Jump to content

Tiles that resemble the Confederate flag are being removed from a Times Square subway station


P3F

Recommended Posts

1. Exactly. Those Confederate statues weren't built by former slaves or by Union members. Almost all of them were built after the Civil War. Imagine if a Sons and Daughters of the Third Reich society had been building statues in the name of Hitler and Goebbels 30 years AFTER they lost WWII. Look at Auschwitz, where I visited last year. That isn't being maintained by Nazi descendants or people who respect Nazis. It is preserved by the people who suffered, and their descendants. That is a huge difference. Here, the people who want the statues kept are either Neo-Nazis and Confederate wannabes, or people who despise PC culture so much that they are willing to side with Neo-Nazis, even if the Neo-Nazis would love to kill them.

 

 

 

2. There was a lot of instegation and violence committed on by both sides in World War II. Yet, we all know the Allies had the better idealogy.

 

Unless of course, you somehow believe the Neo-Nazis have a better idealogy than liberals, BLM, and PC culture...

 

3. But the freedom of speech of Neo-Nazis is not the issue. People can say whatever the hell they want, unless it is inflammatory. The issue is whether or not Neo-Nazi arguments and complaints over Confederate statues, expressed through free speech, are valid. And they are not.

1.  So in other words, we should only keep monuments or statues when the party that has suffered thinks they should remain and erase that part of history otherwise. Smh

 

2. That was a war for crying out loud.  You're comparing a war to what was supposed to be a non-violent protest. Are you kidding me? None of the groups that showed up in Virginia should've been acting violently, NONE, and yet somehow it's wrong to say that all of the groups were wrong for using violence.  

 

3. Sure it is. Who are you kidding?  You don't think those people have any right to free speech because you disagree with them.  Plain and simple.  When we start censoring groups because we disagree with what they have to say, that's a dangerous slope.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


But the freedom of speech of Neo-Nazis is not the issue. People can say whatever the hell they want, unless it is inflammatory. The issue is whether or not Neo-Nazi arguments and complaints over Confederate statues, expressed through free speech, are valid. And they are not.

Remember though, what you consider valid differs from what a protester (in that case) would think, but I get what you're saying. Yes, hate speech, and any case of berating, verbally harassing certain individuals are not valid complaints, and that's the line where free speech doesn't protect the individual. If you talk about wanting to beat the crap out of the other side, then that's not valid either. 

 

Now, there were probably people who simply believed it takes away from southern history/culture (and may or may not have protested). We can both disagree with that (while it technically does, it represents the rather dark and gloomy era where it was accepted). One side may not be "correct", but that's why listening to one another is important in order to understand how our views are shaped.

 

Similar arguments can be made with the subway tile removal (it takes away from the subway/it never was meant to be a confederate symbol). The difference is that one is directly connected to Confederate history, and the other was never intended to be that way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is because you quoted my post where I said there were instigators on both sides and I stand by that. In other words you're telling me everyone that went down there on both sides went down there not wanting to stir the pot? I don't buy it. I'm sure people went there on both sides to stir the pot and if you seriously think that's not the case I think you're very naive. I'm thinking there were folks on the racist side that wanted to do damage and people that were so outraged by their presence that they didn't care either and wanted to do physical harm. Violence is violence. I'm not going to sugarcoat anything and excuse the actions on either side.

Given that the majority of people in the US are anti-white supremacy, anti-Naziism and deplore the Klan, isn't any protest or march in favor of those indicative of provoking people? Additionally, if those protesters show up with weapons on them - as happened with these pro-confederacy protesters, isn't that indicative of intent to provoke something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the majority of people in the US are anti-white supremacy, anti-Naziism and deplore the Klan, isn't any protest or march in favor of those indicative of provoking people? Additionally, if those protesters show up with weapons on them - as happened with these pro-confederacy protesters, isn't that indicative of intent to provoke something?

No.  I think you're confusing the two things.  You can be against something and don't have to instigate things.  There was a protest here against Trump recently.  People from both sides showed up to show their support for and against.  Perfectly fine.  Only problem was someone from the group against Trump thought it was ok to sucker punch someone from the pro-Trump group just because they disagree with their position.  That's not ok.  What happened at that event in Virginia from what I saw was people from both sides were acting out violently, and I'm not talking about the nut job that mowed down people from the racist camp. That's on another level just not okay, and he clearly came there to instigate and cause problems.

 

I'll use another example.  There's been a lot of people up in arms about whoever this guy is in the East Village who has the flags of Israel, the U.S. and Confederate flags in their windows.  People went there to protest.  Perfectly fine.  What wasn't okay was people hurling rocks at the guy's window because they didn't like seeing the Confederate flag.  Hopefully now you see my point.  There's nothing wrong with protesting for or against something. It should always be done peacefully, I don't care what someone's views are.  I don't have to agree with them, but I do respect our laws and think that everyone should have the right to voice their opinion, provided they aren't breaking any laws.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just throwing this out there… right and wrong are not inherent properties of anything. When you are debating about something, you cannot simply state that it is wrong and just that as justification to support your argument. Different people have different values. The way to move a debate forward is to discover the common values that both parties can agree on and apply logic from there to reach a conclusion.

 

You’re not going to move a discussion forward by asserting your own beliefs and stopping there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the mere fact that "stickers" were placed over the so called "confederate flag" is an indication that as soon as this hysteria dies down, and I believe it will, the stickers will be removed

 

This whole thing stinks of an agenda similar to Joe McCarthy's Communist witch hunt. We need an Edward R. Murrow to slay the dragon

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has gotten out of control. Heard about a sportscaster not being allowed to call a name simply because his name is Robert Lee. Goes back to what I said earlier... Where does it stop.

 

Oy vei. I draw the line after the removal of monuments of the positive sort to them (ie the much-discussed statues). Now this is going too far. People have to accept history whether they like it or not. Denying fact and idealogically inconvenient reality is patently hypocritical (think how we react when people deny climate change). While we should not idealize these racist traitors, we must accept and be cognizant of them, if only so we do not repeat their mistakes. I am a bleeding heart liberal through and through, and I'm proud of it, but when ideology begins to dictate freedom, we have an issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has gotten out of control. Heard about a sportscaster not being allowed to call a name simply because his name is Robert Lee. Goes back to what I said earlier... Where does it stop.

I grew up in Appomattox, Virginia where General Lee surrendered to General Grant, (for all you Civil War buffs out there) not too far from where I lived. The Court House is a National Historical Park. I would hope to God that area doesn't get touched on account of this imbecility (for lack of a better word)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the majority of people in the US are anti-white supremacy, anti-Naziism and deplore the Klan, isn't any protest or march in favor of those indicative of provoking people?

 

I'd be careful going down that road... A minority of Americans marching for a cause with which the majority of Americans disagree is not tantamount to provocation. Otherwise, people marching for LGBT rights in 1978 would have been guilty of provocation. Whether Neo-Nazis comprise 1% or 99% of America, they're provocative just the same because they want to harm others.

 

This has gotten out of control. Heard about a sportscaster not being allowed to call a name simply because his name is Robert Lee. Goes back to what I said earlier... Where does it stop.

 

I'll tell you where it stops: after all traces of the USA having comprised colonies of the British Empire are erased. We've already experienced the transition from Anglo-America to Euro-America in the 19th century, and we've been experiencing the transition from Euro-America to World-America since the 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. I think you're confusing the two things. You can be against something and don't have to instigate things. There was a protest here against Trump recently. People from both sides showed up to show their support for and against. Perfectly fine. Only problem was someone from the group against Trump thought it was ok to sucker punch someone from the pro-Trump group just because they disagree with their position. That's not ok. What happened at that event in Virginia from what I saw was people from both sides were acting out violently, and I'm not talking about the nut job that mowed down people from the racist camp. That's on another level just not okay, and he clearly came there to instigate and cause problems.

 

I'll use another example. There's been a lot of people up in arms about whoever this guy is in the East Village who has the flags of Israel, the U.S. and Confederate flags in their windows. People went there to protest. Perfectly fine. What wasn't okay was people hurling rocks at the guy's window because they didn't like seeing the Confederate flag. Hopefully now you see my point. There's nothing wrong with protesting for or against something. It should always be done peacefully, I don't care what someone's views are. I don't have to agree with them, but I do respect our laws and think that everyone should have the right to voice their opinion, provided they aren't breaking any laws.

I think what you and many are conflating is history and hero worship.

 

Let's face facts: the Confederacy lost the battle, but the Union let it win the war by not demonizing these traitors that rebelled in order to continue subjugating non-white people. As a result, a cult of veneration grew. That cult and it's association with white supremacy allowed Jim Crow, disenfranchisement and all associated ills to grow, become entrenched and even after being ended by law in bipartisan actions, the social aspects still exist.

 

That damn flag, and those damn statues are dual reminders of both losing the battle and the days of legalized white supremacy - which is what the original Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind were lamenting. They're not honoring history, and they'renot reminding about the nasty aspects of that history - they're a rallying point for folks who are nostalgic for the days when negroes, millstones, mongoloids and wetbacks knew their places.

 

And if you don't think that's what Spencer & Co and affiliated are advocating for, I suggest you read THEIR words.

 

One can't claim to love America and question anyone elses patriotism whilst flying the Stars and Bars and venerating those who fought for it, since that flag is the preeminent symbol of ending America and setting aside it's Constitution.

 

There's an argument for States Rights; one can be liberal or conservative or something in between and still fight for a narrower or wider interpretation of that concept. But if you lament Jefferson Davis & Co, you're advocating the state permitting subjugation of people for not being white enough.

 

There is no gray area; there is no reappropriation of those symbols. Even Hindu people's let the swastika fall into desuetude because of Hitler. Why people who claim to not see color or to not be racist won't let the same happen to symbols and honors of the Confederacy make no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Hindu people's let the swastika fall into desuetude because of Hitler. Why people who claim to not see color or to not be racist won't let the same happen to symbols and honors of the Confederacy make no sense.

Really? Swastikas are still commonplace in cultures that use them. It hasn’t stopped the Japanese at all which features swastikas in pop culture. And good for them; shouldn’t let other people’s offendedness redefine their cultural elements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be careful going down that road... A minority of Americans marching for a cause with which the majority of Americans disagree is not tantamount to provocation. Otherwise, people marching for LGBT rights in 1978 would have been guilty of provocation. Whether Neo-Nazis comprise 1% or 99% of America, they're provocative just the same because they want to harm others.

One thing to protest saying "We're being discriminated against or oppressed just because we're different; it's another to protest saying "We're being discriminated against or oppressed just because we advocate discriminating and oppressing others." GLBTQ and anti-discrimination protesters are in the former; neo-nazi white nationalists are in the latter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to protest saying "We're being discriminated against or oppressed just because we're different; it's another to protest saying "We're being discriminated against or oppressed just because we advocate discriminating and oppressing others." GLBTQ and anti-discrimination protesters are in the former; neo-nazi white nationalists are in the latter.

Ironically, being tolerant (in the contemporary leftist sense) also means being tolerant of those who are intolerant. Take an Christianity and Islam for example. Both religions denounce homosexuality and are sexist (in “good” and “bad” ways). Yet, the liberal left generally extends its support to both Muslims and those who deviate from the sexual/gender norms. In order for a tolerant person to consistently apply intolerance to those who are intolerant, they must necessarily be intolerant to Muslims as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While the brain dead "so called leaders" of this city are doing a survey of which statues are to be kept and which ones will not over the next 90 days which is right after election, Canada is considering building a monument in Cornwall Ontario to the 40,000 British North Americans (Canada did not become a  nation until 1867 so the term used is correct that fought in (that's right) the American Civil War on both sides. The Toronto Star last Wednesday printed an opinion piece which states that it should not be built unless it included something about 1000 black people that fought for the North if it includes mention of the 4000  that fought for the Confederacy. This is something  where there is very little material written on the role of Canadians in the American Civil War. There is a fabulous book by Kathryn Smardz Frost titled "I have a home in glory land; A lost tale of the underground railroad C 2006 which details the role that escaped slaves that settled in Canada played in Canadian history and the contributions after they arrived there It was in this book that I found out about the  British North Americans that participated in the American Civil War. (Book is available through the Brooklyn Public Library).

As far as this city and the bunch that will be spending the next 90 days evaluating statues and their merits, where will it end? As i stated in a previous comment, we have started on a slippery slope where we have statues then it will be streets, then it will be buildings and then it will be the purge of books. It may sound crazy but we are already seeing it with the lover of Oscar Lopez Rivera demanding Columbus go (I think that she would love a statue of Fidel Castro be placed in that spot) and other groups are demanding that the Peter Stuyvesant statues and street names disappear as he discriminated against Jews and Catholics. Our "so called ministers of propaganda" a/k/a journalists  in the phony media are playing along with this charade without presenting the positives and the negatives of the individuals for the readers to make up their own minds. There was a fairly recent biography of Abraham Lincoln  that i read about the anti-semitism of Ulysses S. Grant during the American Civil War and how the president handled the situation. Both the politicians and their mouthpieces in print, on the internet and in radio and television think that we are incapable of making sensible decisions on these individuals.I have news for both groups, we are a lot smarter than any of them and we are able to discern the difference between opinion and fact from fiction,  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what you and many are conflating is history and hero worship.

Let's face facts: the Confederacy lost the battle, but the Union let it win the war by not demonizing these traitors that rebelled in order to continue subjugating non-white people. As a result, a cult of veneration grew. That cult and it's association with white supremacy allowed Jim Crow, disenfranchisement and all associated ills to grow, become entrenched and even after being ended by law in bipartisan actions, the social aspects still exist.

That damn flag, and those damn statues are dual reminders of both losing the battle and the days of legalized white supremacy - which is what the original Birth of a Nation and Gone With the Wind were lamenting. They're not honoring history, and they'renot reminding about the nasty aspects of that history - they're a rallying point for folks who are nostalgic for the days when negroes, millstones, mongoloids and wetbacks knew their places.

And if you don't think that's what Spencer & Co and affiliated are advocating for, I suggest you read THEIR words.

One can't claim to love America and question anyone elses patriotism whilst flying the Stars and Bars and venerating those who fought for it, since that flag is the preeminent symbol of ending America and setting aside it's Constitution.

There's an argument for States Rights; one can be liberal or conservative or something in between and still fight for a narrower or wider interpretation of that concept. But if you lament Jefferson Davis & Co, you're advocating the state permitting subjugation of people for not being white enough.

There is no gray area; there is no reappropriation of those symbols. Even Hindu people's let the swastika fall into desuetude because of Hitler. Why people who claim to not see color or to not be racist won't let the same happen to symbols and honors of the Confederacy make no sense.

Flags and statues are what one interprets them to be, and thus that can be subjective. That was my point. The files at Times Square.... If people want them to resemble the Confederate flag... We'll that's what they'll be.

 

This whole thing is dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flags and statues are what one interprets them to be, and thus that can be subjective. That was my point. The files at Times Square.... If people want them to resemble the Confederate flag... We'll that's what they'll be.

 

This whole thing is dangerous.

I have no issue with the tiles at TSQ - I don't see people worshiping the color scheme on pro-confederacy sites, and I doubt it was ever noticed until someone made an association after Charlottesville. That the TA put stickers on them to prevent the association is PC, but I believe PC to be at its base "being polite."

 

I don't see politeness in extolling the Confederacy. Yanking symbols of the Confederacy isn't rewriting history - it's completing Sherman's scorched earth policy in Atlanta - demoralizing and eradicating the whole ideal of what the Confederacy stood for - States' rights to treat people as subhuman solely because they weren't white (enough).

 

Rewriting history is casting Confederates as heroes against tyranny, slaves as being happy being beaten, mutilated and sold, amongst other atrocious acts by slavemasters.

 

Erection of these Confederate monuments, in conjunction with Jim Crow, was solely to maintain white supremacy. Doesn't matter if (most) people never took a second look at them or did and never espoused racist philosophies, Charlottesville showed that there's a vocal minority that did the latter and revere the former. And that puts all of us who would be held down if status quo antebellum were restored at risk - black, Latino, Native American, Asian, Southern European, Eastern European, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, et cetera.

 

So yes, it is dangerous - whether overreaching or underreaching in addressing this issue. But to me the "suppression" of Confederate pride is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

 

If these folks wanna hate non-WASPs, let them. But their symbols don't belong in public spaces, and if their beliefs bring harm to those they hate, they deserve the full weight of the state on their necks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issue with the tiles at TSQ - I don't see people worshiping the color scheme on pro-confederacy sites, and I doubt it was ever noticed until someone made an association after Charlottesville. That the TA put stickers on them to prevent the association is PC, but I believe PC to be at its base "being polite."

I don't see politeness in extolling the Confederacy. Yanking symbols of the Confederacy isn't rewriting history - it's completing Sherman's scorched earth policy in Atlanta - demoralizing and eradicating the whole ideal of what the Confederacy stood for - States' rights to treat people as subhuman solely because they weren't white (enough).

Rewriting history is casting Confederates as heroes against tyranny, slaves as being happy being beaten, mutilated and sold, amongst other atrocious acts by slavemasters.

Erection of these Confederate monuments, in conjunction with Jim Crow, was solely to maintain white supremacy. Doesn't matter if (most) people never took a second look at them or did and never espoused racist philosophies, Charlottesville showed that there's a vocal minority that did the latter and revere the former. And that puts all of us who would be held down if status quo antebellum were restored at risk - black, Latino, Native American, Asian, Southern European, Eastern European, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, et cetera.

So yes, it is dangerous - whether overreaching or underreaching in addressing this issue. But to me the "suppression" of Confederate pride is akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

If these folks wanna hate non-WASPs, let them. But their symbols don't belong in public spaces, and if their beliefs bring harm to those they hate, they deserve the full weight of the state on their necks.

Removing symbols won't eradicate hate though. You remove one symbol and another comes into play. That's why I say we're going down the wrong path. So what? You remove the Confederate flag? That won't dissolve the racist groups. It just sweeps the issue under the rug as if it isn't there but it is and I think it's even worse to let such a situation fester underground.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing symbols won't eradicate hate though. You remove one symbol and another comes into play. That's why I say we're going down the wrong path. So what? You remove the Confederate flag? That won't dissolve the racist groups. It just sweeps the issue under the rug as if it isn't there but it is and I think it's even worse to let such a situation fester underground.

If you'd actually read his post, you'd see he wasn't advocating the flags removal.

 

What I still can't wrap my head around is that we are seeing such controversy over the removal of monuments in rememberance of the most successful band of borderline terrroristic traitors that this country has ever seen. I'm all for the acknowledgement of dissent, but these people fought a war so they could continue their systemic enslavement of a group of people, something that violates the principles of this country on myriad levels. In essence, those who advocate the preservation of these statues are tacitly condoning the continued veneration of a group which extrajudicially rebelled against democracy to continue human enslavement. I'm all for the discussion of that -- discussions like we're having in this thread -- and we must not forget them, but monuments like these have no place in a country where they lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you'd actually read his post, you'd see he wasn't advocating the flags removal.

What I still can't wrap my head around is that we are seeing such controversy over the removal of monuments in rememberance of the most successful band of borderline terrroristic traitors that this country has ever seen. I'm all for the acknowledgement of dissent, but these people fought a war so they could continue their systemic enslavement of a group of people, something that violates the principles of this country on myriad levels. In essence, those who advocate the preservation of these statues are tacitly condoning the continued veneration of a group which extrajudicially rebelled against democracy to continue human enslavement. I'm all for the discussion of that -- discussions like we're having in this thread -- and we must not forget them, but monuments like these have no place in a country where they lost.

I think you should re-read his post again because his post may not advocate for removing them but it sure as hell isn't advocating for keeping them either. I think if he had to choose between one or the other, he would prefer them to be gone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you should re-read his post again because his post may not advocate for removing them but it sure as hell isn't advocating for keeping them either. I think if he had to choose between one or the other, he would prefer them to be gone.

That's speculation.

 

Care to chime in, Deucey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not advocating for a law like Germany's anti-Nazi rules - I'm saying they don't belong in spaces accessible to the public: government buildings, parks, squares, etc. They also should not be state symbols or official political regalia (ie state flags).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a proponent of removing all traces of the CSA from the USA, even if for no other reason than they lost the war and are thus traitors guilty of insurrection, the penalty for which is both the death of the people themselves and the death of their culture.

 

What I worry about is this bandwagon riding beyond the Civil War question. Christopher Columbus, in my opinion, is the most important figure of mankind since Jesus Christ himself, irrespective of whether he was a 'good' or 'bad' person, and I'd even propose resetting the CE/BCE dividing line to align with his 'discovery' (from the perspective of Europe). This event forever changed the course of human civilization and global interactivity, and no people or nation on earth was left unaffected by it (for better or for worse). To put him on the same level as an American traitor is absurd.

 

I also worry that the founding fathers might be in jeopardy because they were racist, sexist, nationalist slave-owners (the norm at the time), despite the fact that they founded the USA. That's why I said that "it won't be enough" until all traces of the USA and Canada having been British colonies are erased. Had the USA lost the Revolutionary War, I'd be fighting alongside the Royal British Crown to have the founding fathers similarly vilified and any accompanying statues removed (lest I be thought a hypocrite). Get rid of the traitorous Confederate bullshit and call it a day, yeah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.