Jump to content
TAHAWK

Civil Protest, Policing, Moving Forward

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, Navybone said:

There is a huge difference between whose who loot/riot and those who protest. 

Tell that to all of the liberal mayors and city councils who allow the looting and rioting, the blocking of highways, the destruction of public property, and the threats against honest law abiding citizens.  These liberal politicians don't seem to be able to differentiate between criminal behavior and peaceful protests. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, elitts said:

Well, in the context of what BLM is arguing for, I think that's measurably true.  My grandmother's generation (Silent Generation) was "accidentally" racist enough to be horrifying sometimes (and that ignores any deliberate racism).  My parent's generation (Boomers) were better, but if you look at the time period they've been "in power" they certainly haven't spent much time or effort to fix or work toward fixing the issue; but at least the Boomers started to be cognizant that there is actually a problem.  Gen X is only just now getting to the high table of politics, so we don't really know what they'll manage once they can overcome the existing political inertia.  The <40 folks (maybe even <30) are the ones that are fully engaged on the issue and energized about it, so from the viewpoint of "Who is most likely to drive us towards fixing this" standpoint, they are "the best hope".

 

So what generation were all those politicians that passed the civil rights legislation and voting rights legislation in the 60s?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, David CO said:

Tell that to all of the liberal mayors and city councils who allow the looting and rioting, the blocking of highways, the destruction of public property, and the threats against honest law abiding citizens.  These liberal politicians don't seem to be able to differentiate between criminal behavior and peaceful protests. 

No, the politicians get it, they understand.  But maybe they are trying to approach this more as an enagagement to address the underlying conditions ina an effort to stop more protest, looting, etc.  but again, protesting is not the same as looting and rioting.  And when peaceful protestors are treated like looters or rioter like some heavy handed politicians have done, then nothing moves forward, nothing changes, and we are stuck in the death spiral of ineffectiveness.  And simp,Ed protesting is seen as the same as looting or rioting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navybone said:

There is a huge difference between whose who loot/riot and those who protest.  And why are the riots occurring?   And for the monuments, specifically the ones honoring confederate leaders or soldiers, do you not understand why they want them removed?  Is it too much to ask they they want a statue of a person or representation that honors, or remembers, or celebrates the subjugation is a single person due to the color of their skin removed.  

The first amendment prevents the government from stopping peaceable assembly and redress of grievances.  Rioting and looting are prominently absent.  People keep saying I should listen.  Oh I'm listening all right and hearing just fine.  BLM the organization explicitly calls for the destruction of the family (how's that worked out for the black community over the last 50 years?), and one of their organizers has explicitly stated they have a Marxist ideology.  There's no interest in conversation or dialog from BLM the organization.  And beyond the Confederates statues my own Senator Duckworth has said she'd be open to listening to arguments to take down memorials to Geo. Washington.  There have been calls to take down the Jefferson Memorial.  Sorry, cultural Marxism is real and must be actively opposed.  BLM will set civil rights back 70 years.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Navybone said:

There is a huge difference between whose who loot/riot and those who protest.  And why are the riots occurring?   And for the monuments, specifically the ones honoring confederate leaders or soldiers, do you not understand why they want them removed?  Is it too much to ask they they want a statue of a person or representation that honors, or remembers, or celebrates the subjugation is a single person due to the color of their skin removed.  

Understanding why they want them removed is all well and good.  But that is a slippery slope for several reasons:

there is no limit to hurt feelings and desire to eliminate symbols placed in a public forum.  Native Americans despise Mt Rushmore and want it gone, the protestors apparently don’t want symbols of anyone having anything to do with slavery around as the destruction of Jefferson and Washington clearly illustrated.  Stone Mountain is one of the biggest monuments in earth but protestors would just assume blow it up.  
 

Like it or not, this is cultural purging and a point when one group attempts to erase public display of history in a whirlwind of action riding high on emotion. Frankly, they could take a page from the Taliban playbook.  They blew up ancient Buddhist behemoths because it was offensive to Islam.  The various churches over time have destroyed or marred art because it was offensive to sensibilities,  

 

religate them to museums, some say, well that isn’t the point.  Public display where anyone can see them at anytime is what is important. Statues that invite thought, good or ill is the idea.  Cultural revolutions happen and sweep away history and art in an orgiastic frenzy certain of their righteousness. 
 

this gets to a point where it’s no longer about protesting figures and the history with it, but denying anyone else The chance to observe and reflect on their own time in public places.  This denies those individuals whose families are steeped deep in American history on different sides of the equation back to colonization a chance to see their ancestors and markers in an open public place always accessible. 
 

this creates a festering and gangrenous problem that will only antagonize dudes over time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, walk in the woods said:

The first amendment prevents the government from stopping peaceable assembly and redress of grievances.  Rioting and looting are prominently absent.  People keep saying I should listen.  Oh I'm listening all right and hearing just fine.  BLM the organization explicitly calls for the destruction of the family (how's that worked out for the black community over the last 50 years?), and one of their organizers has explicitly stated they have a Marxist ideology.  There's no interest in conversation or dialog from BLM the organization.  And beyond the Confederates statues my own Senator Duckworth has said she'd be open to listening to arguments to take down memorials to Geo. Washington.  There have been calls to take down the Jefferson Memorial.  Sorry, cultural Marxism is real and must be actively opposed.  BLM will set civil rights back 70 years.

There are 17 different items BLM is supporting In their mission.  You have identified one and disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  And it does NOT call for the destruction of the family, rather it calls for recognition that extended families and villages have a significant pace in today’s society.  Do we not want equality under law for all Americans, regardless of race?  Do we not understand that a significant portion of our population is disenfranchised and there is room and opportunity to heal the Division that occurs.  
 

And for Duckworth, her comments are for being willing to having a dialogue.  Do we not want open discussion and debate?  Are we so closed minded?  Cultural Marxism is a new-con wet- dream to encourage right wing conservative government, not an engaged government willing to talk to the people, and understand their concerns. 
 

what are you listening to?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Troop75Eagle said:

 

there is no limit to hurt feelings and desire to eliminate symbols placed in a public forum.  Native Americans despise Mt Rushmore and want it gone, the protestors apparently don’t want symbols of anyone having anything to do with slavery around as the destruction of Jefferson and Washington clearly illustrated.  Stone Mountain is one of the biggest monuments in earth but protestors would just assume blow it up.  
 

Like it or not, this is cultural purging and a point when one group attempts to erase public display of history in a whirlwind of action riding high on emotion. Frankly, they could take a page from the Taliban playbook.  They blew up ancient Buddhist behemoths because it was offensive to Islam.  The various churches over time have destroyed or marred art because it was offensive to sensibilities,  

Stone Mountain is literally the largest monument on earth dedicated to honoring the men who betrayed their country to enslave an entire race due to their skin.  The taliban blew up statues because Islam considers any representation of the human as offensive.  Both of these instances illustrate how narrow the thinking of a culture or people can be.   Are you in agreement that Stone Mountain should be preserved because is it something the US wants to celebrate or honor.   That the South’s effort to break away from the United States over the desire to preserve slavery is something we want to solemnize, and that is it is something we want our children to commemorate and recognize in anything other than repudiation of racism? 

  • Thanks 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Navybone said:

There are 17 different items BLM is supporting In their mission.  You have identified one and disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  And it does NOT call for the destruction of the family, rather it calls for recognition that extended families and villages have a significant pace in today’s society.  Do we not want equality under law for all Americans, regardless of race?  Do we not understand that a significant portion of our population is disenfranchised and there is room and opportunity to heal the Division that occurs.  
 

And for Duckworth, her comments are for being willing to having a dialogue.  Do we not want open discussion and debate?  Are we so closed minded?  Cultural Marxism is a new-con wet- dream to encourage right wing conservative government, not an engaged government willing to talk to the people, and understand their concerns. 
 

what are you listening to?  

There comes a point, right or wrong, good or bad, that organizations are too controversial to be taken seriously.  The Nazi Party, Communist Party, Red Arrow Party, Black Panthers, and a host of other political parties and movements become branded.  BLM is rapidly approaching that status whether they want it or not. They get the distinction of being a lightning rod and all that comes with that.  
 

fo a lot of people, they are no longer credible.  In this circumstance, it doesn’t matter whose fault it is.  Perceptions are powerful and stick, often permanently,  so when one asks what are you willing to listen to, that is a question that isn’t always easy to answer.  
 

a group can have all the most reasonable and sensible ideas in the world. But if they are perceived as an enemy trying to rip apart social order, then none of that matters.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Navybone said:

There are 17 different items BLM is supporting In their mission.  You have identified one and disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  

 The Confederacy had many reasons for leaving the Union.  Slavery was one of them.  Do you disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  Sometimes one is enough.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Navybone said:

Stone Mountain is literally the largest monument on earth dedicated to honoring the men who betrayed their country to enslave an entire race due to their skin.  The taliban blew up statues because Islam considers any representation of the human as offensive.  Both of these instances illustrate how narrow the thinking of a culture or people can be.   Are you in agreement that Stone Mountain should be preserved because is it something the US wants to celebrate or honor.   That the South’s effort to break away from the United States over the desire to preserve slavery is something we want to solemnize, and that is it is something we want our children to commemorate and recognize in anything other than repudiation of racism? 

I believe destroying monuments is absurd on its face.  The Taliban destroyed them because it was offensive to them. The idea is that it was offensive to their sensibilities.  The fact it was idolatry in Islam is irrelevant. It was just as important to them as a sensibility as others find Stone Mountain offensive or Mount Rushmore.  
 

vultural and artistic achievements have been Swept away and destroyed because of cultural relativism and people in one era.  They deny the future the concrete understanding and review of what was done. Destroying culture and art because it offends people is outrageous.  If one wants to do that, then every neonazi is fully justified in defacing everything they don’t like.  

 

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, David CO said:

 The Confederacy had many reasons for leaving the Union.  Slavery was one of them.  Do you disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  Sometimes one is enough.

No, slavery was the reason they left.  Read each states declaration on why they left.  In each, the reason is slavery.  The efforts in the early 1900’s of the LOst cause or states right was nothing more than way for the south to convince itself that it was not slavery.  But their founding documents betray that reality.  For the 5 initial states in why they left the union (from their words)
 

georgia:  third line - they have endeavored  to weaken out security, to disturb out domestic peace and tranquillity....with reference to that property 

mississippi: second line.  Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world.

s. Carolina: first line...but in deference to to the opinions and wishes of other slaveholding states

texas: takes some time, but third paragraph: she was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery — the servitude of of the African to the white race within her limits....

virginia: last line for the first paragraph:   Not only to the injury of the people, of Virginia, but to the oppression of the southern slave holding states.  

I am see past many things, but slavery of another human based on the color of there skin.  No, I cannot see past that.  Who can?

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Troop75Eagle said:

I believe destroying monuments is absurd on its face.  The Taliban destroyed them because it was offensive to them. The idea is that it was offensive to their sensibilities.  The fact it was idolatry in Islam is irrelevant. It was just as important to them as a sensibility as others find Stone Mountain offensive or Mount Rushmore.  
 

vultural and artistic achievements have been Swept away and destroyed because of cultural relativism and people in one era.  They deny the future the concrete understanding and review of what was done. Destroying culture and art because it offends people is outrageous.  If one wants to do that, then every neonazi is fully justified in defacing everything they don’t like.  

 

I do not agree with the taliban on anything.  Which is why I spent many years hunting and killing them.  
 

but for this, You are You saying you are ok with Stone Mountain? What it represents, what it honors?  
 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Navybone said:

There are 17 different items BLM is supporting In their mission.  You have identified one and disparage the rest of the organization and their goals for that?  And it does NOT call for the destruction of the family, rather it calls for recognition that extended families and villages have a significant pace in today’s society.  Do we not want equality under law for all Americans, regardless of race?  Do we not understand that a significant portion of our population is disenfranchised and there is room and opportunity to heal the Division that occurs.  
 

And for Duckworth, her comments are for being willing to having a dialogue.  Do we not want open discussion and debate?  Are we so closed minded?  Cultural Marxism is a new-con wet- dream to encourage right wing conservative government, not an engaged government willing to talk to the people, and understand their concerns. 
 

what are you listening to?  

The founder of BLM

Edit: I'm more than willing to discuss issues and find solutions , but not with Marxists.  Sorry, it's an ideology that murdered millions around the globe over the last century alone.  The hammer and sickel (and the communist red star) are every bit as repugnant as anything Confederate or anything Nazi.

Edited by walk in the woods
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Navybone said:

No, slavery was the reason they left.  

Now look who is engaging in historical revisionism.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Navybone said:

I do not agree with the taliban on anything.  Which is why I spent many years hunting and killing them.  
 

but for this, You are You saying you are ok with Stone Mountain? What it represents, what it honors?  
 

Obliterating artwork and history set in stone is not going to accomplish any of the human aims we want. All it's going to do is erase a piece a of history. Also, you would be erasing a monument to a different kind of slave. All three men are mounted on horses who mutely served their masters through no wish of their own. Almost all of humanity of every color, ethnicity and race has only survived because they were able to enslave the horse. The only monuments that exist to these poor beasts are military ones like this one at Stone Mountain. Traveler, Little Sorrel and Black Jack are the names of the horses depicted on Stone Mountain.  Traveler, despite the side he served on, is one of the most famous war horses of all time, often listed in the same breath with Bucephalas, the beloved war mount of Alexander the Great, Napoleon's Marengo, and the Duke of Wellington's Copenhagen. Little Sorrel, Stonewall Jackson's war horse, was stolen from Union troops and made to serve the Confederacy through no equine choice of his own and yet people want to erase him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...