American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[CoraSpia]

I'm all for peoples deciding to no longer honor people they once did. But your anachronistic standard of "they should have done back then what is right by our standards today. And if they didn't they're cowards" is ridiculous.

Why, though? What information about their fellow humans’ dignity did they lack that we’ve since discovered? Why would living a few decades or centuries in the past apparently let people off the hook for terrible crimes?

Oh it's incredibly simple:

Law's changed. If he made that decision today (if still alive) he wouldn't be doing what a judge is supposed to do. As he did over 150 years ago, he did what a judge is supposed to do. This is one of those things that literally can just change.

[Ifreann]

I'm all for peoples deciding to no longer honor people they once did. But your anachronistic standard of "they should have done back then what is right by our standards today. And if they didn't they're cowards" is ridiculous.

Why, though? What information about their fellow humans’ dignity did they lack that we’ve since discovered? Why would living a few decades or centuries in the past apparently let people off the hook for terrible crimes?

I do wonder what people think that Dred Scott was doing in the Supreme Court in the first place, if they believe that the notion of racial equality did not exist in the 1850s.

[CoraSpia]

I don't see statues as some invaluable educational tool, but I do see them as symbols of the leaders that went before us. It's absolutely right to have discussions about whether they were good people, but I find it distasteful to sanitise them from their place as equals to the people who did things that we still believe are right.

You’re the only one sanitizing anything about him by arguing his position in American public monumentality be eternally preserved. Societies are allowed to reflect on whether certain leaders really deserved to be so honored, there’s nothing distasteful about toppling statues of oppressors.

What was he memorialised for? Was it for a particular case or was it because he was chief justice of the supreme court?

[San Lumen]

I don't deny it wasn't ludicrous in the 1850's but that decision helped Lincoln win the election in 1860 and thus the Civil War started.

Taney should be remembered but it should not be with a statue in front of the Maryland Capitol.

The Lincon-Douglas debates also helped him win the election, should they not be memorialised?
Taney wasn't being memorialised for his work in the arena of social justice, he was being memorialised for being a supreme court chief justice.

There are written records of the debates if im not mistaken.

Many of the statues that were put up were a form of intimation not a true memorialization.

Jefferson Davis used to have statue in Richmond. It has since been removed. A man who was president of a group of states who illegally succeeded from the union should not have a public memorial.

A state museum is one thing but a statue in the middle of the state capital? no

[CoraSpia]

The Lincon-Douglas debates also helped him win the election, should they not be memorialised?
Taney wasn't being memorialised for his work in the arena of social justice, he was being memorialised for being a supreme court chief justice.

There are written records of the debates if im not mistaken.

Many of the statues that were put up were a form of intimation not a true memorialization.

Jefferson Davis used to have statue in Richmond. It has since been removed. A man who was president of a group of states who illegally succeeded from the union should not have a public memorial.

A state museum is one thing but a statue in the middle of the state capital? no

Uhm...the taney one was cast 7 years after he died, it's not like the others that were put up much later.

[San Lumen]

There are written records of the debates if im not mistaken.

Many of the statues that were put up were a form of intimation not a true memorialization.

Jefferson Davis used to have statue in Richmond. It has since been removed. A man who was president of a group of states who illegally succeeded from the union should not have a public memorial.

A state museum is one thing but a statue in the middle of the state capital? no

Uhm...the taney one was cast 7 years after he died, it's not like the others that were put up much later.

Don't care when it was cast. It does not belong on the state capitol grounds. It belongs in a museum.

[Kowani]

Why would you even want statues of people that not only hated America and everything it stood for, but tried to destroy it?

Because without them how will the uppity black people be reminded of their place? Or something like that, given when and why most of these statues went up.

to be fair this particular statue is 130 years old, it's not one of the later ones erected during/after the CRM

[Rusozak]

I propose every statue of a confederate that gets taken down gets replaced with one of William T. Sherman.

[Senkaku]

You’re the only one sanitizing anything about him by arguing his position in American public monumentality be eternally preserved. Societies are allowed to reflect on whether certain leaders really deserved to be so honored, there’s nothing distasteful about toppling statues of oppressors.

What was he memorialised for? Was it for a particular case or was it because he was chief justice of the supreme court?

Do we need to have a statue of every Chief Justice displayed publicly on the grounds of state institutions? Is that really a vital strategic interest that the US must safeguard at any cost? If we took this statue down, would it be a slippery slope to full-blown revolution or something?

Honestly, you could also make this argument on purely aesthetic terms. There’s lots of sculptors in America producing fine work right now, why not have our government make more of an effort to display contemporary masterpieces at its facilities instead of just preserving moldering ancient hunks of bronze that just create political friction? You’d promote the arts, invite public interest & discussion, and make stodgy old legislature buildings & the like a bit more interesting for the people who pass by every day.

[CoraSpia]

What was he memorialised for? Was it for a particular case or was it because he was chief justice of the supreme court?

Do we need to have a statue of every Chief Justice displayed publicly on the grounds of state institutions? Is that really a vital strategic interest that the US must safeguard at any cost? If we took this statue down, would it be a slippery slope to full-blown revolution or something?

Honestly, you could also make this argument on purely aesthetic terms. There’s lots of sculptors in America producing fine work right now, why not have our government make more of an effort to display contemporary masterpieces at its facilities instead of just preserving moldering ancient hunks of bronze that just create political friction? You’d promote the arts, invite public interest & discussion, and make stodgy old legislature buildings & the like a bit more interesting for the people who pass by every day.

Why not create more room: as the past grows, so does the statuary

[Kowani]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signs voter restrictions into law

[San Lumen]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signs voter restrictions into law

Shame on him. I hope Republicans pay dearly at the polls next year.

[Senkaku]

Do we need to have a statue of every Chief Justice displayed publicly on the grounds of state institutions? Is that really a vital strategic interest that the US must safeguard at any cost? If we took this statue down, would it be a slippery slope to full-blown revolution or something?

Honestly, you could also make this argument on purely aesthetic terms. There’s lots of sculptors in America producing fine work right now, why not have our government make more of an effort to display contemporary masterpieces at its facilities instead of just preserving moldering ancient hunks of bronze that just create political friction? You’d promote the arts, invite public interest & discussion, and make stodgy old legislature buildings & the like a bit more interesting for the people who pass by every day.

Why not create more room: as the past grows, so does the statuary

Well then you’re just going to have a totally un-cohesive display and in a few centuries we’ll run out of room. Monumental works of art deserve pride of place for public display unless they’re specifically designed to fit into some larger statuary— but we could do some sort of state art warehouse and auction off works that were commissioned or supported by the state for the purpose of public display, perhaps.

Plus that way, we can portray it to the hardcore statue preserver types as actually a way to stick it to the left— see, we’re not doing leftie historical revisionism, we’re extending the influence of both right wing state censorship and free market forces further into the art world!

[Shrillland]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signs voter restrictions into law

Shame on him. I hope Republicans pay dearly at the polls next year.

Don't worry. They won't.

[San Lumen]

Shame on him. I hope Republicans pay dearly at the polls next year.

Don't worry. They won't.

sadly.

[Tarsonis]

Why, though? What information about their fellow humans’ dignity did they lack that we’ve since discovered? Why would living a few decades or centuries in the past apparently let people off the hook for terrible crimes?

I do wonder what people think that Dred Scott was doing in the Supreme Court in the first place, if they believe that the notion of racial equality did not exist in the 1850s.

Of course it did, but of course it wasn't nearly that simple. Abolitionism was reaching a fever pitch, but the abolitionist movement was not an equal rights movement. White abolitionists were mostly just as racist as their pro slavery counterparts. It was the institution of slavery they found abhorrent, not necissarily the notion of white supremacy. The North and South were not that juxtaposed.

Even the 14th and 15th ammendment were largely driven by Stevens' radical Republicans, not mainstream polity.

[Kowani]

Republicans accidentally send letter to wrong CEO in attempt to thwart Jan. 6 probe

A group of 11 right-wing Republican lawmakers mistakenly sent a letter addressed to the former CEO of Yahoo in an effort to pressure the company not to comply with a records request from the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot. The letter, first reported by Forbes, was sent to Marissa Mayer, who resigned as CEO of the web services and email company more than four years ago, rather than current CEO Guru Gowrappan.

The letter was one of more than a dozen, sent to companies including AT&T, Apple and Verizon, which owns Yahoo, by 11 right-wing Republicans including Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). The letters urge the companies to decline a request from the January 6 panel to preserve the phone records and data of Capitol riot defendants and others who sought to overturn the election, vowing to “pursue all legal remedies” if they don’t.

Many of the letter’s signatories, such as Reps. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) and Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), who spoke at a “Stop The Steal” rally outside the White House ahead of the Capitol riot, are likely being targeted by the probe.

The letters address that likelihood, with the lawmakers telling the companies they “do not consent to the release of confidential call records or data” as part of their threat of legal action.

[Omniabstracta]

Republicans accidentally send letter to wrong CEO in attempt to thwart Jan. 6 probe

A group of 11 right-wing Republican lawmakers mistakenly sent a letter addressed to the former CEO of Yahoo in an effort to pressure the company not to comply with a records request from the House select committee investigating the Capitol riot. The letter, first reported by Forbes, was sent to Marissa Mayer, who resigned as CEO of the web services and email company more than four years ago, rather than current CEO Guru Gowrappan.

The letter was one of more than a dozen, sent to companies including AT&T, Apple and Verizon, which owns Yahoo, by 11 right-wing Republicans including Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Jim Banks (R-Ind.) and Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.). The letters urge the companies to decline a request from the January 6 panel to preserve the phone records and data of Capitol riot defendants and others who sought to overturn the election, vowing to “pursue all legal remedies” if they don’t.

Many of the letter’s signatories, such as Reps. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) and Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.), who spoke at a “Stop The Steal” rally outside the White House ahead of the Capitol riot, are likely being targeted by the probe.

The letters address that likelihood, with the lawmakers telling the companies they “do not consent to the release of confidential call records or data” as part of their threat of legal action.

If only Republicans were actually interested in bolstering real internet user privacy laws, instead of getting pissy about being called out for attacking democracy and almost certainly not planning on enacting any real change beyond revenge on companies they don’t like

[Ifreann]

I do wonder what people think that Dred Scott was doing in the Supreme Court in the first place, if they believe that the notion of racial equality did not exist in the 1850s.

Of course it did, but of course it wasn't nearly that simple. Abolitionism was reaching a fever pitch, but the abolitionist movement was not an equal rights movement. White abolitionists were mostly just as racist as their pro slavery counterparts. It was the institution of slavery they found abhorrent, not necissarily the notion of white supremacy. The North and South were not that juxtaposed.

Even the 14th and 15th ammendment were largely driven by Stevens' radical Republicans, not mainstream polity.

So there is nothing anachronistic about judging people from the 1850s to have been racist pieces of shit when when non-racist positions were fully available to them and yet they chose to be racists.

[Tarsonis]

Of course it did, but of course it wasn't nearly that simple. Abolitionism was reaching a fever pitch, but the abolitionist movement was not an equal rights movement. White abolitionists were mostly just as racist as their pro slavery counterparts. It was the institution of slavery they found abhorrent, not necissarily the notion of white supremacy. The North and South were not that juxtaposed.

Even the 14th and 15th ammendment were largely driven by Stevens' radical Republicans, not mainstream polity.

So there is nothing anachronistic about judging people from the 1850s to have been racist pieces of shit when when non-racist positions were fully available to them and yet they chose to be racists.

"Yeah they followed the cultural norms of the time, instead of following the beliefs of a radical and extreme minority of the population." - says the person who grew up this side of the Civil War and Civil Rights era.


In 300 years they're really gonna let us have it for not buying into scientology.

[Kowani]

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signs voter restrictions into law

Aaaaaaaaand they've been sued

[Punished UMN]

Tbf, I think the Dred Scott decision argument here is pretty good in terms of needling Lumen's commitment to having to change the law through exclusively constitutional means. The end of slavery did not take place through constitutional means, it was accomplished through military occupation, and it's a good thing that it was, so how does Lumen square his belief that it is never a good thing to go against the constitutional process with the Civil War and Reconstruction?

[Thermodolia]

I propose every statue of a confederate that gets taken down gets replaced with one of William T. Sherman.

I approve. John Brown, Lincoln, or MLK will also work

[Lady Victory]

I propose every statue of a confederate that gets taken down gets replaced with one of William T. Sherman.

I approve. John Brown, Lincoln, or MLK will also work

Frederick Douglas would also work. Malcolm X if you wanna see Neo-Confederates cope and seethe.

[Thermodolia]

I'm all for peoples deciding to no longer honor people they once did. But your anachronistic standard of "they should have done back then what is right by our standards today. And if they didn't they're cowards" is ridiculous.

Robespierre abolished slavery and gave citizenship to black people in 1794. And other examples were given not so long ago here. You didn't need to be prescient to know that treating people horrible because of their skin color wasn't right, even 200 years ago.

Sure but then ole Robey got a bit choppy choppy