Question to those who support/oppose removal of Confederate monuments.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
Even the naming of things after historical figures has become partisan and tribal.

Let them name the street after a man who:

Murdered innocent women and children. I can understand putting enemy combatant and plantation owners to the sword, but not women and children.

Established a harsh autocratic regimen of forced plantation labor. From wikipedia:

“He enforced a harsh regimen of plantation labor, described by the historian Michel-Rolph Trouillot as caporalisme agraire (agrarian militarism). As had Toussaint Louverture, Dessalines demanded that all blacks work either as soldiers to protect the nation or as laborers on the plantations to generate crops and income to keep the nation going. His forces were strict in enforcing this, to the extent that some blacks felt as if they were again enslaved.”

It’s also worth noting that his own people assasinated him, and only decades later did they embrace him as a symbol.

But whatever, if Haitians want to name a street in America after him, so be it, if only so we can move past judging the character of other historical figures by contemporary measuring sticks.

The only exception to this should be the Confederate statues erected to make political statements.
How about . . . kidnapping small children of asylum-seeking parents, and then losing them from bureaucratic incompetence?

I'm still wondering why the Arch-Perpetrator-in-Chief can't be prosecuted for kidnapping/transporting-across-state-lines once he's "relieved of duty." Maybe it's a stupid idea, but maybe it's not, and I'm wondering if it's a legal possibility. Nobody's answered that question, but then I've only mentioned it here or there . . .
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,541
16,325
146
So you're saying it's alright to murder innocent women and children?

When did I say it's OK?

Go back and read what I wrote very carefully.

I'm not condoning his actions. But I understand them. And I can't say I would act much differently after living a life of forced slavery because of the color of my skin and no education to guide me. I'd want to wipe out every damn person and thing who represented my oppressor.

Why is it when one race dehumanizes, enslaves, rapes and murders another race, (including their women and children for centuries) , it's just the way it was. But when the dehumanized race rises up and slaughters the oppressing race, suddenly they're the evil ones?

And you can't understand any of that?

One thing I've noticed about my fellow white men is their inability to put themselves in the shoes of others and their amazing fragility when it comes to tit for tat.
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,142
5,089
136
As Americans, when it comes to the 1800s we only condone the killing of Indian women and children.
we do not condone the negro harming any caucasianettes. American or foreign
1200px-US_%2420_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg


22290578-mmmain.jpg
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
How about . . . kidnapping small children of asylum-seeking parents, and then losing them from bureaucratic incompetence?

I'm still wondering why the Arch-Perpetrator-in-Chief can't be prosecuted for kidnapping/transporting-across-state-lines once he's "relieved of duty." Maybe it's a stupid idea, but maybe it's not, and I'm wondering if it's a legal possibility. Nobody's answered that question, but then I've only mentioned it here or there . . .
He should be prosecuted, the Trump brand is dead, and he will probably be the only President who doesn’t get anything named after him. I doubt Trump even gets a library.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
As Americans, when it comes to the 1800s we only condone the killing of Indian women and children.
we do not condone the negro harming any caucasianettes. American or foreign
1200px-US_%2420_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg


22290578-mmmain.jpg

There's something for a Democratic Agenda behind a Democratic Campaign: Change the f**ing $20 bill.

Here's where we can split hairs. And there's a lot of hairsplitting, maybe even in this thread. Jackson was a hero of the War of 1812. "In 1814 we took a little trip . . along with Col. Jackson down the mighty Mississip. "

Of course, I think Jackson was an A**h*le. My uncle was in the 509th Atom Bomb on Tinian. And he was a royal A**h*le.

So whattya gonna do about Jackson in New Orleans? It's still a local decision. At least he looked more enlightened than he was. We can't be fooled with Trump. Most disgusting person to ever appear on the Tee-Vee since the 1936 landmark broadcast from the Ber-lin games. The only bronze I could tolerate to commemorate that Slug would be in his own building, or somewhere in NYC. With that, I could reconsider my tourist plans.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136
For those unfamiliar with Dessalines....

Never heard of him.

...he was the emperor of Haiti after they won their independence from France. One of the things he did was to order the murder of every remaining white man, woman and child on the island which resulted in the deaths of 3-5 thousand people.

One of the things Americans will readily do is cling to which ever devil best suits them. Be it white hood or black hood. Do not mistake Democrat voters for peace loving or progressive voters. Though often parallel, they are not the same. Plenty of hate mongering regressives in places all over, including NYC. Just because they changed the color of their sheets does not make them any better. To prop up an apparent genocide is all we need to know of the New York City Council.

Though I wonder, if presented with this information on their latest promotion. I'm willing to bet they cry fake news. After all they would want, I think... (hope?) to view themselves as good people. If they are aware of the crimes committed then I suspect they are merely delusional and not living in reality. It is a surprisingly common trait among people these days. To deny the existence of that which one finds... inconvenient. Present it before the Council and then witness them defend genocide. I expect to find ignorance and racism, but not a full endorsement of Dessalines's acts.

The distinction is important, for while they may do something socially harmful, their act might not be evil.
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136
As Americans, when it comes to the 1800s we only condone the killing of Indian women and children.
we do not condone the negro harming any caucasianettes. American or foreign
1200px-US_%2420_Series_2006_Obverse.jpg


22290578-mmmain.jpg

Those were not created in 2018. Or anytime recent, I think.

Different standards for different times. Action is rather different than inaction. And if we were to remain consistent, then all such figures are to be removed as symbols or promotions. Though weight should properly be given to stopping new transgressions VS the removal of old ones. Particularly when one can properly ask if we are remembering to honor, or to warn and shame our future generations. It could be taught either way... yes?

Though, TBH, I would not object to a new $20 bill.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,643
50,877
136
How about . . . kidnapping small children of asylum-seeking parents, and then losing them from bureaucratic incompetence?

I'm still wondering why the Arch-Perpetrator-in-Chief can't be prosecuted for kidnapping/transporting-across-state-lines once he's "relieved of duty." Maybe it's a stupid idea, but maybe it's not, and I'm wondering if it's a legal possibility. Nobody's answered that question, but then I've only mentioned it here or there . . .

The president has almost total immunity from prosecution for any act he takes as a function of his office.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
When did I say it's OK?

Go back and read what I wrote very carefully.

I'm not condoning his actions. But I understand them. And I can't say I would act much differently after living a life of forced slavery because of the color of my skin and no education to guide me. I'd want to wipe out every damn person and thing who represented my oppressor.

Why is it when one race dehumanizes, enslaves, rapes and murders another race, (including their women and children for centuries) , it's just the way it was. But when the dehumanized race rises up and slaughters the oppressing race, suddenly they're the evil ones?

And you can't understand any of that?

One thing I've noticed about my fellow white men is their inability to put themselves in the shoes of others and their amazing fragility when it comes to tit for tat.

When you say you aren't condoning someone's behavior, you just understand it, that's condoning it without formally condoning it. It's a cop out. You're basically saying, sure, maybe it's kind sort of bad to kill innocent children en masse, but their parents did really bad things to them, so I can't be too hard on them over it. What happened here is that they were angry over oppression and they took revenge on people who were entirely innocent.

This reminds me of what happened toward the end of WWII, when the Russian army was steamrolling Germany. They raped over 1,000,000 German women, also slaughtered many civilians. But the German government, its soldiers and its SS, had committed unspeakable atrocities on Russian civilians and PoW's. Did the one wrong justify the other? I have my own opinion on that, and you can probably guess what it is. You're free to have your own.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,942
5,564
136
I ask myself this:

Were I myself, and everyone I know of my skin color, enslaved, tortured and dehumanized in ways worse than farm animals. How would I regard the people who did it to me?

I do know this: Were I oppressed, the blood of my oppressors would flow until I was free, or dead. And that brutality and base hatred for my oppressors in me would be very hard to stop once started.

This is a touchy subject. Because no one can gauge the suffering or mindset of a people who were, for generations, in chattel slavery and treated as animals.

Name a street after him? I don't know. But I know one thing for sure. I have no fucking right to judge the sheer hatred an oppressed man has for his oppressors. Nor do I feel much sorry for the oppressors themselves.
We all have the right to judge the murder of innocents.
It was simple retribution. There was nothing honorable or proper about it, nothing admirable. It was another in a very long line of brutal events that define human history.
 

BonzaiDuck

Lifer
Jun 30, 2004
15,880
1,550
126
That is exactly what the Nazis believed about Jewish children. Just saying...
Actually, that's true. Eric Hoffer mentioned it as the "Stab in the Back" myth, as when Germany lost the Great War -- supposedly because of resistance at home and the Jews. But nobody put the Germans in chains, let them sit in their own poop confined to the holds of ships, broke apart their families, beat them with whips, and sold them like cattle. Of course, with the Jews, you have a crime of astounding proportions in the numbers. You could argue ignorance of the Haitians. You can't argue anything for the SS, or any part of the Reich.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Never heard of him.



One of the things Americans will readily do is cling to which ever devil best suits them. Be it white hood or black hood. Do not mistake Democrat voters for peace loving or progressive voters. Though often parallel, they are not the same. Plenty of hate mongering regressives in places all over, including NYC. Just because they changed the color of their sheets does not make them any better. To prop up an apparent genocide is all we need to know of the New York City Council.

Though I wonder, if presented with this information on their latest promotion. I'm willing to bet they cry fake news. After all they would want, I think... (hope?) to view themselves as good people. If they are aware of the crimes committed then I suspect they are merely delusional and not living in reality. It is a surprisingly common trait among people these days. To deny the existence of that which one finds... inconvenient. Present it before the Council and then witness them defend genocide. I expect to find ignorance and racism, but not a full endorsement of Dessalines's acts.

The distinction is important, for while they may do something socially harmful, their act might not be evil.

There are plenty of retards that still wear Che Guevara T-shirts with no fucking clue of the genocide he brought about. Ignorance at it's finest - believe me when I say it's not limited to just nutjobs on the right...

I mean shit, a Che Guevara t-shirt is basically the equivalent of Kim Jong-Un t-shirt... Sure - he brought about prosperity (lol) of communism - it only took the death of a shitload of people along with living in the stone ages and wondering how people will eat every night.
 

woolfe9998

Lifer
Apr 8, 2013
16,189
14,114
136
Actually, that's true. Eric Hoffer mentioned it as the "Stab in the Back" myth, as when Germany lost the Great War -- supposedly because of resistance at home and the Jews. But nobody put the Germans in chains, let them sit in their own poop confined to the holds of ships, broke apart their families, beat them with whips, and sold them like cattle. Of course, with the Jews, you have a crime of astounding proportions in the numbers. You could argue ignorance of the Haitians. You can't argue anything for the SS, or any part of the Reich.

Ignorance of what exactly? That it's morally wrong to kill innocent children?

My point in making the analogy wasn't to suggest that the actions of the two are identical in all ways. It's to point out that the same nonsense rationale was given by the Nazis for killing Jewish children that Linux gave for the Haitians to kill French children. He's wrong. Children do not automatically grow up to become oppressors because they are mostly products of their environment. The Nazis obviously believed otherwise, that their DNA ("blood" was the term they used) destined them to become villains. Maybe the Haitians believed that as well. It's wrong in either case, and the actions of both were morally repugnant.

I find it a little disturbing when people can't get behind opposing genocide, that they want to make distinctions to suggest that one mass slaughter of children is somehow better than another. The moment we succumb to that sort of reasoning is the moment we can say goodbye to whatever is left of our humanity.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
20,481
3,601
126
But nobody put the Germans in chains, let them sit in their own poop confined to the holds of ships, broke apart their families, beat them with whips, and sold them like cattle.

Uh yes - yes they did. Families were uprooted and forced into labor or concentration camps. Males were shipped in chains and\or cargo trains locked inside with no air, food or water let alone restrooms. Those trains would occasionally stop to throw the dead bodies out. Laborers were often given permanently to higher party officials in political trades (basically sold for political or physical capitol). Estimates are unclear but likely over 1M German civilian and POWs died from forced labor and maltreatment

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
 
Dec 10, 2005
25,056
8,336
136
Those were not created in 2018. Or anytime recent, I think.
So? Tradition is a poor reason to justify the continuation of doing many things (e.g., honoring a really shitty person who also, ironically, hated the idea of a central bank)
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
And one thing is clear. This was the first black man to stand up to his oppressor in the new world and win freedom for his people and from centuries of enslavement and animalistic treatment.

What people do not realize is that up until the revolution, every black person on the island of Haiti was a slave. The revolution was led by slaves who had risen up, killed their masters and formed a rebellion against the state of their slave masters. And won!

And the white guys wanna cry boo hoo because they took revenge for centuries of rape, torture murder and enslavement?

I'm not feeling the outrage guys. I'm just not. No more than I would have judged the Jews harshly for slaughtering Nazis at the end of WWII.

Enslavement justifies murdering women and children because they are white?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
children become adult oppressors. just saying.

And people wonder why we have killed ourselves since the beginning of the species. Read what you just wrote. You just justified murdering children because of what they may become later in life. Once you go there, there isnt anywhere else to go.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atreus21

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
When did I say it's OK?

Go back and read what I wrote very carefully.

I'm not condoning his actions. But I understand them. And I can't say I would act much differently after living a life of forced slavery because of the color of my skin and no education to guide me. I'd want to wipe out every damn person and thing who represented my oppressor.

Why is it when one race dehumanizes, enslaves, rapes and murders another race, (including their women and children for centuries) , it's just the way it was. But when the dehumanized race rises up and slaughters the oppressing race, suddenly they're the evil ones?

And you can't understand any of that?

One thing I've noticed about my fellow white men is their inability to put themselves in the shoes of others and their amazing fragility when it comes to tit for tat.

You understand a man killing children as revenge for enslavement?

Moreover, as a fellow white man, you're able to put yourself in this guy's shoes and justify yourself doing the same thing?
 
Last edited:

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
And people wonder why we have killed ourselves since the beginning of the species. Read what you just wrote. You just justified murdering children because of what they may become later in life. Once you go there, there isn't anywhere else to go.

There most definitely is.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,264
3,840
136
I'm sure I don't need to detail either side of the debate about Confederate monuments recently. What I am curious on is people's opinion on the New York City Council's decision to designate a section of Rogers Avenue in Brooklyn as Jean-Jacques Dessalines boulevard.

For those unfamiliar with Dessalines he was the emperor of Haiti after they won their independence from France. One of the things he did was to order the murder of every remaining white man, woman and child on the island which resulted in the deaths of 3-5 thousand people.

New York has removed the few Confederate monuments they had after Gov. Cuomo ordered it.

Me. Put me down as against this. Curious what others think given that many who supported this view the 1804 Massacre as a legitimate response to the oppression suffered under the French.


https://www.city-journal.org/html/dessalines-boulevard-16086.html

I think putting them up was nonsensical to begin with. This is the only country on the planet that honors its traitors.

The Confederates were NOT Americans. They stopped being Americans the second they seceded from the union. They were a foreign adversary to the United States, no different than Russia, or North Korea. Which makes me wonder why we don't have statues of Stalin or any of the Kim Jong family in this country.

What is a foreign country?

They have their own legislature, (which the Confederates had).
They have their own Executive Branch (a.k.a. president, Confederates did.)
They have their own currency. (Which the Confederates did, and from what I understand it makes excellent toilet paper.)

They raised their own standing Army, (was the Confederates most certainly did.)

For all intents and purposes, and by all logical reasoning, the Confederacy was a foreign enemy, no different than the people that attacked Pearl Harbor.

Funny thing is, we don't see many statues of Japanese admirals.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
Actually, that's true. Eric Hoffer mentioned it as the "Stab in the Back" myth, as when Germany lost the Great War -- supposedly because of resistance at home and the Jews. But nobody put the Germans in chains, let them sit in their own poop confined to the holds of ships, broke apart their families, beat them with whips, and sold them like cattle. Of course, with the Jews, you have a crime of astounding proportions in the numbers. You could argue ignorance of the Haitians. You can't argue anything for the SS, or any part of the Reich.

It is worth remembering that many of the Jews put in concentration camps were themselves German citizens. Many of the 'Jews' were not even really Jewish, but were labeled such for political expedience.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,221
4,452
136
I think putting them up was nonsensical to begin with. This is the only country on the planet that honors its traitors.

The Confederates were NOT Americans. They stopped being Americans the second they seceded from the union. They were a foreign adversary to the United States, no different than Russia, or North Korea. Which makes me wonder why we don't have statues of Stalin or any of the Kim Jong family in this country.

What is a foreign country?

They have their own legislature, (which the Confederates had).
They have their own Executive Branch (a.k.a. president, Confederates did.)
They have their own currency. (Which the Confederates did, and from what I understand it makes excellent toilet paper.)

They raised their own standing Army, (was the Confederates most certainly did.)

For all intents and purposes, and by all logical reasoning, the Confederacy was a foreign enemy, no different than the people that attacked Pearl Harbor.

Funny thing is, we don't see many statues of Japanese admirals.

The official answer to the US Civil is that the Confederate States never actually seceded from the Union because they did not have the right to do so. They attempted to, but failed, therefore the rebels were always American Citizens. The Confederacy was a failed rebellion, never it's own country.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,008
8,041
136
So? Tradition is a poor reason to justify the continuation of doing many things (e.g., honoring a really shitty person who also, ironically, hated the idea of a central bank)

I'm saying inaction is easier to justify than action. A minor point on comparing existing promos VS making new ones. It should be easier to stop the new ones first. My second minor point is that, when it comes to statues, it begs a historical question - one where we could shape and teach the desired lesson of American shame.