US: Violent clashes Charlottesville

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

What worries me is not the number of extreme right wing nutters in the US, we always knew they existed, it's the number on this forum trying to even defend their actions and the Donald's words. If this is representative then I worry for this country too.

Their actions and the actions of extreme groups are indefensible end of.....

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Mick

Both are as bad as each other. He has condemned the violence displayed by BOTH sides.

Where was your condemnation when Antifa started burning buildings, attacking police during the Berkeley, California protests. It was going largely peaceful until Antifa showed up. ?

It's always one sided with you.

I wholeheartedly agree with Trump's condemnation of the violence, whoever was responsible. I respect the man for making a statement condemning the violence.

However, I feel he may also have shown his own prejudices. He did not mention the nationality, colour or religion of the perpetrators. Had there even been rumours they were Muslim, he would have been tweeting that constantly.

He did later condemn White Supremacists and the KKK, but the fact he waited until a fuss started suggests to me that he did so because he saw it affecting his chances of re-election, and not because he genuinely felt that way.

This is, however, an improvement on his previous form. Previously he has said nothing when any White Supremacist has committed terrorist attacks, even if they are on US soil, while he has done his utmost to talk about IS attacks, even if they are nothing to do with the US. It's also worth noting that he rarely mentions that the attack was committed by IS, preferring to blame the whole of Islam, which is like blaming the whole of Christianity for the actions of the Ku Klux Klan.

I suspect he isn't going out of his way to condemn these groups because he thinks there are a lot of Trump voters in them. This isn't a good thing because if a President thinks that about any group, regardless of that group's beliefs or intentions and whether they can be considered good or bad, that President may well feel that he should help or at least not offend that group. A President should not be obligated in that way.

The same applies to our Prime Minister. Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who, IMO, has one thing in common with Donald Trump. She doesn't care much about the country, she care about her own career, and will do anything to further that cause. This is one reason why I feel that neither Trump nor May are good for their particular countries.

[figgyburn]

Originally Posted by Damien

They didn't fight a war to maintain slavery and they're celebrated for the founding of their country.

So they get a pass on "owning slaves"?

Originally Posted by figgyburn

So they get a pass on "owning slaves"?

No but Robert Lee isn't being condemned for owning slaves so much as fighting a civil war to, among other things, retain slavery. When the time came to end slavery he didn't just oppose it's abolition but took up arms to stop it. The statues are there to honor his role in that.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

No but Robert Lee isn't being condemned for owning slaves so much as fighting a civil war to, among other things, retain slavery. When the time came to end slavery he didn't just oppose it's abolition but took up arms to stop it. The statues are there to honor his role in that.

There's a memorial to British soldiers that died in the boer war in Bedford, perhaps that should be pulled down considering that's the war where we invented the concentration camp that cost the lives of so many women and children over there. Another way of looking at it is he took up arms to defend his state and did well in the role given, I wonder which they were honouring when they put the statue up.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

There's a memorial to British soldiers that died in the boer war in Bedford, perhaps that should be pulled down considering that's the war where we invented the concentration camp that cost the lives of so many women and children over there. Another way of looking at it is he took up arms to defend his state and did well in the role given, I wonder which they were honouring when they put the statue up.

Well I you could make that case. I imagine there will be many of these debates to come here over our history and what we've chosen to honour as well.

In this specific comparison though I think it's different honouring soldiers who died in a war than those who led them. I would be a lot more sympathetic to keeping up a memorial to those who died in the civil war rather than their leaders. In the case of Robert Lee they're specifically honouring one of their leaders who took up arms against their own country, that alone is questionable but when you combine with what they were fighting for you can see why people find it objectionable as well.

Maybe they did put it up because he was fighting for his state but maybe they're better of questioning if they wanted their state to be against the Union and for slavery?

Robert E Lee was a southerner and took up arms to defend that it was an honourable thing for him to do at the time and between that and his achievements as a military leader earnt him the statues. But watch out because here comes the modern world and we better then ever before know whats right and what parts of history we should have and those bits we must erase. A country and it's people are the sum of their past and should learn from it and repeat the successes and learn from the mistakes that's true progression and builds an identity. One of the biggest problems in this world is the loss of identity and it's consequences so far have been anything but positive for us or those countries on the receiving end.

Instead of trying to rewrite or erase those inconvenient parts of history embrace them and learn from them so that everyone can be a little better.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Robert E Lee was a southerner and took up arms to defend that it was an honourable thing for him to do at the time and between that and his achievements as a military leader earnt him the statues. But watch out because here comes the modern world and we better then ever before know whats right and what parts of history we should have and those bits we must erase. A country and it's people are the sum of their past and should learn from it and repeat the successes and learn from the mistakes that's true progression and builds an identity. One of the biggest problems in this world is the loss of identity and it's consequences so far have been anything but positive for us or those countries on the receiving end.

Instead of trying to rewrite or erase those inconvenient parts of history embrace them and learn from them so that everyone can be a little better.

If it hadn't have been a statue it would have been something else. I'm willing to get most of these thugs don't know who Gen. Lee was. You don't go armed with guns, shields , batons and swastickas to peacefully protest ; you go with the intention to hurt people/ cause trouble. Any excuse will do for 'people' like this and they will have been greatly encouraged by the President's response.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

Robert E Lee was a southerner and took up arms to defend that it was an honourable thing for him to do at the time and between that and his achievements as a military leader earnt him the statues. But watch out because here comes the modern world and we better then ever before know whats right and what parts of history we should have and those bits we must erase.

No. It was not a honourable thing to do. He took up arms to defend the right to own slaves, against his own country, and in doing so a lot of people died. That is not honourable.

Nor is this a 'modern world'. Slavery was been widely accepted to be reprehensible so yes we do 'know better'.

Instead of trying to rewrite or erase those inconvenient parts of history embrace them and learn from them so that everyone can be a little better.

Clearly people are not learning if they continue to insist the statues are there to 'learn from history'. They're not. Do we have statues of Hitler to remind us of evil? No. The statues are there to honour history. That's why people have statues. You said it yourself 'between that and his achievements as a military leader earnt him the statues'.

So don't do things which hand them such an easy excuse and Nazi **** or not the agenda of some is the main problem.

---------- Post added at 20:50 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

No we don't have statues of hitler we just guilt tripped the west german people for 50 years whilst the east were told it wasn't their fault. So as a child you never saw a statue and asked a question about it my kids did quite often and i answered as fully as i could statues do represent the past they are a part of history and should remain standing. Their existing does not validate the person the statue represents or anything they might and might not have done.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

In the case of Robert Lee they're specifically honouring one of their leaders who took up arms against their own country, that alone is questionable but when you combine with what they were fighting for you can see why people find it objectionable as well.

Which country would that be?

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

Originally Posted by Mr K

If it hadn't have been a statue it would have been something else. I'm willing to get most of these thugs don't know who Gen. Lee was. You don't go armed with guns, shields , batons and swastickas to peacefully protest ; you go with the intention to hurt people/ cause trouble. Any excuse will do for 'people' like this and they will have been greatly encouraged by the President's response.

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.

Originally Posted by RizzyKing

No we don't have statues of hitler we just guilt tripped the west german people for 50 years whilst the east were told it wasn't their fault. So as a child you never saw a statue and asked a question about it my kids did quite often and i answered as fully as i could statues do represent the past they are a part of history and should remain standing. Their existing does not validate the person the statue represents or anything they might and might not have done.

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.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

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

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Which country would that be?

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

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