Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Trump is the baddy because he's crass and offensive
So far apart from shooting his mouth off he has actually done very little
Angela Merkels car industry has killed more people so far this year than Trump but that's ok because she isnt rude about it.
What a silly post! Angela Merkels owns the whole car industry does she?!
her government has colluded with the german car industry in suppressing results which are outside legal norms
like the Dutch and their eggs
try following whats actually happening instead of being duped by a reality TV star
Dutch eggs versus potential conflict with North Korea? I know which worries me most.
Of course, it's hard to blame the EU for the North Korea crisis... Surely Merkel must be behind it somehow?!
clearly not the 100,000 premature deaths in Europe annually because of diesel fumes
Europe wont be touched by a NK\USA showdown, but youre happy for 1million plus europeans to die each decade
as I said you go for the pantomime baddy not the atcual killer
I am loving how this issue has flipped the left into the rather extreme capitalist position that 100,000s of deaths is an acceptable number, because it is in the interest of shareholder value and you know how they love their divvies.
And there is nothing ironic about a company founded in 1937 Germany by the Deutsche Arbeitsfront trade union (check out the swastika on their flag) causing industrial scale loss of life by poison gas in the 2010s. No sirree.
The deaths are acceptable as long as it is the right people responsible.
So the tolerance of Merkel's government of thousands of deaths is not criticized by people who demand criminal action about Grenfell Tower.
Or people who postured about chlorinated chicken had nothing to say about the Dutch government's tolerance of illegal egg production and export.
Or those who demand higher wages for public sector workers opposing them for agricultural workers.
Or the calls for student tuition fees to be increased so that university lecturers (who paid no tuition fees themselves) will get their full defined benefits pensions (which future students will not receive).
What seems entirely twattish is proposing to remove an inoffensive and rather good 100 year old equestrian statue, purely in the interests of being twattish and starting a fight. I hope those who instituted the idea are happy now, with the deaths of 2 policemen and one bystander yesterday. It's not like you are going to change the minds of people so stupid they have failed to notice that whites are already supreme in the US, by moving statues about.
It is pathetic all these cretins nowadays trying to rewrite history and taking offence at things that happened centuries ago. They are the clowns who should be getting arrested. Typical of losers throughout the years , blame someone else for you being crap and envious of other people getting on in life, even if they are dead a few hundred years.
"They are the clowns who should be getting arrested." You mean rather than the guy would deliberately rammed and killed a pedestrian?
OTH, I do broadly agree with wider sentiment about the stupidity of trying to re-write history and removal of historic statues does seem perverse - better to provide comprehensive information about the subject's achievements, good and bad.
(On the other, other hand how many statues of Adolf Hitler still exist? And would anyone argue for their retention? That's my problem - too many hands!)
The thing is, statues of Hitler were torn down at the time by the people he oppressed. As was the statue of Saddam in 2003 with admittedly help from the US Army.
Statues of the likes of Lee, in particular, but also arguably the likes of Stalin or Mao, are not being attacked by those who were personally oppressed by them. The Rhodes statue at Oxford was of course attacked by somebody who benefitted from his wealth. Therefore, it seems to be more about showing the protestors to be politically right on rather than genuinely removing oppression. As of course are the counter protests, especially when they turn violent.
It is also inconsistent. I could entirely understand the logic of removing a confederate flag from a public building. They lost the war, after all. Public money should not be commemorating those who lost a war fighting for a bad cause. But I can't see why you would go for a statue of Lee and not one of Washington, not least because Lee was a far better general (he actually won some of his battles). What about Jefferson? He fathered children on one of his slaves and I don't suppose he asked her nicely first. Or Napoleon, who actually - I believe uniquely among Western rulers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - reintroduced slavery after it had been abolished?
I have to go. But I hope that provides food for thought for all sides.
Dutch eggs versus potential conflict with North Korea? I know which worries me most.
Of course, it's hard to blame the EU for the North Korea crisis... Surely Merkel must be behind it somehow?!
clearly not the 100,000 premature deaths in Europe annually because of diesel fumes
Europe wont be touched by a NK\USA showdown, but youre happy for 1million plus europeans to die each decade
as I said you go for the pantomime baddy not the atcual killer
Diesels were promoted across the west from circa 2000 onwards because they were more fuel efficient. Now we know that they cause deaths through NOx and particulate emissions so they will be phased out. We will move to electric cars over the coming decades... no doubt there will be as yet undiscovered problems with those that will need to be addressed beyond our lifetimes.
It's definitely all Angela Merkel's fault though!
"Diesel particulate filtering was first considered in the 1970s due to concerns regarding the impacts of inhaled particulates.[11] Particulate filters have been in use on non-road machines since 1980, and in automobiles since 1985.[12][13] Historically medium and heavy duty diesel engine emissions were not regulated until 1987 when the first California Heavy Truck rule was introduced capping particulate emissions at 0.60 g/BHP Hour.[14] Since then, progressively tighter standards have been introduced for light- and heavy-duty roadgoing diesel-powered vehicles and for off-road diesel engines. Similar regulations have also been adopted by the European Union and some individual European countries, most Asian countries, and the rest of North and South America."
I appreciate you disagree with me Ishmael but I don't really understand what you think my unforced error is? This is not something I have just made up. Take a look at this article for an analysis of how recently opinion has turned against diesels...
Anyway I am off out for a ride on my handcycle now - glorious sunshine in rural Dorset, not too much diesel pollution here and NK is the other side of the world. So I will enjoy it while I can!
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
He owned slaves for five years, under the terms of his father-in-law's will. He also refused to accelerate manumission. He was ambiguous on the subject of slavery, rather than opposed. He was the man who put down Brown's rebellion.
However, he did ultimately set them free. Which Washington didn't until after he died.
9/11 was clearly part of an overall attempt to overthrown Western society to establish a caliphate. No question about it.
No, the caliphate was supposed to be in the Middle East, they weren't trying to create a rival Islamist US government in Philadelphia. Plausible motivations were revenge, policy change (Israel, Saudi bases, Iraqi sanctions), recruiting/fundraising and provoking a reaction that would help with policy goals in the Middle East. These are all policy or strategic goals, none of them were overthrowing the state or society.
Even if I'm wrong about this, which I'm not, the idea that if I was right then 9/11 wouldn't have been terrorism is quite mad.
What seems entirely twattish is proposing to remove an inoffensive and rather good 100 year old equestrian statue, purely in the interests of being twattish and starting a fight. I hope those who instituted the idea are happy now, with the deaths of 2 policemen and one bystander yesterday. It's not like you are going to change the minds of people so stupid they have failed to notice that whites are already supreme in the US, by moving statues about.
It is pathetic all these cretins nowadays trying to rewrite history and taking offence at things that happened centuries ago. They are the clowns who should be getting arrested. Typical of losers throughout the years , blame someone else for you being crap and envious of other people getting on in life, even if they are dead a few hundred years.
"They are the clowns who should be getting arrested." You mean rather than the guy would deliberately rammed and killed a pedestrian?
OTH, I do broadly agree with wider sentiment about the stupidity of trying to re-write history and removal of historic statues does seem perverse - better to provide comprehensive information about the subject's achievements, good and bad.
(On the other, other hand how many statues of Adolf Hitler still exist? And would anyone argue for their retention? That's my problem - too many hands!)
Genuine question, is Robert E Lee comparable with Adolf?
If you go to Gori in Georgia, you will find a lot of statues of Joseph Stalin. For years, Croatia was not considered for EU membership because they refused to hand over war criminals who Croats considered heros.
It's very difficult to tell people what they should think of their own people. Was the statue of Robert E Lee causing any harm? Probably not.
Im thinking that the Violent Nazis just wanted an excuse to be violent.
If not that statue, then something else would have sufficed
That will console the families of the three dead enormously.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Yes, the general consensus was that he was a gent who did his duty. But his duty was fighting rather brilliantly for a racist state that thought the slavery of blacks was not just ok but the natural order of things. His troops did appalling things to northern Black troops found fighting them.
I find it odd that it has taken so long for the US to come to terms with this. The battles of the early 60s where Federal law and power was used to end segregation and disenfranchisement really should have cleaned this up too. Americans who like to glorify the Confederacy and play at battle reconstructions really need to think a bit more about what they are commemorating.
Of course there is no reason for the current generation to feel particularly ashamed of what their great, great grandfathers thought and fought for but they should reflect how their actions look to the great, great grandchildren of their former slaves.
There's a danger that "terrorism" as a phrase gets so over-used that it loses its power.
I think you can draw a distinction between someone who tries to change policy (e.g. presumably the motive of this case in Charlotteville) vs. someone who is trying to overthrow the state or society itself.
In my mind the former is an (alleged) murderer, the second is a terrorist.
wtf
Perhaps a counterargument would be interesting...
Terrorism is more than just committing murder in a spectacular and public way. For example I don't think people talk about Hungerford or Dunblane as acts of terrorism.
It's also worth noting that the UK government for decades referred to the PIRA as "murderers" rather than "terrorists" because they didn't want to legitimise their campaign. I think referring to the Charlotteville (alleged) murderer as a "terrorist" gives him a status he doesn't deserve.
Sorry, it's just a huge wtf. By your definition I don't think even 9/11 would be terrorism.
The IRA were obviously terrorists by any normal definition. The difference with Hungerford or Dunblane is whether the goal is *political*.
Now, for all I know you may be right that it's practically useful when trying to prevent terrorism not to call terrorists terrorists, or to call non-terrorists terrorists for that matter, but that doesn't change the actual meaning of the word.
9/11 was clearly part of an overall attempt to overthrown Western society to establish a caliphate. No question about it. The various "lone wolf" (I don't like that phrase as it makes their actions seem somehow noble) "inspired by ISIS" are also aimed at a broader goal. Someone driving a car at a bunch of people because he is unhappy with his lot in life and has decided to blame black people for his failure is in no way comparable.
Calling non-terrorists "terrorists" cheapens the word - reducing its impact when it is needed - and ironically helps the actual terrorists by spreading fear generally. It's the same way that the press refers to everything as a "tragedy" or a "catastrophe" when they are simply not - it limits our linguist options.
People who are happy with their lot in life do not get into cars or lorries and deliberately seek to kill members of the public. Almost all terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam in Europe have been undertaken by individuals with deeply disturbed backgrounds. That is no excuse for their actions, of course; but if they are terrorists - and they are - it's hard to see how a deeply unhappy white supremacist deliberately seeking to spread panic and alarm in order to promote his vision of a whites first America is not a terrorist.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
The shitty way the Union behaved to him over Arlington should be punishment enough
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Or in reality, what the losers who "feel" wronged by a statue of a guy who has been long dead.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
What seems entirely twattish is proposing to remove an inoffensive and rather good 100 year old equestrian statue, purely in the interests of being twattish and starting a fight. I hope those who instituted the idea are happy now, with the deaths of 2 policemen and one bystander yesterday. It's not like you are going to change the minds of people so stupid they have failed to notice that whites are already supreme in the US, by moving statues about.
It is pathetic all these cretins nowadays trying to rewrite history and taking offence at things that happened centuries ago. They are the clowns who should be getting arrested. Typical of losers throughout the years , blame someone else for you being crap and envious of other people getting on in life, even if they are dead a few hundred years.
"They are the clowns who should be getting arrested." You mean rather than the guy would deliberately rammed and killed a pedestrian?
OTH, I do broadly agree with wider sentiment about the stupidity of trying to re-write history and removal of historic statues does seem perverse - better to provide comprehensive information about the subject's achievements, good and bad.
(On the other, other hand how many statues of Adolf Hitler still exist? And would anyone argue for their retention? That's my problem - too many hands!)
Genuine question, is Robert E Lee comparable with Adolf?
If you go to Gori in Georgia, you will find a lot of statues of Joseph Stalin. For years, Croatia was not considered for EU membership because they refused to hand over war criminals who Croats considered heros.
It's very difficult to tell people what they should think of their own people. Was the statue of Robert E Lee causing any harm? Probably not.
Im thinking that the Violent Nazis just wanted an excuse to be violent.
If not that statue, then something else would have sufficed
That will console the families of the three dead enormously.
Its the Nazis fault. Not the people who right want to remove all Confederate symbols from every piece of public land in the country. the Confederacy is & was white supremacist trash
9/11 was clearly part of an overall attempt to overthrown Western society to establish a caliphate. No question about it.
No, the caliphate was supposed to be in the Middle East, they weren't trying to create a rival Islamist US government in Philadelphia. Plausible motivations were revenge, policy change (Israel, Saudi bases, Iraqi sanctions), recruiting/fundraising and provoking a reaction that would help with policy goals in the Middle East. These are all policy or strategic goals, none of them were overthrowing the state or society.
Even if I'm wrong about this, which I'm not, the idea that if I was right then 9/11 wouldn't have been terrorism is quite mad.
9/11 was clearly terrorism. Perhaps the details of my definition aren't quite right. The point is that not everything is "terrorism". Sometimes it's "just" murder. And it's unhelpful to be imprecise.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
The world is full of statues, coins, artworks, etc. that commemorate people who fought for and promoted bad causes. I'm generally not in favour of destroying them. They are part of history.
Public opinion changes, and one day, many of the things we take for granted will be seen as bad causes.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
People who are happy with their lot in life do not get into cars or lorries and deliberately seek to kill members of the public. Almost all terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam in Europe have been undertaken by individuals with deeply disturbed backgrounds. That is no excuse for their actions, of course; but if they are terrorists - and they are - it's hard to see how a deeply unhappy white supremacist deliberately seeking to spread panic and alarm in order to promote his vision of a whites first America is not a terrorist.
We can get too hung up on semantics, but I think there's a general point here: one shouldn't seek to judge an entire sector of society by the lunatics among them. The small crowd in Virginia had a significant number of actual Nazis, as well as a bunch of people on the far right who might not go that far - much in the way that a left-wing demo in Britain can attract weird groups. I don't think their existence tells us much about the US in general, or even US conservatives in general - I'm sure the overwhelming majority feel this stuff is repugnant.
Personally I'm not against people expressing their views if they're legal and I always opposed the attempts to disrupt BNP meetings - best to let them bombinate in obscurity and arrest anyone who strays into illegal incitement. The same applies to people like Choudhary who purport to represent Muslim opinion but clearly do not.
But it's a good piece by Kieran. I think the mainstream view in the GOP as among world leaders is that they have to put up with Trump till 2021 and then hope he can be defeated. That effort was Trumped last time by the blue-collar vote, but unless his popularity revives it's not a trick he can pull twice.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
The world is full of statues, coins, artworks, etc. that commemorate people who fought for and promoted bad causes. I'm generally not in favour of destroying them. They are part of history.
Public opinion changes, and one day, many of the things we take for granted will be seen as bad causes.
I seem to remember reading that certain black people wanted that statue of Ghandi taken down because of his original campaign in SA was to give Indians equal status with whites which completely ignored black South Africans.
People who are happy with their lot in life do not get into cars or lorries and deliberately seek to kill members of the public. Almost all terrorist attacks committed in the name of Islam in Europe have been undertaken by individuals with deeply disturbed backgrounds. That is no excuse for their actions, of course; but if they are terrorists - and they are - it's hard to see how a deeply unhappy white supremacist deliberately seeking to spread panic and alarm in order to promote his vision of a whites first America is not a terrorist.
We can get too hung up on semantics, but I think there's a general point here: one shouldn't seek to judge an entire sector of society by the lunatics among them. The small crowd in Virginia had a significant number of actual Nazis, as well as a bunch of people on the far right who might not go that far - much in the way that a left-wing demo in Britain can attract weird groups. I don't think their existence tells us much about the US in general, or even US conservatives in general - I'm sure the overwhelming majority feel this stuff is repugnant.
Personally I'm not against people expressing their views if they're legal and I always opposed the attempts to disrupt BNP meetings - best to let them bombinate in obscurity and arrest anyone who strays into illegal incitement. The same applies to people like Choudhary who purport to represent Muslim opinion but clearly do not.
But it's a good piece by Kieran. I think the mainstream view in the GOP as among world leaders is that they have to put up with Trump till 2021 and then hope he can be defeated. That effort was Trumped last time by the blue-collar vote, but unless his popularity revives it's not a trick he can pull twice.
I dunno: marching too support the confederacy is definitely 99% racism. Im not sure that crowd had non-racists to that degree.
And Trump failed to condemn the nazi element to a massively obvious degree
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
The world is full of statues, coins, artworks, etc. that commemorate people who fought for and promoted bad causes. I'm generally not in favour of destroying them. They are part of history.
Public opinion changes, and one day, many of the things we take for granted will be seen as bad causes.
I seem to remember reading that certain black people wanted that statue of Ghandi taken down because of his original campaign in SA was to give Indians equal status with whites which completely ignored black South Africans.
As a young man, Ghandi was undoubtedly a racist, but it would be silly to try and airbrush him out of history for that reason.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
The world is full of statues, coins, artworks, etc. that commemorate people who fought for and promoted bad causes. I'm generally not in favour of destroying them. They are part of history.
Public opinion changes, and one day, many of the things we take for granted will be seen as bad causes.
I seem to remember reading that certain black people wanted that statue of Ghandi taken down because of his original campaign in SA was to give Indians equal status with whites which completely ignored black South Africans.
As a young man, Ghandi was undoubtedly a racist, but it would be silly to try and airbrush him out of history for that reason.
Indeed. But the cretins would be happy to do that just as they tried to with the Rhodes statue in Oxford.
What seems entirely twattish is proposing to remove an inoffensive and rather good 100 year old equestrian statue, purely in the interests of being twattish and starting a fight. I hope those who instituted the idea are happy now, with the deaths of 2 policemen and one bystander yesterday. It's not like you are going to change the minds of people so stupid they have failed to notice that whites are already supreme in the US, by moving statues about.
It is pathetic all these cretins nowadays trying to rewrite history and taking offence at things that happened centuries ago. They are the clowns who should be getting arrested. Typical of losers throughout the years , blame someone else for you being crap and envious of other people getting on in life, even if they are dead a few hundred years.
"They are the clowns who should be getting arrested." You mean rather than the guy would deliberately rammed and killed a pedestrian?
OTH, I do broadly agree with wider sentiment about the stupidity of trying to re-write history and removal of historic statues does seem perverse - better to provide comprehensive information about the subject's achievements, good and bad.
(On the other, other hand how many statues of Adolf Hitler still exist? And would anyone argue for their retention? That's my problem - too many hands!)
Genuine question, is Robert E Lee comparable with Adolf?
If you go to Gori in Georgia, you will find a lot of statues of Joseph Stalin. For years, Croatia was not considered for EU membership because they refused to hand over war criminals who Croats considered heros.
It's very difficult to tell people what they should think of their own people. Was the statue of Robert E Lee causing any harm? Probably not.
Im thinking that the Violent Nazis just wanted an excuse to be violent.
If not that statue, then something else would have sufficed
That will console the families of the three dead enormously.
Its the Nazis fault. Not the people who right want to remove all Confederate symbols from every piece of public land in the country. the Confederacy is & was white supremacist trash
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
But surely he could have sought to defend his homeland by working to remove those ruling its affairs at the time. Loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to country or a particular state. Had the Nazis been British, I would have welcomed liberation by a foreign power.
As an aside, I was looking through some old books I've got. Amongst them is a 1922 edition of The Jungle Book, complete with a swastika on the cover. It's a Hindu symbol (amongst others), which the Nazis appropriated.
I imagine some people, who think we should try and destroy the bits of history we dislike, would happily toss it into a fire.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
But surely he could have sought to defend his homeland by working to remove those ruling its affairs at the time. Loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to country or a particular state. Had the Nazis been British, I would have welcomed liberation by a foreign power.
He voted against them, campaigned against them - he was a former Governor and carried significant sway (he was the leader of the Tennessee Whigs), but in a time of war he felt he had no choice but to fight for his country.
As an aside, I was looking through some old books I've got. Amongst them is a 1922 edition of The Jungle Book, complete with a swastika on the cover. It's a Hindu symbol (amongst others), which the Nazis appropriated.
I imagine some people, who think we should try and destroy the bits of history we dislike, would happily toss it into a fire.
Anyway, I must be off.
It is context specific. There are a number of Hindu temples in Leicester (all built since the war) uncontroversially decorated with the swastika amongst other Hindu decoration. The context at a white supremacist rally on a flag is not likely to be confused, just as a cross in a church is not likely to be confused with a burning cross on a black mans front yard.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
But surely he could have sought to defend his homeland by working to remove those ruling its affairs at the time. Loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to country or a particular state. Had the Nazis been British, I would have welcomed liberation by a foreign power.
This goes back to the debate of whether all Germans during the third Reich were Nazis or just a few at the top with a supplicant population looking for any kind of strong leadership. Put that into context with Trump and his supporters, are they all Nazis or are they just looking for a leader that can deliver some kind of positive change in their lives. It seems as though the Dems believe the former which means they are not going to win in 2020.
I dunno: marching too support the confederacy is definitely 99% racism. Im not sure that crowd had non-racists to that degree.
And Trump failed to condemn the nazi element to a massively obvious degree
Yes, but there are degrees in these things too - being a racist or simply a Confederate nostalgic doesn't mean you like Hitler and are OK with gas chambers. I'm not in favour of racists either, but I wouldn't call anyone a Nazi merely for turning up at a rally to preserve a statue of a Confederate, even if Nazis turn up at the same rally. The danger of doing that (apart from simply being unfair) is that you start to make the racist feel that Nazis are on his side and anti-Nazis are the enemy.
Never thought I'd write a paragraph defending some racists. But nuance is important in politics, and I've been to rallies where I looked dubiously at some of the other people who had turned up. I've worked on a local conservation committee with a BNP member. I think one needs to try to draw extremists back from the brink, rather than assume they're all equally loony.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
But surely he could have sought to defend his homeland by working to remove those ruling its affairs at the time. Loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to country or a particular state. Had the Nazis been British, I would have welcomed liberation by a foreign power.
This goes back to the debate of whether all Germans during the third Reich were Nazis or just a few at the top with a supplicant population looking for any kind of strong leadership. Put that into context with Trump and his supporters, are they all Nazis or are they just looking for a leader that can deliver some kind of positive change in their lives. It seems as though the Dems believe the former which means they are not going to win in 2020.
Nope, plenty of decent Republicans are happy to condemn the alt.right white supremacists for example:
As an aside, I was looking through some old books I've got. Amongst them is a 1922 edition of The Jungle Book, complete with a swastika on the cover. It's a Hindu symbol (amongst others), which the Nazis appropriated.
I imagine some people, who think we should try and destroy the bits of history we dislike, would happily toss it into a fire.
Anyway, I must be off.
It is context specific. There are a number of Hindu temples in Leicester (all built since the war) uncontroversially decorated with the swastika amongst other Hindu decoration. The context at a white supremacist rally on a flag is not likely to be confused, just as a cross in a church is not likely to be confused with a burning cross on a black mans front yard.
It is a symbol of pagan Aryan supremacism, whether Hindu or German, and thus abhorrent per se, not just context-specifically. Hindu nationalism, which led to Indian partition and the massacres of 70 years ago, is on the rise again today.
As an aside, I was looking through some old books I've got. Amongst them is a 1922 edition of The Jungle Book, complete with a swastika on the cover. It's a Hindu symbol (amongst others), which the Nazis appropriated.
I imagine some people, who think we should try and destroy the bits of history we dislike, would happily toss it into a fire.
Anyway, I must be off.
It is context specific. There are a number of Hindu temples in Leicester (all built since the war) uncontroversially decorated with the swastika amongst other Hindu decoration. The context at a white supremacist rally on a flag is not likely to be confused, just as a cross in a church is not likely to be confused with a burning cross on a black mans front yard.
It is a symbol of pagan Aryan supremacism, whether Hindu or German, and thus abhorrent per se, not just context-specifically. Hindu nationalism, which led to Indian partition and the massacres of 70 years ago, is on the rise again today.
It was Jinnah that called for a separate Muslim state.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
I take you've never been to the American South. You can't compare the Confederates to Nazi Germany, if you do you fall into the same trap as the Dems are falling into right now. Millions upon millions of ordinary Americans have raised the Confederate flag, not because they support slavery or because they are racist, but because it is part of their heritage. This rush to tear down or erase history because our modern standards aren't compatible with it is contemptible.
I dunno: marching too support the confederacy is definitely 99% racism. Im not sure that crowd had non-racists to that degree.
And Trump failed to condemn the nazi element to a massively obvious degree
Yes, but there are degrees in these things too - being a racist or simply a Confederate nostalgic doesn't mean you like Hitler and are OK with gas chambers. I'm not in favour of racists either, but I wouldn't call anyone a Nazi merely for turning up at a rally to preserve a statue of a Confederate, even if Nazis turn up at the same rally. The danger of doing that (apart from simply being unfair) is that you start to make the racist feel that Nazis are on his side and anti-Nazis are the enemy.
Never thought I'd write a paragraph defending some racists. But nuance is important in politics, and I've been to rallies where I looked dubiously at some of the other people who had turned up. I've worked on a local conservation committee with a BNP member. I think one needs to try to draw extremists back from the brink, rather than assume they're all equally loony.
Degrees are important i agree, but at the same time, its like going on a Britains first march and being surprised when people assume you're a racist.
Surely a pro-confederacy march in the US is obviously going to have a load of racists there. The few non-racists on the march (If any) cant really complain or be surprised about the Nazis turning up
Corbyn & Trump condemn violence on 'all' sides :{}
Yep. Corbyn seems to get away with it.
Dan Hannan has a reasonably good article in the telegraph about why the left gets away with equivocation on leftist violence while the right does not. I'd go further than him and say that the BBC and other media outlets are now nothing more than communist front organisations.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
But surely he could have sought to defend his homeland by working to remove those ruling its affairs at the time. Loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to country or a particular state. Had the Nazis been British, I would have welcomed liberation by a foreign power.
He voted against them, campaigned against them - he was a former Governor and carried significant sway (he was the leader of the Tennessee Whigs), but in a time of war he felt he had no choice but to fight for his country.
I have never believed in fighting for my country when it is clearly guided by evil. There were many anti-Nazi Germans who would have liked to have seen the Wehrmacht defeated long before it happened in April 1945. On the same basis, there were some of us who had no wish to see the British and US military triumph in Iraq- in the context of such forces being used as instruments of aggression.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
Charlottesville is not a capitol city, where national symbols have a national rather than local significance.
It does show how Virginia and North Carolina are changing. 60 years ago Charlottesville closed its schools rather than desegregate them.
It also shows how Ohio has changed, the killer coming from a Unionist state whose forces fought General Lee, and also which sent many troops to fight real Nazis rather than wannabe nazis.
Degrees are important i agree, but at the same time, its like going on a Britains first march and being surprised when people assume you're a racist.
Surely a pro-confederacy march in the US is obviously going to have a load of racists there. The few non-racists on the march (If any) cant really complain or be surprised about the Nazis turning up
Yes, I agree - my original post was in reply to one that said all the marchers were Nazis, and I was trying to be nuanced about that. I'm sure they were 95% racists.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
I assume you wouldnt go on the march with gun toting racists with hitler tattos though?
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
I assume you wouldnt go on the march with gun toting racists with hitler tattos though?
No, and to be honest I probably wouldn't care enough to moan about it (other than on PB, of course). What I'm suggesting is that you don't have to be a white supremacist to be annoyed about a statue being removed.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
Charlottesville is not a capitol city, where national symbols have a national rather than local significance.
It does show how Virginia and North Carolina are changing. 60 years ago Charlottesville closed its schools rather than desegregate them.
It also shows how Ohio has changed, the killer coming from a Unionist state whose forces fought General Lee, and also which sent many troops to fight real Nazis rather than wannabe nazis.
That's a fair point, but I don't know any towns with Churchill statues (perhaps Churchill College Cambridge? - I went to the Winston Churchill Secondary School and that might have a bust of him) so had to go for Parliament Square.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Up to a point copper. Lee thought slavery was morally wrong but thought the white slave owners suffered more than the enslaved black people and that slavery was necessary so that blacks could be civilized.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
I assume you wouldnt go on the march with gun toting racists with hitler tattos though?
No, and to be honest I probably wouldn't care enough to moan about it (other than on PB, of course). What I'm suggesting is that you don't have to be a white supremacist to be annoyed about a statue being removed.
Well, yes, but going on a march about it means you probably are.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
Exactly. Unfortunately I wish I could say I'm surprised by some of the posts on this thread, but I'm not. Nonetheless there have been some excellent posts by yourself, Southam, Jonathan, MJW, DavidL, AlastairMeeks and others.
Evan McMullin was excellent on CNN last night. I wish more Conservatives were like him: https://mobile.twitter.com/networkjunkyz/status/896515305693990913 Sadly, there are many who aren't which is why I look back on June 8th and am really glad I didn't make the mistake of voting Conservative.
Online in general, I've seen some Conservatives be more critical of millennials than Trump supporters, which I guess says it all and why most young people probably made the right decision not to vote Conservative on June 8th. It also underlines as to why the Conservatives are going to continue to struggle to appeal to the under 40s more generally in the future. Unfortunately, it's Corbyn leading Labour atm....
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
I appreciate you disagree with me Ishmael but I don't really understand what you think my unforced error is? This is not something I have just made up. Take a look at this article for an analysis of how recently opinion has turned against diesels...
Anyway I am off out for a ride on my handcycle now - glorious sunshine in rural Dorset, not too much diesel pollution here and NK is the other side of the world. So I will enjoy it while I can!
Have a good day everyone!
That article is utterly disingenuous in seeking to suggest that the health consequences of burning diesel were discovered in 2012; the reality is that even the good ole freedom-lovin' truck-drivin' US of A has been imposing particulate filters since the 1980s. So the Labour move on diesels in 2001 was a crap move on the then-known science. It got through because any scientist pointing out that *on balance* the engine type with *higher* CO2 output was preferable, risked - and still risks - an outcry from the 97%er dweebs, and consequent loss of job.
Robert E Lee owned no slaves, was apparently opposed to slavery and thought the secession was a mistake. The problem with statues to him is not particularly what he believed but what those statues stand for today.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
But surely he could have sought to defend his homeland by working to remove those ruling its affairs at the time. Loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to country or a particular state. Had the Nazis been British, I would have welcomed liberation by a foreign power.
He voted against them, campaigned against them - he was a former Governor and carried significant sway (he was the leader of the Tennessee Whigs), but in a time of war he felt he had no choice but to fight for his country.
I have never believed in fighting for my country when it is clearly guided by evil. There were many anti-Nazi Germans who would have liked to have seen the Wehrmacht defeated long before it happened in April 1945. On the same basis, there were some of us who had no wish to see the British and US military triumph in Iraq- in the context of such forces being used as instruments of aggression.
The only Germans who came close to doing something effective to resist Hitler and his regime were embodiments of the crusty, historically anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic Junkers class from east of the Elbe. I suppose it goes some way to atoning for the fact that it was their party (the DNVP) which helped the Nazis into power in the first place.
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
Because it's August and they've got nothing better?
Corbyn & Trump condemn violence on 'all' sides :{}
Yep. Corbyn seems to get away with it.
Dan Hannan has a reasonably good article in the telegraph about why the left gets away with equivocation on leftist violence while the right does not. I'd go further than him and say that the BBC and other media outlets are now nothing more than communist front organisations.
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
Because it's August and they've got nothing better?
It's not just this instance though, they seem to give him significant coverage whenever he makes an "intervention" on a big British political issue. One of his speeches during the EU referendum campaign itself was the top story on that night's BBC news. It's bizarre.
There's a danger that "terrorism" as a phrase gets so over-used that it loses its power.
I think you can draw a distinction between someone who tries to change policy (e.g. presumably the motive of this case in Charlotteville) vs. someone who is trying to overthrow the state or society itself.
In my mind the former is an (alleged) murderer, the second is a terrorist.
I'm not sure I can contribute meaningfully to the discussion today because I suspect it will end up blaming the black people's faces for getting in the way of the white people's fists and the EU is to really to blame (somehow), so it's probably best if I vacate for a bit and I have work to do anyway.
But I can add something to your post.
The definition of "terrorism" is inevitably dependent on the person using the term, and varies according to the intensity of that person's feelings. So I think the BBC's reluctance to use the term has some merit. But in real life it gets used a lot so definitions become important.
A definition I heard of terrorism back in 1994-ish has worked well for me over the years. It's simple and it goes like this: "Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political change in a democracy"
It doesn't require overthrowing the state and would include things like the military wing of, say, the anti-litter league. Less flippantly it would include, say, the Klu Klux Klan or the IRA without needing to debate whether the aim is to overthrow the state, restore a previous or idealised version, or whatever
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
Because it's August and they've got nothing better?
It's not just this instance though, they seem to give him significant coverage whenever he makes an "intervention" on a big British political issue. One of his speeches during the EU referendum campaign itself was the top story on that night's BBC news. It's bizarre.
Is he a poster boy for a lot of media types? Also being the expected leader who never got the gig means his supporters can always point to an imaginary 'what might have been'. As an Enoch Powell fan I know the feeling
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
Because it's August and they've got nothing better?
It's not just this instance though, they seem to give him significant coverage whenever he makes an "intervention" on a big British political issue. One of his speeches during the EU referendum campaign itself was the top story on that night's BBC news. It's bizarre.
Is he a poster boy for a lot of media types? Also being the expected leader who never got the gig means his supporters can always point to an imaginary 'what might have been'. As an Enoch Powell fan I know the feeling
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
Because it's August and they've got nothing better?
It's not just this instance though, they seem to give him significant coverage whenever he makes an "intervention" on a big British political issue. One of his speeches during the EU referendum campaign itself was the top story on that night's BBC news. It's bizarre.
Is he a poster boy for a lot of media types? Also being the expected leader who never got the gig means his supporters can always point to an imaginary 'what might have been'. As an Enoch Powell fan I know the feeling
But, for better or for worse, Powell's following was based on what his views were.
As far as Joe Public is concerned, nobody knows anything of David Miliband's views or political stances, his entire relevance is as a foil to Ed Miliband. And even Ed himself is not going to be much more than a footnote in history now.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
Exactly. Unfortunately I wish I could say I'm surprised by some of the posts on this thread, but I'm not. Nonetheless there have been some excellent posts by yourself, Southam, Jonathan, MJW, DavidL, AlastairMeeks and others.
Evan McMullin was excellent on CNN last night. I wish more Conservatives were like him: https://mobile.twitter.com/networkjunkyz/status/896515305693990913 Sadly, there are many who aren't which is why I look back on June 8th and am really glad I didn't make the mistake of voting Conservative.
Online in general, I've seen some Conservatives be more critical of millennials than Trump supporters, which I guess says it all and why most young people probably made the right decision not to vote Conservative on June 8th. It also underlines as to why the Conservatives are going to continue to struggle to appeal to the under 40s more generally in the future. Unfortunately, it's Corbyn leading Labour atm....
I think that we are headed into the sort of culture wars that infest America. The detail will be different because the history is different, but the divide culturally is the same. Nick P has mentioned before how most voting is on the basis of affinity and brand impression rather than manifesto detail. That was why Cameron's detox strategy worked, and New Labour too. Now Corbyn has the hopey changey zeitgeist and the Tories retoxifying:
There was this interesting piece on Brexit as a symptom rather than cause, worth reading:
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
Because it's August and they've got nothing better?
It's not just this instance though, they seem to give him significant coverage whenever he makes an "intervention" on a big British political issue. One of his speeches during the EU referendum campaign itself was the top story on that night's BBC news. It's bizarre.
Is he a poster boy for a lot of media types? Also being the expected leader who never got the gig means his supporters can always point to an imaginary 'what might have been'. As an Enoch Powell fan I know the feeling
But, for better or for worse, Powell's following was based on what his views were.
As far as Joe Public is concerned, nobody knows anything of David Miliband's views or political stances, his entire relevance is as a foil to Ed Miliband. And even Ed himself is not going to be much more than a footnote in history now.
My perception of D Miliband is of continuity Blair/Clegg/Cameron which seems to appeal to a lot of the people traumatised by the public's decision on the referendum
I dunno: marching too support the confederacy is definitely 99% racism. Im not sure that crowd had non-racists to that degree.
And Trump failed to condemn the nazi element to a massively obvious degree
Yes, but there are degrees in these things too - being a racist or simply a Confederate nostalgic doesn't mean you like Hitler and are OK with gas chambers. I'm not in favour of racists either, but I wouldn't call anyone a Nazi merely for turning up at a rally to preserve a statue of a Confederate, even if Nazis turn up at the same rally. The danger of doing that (apart from simply being unfair) is that you start to make the racist feel that Nazis are on his side and anti-Nazis are the enemy.
Never thought I'd write a paragraph defending some racists. But nuance is important in politics, and I've been to rallies where I looked dubiously at some of the other people who had turned up. I've worked on a local conservation committee with a BNP member. I think one needs to try to draw extremists back from the brink, rather than assume they're all equally loony.
There are lots of reasons besides racism for wanting to preserve a statute of Lee
In all seriousness, why do media outlets still report what David Miliband of all people says? He's not been a senior government minister for the best part of a decade now, and he has no following in either the country or within any political party.
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
Because it's August and they've got nothing better?
It's not just this instance though, they seem to give him significant coverage whenever he makes an "intervention" on a big British political issue. One of his speeches during the EU referendum campaign itself was the top story on that night's BBC news. It's bizarre.
Is he a poster boy for a lot of media types? Also being the expected leader who never got the gig means his supporters can always point to an imaginary 'what might have been'. As an Enoch Powell fan I know the feeling
But, for better or for worse, Powell's following was based on what his views were.
As far as Joe Public is concerned, nobody knows anything of David Miliband's views or political stances, his entire relevance is as a foil to Ed Miliband. And even Ed himself is not going to be much more than a footnote in history now.
That actually plays a bit in his favour though, as far as the public know anything about him, he's the bloke who was much better than Ed but who the union barons vetoed. Not least because for about two years any newspaper with an interest in kicking Labour also had an interest in talking up David as Labour's great lost leader.
In 2009, he was the geek with a banana who couldn't bring himself to knife Gordon Brown. By 2012 he was a great statesman inexplicably shunned by Labour for a bloke who couldn't eat a bacon sandwich.
The truth is of course somewhere inbetween - unlike his brother he's a good enough speaker and political thinker to rise above the inevitable caricatures. But is he a saviour of the centre-left? Probably not - it'd probably take someone who could combine his attributes with a genuine common touch to win the battle for public opinion.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
The logic of tearing down the statute (no longer in keeping with the culture of the area) is the same logic for moving the Notting Hill Carnival. Left wing activists support one but not the other
As a British person, David Miliband lives and works in a non EU country. How does he manage?
I am amazed that people on here who dig out pro Brexit tweeters who don't live in the EU have the gall to support him, but I guess hypocrisy is flexible
Corbyn & Trump condemn violence on 'all' sides :{}
Yep. Corbyn seems to get away with it.
Dan Hannan has a reasonably good article in the telegraph about why the left gets away with equivocation on leftist violence while the right does not. I'd go further than him and say that the BBC and other media outlets are now nothing more than communist front organisations.
The BBC is a communist front organisation?!? Have you checked for reds under your bed recently? Honestly, I do fear for your grip on reality.
On topic - "The American left seems unable to come to terms with Trump and doesn’t know how to deal with him."
This surprised me. The American left are opposed to virtually everything Trump does and plan to block him wherever they can. Whether that's wise I leave to others - but I think it's certainly a clear strategy.
As an aside, I was looking through some old books I've got. Amongst them is a 1922 edition of The Jungle Book, complete with a swastika on the cover. It's a Hindu symbol (amongst others), which the Nazis appropriated.
I imagine some people, who think we should try and destroy the bits of history we dislike, would happily toss it into a fire.
Anyway, I must be off.
It is context specific. There are a number of Hindu temples in Leicester (all built since the war) uncontroversially decorated with the swastika amongst other Hindu decoration. The context at a white supremacist rally on a flag is not likely to be confused, just as a cross in a church is not likely to be confused with a burning cross on a black mans front yard.
It is a symbol of pagan Aryan supremacism, whether Hindu or German, and thus abhorrent per se, not just context-specifically. Hindu nationalism, which led to Indian partition and the massacres of 70 years ago, is on the rise again today.
Not always. In Taiwan it is a symbol of Buddhism, and, by extension veganism (They don't really have our kind of vegetarianism). When in an unfamiliar area I always sought out the street stall or restaurant with the swastika, as I could guarantee no use of shellfish in the sauces (to which I am violently allergic). Symbols are important, but I would agree they are context specific.
Both Stonewall Jackson and Robert E Lee were brilliant generals, but fought unquestionably for the wrong cause. The acceptability of Confederate insignia and commemmoration has changed over the years. When I lived in Georgia the State flag was 75% the battle flag of tbe Confederacy (the SC flag was 100%) and it was acceptable for the Dukes of Hazzard to have a car called "The General Lee" with the battle flag on its roof, and no significant black characters. America has made some progress since then, but not enough.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
But surely he could have sought to defend his homeland by working to remove those ruling its affairs at the time. Loyalty to humanity overrides loyalty to country or a particular state. Had the Nazis been British, I would have welcomed liberation by a foreign power.
He voted against them, campaigned against them - he was a former Governor and carried significant sway (he was the leader of the Tennessee Whigs), but in a time of war he felt he had no choice but to fight for his country.
I have never believed in fighting for my country when it is clearly guided by evil. There were many anti-Nazi Germans who would have liked to have seen the Wehrmacht defeated long before it happened in April 1945. On the same basis, there were some of us who had no wish to see the British and US military triumph in Iraq- in the context of such forces being used as instruments of aggression.
At the time slavery wasn't viewed in such stark terms as "good and evil". Views on this matter progress with time - I am proud of the role that Britain has historically played in trying to eradicate the slave trade but, for example, the Old Testament (I believe you are a fundamentalist) approves of it.
I have sympathy for a senior politician who defends his country even when he doesn't agree with every aspect of its politics.
I think that we are headed into the sort of culture wars that infest America. The detail will be different because the history is different, but the divide culturally is the same. Nick P has mentioned before how most voting is on the basis of affinity and brand impression rather than manifesto detail. That was why Cameron's detox strategy worked, and New Labour too. Now Corbyn has the hopey changey zeitgeist and the Tories retoxifying:
There was this interesting piece on Brexit as a symptom rather than cause, worth reading:
That seems very negative to me and whilst I agree with the thesis that alignments are shifting as suggested I see plenty of reasons to be more positive. We may have culture skirmishes, but I hope we don't get into the real nastiness you see in America.
For one thing I really think British Conservatives are just better morally than their US equivalents. I don't much like many of them, but even if you look at the extreme Brexiteer fringes I don't think you find the same level of extreme views you see in America. Maybe I'm naive though.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
Charlottesville is not a capitol city, where national symbols have a national rather than local significance.
It does show how Virginia and North Carolina are changing. 60 years ago Charlottesville closed its schools rather than desegregate them.
It also shows how Ohio has changed, the killer coming from a Unionist state whose forces fought General Lee, and also which sent many troops to fight real Nazis rather than wannabe nazis.
That's a fair point, but I don't know any towns with Churchill statues (perhaps Churchill College Cambridge? - I went to the Winston Churchill Secondary School and that might have a bust of him) so had to go for Parliament Square.
While working in a low-ranking scientific job in the Civil Service job, I received a long phone call from a university lecturer in toxicology pointing out the dangers of diesel - specifically the particulate matter.
I explained that yes, it was well known, and yes, I was aware of the studies, but no, the politicians wouldn't listen because it wasn't fashionable. Carbon dioxide reduction was the in-thing for the media, and the politicians would, as always, take more notice of the media than science.
And the fact that he'd been put through to humble old me was only because I had a PhD vaguely in the relevant subject. I suspected he'd been bounced from pillar to post because the switchboard staff try to be helpful.
This was in the early noughties, so don't believe the bleating of the politicians ... "I dinna ken." They chose not to ken
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
I don't view fighting for the Confederacy as any more morally reprehensible than fighting in the various wars of imperial aggression, or campaigns to subjugate Indians, which the USA fought in the 19th century.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
Charlottesville is not a capitol city, where national symbols have a national rather than local significance.
It does show how Virginia and North Carolina are changing. 60 years ago Charlottesville closed its schools rather than desegregate them.
It also shows how Ohio has changed, the killer coming from a Unionist state whose forces fought General Lee, and also which sent many troops to fight real Nazis rather than wannabe nazis.
That's a fair point, but I don't know any towns with Churchill statues (perhaps Churchill College Cambridge? - I went to the Winston Churchill Secondary School and that might have a bust of him) so had to go for Parliament Square.
There is a statue of Winston Churchill on Woodford Green.
I think that we are headed into the sort of culture wars that infest America. The detail will be different because the history is different, but the divide culturally is the same. Nick P has mentioned before how most voting is on the basis of affinity and brand impression rather than manifesto detail. That was why Cameron's detox strategy worked, and New Labour too. Now Corbyn has the hopey changey zeitgeist and the Tories retoxifying:
There was this interesting piece on Brexit as a symptom rather than cause, worth reading:
That seems very negative to me and whilst I agree with the thesis that alignments are shifting as suggested I see plenty of reasons to be more positive. We may have culture skirmishes, but I hope we don't get into the real nastiness you see in America.
For one thing I really think British Conservatives are just better morally than their US equivalents. I don't much like many of them, but even if you look at the extreme Brexiteer fringes I don't think you find the same level of extreme views you see in America. Maybe I'm naive though.
Brexit arouses strong feelings, but I don't think that (outside the lunatic fringe on either side) supporters and opponents have the same loathing that Republicans and Democrats have for each other.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
My point is simple. I support the democratic right of Charlotteville (and other places in the world) to choose their own statues and park names.
I agree, but if the City of Westminster Council decided to take down the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square because some think he was a racist, I'd be a little bit annoyed even though I don't live in Westminster.
Charlottesville is not a capitol city, where national symbols have a national rather than local significance.
It does show how Virginia and North Carolina are changing. 60 years ago Charlottesville closed its schools rather than desegregate them.
It also shows how Ohio has changed, the killer coming from a Unionist state whose forces fought General Lee, and also which sent many troops to fight real Nazis rather than wannabe nazis.
That's a fair point, but I don't know any towns with Churchill statues (perhaps Churchill College Cambridge? - I went to the Winston Churchill Secondary School and that might have a bust of him) so had to go for Parliament Square.
There is a statue of Winston Churchill on Woodford Green.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
Don't tell us, tell the families of yesterday's three casualties. I am sure they will see your POV that proposing the removal of the statue was, all things considered, for the best.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
Don't tell us, tell the families of yesterday's three casualties. I am sure they will see your POV that proposing the removal of the statue was, all things considered, for the best.
some people just dont get that free speech means defending other people's right to offend you
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
Don't tell us, tell the families of yesterday's three casualties. I am sure they will see your POV that proposing the removal of the statue was, all things considered, for the best.
2 were in a helicopter accident, this was the third:
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
Don't tell us, tell the families of yesterday's three casualties. I am sure they will see your POV that proposing the removal of the statue was, all things considered, for the best.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
Don't tell us, tell the families of yesterday's three casualties. I am sure they will see your POV that proposing the removal of the statue was, all things considered, for the best.
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
You are neither American and nor are you in the Democratic party. I'm not sure what your point is really.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
So what. There shouldn't be any Confederate war leader statues except in museums. Like Nazi monuments.
Don't tell us, tell the families of yesterday's three casualties. I am sure they will see your POV that proposing the removal of the statue was, all things considered, for the best.
Comments
So the tolerance of Merkel's government of thousands of deaths is not criticized by people who demand criminal action about Grenfell Tower.
Or people who postured about chlorinated chicken had nothing to say about the Dutch government's tolerance of illegal egg production and export.
Or those who demand higher wages for public sector workers opposing them for agricultural workers.
Or the calls for student tuition fees to be increased so that university lecturers (who paid no tuition fees themselves) will get their full defined benefits pensions (which future students will not receive).
Statues of the likes of Lee, in particular, but also arguably the likes of Stalin or Mao, are not being attacked by those who were personally oppressed by them. The Rhodes statue at Oxford was of course attacked by somebody who benefitted from his wealth. Therefore, it seems to be more about showing the protestors to be politically right on rather than genuinely removing oppression. As of course are the counter protests, especially when they turn violent.
It is also inconsistent. I could entirely understand the logic of removing a confederate flag from a public building. They lost the war, after all. Public money should not be commemorating those who lost a war fighting for a bad cause. But I can't see why you would go for a statue of Lee and not one of Washington, not least because Lee was a far better general (he actually won some of his battles). What about Jefferson? He fathered children on one of his slaves and I don't suppose he asked her nicely first. Or Napoleon, who actually - I believe uniquely among Western rulers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries - reintroduced slavery after it had been abolished?
I have to go. But I hope that provides food for thought for all sides.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2017/apr/13/death-of-diesel-wonder-fuel-new-asbestos
Anyway I am off out for a ride on my handcycle now - glorious sunshine in rural Dorset, not too much diesel pollution here and NK is the other side of the world. So I will enjoy it while I can!
Have a good day everyone!
However, he did ultimately set them free. Which Washington didn't until after he died.
Even if I'm wrong about this, which I'm not, the idea that if I was right then 9/11 wouldn't have been terrorism is quite mad.
I find it odd that it has taken so long for the US to come to terms with this. The battles of the early 60s where Federal law and power was used to end segregation and disenfranchisement really should have cleaned this up too. Americans who like to glorify the Confederacy and play at battle reconstructions really need to think a bit more about what they are commemorating.
Of course there is no reason for the current generation to feel particularly ashamed of what their great, great grandfathers thought and fought for but they should reflect how their actions look to the great, great grandchildren of their former slaves.
Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, but the difference is that their cause was not the perpetuation of slavery, the Confederacy was. Symbols matter a great deal, for example EU stars and Blue passports for Brexiteers.
The people defending these statues are not academic military historians, they are overt white supremacists and racists.
https://twitter.com/dougdawsey/status/896520698977562624
Public opinion changes, and one day, many of the things we take for granted will be seen as bad causes.
For example, my avatar Neill S Brown opposed slavery and unsuccessfully advocated Tennessee joining the Union side in the Civil War. But when the Union invaded he fought to defend his homeland. Even though he was on the side of the Confederacy, you need to be nuanced about what "cause" people were fighting for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neill_S._Brown
Personally I'm not against people expressing their views if they're legal and I always opposed the attempts to disrupt BNP meetings - best to let them bombinate in obscurity and arrest anyone who strays into illegal incitement. The same applies to people like Choudhary who purport to represent Muslim opinion but clearly do not.
But it's a good piece by Kieran. I think the mainstream view in the GOP as among world leaders is that they have to put up with Trump till 2021 and then hope he can be defeated. That effort was Trumped last time by the blue-collar vote, but unless his popularity revives it's not a trick he can pull twice.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/07/18/a-new-book-about-steve-bannon-exposes-the-ugly-side-of-trumpism/?utm_term=.70ee0c31d0d5
Great discussion with the author on Pod Save America on Tuesday - "The MAGA Industrial Complex"... the summary:
Bannon's winning strategy was to remind the white working class that they are white.
https://getcrookedmedia.com/here-have-a-podcast-78ee56b5a323
And Trump failed to condemn the nazi element to a massively obvious degree
https://twitter.com/_CraigStanley/status/896349016929206272
https://twitter.com/DoctorPhlox2017/status/896522267978473472
I imagine some people, who think we should try and destroy the bits of history we dislike, would happily toss it into a fire.
Anyway, I must be off.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7H0kAshgW4
Corbyn & Trump condemn violence on 'all' sides :{}
Never thought I'd write a paragraph defending some racists. But nuance is important in politics, and I've been to rallies where I looked dubiously at some of the other people who had turned up. I've worked on a local conservation committee with a BNP member. I think one needs to try to draw extremists back from the brink, rather than assume they're all equally loony.
https://twitter.com/SenJohnMcCain/status/896515795114766337
Charlotteville just wants to be able to have sovereingty over its own parks and statues.
Context is everything, a statue of Cromwell in Westminster has different symbolism to one in Drogheda for example.
As for the statue, well, they aren't asking for a statue of Robert E Lee to be erected in downtown DC or LA.
http://onlineathens.com/local-news-mobile/2015-07-25/removal-confederate-carving-stone-mountain-seen-unlikely
Surely a pro-confederacy march in the US is obviously going to have a load of racists there. The few non-racists on the march (If any) cant really complain or be surprised about the Nazis turning up
It does show how Virginia and North Carolina are changing. 60 years ago Charlottesville closed its schools rather than desegregate them.
It also shows how Ohio has changed, the killer coming from a Unionist state whose forces fought General Lee, and also which sent many troops to fight real Nazis rather than wannabe nazis.
He totes owned slaves as well.
https://twitter.com/standardnews/status/896690295496032257
Evan McMullin was excellent on CNN last night. I wish more Conservatives were like him:
https://mobile.twitter.com/networkjunkyz/status/896515305693990913
Sadly, there are many who aren't which is why I look back on June 8th and am really glad I didn't make the mistake of voting Conservative.
Online in general, I've seen some Conservatives be more critical of millennials than Trump supporters, which I guess says it all and why most young people probably made the right decision not to vote Conservative on June 8th. It also underlines as to why the Conservatives are going to continue to struggle to appeal to the under 40s more generally in the future. Unfortunately, it's Corbyn leading Labour atm....
It would be like giving front-page billing to the likes of Margaret Beckett or David Blunkett and their musings on the issues of the day.
But I can add something to your post.
The definition of "terrorism" is inevitably dependent on the person using the term, and varies according to the intensity of that person's feelings. So I think the BBC's reluctance to use the term has some merit. But in real life it gets used a lot so definitions become important.
A definition I heard of terrorism back in 1994-ish has worked well for me over the years. It's simple and it goes like this: "Terrorism is the use of violence to achieve political change in a democracy"
It doesn't require overthrowing the state and would include things like the military wing of, say, the anti-litter league. Less flippantly it would include, say, the Klu Klux Klan or the IRA without needing to debate whether the aim is to overthrow the state, restore a previous or idealised version, or whatever
As far as Joe Public is concerned, nobody knows anything of David Miliband's views or political stances, his entire relevance is as a foil to Ed Miliband. And even Ed himself is not going to be much more than a footnote in history now.
There was this interesting piece on Brexit as a symptom rather than cause, worth reading:
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/896693264954404868
In 2009, he was the geek with a banana who couldn't bring himself to knife Gordon Brown. By 2012 he was a great statesman inexplicably shunned by Labour for a bloke who couldn't eat a bacon sandwich.
The truth is of course somewhere inbetween - unlike his brother he's a good enough speaker and political thinker to rise above the inevitable caricatures. But is he a saviour of the centre-left? Probably not - it'd probably take someone who could combine his attributes with a genuine common touch to win the battle for public opinion.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/13/theresa-may-condemns-racism-charlottesville-white-supremacists/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nscwiF8B0fY
"The American left seems unable to come to terms with Trump and doesn’t know how to deal with him."
This surprised me.
The American left are opposed to virtually everything Trump does and plan to block him wherever they can. Whether that's wise I leave to others - but I think it's certainly a clear strategy.
Symbols are important, but I would agree they are context specific.
I have sympathy for a senior politician who defends his country even when he doesn't agree with every aspect of its politics.
For one thing I really think British Conservatives are just better morally than their US equivalents. I don't much like many of them, but even if you look at the extreme Brexiteer fringes I don't think you find the same level of extreme views you see in America. Maybe I'm naive though.
While working in a low-ranking scientific job in the Civil Service job, I received a long phone call from a university lecturer in toxicology pointing out the dangers of diesel - specifically the particulate matter.
I explained that yes, it was well known, and yes, I was aware of the studies, but no, the politicians wouldn't listen because it wasn't fashionable. Carbon dioxide reduction was the in-thing for the media, and the politicians would, as always, take more notice of the media than science.
And the fact that he'd been put through to humble old me was only because I had a PhD vaguely in the relevant subject. I suspected he'd been bounced from pillar to post because the switchboard staff try to be helpful.
This was in the early noughties, so don't believe the bleating of the politicians ... "I dinna ken." They chose not to ken
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/magazine-40852227/the-digital-guru-who-helped-donald-trump-to-the-presidency
(and an odd discrepancy over the guru's name)
or BBC2 at 8pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0916ghv
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/prime-minister-popularity-unpopular-rating-tories-conservatives-jeremy-corbyn-brexit-a7890801.html
Though it is in the small print at the end of the bash Theresa article.
https://twitter.com/benjancewicz/status/896599916172234752
https://twitter.com/PaladinCornelia/status/896589362787344384
In this world you have to know which side you are on.