Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Which country would that be?

Perhaps if you had a better knowledge of history your view may be slightly different.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Who said they had guns?

I know this is America but in some States, it's still illegal to carry them in the open.

I don't see how they were encouraged when again, BOTH groups were condemned by him.

From reports I see, Alt-Right groups had a permit to be there. As morally repugnant as this is, they had a Constitutional right to protest the removal of the Statue. I.E 1st Amendment.

The left, Antifa and BLM took exception to them protesting so they in some respects armed themselves and decided to take the law in to their own hands.

There is no argument from me that Neo Nazis should be illegal everywhere and kept in a part of history where they belong, but the US Constitution's first amendment forbids laws of such kind from being written.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The Germans have managed to learn their history every well. You learn history by teaching it, reading it. We don't need to see a statue.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Pity you didn't learn history when you refer to America as a country.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The country is the United States ... from which, the Confederate states seceded in Dec 1860

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The United States. If this is some sort of technical 'gotcha' that they were the Confederate States by then that isn't recognised. It's called the American civil war for a reason.

---------- Post added at 21:10 ---------- Previous post was at 21:09 ----------

Oh I see. It's because I didn't use The United States instead of America. :rolleyes:

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Germany was very selective in it's teaching of history and that's not just me that's from my friends that were west germans at the time and it was taught with a very heavy dose of guilt whilst as i said in east germany the authorities absolved the population of any responsibility for what the Nazi's had done but gave a fuller education of it. Robert E Lee was what at that the time they called a southern gentleman and as nearly all such people he had slaves he wasn't responsible for the culture of slavery though he was like many many others a user of the culture. He was a very good general and achieved significant military victories and that's why statues were put up in his honour and he fought that war with honour for the time.

Do i as an individual agree with slavery absolutely not it is repugnant to me but i grew up in a country and culture that had long since adopted that position and I'm able to acknowledge that had i been bought up in the southern america of that time my opinion and perspective may have been radically different.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

No technical "gotcha".

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Yes and I am sure you, and everyone else, calls it 'America'.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

They seceded in 1860 the first conflicts were in 1861 and no the north didn't recognise the C.S.A but at the time of hostilities they were technically not a part of the U.S and while slaves were a big reason there were other reasons for why they split and why the war happened. Despite the belief of the south it's a part of history and there are still many in those southern states who feel connected to that time and the confederacy and are not Nazi's or far right nutjobs at all. I get uneasy when we start messing about with any history as i feel it's a slippery slope that ends at some point with a worthless history rewritten so many times no one has any faith or belief in it.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Anyone who knows what happened in the southern states after the war would say that he was a patriot defending his state from almost complete destruction and it's population from mass rape and murder.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

If they had won the civil war they probably would have counted their independence from the date they claimed to have left but without the rest of the country, or any other country, recognising it then they were never an Independent country. It was a civil war after all.

And yes it did have other reasons than slavery.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

And the statues weren't put up until the 1910's and 1920's, around the same time as the Jim Crow laws came in - they were part of the revisionist history of the badly treated South.

Lee himself said there shouldn't be statues of him. Nobody has a problem with stuff like this being in a museum - but a statue is a celebration, and how can someone who was a traitor to the USA be celebrated; we don't see statues of Sir Oswald Mosley or Lord Haw Haw in the UK.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

But what happened is what happened after the war. It changed the course of the country. Lots of bad things have happened to countries that started wars then lost but they don't justify the war in the first place. Unless he was a time traveler it was the objections he had prior to it that caused him to fight in it.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Exactly.

It's not representative or I would be worried too.
The Don's words are indefensible and the US manufacturers that have left his now-defunct advisory council like Johnson & Johnson and GE are testament to this.
Those who crowed about the UK being at a front of trade deal with the US should now know it's a valueless promise.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

No it's not. Stop making stuff up Andrew. :rolleyes:

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

And yet Abraham Lincoln himself didn't think he was a traitor as no one not even Jefferson Davis were ever tried for treason.

Why would there be a statue of Lord Haw Haw for providing everyone with a laugh in our darkest hours beside which he was an American who renounced his citizenship of Britain perhaps better examples would be charles I and oliver Cromwell considering one was tried for treason and the other for regicide (admittedly after death) are there statues of them, why yes less than 2 miles apart as well but then I guess they're not facists and you need the comparisons to be as bad as possible

War is always bad and it was always going to be fought on Virginia 's doorstep he knew that and that's why he refused high command in the union army offered by Abraham Lincoln himself to defend his home state.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Maybe that was because Lincoln wanted there to be peace between the two sides and any such persecution might have fuelled even more resentment...Perhaps that was something that the allies should have considered after 1918 in Europe when they decided to really scapegoat Germany. We might have avoided WW2 if they had.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

All those celebrating the removal of statues etc. out to be careful what they wish for because from where I'm sitting there are plenty of symbols directly and indirectly related to horrors of the past so at what point is all this going to stop? When enough people get angry enough to make it happen? How many people is enough and how angry do they have to get? How far back are we going to go in expunging any such symbols of discrimination, slavery from our society? Slavery wasn't all white on black either - it went both ways and even within each racial group. Are we going to stop at statues or include paintings for example. Is it going to stop at 'art' symbols or are we going to find angry people start demanding that certain huge German and Japanese companies, for example, which were key to and grew rich on the horrors committed in WWII, for example, be targeted in some way, have their names changed and their history exposed for all to see. I can fully understand why people might get very upset about such things and want to react but this could easily become a very slippery slope.

As regards the make-up of each side of the trouble in the US, I reckon there were degrees of dangerous extremist on both sides and some using the situation just to stir up trouble for reasons best known to themselves. Were there more of one type than the other in this case, well probably yes but to claim they were all as bad as eachother is patent nonsense. Yes there were probably more extreme right wing nutters but let's not pretend that extremists of whatever type aren't just as nasty and dangerous as eachother.

If we're not careful what I can see happening over time is an increasing number of tit for tat demonstrations, attacks etc. which, unless tough action is taken, could escalate into big trouble as one side seeks revenge on the other and the ante is upped...

:shrug:

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

It's true Lincoln did want that, he was also very concerned a court might find in their favour as well though.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Not a very good analogy Maggy. There was no side that surrendered in 1918, all that was signed was an armistice.

Re: Treaty of Versailles

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

It's a perfectly good analogy.

You are being ridiculously pedantic, and also wrong. Caiming that the use of the term "armistice" means Germany didn't actually surrender is nonsense.

The German war machine was spent. The German high command may have hoped to come to an amicable truce with the Allies but what they got was extremely harsh. Woodrow Wilson even demanded the abdication of the Kaiser as a precondition, and stipulated that there would not be ceasefire or peace talks, but surrender.

Armistice demanded extensive demilitarisation, de-occupation of French and Belgian territories held for almost 50 years and a whole host of other things, with the Allies promising next to nothing in return. All of that was achieved with the surrender of Germany in 1918. The treaty of Versailles the following year was more focused on what the future shape of Europe would be.

While it is true that war memorials created in the immediate aftermath of the conflict date its end to 1919, there is no doubt that 11 November 1918 was the day the Allies won and Germany surrendered.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Rule one of extremists, don't give them political ground to stand on. A poll yesterday shows only 4% of Americans like the white nationalists but 62% like the statues where they are.

DON'T GIVE THEM THE STATUE ISSUE.

source

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Agreed. Giving the extremists equivalence with the protestors gives them ground to stand on. Theresa May is right to call Trump out on this.
The statue issue is a different debate and not owned by the White supremacists.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

I don't like that logic though because it would mean there are issues we can't debate in case they get co-opted by extremists. People can have different opinions of the statues but all be united against Nazis. What happens when the Nazis choose something else to be their rallying cause?

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

You can disagree with the statue issue, but don't associated it with the Nazi's. Do not mention it in the same breathe, leave it for now and discuss it later.

Also make it should like a reasonable disagreement with moderate conservatives.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Well exactly. But if we're going to make sure that it's exists outside of the nazis then an argument against the removal of the statues should not be that it gives a platform to them.

I don't even think they had this meeting because of the statues did they?

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Yes they did. The plan was to "Unite the right" behind the statue issue. But moderate right wingers refused to join.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Ah ok.

Well still I don't think we should give them validation of ignoring the issue because they've got involved. I mean they're Nazis.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

As much as i love all Nazi's to die off tomorrow it isn't going to happen and we need to shine a very bright light on them and confront them in debate as that's where they fail completely and show themselves in their true light of hatred, ignorance and bigotry. This whole statue debacle has allowed them to garner support they otherwise would never have gotten even though it might be small that's how it always starts we need to starve them of any hint of legitimisation by being smarter not more righteous on silly issue's that only a minority have any interest in.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The point is not to ignore the issue, the point is not to suggest that people who don't want the statues removed should start working with them. The moderates must take a firm hold of the issue.

They want to make people feel so isolated and ignored that they will join in their marches.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

It's not just Statues that are now being talked about. I saw somewhere, it was suggested yesterday, perhaps in jest to blow up Mount Rushmore, because it contains faces of former Presidents and slave owners.

Today, I have seen talk about boycotting the use of $1.00, $20.00, $50.00, & $100.00 bills, as they have images of slave owners on them.

$1 Washington - slave owner
$2 Jefferson - slave owner
$5 Lincoln - did not necessarily agree with slavery, but didn't agree that blacks were equal
$10 Hamilton - slave owner
$20 Jackson - slave owner
$50 Grant - slave owner
$100 Franklin - affiliation with slave trade.

Then I saw someone else sarcastically write underneath the above:

I'm here to help, I really am. What I need everyone that agrees with the destruction of historical property to do is send me all your currency so I can dispose of it for you. No need to carry these evil people in your pocket that cause your life so much trauma and tears. Don't be a hypocrite, send me the money. It's evil!!!!
-Thank you and your [sic] welcome!!!!

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

But that again completely misrepresents what the debate is again. No one is saying dismantle them because they were slave owners but rather because they fought a war to maintain the right to own slaves.

This is Donald Trump again with this comparison of George Washington to Robert Lee which is nonsense.


That's one way of putting it. :D

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Just to add Ferdinand Foch was spot on when he said of the treaty of Versailles that this isn't a peace treaty it's a twenty year armistice, if only someone had listened

And you're misrepresenting history, Virginia amongst others voted for session because they didn't want to fight other Southern States or isn't that relevant

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

What does that have to do with what I said? He still took up arms for the side picking a fight over, primarily, slavery. You keep trying to make out as if Slavery was almost a minor aspect of the civil war rather than one of the central causes. I've said a number of times that there were other factors but every history I've read of it has slavery at its heart.

I don't even care that much about a statue because I've never see it or have to live near it but I am frustrated by people's unwillingness to understand why honouring confederate leaders and symbols upsets people.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

And 40% of Virginians fought for the North, and a number of Counties split off in 1863 to form West Virginia, in opposition to the Confederacy.

Virginia also voted for Secession because they were a slave-holding State, which is relevant.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Session was on the cards for 30+ years prior to the war, iirc north caroline actually threatened it over cotton tariffs, all it needed was a spark and that was undoubtedly the abolition movement but that notwithstanding his reasoning was defence of his state and home above all else.

They actually voted to remain in the union and reversed their decision a week later when required to send troops to put the rebellion down in other states. Why didn't you mention that, not relevant.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

They should not tear down or move any of the Confederate statues as it is a reminder that war is never the answer to solve differences. Why after all this time should they be removed... you can't change history.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Some of the assertions being banded about is that, the President is all for KKK, and appreciates the support from David Duke and I was struggling to find any evidence to support this, but on the contrary, I have found more evidence that Donald Trump has publicly Disavowed the ugly, KKK, David Duke, many many many times over the years.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The majority of big media in the USA is left leaning, nothing except leaving will make them happy.

https://imgur.com/JfIQyhy
i'm sure having a paramilitary group on the streets will sort the USA problems in no time.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Alt-Rights see this as the thin end of the wedge so have put a line in the sand. Society moves and history is not told by statues.

---------- Post added at 11:50 ---------- Previous post was at 11:19 ----------

Good documentary from Vice on Charlottesville
The mainstream media’s reaction to the march on the day felt like they were being taken by surprise but Vice was very well prepared
“It really is a triumph of old fashioned beat reporting,” said Josh Tyrangiel, executive vice-president of news at Vice. “She is able to distinguish between the different groups and the fact that she is capable of understanding them gives them some trust that she takes them seriously.”FT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P54sP0Nlngg

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Ugh I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with Sarah Huckabee Sanders

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-41815358


Imo it's the worst form of political correctness and she's replying to questions asked about general Kelly's comments, which I don't agree with totally

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/john...civil-war.html

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

There is a difference between remembering history and historical revisionism. There is a movement to portray the civil war as the Lost Cause, a righteous battle that was heroically lost, and people are sensitive to comments that feed that goal. Huckabee is being disingenuous to pretend that these objections amount to attempts to erase history. They’re not. They’re precisely the opposite, an attempt to stop history of being revised to downplay the role of slavery in the South and the civil war.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

The way to combat the extremist fringe isn't to demolish monuments or statues imo, it's to better educate the ones that can be reached

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

We should embrace our history not airbrush the bits we don't currently like.. However we shouldn't use rose tinted glasses to view the past.We should be prepared to unpick the threads from time to time using reasoned debate and look past propaganda.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

But most of those statues were put up in the early 20th Century, in support of the Jim Crow laws, and to further oppress/intimidate the black population of the South - that was historical revisionism in itself.

We should teach history, but why should a country celebrate the leaders of a failed rebellion which was founded on owning people as property?

But back to Kelly’s statement - what compromise was there? The compromise the Secessionists wanted was to own people - is that an acceptable compromise?

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

That's the bit I don't agree with him on as any compromise would have probably led to a continuation of slavery to some degree, I seem to remember Lincoln's plan was to erode it over time rather than out right ban which would have been a compromise to obviously.

Can we stop all this rebellion and he's a traitor nonsense as well, Virginia had the right to succession in much the same way Scotland had the right to leave the UK if they wanted

http://www.columbiatribune.com/02023...3bfab9c2e.html

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

You have quoted an opinion piece, not a legal ruling - the author is a strong believer in States rights to secedeand is an advocate for the Free States Project, so he may not be the most objective source, as he is a Libertarian Economist who hates “Big Government".

He also said the Civil War wasn’t about slavery...

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/col...iams120298.asp

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

As ever I look at what was quoted rather than the person that quoting it, is what he quoted historic, documented fact?

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Including the power to enslave, torture, and kill people, sell the children and rape the women just because of the colour if their skin?

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

I'll take it from that it was documented historical fact then and iirc we were talking about their right to leave the union, it's odd, first of all you attack the author of an opinion piece whilst ignoring the said documented historical fact within and now you're moving the goalposts here as well.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

So much for the saying... The Good Old Days.

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Not sure how the goalposts are being moved when we were discussing Secession, and Virginia’s Ordinance of Secession specifically mentions slavery.http://www.wvculture.org/history/sta...secession.html

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Because we were talking about if they had the right of secession at all and all the slurs of being a traitor and rebelling etc when they had more right to leave the union than Catalonia does to leave Spain, oops there I go again comparing the modern day to two hundred years ago

Re: US: Violent clashes Charlottesville
 

Never heard about this at the time but Ulysses S Grant's statue in San Francisco was pulled down by a mob a couple of years back apparently, wtf goes through some people's minds, so fecking self righteous and without a shred of historical awareness