist. There are plenty of people with 10's of guns.

I'll see if there's data....

South_Mountaineer said:

ridski said:
Each of them have an average of 25+ guns?

For each person, what was the highest and lowest number of guns at any given time?

tomcat said:

Ridski:   Those were the numbers they were tossing around when talking between themselves (on one of their favorite subjects)
I would suggest that we take it with a grain of salt when any man brags about the size of his







gun collection.

And likewise my comment was more about the literal meaning of an individual average, and the vagueness of that average.


@dk50b, you may want to check the 1858 presidential debates (seven in all).  See  https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn...

Foster discusses in the first debate (I don't have time to check all seven debates) his POV that slavery (and the state''s control of it) is a right reserved to the states (what I would call the 19th century way of saying "States Rights").  You can find this State's Rights language in the first full paragraph of the transcript of the first debate of 1858.


dk50b said:

It's always puzzled me (and obviously others) how the view that the Civil War was about state's rights, not slavery, could be so widespread despite ample, uncontested evidence slavery's the only thing it was about. Then I stumbled on this enlightening story about how the United Daughters of the Confederacy undertook he most successful marketing campaign in American history.  Beginning in the late 1890s, they erected memorials throughout the south and at major battlefields with the "lost cause" fiction of Southern harmony shattered by the North. Their control textbooks indoctrinated Southern youth with this guilt salve, which holds sway nationwide, even among educators, to this day.  

http://jasoncochran.com/blog/t...


http://www.salon.com/2013/03/1...


After the UDC's activities waned, publishers seeking nationally acceptable textbooks still incorrectly claim both state's rights and slavery were causes.  The UDC helped spread the idea the North concocted the slavery myth to cover their unconstitutional invasion.  And it provided an alternate source of the fake but happy history to overcome the supposedly false story peddled by the winners.  Sound familiar?

As @angeak says, slavery plays a central role in American history.  The pervasiveness of its role in how our Nation was governed and conducted foreign affairs isn't accurately taught to this day.  I highly recommend James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me to see how we are still very much living with its legacy and particularly its aftermath.  And I never miss a chance to remind everyone the only reason Trump is President is slavery.  

http://time.com/4558510/electo...



To get back to the Conderate monuments issue in NO, on Wednesday a Louisiana House committee passed a bill to effectively ban the tearing down of said monuments among other things.

http://www.wdsu.com/article/ho...



RealityForAll said:

@dk50b, you may want to check the 1858 presidential debates (seven in all).  See  https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn...

Foster discusses in the first debate (I don't have time to check all seven debates) his POV that slavery (and the state''s control of it) is a right reserved to the states (what I would call the 19th century way of saying "States Rights").  You can find this State's Rights language in the first full paragraph of the transcript of the first debate of 1858.



dk50b said:

It's always puzzled me (and obviously others) how the view that the Civil War was about state's rights, not slavery, could be so widespread despite ample, uncontested evidence slavery's the only thing it was about. Then I stumbled on this enlightening story about how the United Daughters of the Confederacy undertook he most successful marketing campaign in American history.  Beginning in the late 1890s, they erected memorials throughout the south and at major battlefields with the "lost cause" fiction of Southern harmony shattered by the North. Their control textbooks indoctrinated Southern youth with this guilt salve, which holds sway nationwide, even among educators, to this day.  

http://jasoncochran.com/blog/t...


http://www.salon.com/2013/03/1...


After the UDC's activities waned, publishers seeking nationally acceptable textbooks still incorrectly claim both state's rights and slavery were causes.  The UDC helped spread the idea the North concocted the slavery myth to cover their unconstitutional invasion.  And it provided an alternate source of the fake but happy history to overcome the supposedly false story peddled by the winners.  Sound familiar?

As @angeak says, slavery plays a central role in American history.  The pervasiveness of its role in how our Nation was governed and conducted foreign affairs isn't accurately taught to this day.  I highly recommend James W. Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me to see how we are still very much living with its legacy and particularly its aftermath.  And I never miss a chance to remind everyone the only reason Trump is President is slavery.  

http://time.com/4558510/electo...

But every bit of it was still about slavery.  The 3/5 compromise, the Great Compromise, the compromise of 1850, all of these were about slavery.  That was the only issue.  The reframing of history that dk50 refers to was also encouraged by those who wanted to elevate Lee to legendary status after the war.  They scapegoated Longstreet as part of the process.  


The first paragraph of the Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

It's inaccurate to say it was not primarily about slavery. It's also either disingenuous or ignorant.


I believe that "encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States" is 19th century speak for State's Rights (this quote can be found in the first clause of the first sentence of TR's quote).  Both the states and the federal government have sovereignty.  And, the 10th amendment states as follows:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I do not disagree that the issue which the North and South were trying to resolve was slavery.  However, the two sides had differing views as to who should make the decision each state or the federal government.  Clearly, the North's view of the compromises from the inception of the Constitution to the Civil War were intended to limit slavery (and ultimately extinguish it).  The South's view of such compromises was at odds with prevailing attitude in the North.  

With all that said, the South had a plausible argument that decisions regarding slavery should be made by each state pursuant to the Bill of Rights X amendment (please note, although the South had a plausible legal argument, they LACKED a plausible moral argument).  I am not quite sure why so many are so adamant on promoting the narrative where neither State's Rights nor the X amendment were part of the issues that gave rise to the Civil War (please explain it to me).  Both my prior citation to the first Lincoln Douglas debate and Tom Reingold's quote both contain explicit references to State's Rights.  Namely, TG's quote explicitly references encroachments by the federal government quote and my quote from Lincoln Douglas  First Debate reference to the "right to regulate the relations between Master and Servant."  See https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn...

PS IMHO, there were multiple causes to the Civil War, including but not limited to, X amendment, slavery, etc.


Tom_Reingold said:

The first paragraph of the Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union:
The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States [emphasis added], fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.

It's inaccurate to say it was not primarily about slavery. It's also either disingenuous or ignorant.



fwiw, Lincoln debated Douglas, not Foster.  Stephen Foster (not Ed Norton) wrote "Swanee River" (among many other traditional songs).


Sure, we could argue about whether it is the state's or the federal government to designate an official state song or state bird, and it could be a valid argument. But it's unbecoming to claim or imply that slavery was not the major topic at hand at the time. The seceding states wanted states rights because they wanted slavery.

There will always be arguments of jurisdiction. I can live with that.


I stand corrected.  You are right.  I will clean up my posting to clear up this inaccuracy.  Thanks for catching me.

ml1 said:

fwiw, Lincoln debated Douglas, not Foster.  Stephen Foster (not Ed Norton) wrote "Swanee River" (among many other traditional songs).



This is the same principle that was discussed at length in the Colorado marijuana legalization (whose law should control, Colorado or federal).   

Tom_Reingold said:

Sure, we could argue about whether it is the state's or the federal government to designate an official state song or state bird, and it could be a valid argument. But it's unbecoming to claim or imply that slavery was not the major topic at hand at the time. The seceding states wanted states rights because they wanted slavery.

There will always be arguments of jurisdiction. I can live with that.



sometimes a person's mind can just go blank on the correct response


Very funny and appropriate clip.

ml1 said:

sometimes a person's mind can just go blank on the correct response




Now tell me why it is so important that the Civil War have only one cause, slavery.

Tom_Reingold said:

Sure, we could argue about whether it is the state's or the federal government to designate an official state song or state bird, and it could be a valid argument. But it's unbecoming to claim or imply that slavery was not the major topic at hand at the time. The seceding states wanted states rights because they wanted slavery.

There will always be arguments of jurisdiction. I can live with that.



In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.