|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:14 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| stilicho25 wrote: |
| You could say the same thing for the Stars and Stripes, or the Union Jack. History isn't pretty, and most societies have a couple million skeletons in their closet. You can celebrate a societies heritage without endorsing every crime committed by it. |
Yeah but the South was treasonous because the United States was against the south setting up a slavery empire and had intentions to shut slavery down. The United States was mean and unreasonable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
young_clinton
Joined: 09 Sep 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2015 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| catman wrote: |
It was revived solely as a symbol of resistance to the civil rights movement.
Internationally it is recognized as a symbol of white supremacy. |
You'd be surprised at how respectable it is in some quarters, at least in Canada. And, no, I'm not just talking about Alberta, aka the Lone Star Province.
|
I can see those guys saying "Yes, we still need to do something about that upstart United States." What makes sense? Who cares. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 1:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
New Orleans City Council votes to remove Confederate Monuments
| Quote: |
| On Thursday, the New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 in favor of an ordinance that paves the way for the removal of four Confederate monuments. They include monuments that honor Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard, one for President Jefferson Davis, as well as a monument to the postwar battle of Liberty Place. |
The Monuments cannot be separated from a revisionist view of history.
| Quote: |
In some sense, the Civil War ended in New Orleans in 1891. That year, the Democratic-controlled state legislature passed a constitution that effectively disenfranchised most black citizens. The war successfully brought about the emancipation of 4 million people, but the broader struggle for black civil rights that was waged during the Civil War and in the streets of New was defeated.
That same year, a monument commemorating the fighting at Liberty Place was dedicated to the men who helped to restore white supremacy to the state. In 1932, an inscription was added that read in part: “United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.” By then the monuments to Lee, Beauregard, and Davis had been dedicated. White New Orleanians understood all four monuments as constituting a coherent historical narrative that justified their new racial order. |
They say winners write the history books. That wasn't true in the South, where it has for too long been written by losers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the biggest hypocracy and something a Brit pointed out to me. The south hated America for it start a war about leaving. Used the flag as a symbol of such hatred but at the very same time loves the same America they wanted to leave and are reminiscent about leaving.
Its the most schizo thing there is. They do NOT love America. At least be honest about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
[url=/politics/archive/2015/12/new-orleans-remove-confederate-monuments/421059/]New Orleans City Council votes to remove Confederate Monuments[/url]
| Quote: |
| On Thursday, the New Orleans City Council voted 6-1 in favor of an ordinance that paves the way for the removal of four Confederate monuments. They include monuments that honor Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard, one for President Jefferson Davis, as well as a monument to the postwar battle of Liberty Place. |
The Monuments cannot be separated from a revisionist view of history.
| Quote: |
In some sense, the Civil War ended in New Orleans in 1891. That year, the Democratic-controlled state legislature passed a constitution that effectively disenfranchised most black citizens. The war successfully brought about the emancipation of 4 million people, but the broader struggle for black civil rights that was waged during the Civil War and in the streets of New was defeated.
That same year, a monument commemorating the fighting at Liberty Place was dedicated to the men who helped to restore white supremacy to the state. In 1932, an inscription was added that read in part: “United States troops took over the state government and reinstated the usurpers but the national election of November 1876 recognized white supremacy in the South and gave us our state.” By then the monuments to Lee, Beauregard, and Davis had been dedicated. White New Orleanians understood all four monuments as constituting a coherent historical narrative that justified their new racial order. |
They say winners write the history books. That wasn't true in the South, where it has for too long been written by losers. |
What a disgusting point of view. This is what communism is, the defacing and tearing down of other people’s histories and landmarks. How absurd that it is these people who have the gall to label others ‘intolerant’ or ‘fascist’ and assume that it is anyone other than themselves who are filled with hate. They unleash waves of criminality upon the rest of America and destabilize thousands of communities, then applaud themselves as purveyors of justice. Liberalism is little more than a cult that justifies forcing its polarized and inverted version of an ideology on everyone else as if it is a universal doctrine. It’s liberal jihad, with ranks comprised of unmarried women, minorities, freaks, and self-loathing creampuffs, all too dumb or brainwashed to figure out that they’re being manipulated to create volatility. Thankfully, this fringe coalition is inherently dysfunctional and prone to eating its own as they impose their disorder on the rest. But when the pendulum swings back and the time comes to reestablish order, their childish behavior and incessant whining won’t get them pats on the back like it does now. Far from it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Calling people you disagree with communist (when they are clearly not) and ranting about "Zionist Occupied Government" on an ESLboard.
Is there any better way to demonstrate one's irrelevancy?
I actually think Nietzsche's Last Man describes Swartz better than anyone else. Maybe there is some right-wing political endeavor of great worth out there. It is not ranting again and again on a Korean ESL message board. The behavior you're demonstrating here, Swartz, is pure ressentiment.
Shame on me, as well, for taking you off ignore. That was a mistake. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
Calling people you disagree with communist (when they are clearly not) and ranting about "Zionist Occupied Government" on an ESLboard.
Is there any better way to demonstrate one's irrelevancy?
I actually think Nietzsche's Last Man describes Swartz better than anyone else. Maybe there is some right-wing political endeavor of great worth out there. It is not ranting again and again on a Korean ESL message board. The behavior you're demonstrating here, Swartz, is pure ressentiment.
Shame on me, as well, for taking you off ignore. That was a mistake. |
All projection and no substance. Defaulting into a pitiful whine when your feeble viewpoints can’t hold water and you are denied your safe space. This is the face of the contemporary weak Western male. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
What a disgusting point of view. This is what communism is, the defacing and tearing down of other people’s histories and landmarks. |
Putting aside the fact that tearing down monuments to a rebellion predicated entirely upon the perpetuation and expansion of race-based slavery is not "communism" -- there reaches a point where, just as with the terms "racist," or "bigot," the term "communist" devolves into a nearly meaningless pejorative; an expression of opprobrium towards one's opposition which gives no clear impression beyond indicating vague political or social disagreement from a "right wing" perspective -- it was the New Orleans City Council which voted on the matter, was it not? They aren't tearing down "other people's" landmarks, they are tearing down their own landmarks, by choice, and with what seems to be extremely good reason. And the rest of the country has been, if anything, incredibly, perhaps even inordinately tolerant of the continued lionization of a group of people who rebelled against the government specifically in order to perpetuate and expand the institution of race-based slavery. And no, that's not a narrative or historical distortion, it's a position spelled out in the secession documents of many confederate states. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Putting aside the fact that tearing down monuments to a rebellion predicated entirely upon the perpetuation and expansion of race-based slavery is not "communism" -- there reaches a point where, just as with the terms "racist," or "bigot," the term "communist" devolves into a nearly meaningless pejorative; an expression of opprobrium towards one's opposition which gives no clear impression beyond indicating vague political or social disagreement from a "right wing" perspective |
I obviously agree in a general sense, but I do not see this particular example that way. I find the comparison between what was done in Russia under communism – the removal of national symbols and the subjugation of the Russian people’s history – to be pertinent to stunts like this. And I can’t think of a better word to describe it. Neo-Bolshevism? ______ liberalism? I’m open to suggestions...
| Fox wrote: |
| they are tearing down their own landmarks, by choice |
Yes, they are. Because they are _______ (?). While the Russian Revolution was in many ways an act against ethnic Russians, there were still plenty of them involved. Did that justify the action? Most present day Russians probably don't think it did.
| Fox wrote: |
| and with what seems to be extremely good reason. |
This is the issue. Not everyone agrees that the reason is good. This recent thrust to ridicule the south by banning flags and taking down monuments at the frenzied direction of the most leftist regime this country has ever seen indicates impulsiveness and radicalism (and leftist radicalism is also known as ________(?)), not well-thought out, reasoned decision-making.
| Fox wrote: |
| And the rest of the country has been, if anything, incredibly, perhaps even inordinately tolerant of the continued lionization of a group of people who rebelled against the government specifically in order to perpetuate and expand the institution of race-based slavery. |
You know there were many other factors involved, Fox. And I think “inordinately tolerant” is an exaggeration. The south has been derided and portrayed negatively ever since, increasingly when you factor in Hollywood’s usual depiction over the decades. This vindictiveness continues and probably has more to do with these recent purges than anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 8:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swartz wrote: |
I obviously agree in a general sense, but I do not see this particular example that way. I find the comparison between what was done in Russia under communism – the removal of national symbols and the subjugation of the Russian people’s history – to be pertinent to stunts like this. And I can’t think of a better word to describe it. Neo-Bolshevism? ______ liberalism? I’m open to suggestions... |
My impression is that the majority of people who hold disdain for or take issue with the Confederacy and the honoring of it are simply people who look at what it stood for and find themselves frowning. Yes, the sort of person you describe can be fairly said to exist: the sort of person who will find themselves going along with any cause so long as it gives them an opportunity to shout down "the oppressor." You'll see them bemoaning things like "cultural appropriation," or leaping to conclusions on the flimsiest of information with regards to the latest popular criminal trial, or so forth. These people are often the recipients of disdain not merely from people of your political persuasion, but from the same general populace which also takes issue with the Confederacy as well. Any sort of terminological distinction which conflates the former with the latter misportrays the situation.
If anything, the abnormality has been the way in which Americans have been encouraged to be accepting of pro-Southern revisionism, and that's what is losing traction. The final condemnation of the Confederacy in America's collective consciousness has been a long-time coming, but it's probably imminent. The rest of the country has been pursuing its lips and nodding along while southerners honored the Confederacy for quite a long time now, and it's getting to the point where even the southerners themselves have had enough of it. So long as it's happening at a local or state level, it seems reasonable.
| Swartz wrote: |
| Yes, they are. Because they are _______ (?). While the Russian Revolution was in many ways an act against ethnic Russians, there were still plenty of them involved. Did that justify the action? Most present day Russians probably don't think it did. |
Well, we've introduced a testable hypothesis here, at least from a long-term perspective. If you are correct in saying, "Did that justify the action? Most present day Russians probably don't think they did," and you are correct in drawing a corollary between America and Russia in this regard, then in the not-so-distant future, we could expect to see Americans feeling a similar sense of regret. Decades from now, will Americans look back with disappointment at the current disowning of the Confederacy? Will they lament the destruction of a statue of Jefferson Davis? I suppose we'll see, but personally, I doubt it: as time goes on, I expect fewer and fewer Americans to want to associate themselves with the Confederacy and its ideology, not more, and I expect that to be true even if a backlash against modern liberal tendencies occurs. Individuals might continue to honor their ancestors -- probably under a narrative of, "He was fighting for his home," or, "He was fighting to protect his family," or so forth, in a fashion Steelrails has before outlined -- but the institution of slavery is sufficiently distasteful, and the Confederacy sufficiently predicated upon it, that sincere affection for it probably exists on borrowed time.
| Swartz wrote: |
| This is the issue. Not everyone agrees that the reason is good. This recent thrust to ridicule the south by banning flags and taking down monuments at the frenzied direction of the most leftist regime this country has ever seen indicates impulsiveness and radicalism (and leftist radicalism is also known as ________(?)), not well-thought out, reasoned decision-making. |
Were this all happening at the direct behest of Washington, perhaps I'd feel a bit more like you do, but we're seeing action at the state and local levels here. For example, when Representative Jenny Horne, a Republican member of the South Carolina Legislature and a self-proclaimed descendent of Jefferson Davis, vigorously supports the removal of the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina Statehouse, is it because she really wants to get in good with Obama? Is it because she's obediently following his direction? Is it because she's a "communist?" Or is it because she has reflected on the issue and genuinely believes her state ought to take a different stance regarding its history? This comes back to the above distinction between the tiny minority which will back any cause, and the broader group which is really just following its conscience.
| Swartz wrote: |
| You know there were many other factors involved, Fox. |
I'm sure a well-informed fellow like yourself knows that the typical revisionist "state's rights" narratives are not only hollow, but actually the inverse of the truth: one of the major objections the southern states had was that the northern states "illegalized their property," which is to say, exercised "states rights" to outlaw slavery in their regions. By contrast, the southern attitude towards "states rights" was exemplfied in the Fugitive Slave Act: federal power brought to bear against the states to limit their sovereignty, in direct contravention to the conscience of the denizens of those states, to the benefit of southern slave holders. Likewise, the myth that it was somehow about tariffs is reasonably debunked here. So absent vague, counter-factual allusions to "states rights" and almost assuredly-incorrect invocations of tariffs as causes -- neither of which I've seen you mention, of course, but are objections I've had the misfortune of witnessing others make -- what other major factors do you think were involved, exactly? Because if one looks at the actual secession documents (some examples of which I cited here in a previous conversation), one sees a primary theme: slavery. What were these "many other factors?" I don't have quite as much endurance for protracted exchanges on these forums as I once had, but I'm still interested in your thoughts on the matter.
| Swartz wrote: |
| The south has been derided and portrayed negatively ever since, increasingly when you factor in Hollywood’s usual depiction over the decades. |
On the one hand, this is true. On the other hand, it's probably got more to do with the fact that the American South is culturally distinct, and those distinctions, along with their attendant frustrations, lend themselves to ridicule. It's probably that more than any kind of real "vindictiveness." I've said enough about the culturo-political defects of the American South on this forum, and I'd rather not go on at length about them again, but needless to say, it's a part of the country which is simultaneously easy to lampoon, and brings it on itself. It's not a big deal, such mockery is (or at least has been) a part of American culture. Or does the South need a "safe space," so to speak? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| If anything, the abnormality has been the way in which Americans have been encouraged to be accepting of pro-Southern revisionism, and that's what is losing traction. The final condemnation of the Confederacy in America's collective consciousness has been a long-time coming, but it's probably imminent. The rest of the country has been pursuing its lips and nodding along while southerners honored the Confederacy for quite a long time now, and it's getting to the point where even the southerners themselves have had enough of it. So long as it's happening at a local or state level, it seems reasonable. |
What I take issue with is the degree of your characterization of the south, which is symptomatic of a very stereotypical or generic aversion to its people, Christianity, etc. (not that it is unfounded), along with the notion that its cultural drift away from that is as naturally brought about as you seem to believe it to be, or that the forces acting against it are more correct or justified in accelerating its deconstruction.
“The south” as a cohesive entity or culture as it has existed in the past and still to a large extent exists today has no chance in the long run. Its economic outputs have been sucked out from under it many times over and it has been absolutely flooded with Hispanics and other immigrants that have been dropped in to dilute it. The powers against it are too strong. But while your narrative assumes those powers symbolize a more sophisticated version of the modern world, I view it as a self-perpetuated mirage, an advertising trick of association advanced by an elite and others who are ethnically predisposed or conditioned to despise and fear what the south represents (or doesn’t), who then promulgate their neuroses to the public at large.
| Fox wrote: |
| If you are correct in saying, "Did that justify the action? Most present day Russians probably don't think they did," and you are correct in drawing a corollary between America and Russia in this regard, then in the not-so-distant future, we could expect to see Americans feeling a similar sense of regret. Decades from now, will Americans look back with disappointment at the current disowning of the Confederacy? |
The larger issue and correlation here appertains to a universalist ideology that is used by one group to rationalize attacks on other members of that group who they believe to be inferior; inferior for being uncivilized heretics, essentially. But most importantly, it is about who wields that ideology at the top levels, who ingrains it in the minds of the populace through media and education, who is responsible for magnifying its effect for divisive purposes.
Will European Americans one day regret waging this ideological war against their brothers from the south? I hope so, but for that to happen the entire culture will have to change, and those who actively exacerbate the conflict will have to be removed. Just as slavery has become irrelevant, just as Jim Crow is over with, there will have to arise a new paradigm of racial consciousness to end the conflict or at least mend the gap between the two sides. But that will not come about through the south’s adoption of contemporary liberal principles, and I would argue that the exact opposite is actually more likely to take place, and in many ways already is, as more Whites realize that modern liberalism is an ideology that manipulates them into cheering on their own extermination. That doesn’t require becoming sympathetic to the Confederacy or embracing what the south represents, but involves a natural move towards conservative principles which simply happen to be more visible in the south. Continued liberal shock treatment and state-sanctioned invasions will force European Americans to work together, then hopefully they will one day be able to unite under a new national banner similar to what we see happening in Russia today.
| Fox wrote: |
| Were this all happening at the direct behest of Washington, perhaps I'd feel a bit more like you do, but we're seeing action at the state and local levels here. For example, when Representative Jenny Horne, a Republican member of the South Carolina Legislature and a self-proclaimed descendent of Jefferson Davis, vigorously supports the removal of the Confederate Flag from the South Carolina Statehouse, is it because she really wants to get in good with Obama? Is it because she's obediently following his direction? |
Perhaps more than you realize. Liberalism is about moral signaling and the left has consistently and successfully instilled in the minds of Americans the idea that its beliefs are the only acceptable option if one wishes to appear intelligent and worldly. To repudiate these principles is to be considered a racist or a bigot, or some idiotic right-winger who’s probably from the south - those people virtuous progressives always claim will be dying off sometime in the near future. I am never surprised when a cuckservative complies with the liberal orthodoxy, I expect it. You can moralize it as someone following their conscience, but I will tell you that the other side’s propaganda is simply more effective, and its authority much stronger.
| Fox wrote: |
| What were these "many other factors?" |
Ones that did not revolve entirely around slavery. As you appear to desire my deferral to your omnipotence here, you can have it, and you will undoubtedly attain the moral validation you were looking for. But I don’t care about the civil war or slavery, I don’t think it really matters anymore. I’m more concerned about the future, about the radicalized children and paranoid bureaucrats who have been trained to strike at anything that resembles the mighty chimera of “racism,” and think they have reached the point of enlightenment whereby they can suddenly start tearing down monuments and instituting inquisitions against the evildoers of past and present.
| Fox wrote: |
| On the one hand, this is true. On the other hand, it's probably got more to do with the fact that the American South is culturally distinct, and those distinctions, along with their attendant frustrations, lend themselves to ridicule … it's a part of the country which is simultaneously easy to lampoon, and brings it on itself. |
This mindset is a feature of modern day education. It has been successfully built into the fabric of America by yours truly in Hollywood and NYC, because what lies in-between is the heart of the opposition to its progressive urban and coastal influence. I’ve never identified as a southerner, I’ve never been a Christian, I don’t subscribe to their type of conservativism, and in some ways I do think they are as pathetic and daft as I was acculturated into believing they were. But I see what opposes them and wishes to punish them as much, much worse and infinitely more powerful. Those who want to mix everyone up and destroy racial identity, those who push dumbed-down perverted programming on children and standardize education around their liberal ideology, who promote an idiocracy of celebrity worship and the homofication, transification, and pornographication of Western societies, and who are actively trying to break down and corrupt the civilizations European peoples created. These are tribal despots who use their control of our monetary systems to impose their mania on others, attack anyone who does not conform, and believe they are somehow above criticism from the Goy. That influence is more toxic and sick and destructive than any culture, beliefs, value systems, or statues that exist in the south. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not unsympathetic towards your concerns about the effects of mass-scale immigration on a regional culture (or regional economics, for that matter). I also think there's an interesting paradox at work, wherein the same people who profess to support "diversity," are actually its greatest opponents, because they've forgotten that first and foremost, diversity arises out of separation, and conversely, excessive mixing results in homogeneity in the long term. In some cases this paradox might be intentionally and maliciously embraced, but more generally, such concerns are probably just subordinated to conscience, and that's where I feel we differ most strongly here.
In my heart of hearts, I'm pretty universalist in outlook, and that remains true even as I intellectually accept that different groups are on average probably to at least some extent predisposed towards different lifestyles. There's a real conflict between my head and my heart when I think about large-scale demographic matters. I don't think I'm unique in this sense, and in fact, I think such an internal conflict is very common, which is what makes me feel like most people that support or embrace any sort of ethos of universalism (cosmpolitanism?) do so sincerely, in an unmanipulated fashion. You suggest that there are certain parties which predate upon these inclinations in order to push policies that are not beneficial for the common man, and I don't think you're wrong about that; pushing back against those parties and their specific policies makes a lot of sense. It simply seems that you take it beyond that, though, and end up condemning people who in their own right are actually both virtuous in character and trying to act upon that virtue. This is an argument I used to have with Mises as well: the question of how much of what goes wrong in the world is really top-down "conspiracy," and how much of it is simply imperfect people trying to do the best they can in a tough situation. Even outright dishonest rhetorical tactics (like representing the "refugees" in Europe as largely poor Syrian women and children, so as to play on the emotions of the reader), are in many cases likely motivated by good intentions rather than conspiratorial malice; "compassion" rather than "communism," even if the compassion might be misguided in any particular case.
I'm really not trying to reflexively condemn you here, and in contrast to your suggestion, neither am I expecting your "deferral to [my] omnipotence" (rhetorical omnipotence? omniscience?). All I wanted (and want) to do is exchange some thoughts in a sincere, reasonably rigorous fashion, and even if one of us does not walk away completely convinced of the other's viewpoint, that doesn't mean the exchange had no merit. I'll give some more thought to what you have written here, and I hope you'll do the same. Thanks for the exchange. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
With regards to the New Orleans situation specifically: Lawsuit Challenges New Orleans’s Plan to Remove Confederate Monuments.
| Quote: |
NEW ORLEANS — A lawsuit is challenging a city plan to remove prominent Confederate monuments by alleging that the city does not own the land under three of the monuments and that they are protected from removal by state and federal laws.
The suit, filed shortly after the City Council voted Thursday to remove four monuments, asked Judge Carl Barbier of Federal District Court in New Orleans to halt removal plans. The suit was filed by three preservation organizations and a New Orleans chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
...
The suit said the monuments were part of the city’s history and should be protected.
“Regardless whether the Civil War era is regarded as a catastrophic mistake or a noble endeavor, it is undeniably a formative event in the history of Louisiana,” the suit stated. “It is the source of much of the cultural heritage” of the city and state, it added, “including countless novels, short stories, plays, monuments, statues, films, stories, songs, legends and other expressions of cultural identity.”
...
The city is relying on an ordinance that allows it to take down monuments on public property or under its control considered a “nuisance” because they foster dangerous and unlawful ideologies of supremacy and may become rallying points for violent demonstrations.
City officials have agreed that they will not remove the monuments before a Jan. 14 hearing of the case, according to court documents filed Friday.
...
The suit also claimed that federal officials should stop the removal because the monuments should be considered historic elements of nearby streetcar lines.
...
The suit also claimed that the city’s use of the nuisance ordinance was flawed, that the monuments did not fit its definition and that the city cannot claim ownership to three of the monuments because the land under them was donated by the city to groups raising money for the monuments between 1877 and 1911.
The plaintiffs are the Louisiana Landmarks Society, the Foundation for Historical Louisiana, the Monumental Task Committee Inc. and Beauregard Camp No. 130, a New Orleans chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
|
There's a certain irony in turning to the Federal government in hopes of defending pro-Confederate monuments against decisions by local government, but irony is not necessarily damning in a court of law. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Swartz
Joined: 19 Dec 2014
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| the question of how much of what goes wrong in the world is really top-down "conspiracy," and how much of it is simply imperfect people trying to do the best they can in a tough situation. |
Your diplomatic response is appreciated, Fox.
The thing is, it’s not even about conspiracy most of the time. It’s very much out in the open. You just have to know what to look for, the who, whom? And once you understand how it works, who benefits, you realize just how pervasive it is. And it’s hard to go back to being naive about ultimate intentions from the individual perspective.
| Quote: |
68 percent opposed the monuments being removed by New Orleans city officials. Only 9 percent were undecided on the issue.
…
Only 46 percent of black voters said they supported the monuments being removed, while 31 percent said that they opposed the idea by Landrieu. |
http://thehayride.com/2015/10/dont-think-that-black-voters-are-all-on-board-with-mitch-landrieus-confederate-monument-removal/
So where is this coming from? Who’s pushing for it?
| Quote: |
Aspen Institute President Walter Isaacson is a member of the Trilateral Commission. Oddly enough, so is New York Times writer David Brooks.
And oddly enough, both Isaacson and Brooks wrote pieces explaining why it was extremely important for monuments to be removed in New Orleans. |
https://thehayride.com/2015/12/exclusive-meet-the-well-connected-powerful-elites-who-are-destroying-new-orleans/
And, oddly enough, both David Brooks and Walter Isaacson are, of course, two of those dual-citizens you keep hearing me go on and on about. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
With regards to the New Orleans situation specifically: Lawsuit Challenges New Orleans’s Plan to Remove Confederate Monuments.
| Quote: |
NEW ORLEANS — A lawsuit is challenging a city plan to remove prominent Confederate monuments
...
The plaintiffs are the Louisiana Landmarks Society, the Foundation for Historical Louisiana, the Monumental Task Committee Inc. and Beauregard Camp No. 130, a New Orleans chapter of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
|
There's a certain irony in turning to the Federal government in hopes of defending pro-Confederate monuments against decisions by local government, but irony is not necessarily damning in a court of law. |
Carpetbagger lawyers!
I wonder how that land became Federal anyway ... New Orleans was occupied by the Union for much of the Civil War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
