Charlottesville: Where Do We Go From Here?

[Ostroeuropa]

The counter protesters kind of dropped the ball in the tone of their counter protest imo.

You could easily fry the whitenats brains by singing battle cry of freedom and waving the US flag, and would have served to underline the political point and defuse the "heritage" stuff by appealing to the countries actual heritage, while also appropriating nationalism/patriotism from them.

It's also relevant lyrically.
Down with the traitors, up with the stars.

But they wouldn't do that. Because... "leftist" protesters in America just don't know how to protest. They don't know how to strike a cord with the public, how to make themselves more appealing to the greater public of America.
And that is why they lose, and why even when they are objectively right, so little of mainstream America will mobilize for them. It's a problem of public relations.

They should send people to draw some inspiration from France Insoumise's protests, French flags abound.

Pretty much. By ceding patriotism and nationalism to the alt-right, they are practically guaranteeing its continued existence and growth.

[Empire of Cats]

There is a statue of Napoleon at Apsley House in London. The Duke of Wellington's residence....

As there should be. Napoleon should have been in London in person, if Albion weren't so perfidious.

Before the war they were American. After the war they were American. Unless we did mass ethnic cleansing and replaced the inhabitants of the south, southerners were always American. It's a bit difficult to view from our lense, considering America is much more homogenized now than it was in the 1860s. American did not mean Yankee.

So during the war, they were not. Lee is significant to history for? His acts prior to the war, his acts post the war? Or his acts during the time of open rebellion?

A traitor who for all intents, and purposes left the federal military because his home state seceded. Expecting him to have actually fought against his own state is a bit much.

His "state" was America. He was in the American military, not the Virginian, or North Carolinian, or Louisianian, or Mississippian army.

Believe it or not, he didn't want further bloodshed. There was a call from some in the South for guerrilla war, but he was, more or less, the one who talked them out of it.

So he was a traitor who knew when to quit.

Considering Sherman's March to the Sea, I actually wish the Confederacy would have fought on. The Union would have then scorched the entire South, and we wouldn't be having these problems today as the South and its politics would be subdued for good.

He was a traitor who didn't draw out a losing war to avoid harming both sides more and then after the war worked to make up for being a traitor. Also he was someone both sides respected. Whether you consider what he did after the war worth memorializing is up to you.

As a Virginian, I was also taught that he didn't want the war, he was asked to fight for both sides, and chose the South because all of his family lived in the South. I haven't actually seen the sources that suggest that (I would imagine letters or memoirs of friends he talked to about it), I was just told it in the course of lectures in US history classes.

Personally I think he deserves to be remembered, probably not on government properties, but certainly at the college he expanded and improved as president (so much so that they changed the name to include him).

So he was indeed a traitor who knew when to quit.

I never said he should be written out of the history books. But he should certainly not have statues glorifying him in the country that he once fought to defeat. And he shouldn't have citizens of that country defending his statues either.

Hey, careful there, mate. That's my home you're talking about. Not all Southerners are racists, as you know. As for the punitive approach? That would not have gone over well, as we are trying to defeat, not destroy, our enemy. If we had taken the punitive approach, chances are we'd be remembered today as the Occupied South.

[Thermodolia]

If my home was full of traitors I'd do it

Then why blame Nationalists?

Didn't say I was. I'm a nationalist. But I make the distinction between ethnic nationalism and civic/cultural nationalism. I belong to the latter group

[Proctopeo]

Condolences to the injured and the dead, but please don't stand in the street. It's dumb and may get you hit by a car, even by accident.

Fuck outta here with that

This was no accident, it was clearly intentional. Your victim blaming is disgusting.

That wasn't what I was doing. I didn't call this an accident; all I said was that standing in the road may get you hit by a car, and that the person hitting you might not even be doing it on purpose.

[Sovaal]

Then why blame Nationalists?

Didn't say I was. I'm a nationalist. But I make the distinction between ethnic nationalism and civic/cultural nationalism. I belong to the latter group

A lot of lost causers belong to both really.

[The Shady Looking Vukmiri Delegates]

Meh. Sometimes you need to go to the extremes to get your point across. Violence is not inherently bad.

Meeting violence with same never is...

? I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could you please elaborate?

[Olerand]

As there should be. Napoleon should have been in London in person, if Albion weren't so perfidious.


So during the war, they were not. Lee is significant to history for? His acts prior to the war, his acts post the war? Or his acts during the time of open rebellion?


His "state" was America. He was in the American military, not the Virginian, or North Carolinian, or Louisianian, or Mississippian army.


So he was a traitor who knew when to quit.

Considering Sherman's March to the Sea, I actually wish the Confederacy would have fought on. The Union would have then scorched the entire South, and we wouldn't be having these problems today as the South and its politics would be subdued for good.


So he was indeed a traitor who knew when to quit.

I never said he should be written out of the history books. But he should certainly not have statues glorifying him in the country that he once fought to defeat. And he shouldn't have citizens of that country defending his statues either.

Hey, careful there, mate. That's my home you're talking about. Not all Southerners are racists, as you know. As for the punitive approach? That would not have gone over well, as we are trying to defeat, not destroy, our enemy. If we had taken the punitive approach, chances are we'd be remembered today as the Occupied South.

Were you alive at the time? The South, then, was in open rebellion, ignited by their desire to maintain slavery. I say torch it.

And what has "defeat but not destroy" gotten you? America today. If destroy was the goal, then the South would have never recovered as it did, Nixon's Southern Strategy would have never been a thing, modern identify politics (on the right, and the reaction on the left) would probably have never been born, Trump would have never been elected, and this shitshow that happened today would have never happened.

And Occupied, Destroyed, whatever.

[MERIZoC]

Fuck outta here with that

This was no accident, it was clearly intentional. Your victim blaming is disgusting.

That wasn't what I was doing. I didn't call this an accident; all I said was that standing in the road may get you hit by a car, and that the person hitting you might not even be doing it on purpose.

Then you're just making complete non-sequiturs.

[Thermodolia]

Didn't say I was. I'm a nationalist. But I make the distinction between ethnic nationalism and civic/cultural nationalism. I belong to the latter group

A lot of lost causers belong to both really.

There are assholes in every group.

[The East Marches II]

Condolences to the injured and the dead, but please don't stand in the street. It's dumb and may get you hit by a car, even by accident.

Fuck outta here with that

This was no accident, it was clearly intentional. Your victim blaming is disgusting.

I wonder if you'll be so shocked and offended if this turns out to be a leftist :^)

[Proctopeo]

That wasn't what I was doing. I didn't call this an accident; all I said was that standing in the road may get you hit by a car, and that the person hitting you might not even be doing it on purpose.

Then you're just making complete non-sequiturs.

It's not a "complete non-sequitur".
People got hit while standing in the road and I said not to do that, and that it won't always be on purpose; then, all you have to blame is yourself. This is all completely related to the theme of "don't stand in the road".

[Sovaal]

Hey, careful there, mate. That's my home you're talking about. Not all Southerners are racists, as you know. As for the punitive approach? That would not have gone over well, as we are trying to defeat, not destroy, our enemy. If we had taken the punitive approach, chances are we'd be remembered today as the Occupied South.

Were you alive at the time? The South, then, was in open rebellion, ignited by their desire to maintain slavery. I say torch it.

And what has "defeat but not destroy" gotten you? America today. If destroy was the goal, then the South would have never recovered as it did, Nixon's Southern Strategy would have never been a thing, modern identify politics (on the right, and the reaction on the left) would probably have never been born, Trump would have never been elected, and this shitshow that happened today would have never happened.

And Occupied, Destroyed, whatever.

So are you advocating for the complete destruction of the South so that it wouldn't recover at all?

[Novas Arcanum]

Yes this is a act of terror.

[Badger Industries]

Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S. Code § 2656f: "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

That's pretty much a textbook case of terrorism if the person who carried out the attack did it for political reasons, regardless of their specific ideology.

[Sovaal]

A lot of lost causers belong to both really.

There are assholes in every group.

There is.

[Olerand]

Were you alive at the time? The South, then, was in open rebellion, ignited by their desire to maintain slavery. I say torch it.

And what has "defeat but not destroy" gotten you? America today. If destroy was the goal, then the South would have never recovered as it did, Nixon's Southern Strategy would have never been a thing, modern identify politics (on the right, and the reaction on the left) would probably have never been born, Trump would have never been elected, and this shitshow that happened today would have never happened.

And Occupied, Destroyed, whatever.

So are you advocating for the complete destruction of the South so that it wouldn't recover at all?

Complete destruction if necessary, as in if the South had resorted to the promised guerrilla warfare.
Otherwise, a far longer period of supervised Reconstruction, where the Southern States are essentially under tutelage.

[Ostroeuropa]

So are you advocating for the complete destruction of the South so that it wouldn't recover at all?

Complete destruction if necessary, as in if the South had resorted to the promised guerrilla warfare.
Otherwise, a far longer period of supervised Reconstruction, where the Southern States are essentially under tutelage.

Constitutionally problematic I would think.

[The Palmetto]

My question is what the Confederacy has to do with Nazism. Don't get me wrong, the Confederacy was definitely founded upon the values of slavery and racism, but they had no association with Nazism and Nazism had no association with the Confederacy. If they really cared about their Southern heritage, the rioters wouldn't asssociate themselves with an ideology that's irrelevant towards Southern history.

I also heard that there was some anti-Semitic stuff coming from that crowd, what's with that? The Confederacy wasn't specifically anti-Jewish, and as a matter of fact, they had a Jewish member of their Cabinet. They were racist towards blacks, of course, but Jews, not as much.

To me, this looks like a bunch of uneducated racists fighting for something they don't understand. People like these make me feel disappointed and disgusted. Even if it was not intended to be seen as a symbol for white nationalism and racism, it is clear that this monument has become one, and it should be placed in a museum.

[Olerand]

Complete destruction if necessary, as in if the South had resorted to the promised guerrilla warfare.
Otherwise, a far longer period of supervised Reconstruction, where the Southern States are essentially under tutelage.

Constitutionally problematic I would think.

I never liked the American Constitution. I know it was made by Demi-Gods guided by the hands of Jesus Christ Himself, but it's been 200 years, it's time to get with the times.
If tutelage was necessary, and it was, and it is, then the Constitution should have been amended.

[Empire of Cats]

Hey, careful there, mate. That's my home you're talking about. Not all Southerners are racists, as you know. As for the punitive approach? That would not have gone over well, as we are trying to defeat, not destroy, our enemy. If we had taken the punitive approach, chances are we'd be remembered today as the Occupied South.

Were you alive at the time? The South, then, was in open rebellion, ignited by their desire to maintain slavery. I say torch it.

And what has "defeat but not destroy" gotten you? America today. If destroy was the goal, then the South would have never recovered as it did, Nixon's Southern Strategy would have never been a thing, modern identify politics (on the right, and the reaction on the left) would probably have never been born, Trump would have never been elected, and this shitshow that happened today would have never happened.

And Occupied, Destroyed, whatever.

It's hard to explain, but I'll do my best.

You're right in pointing out that sparing the South has had negative effects. But our nation was constructed under the principle that all of our land would be turned into states with equal shares in the future of the nation. To have had troops from the rest of the nation dissolve the South, to destroy it, to turn it into an occupied area or annex the Southern states to their neighbors, would have violated the principles that our states were created under. It would have created untold resentment.

Who knows? It might have worked. But it probably wouldn't have. Occupations have a tendency to cause resistance, and it could well have caused the guerrilla war that Lee was trying to avoid when he surrendered his army in 1865.

[Sovaal]

So are you advocating for the complete destruction of the South so that it wouldn't recover at all?

Complete destruction if necessary, as in if the South had resorted to the promised guerrilla warfare.
Otherwise, a far longer period of supervised Reconstruction, where the Southern States are essentially under tutelage.

Probably not the best strategy of returning a rebellious region of the country into the fold, but a longer military presence in the area was a definite must that was ruined by our internal politics.

[The East Marches II]

Constitutionally problematic I would think.

I never liked the American Constitution. I know it was made by Demi-Gods guided by the hands of Jesus Christ Himself, but it's been 200 years, it's time to get with the times.
If tutelage was necessary, and it was, and it is, then the Constitution should have been amended.

Of course you wouldn't like it. It has freedom, thats something France has never been able to handle historically. Not to mention its stable. We're still on our first Republic :^)

[Empire of Cats]

Complete destruction if necessary, as in if the South had resorted to the promised guerrilla warfare.
Otherwise, a far longer period of supervised Reconstruction, where the Southern States are essentially under tutelage.

Probably not the best strategy of returning a rebellious region of the country into the fold, but a longer military presence in the area was a definite must that was ruined by our internal politics.

I agree with that statement.

[Licana]

I never liked the American Constitution. I know it was made by Demi-Gods guided by the hands of Jesus Christ Himself, but it's been 200 years, it's time to get with the times.

Try 25.

[Badger Industries]

My question is what the Confederacy has to do with Nazism. Don't get me wrong, the Confederacy was definitely founded upon the values of slavery and racism, but they had no association with Nazism and Nazism had no association with the Confederacy. If they really cared about their Southern heritage, the rioters wouldn't asssociate themselves with an ideology that's irrelevant towards Southern history.

I also heard that there was some anti-Semitic stuff coming from that crowd, what's with that? The Confederacy wasn't specifically anti-Jewish, and as a matter of fact, they had a Jewish member of their Cabinet. They were racist towards blacks, of course, but Jews, not as much.

To me, this looks like a bunch of uneducated racists fighting for something they don't understand. People like these make me feel disappointed and disgusted. Even if it was not intended to be seen as a symbol for white nationalism and racism, it is clear that this monument has become one, and it should be placed in a museum.

For a long time after the American Civil War, there was hardly anyone, Southerner or not, who proudly displayed the flag. It started to be very heavily associated with extreme racism during the rise of the Civil Rights Movement in the 60s when counterprotestors adopted it as a symbol of their movement, their defence being that racial segregation was justified and necessary. Then we also have modern day racists like David Duke who enjoy blurring the line with American racism and Nazi racism.