DC protesters try tearing down Andrew Jackson statue at Lafayette Park, set up 'BHAZ' near White Hou

[Fiddytree]

The Confederate statues and the entire Lost Cause movement is about revisionist history, and that fact is totally lost on you

And then thanks to Du Bois's history of Black Reconstruction, we had the seeds of a revisionist history that would eventually take hold in the 1960s and 1970s overturning the Lost Cause, centralizing the experience of Black people's voices, and highlighting Black people's agency in Antebellum and Reconstruction America.

Round and round revisionism goes.

 

[CLAX1911]

Did tRump get involved??? Another 'show of force' holding a book that must have burned his hand just a little??? eace

Lol@ Bible burning his hand a little.

But no, I don't think the attack on the US from within has much to do with Trump.

 

[Tangmo]

And yet Trump wasn't the one who lost control of a portion of a city, unlike Durkan.

Trump has demonstrated and proved he can't govern his own people inside the WH never mind govern the country. Trump assumed wrongly the armed forces would submit to Trump's Triumph of the Will in Washington and against the protest demonstrators in the streets and parks of America. Wrong wrong wrong.

We're at the point in this quadrennial election that Trump's been reduced to Him and His Base vs the electorate that is the American people. Your only hope now is massive and widespread voter suppression.

 

[Tangmo]

Why? What's wrong with a woman being a mother? That's literally what nature intended.

Dad catches supper. Mom cooks supper.

Mom teaches compassion. Dad teaches when to be compassionate.

And it's those dads who hand out the Iron Cross to the kids.

 

[SheWolf]

Everything looks like Marxism even when it's not. Michelle Nickerson did a pretty interesting dive into this phenomenon in her monograph Mothers of Conservatism: Women and the Postwar Right, where many of the social and political changes that were occurring in or outside of California were conflated with political or intellectual Marxism.

Marxists look at the class struggle as the ultimate issue of History (capital h) and dismiss issues related to gender, race, sexuality, disability, whatever as distractions intentionally created by the upper crusts to keep the working classes divided, feuding, and exploited.

The Marxist view of History and society has tended to lead to conflict between minorities and Marxists, because Marxists tend to dismiss the grievances and experiences of those folks and tell them to focus their attention on the class struggle instead.

This is a really good explanation of Marxism. Reading your post helped me put into words, Tito's leadership in Yugoslavia and the genocide. He did nothing to solve the ethnic struggles, because, as you point out, that's not what Marxism/Communism really strives to do. His brutal leadership simply smashed and silenced all such grievances, so once he died and the state's leadership was in disarray the region exploded in genocide. Many books were being published encouraging murder, hate crimes, and genocide like The Knife.

Under Tito the people looked like were living in harmony, but they were not. They were just not acting out their impulses and hate. Tito did not exploit it nor encourage genocide in the struggle for Communism. Unlike Nazism, Marxism does not pit races against the other in order for a superior race to win over all other. East European Communism ignored culture, and even sought to destroy cultural and ethnic symbols. The people were one people, and one identity. The struggle for Communism was a shared struggle, and "the people's struggle."

Everybody still remembered their history, ethnicity, culture, etc. Once Tito was gone, people were reading Knife, people like Slobodan Milosevic rose to power, and the entire region exploded in extreme Nationalism and ethnic genocide to secure their statehoods.

I like when you post btw...

 

[apdst]

And it's those dads who hand out the Iron Cross to the kids.

All dads are Nazis, now? Or, do you not know the history of the Iron Cross? :lamo

 

[Fiddytree]

This is a really good explanation of Marxism. Reading your post helped me put into words, Tito's leadership in Yugoslavia and the genocide. He did nothing to solve the ethnic struggles, because, as you point out, that's not what Marxism/Communism really strives to do. His brutal leadership simply smashed and silenced all such grievances, so once he died and the state's leadership was in disarray the region exploded in genocide. Many books were being published encouraging murder, hate crimes, and genocide like The Knife.

Under Tito the people looked like were living in harmony, but they were not. They were just not acting out their impulses and hate. Tito did not exploit it nor encourage genocide in the struggle for Communism. Unlike Nazism, Marxism does not pit races against the other in order for a superior race to win over all other. East European Communism ignored culture, and even sought to destroy cultural and ethnic symbols. The people were one people, and one identity. The struggle for Communism was a shared struggle, and "the people's struggle."

Everybody still remembered their history, ethnicity, culture, etc. Once Tito was gone, people were reading Knife, people like Slobodan Milosevic rose to power, and the entire region exploded in extreme Nationalism and ethnic genocide to secure their statehoods.

I like when you post btw...

I haven’t really studied socialist, communist, or otherwise Marxist regimes, but we should pause to consider that the regimes that follow the revolutions tend to focus on the concentration of power and can themselves be vehicles of new or existing oppressions toward ethnicities. The Soviet Union, after all, was quite anti-Semitic and the Chinese Communist Party is currently creating concentration camps for its Muslim minorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Tangmo]

Why? What's wrong with a woman being a mother? That's literally what nature intended.

Dad catches supper. Mom cooks supper.

Mom teaches compassion. Dad teaches when to be compassionate.

All dads are Nazis, now? Or, do you not know the history of the Iron Cross? :lamo

My post again with emphasis: And it's those dads who hand out the Iron Cross to the kids.

"Those dads" not "All dads".

Your hit and run posts only keep getting sloppier -- and nobody reading my post cares a rat's arse about the history of your precious Iron Cross.

 

[apdst]

My post again with emphasis: And it's those dads who hand out the Iron Cross to the kids.

"Those dads" not "All dads".

Your hit and run posts only keep getting sloppier -- and nobody reading my post cares a rat's arse about the history of your precious Iron Cross.

You still aren't making sense.

 

[SheWolf]

And then thanks to Du Bois's history of Black Reconstruction, we had the seeds of a revisionist history that would eventually take hold in the 1960s and 1970s overturning the Lost Cause, centralizing the experience of Black people's voices, and highlighting Black people's agency in Antebellum and Reconstruction America.

Round and round revisionism goes.

I know you're a historian, so you know what you're talking about.

How would you define "revisionist history" as opposed to Vesper? I am curious to know what a historian would say. She argued it's all dangerous, but it is obviously not. There is nothing dangerous about reviving a historical period from a different historical POV. I suspect the dangerous and disrespectful aspect of "revisionist history" involves silencing other POVs and covering up crimes.

I don't think Vesper understands the USSR's motivations in revising history either. I may not be a historian, but believe I have knowledge in the area. I would argue that the USSR did not destroy or revise history for the sake of destruction and lying. It seems obvious the motivation was to elevate the greatness of Stalin (which was quickly challenged and debated upon his death), elevate the greatness of the USSR, hide crimes, and especially hide crimes towards the enemy czars and destroy their greatness.

It was essentially state propaganda, which is very dangerous. Calling it dangerous state propaganda and state mythology, as opposed to simply "historical revision" seems more accurate.

 

[Tangmo]

You still aren't making sense.

That's because to you Trump and his defense of the CSA statues makes perfect sense.

 

[Fiddytree]

I know you're a historian, so you know what you're talking about.

How would you define "revisionist history" as opposed to Vesper? I am curious to know what a historian would say. She argued it's all dangerous, but it is obviously not. There is nothing dangerous about reviving a historical period from a different historical POV. I suspect the dangerous and disrespectful aspect of "revisionist history" involves silencing other POVs and covering up crimes.

I don't think Vesper understands the USSR's motivations in revising history either. I may not be a historian, but believe I have knowledge in the area. I would argue that the USSR did not destroy or revise history for the sake of destruction and lying. It seems obvious the motivation was to elevate the greatness of Stalin (which was quickly challenged and debated upon his death), elevate the greatness of the USSR, hide crimes, and especially hide crimes towards the enemy czars and destroy their greatness.

It was essentially state propaganda, which is very dangerous. Calling it dangerous state propaganda and state mythology, as opposed to simply "historical revision" seems more accurate.

In a nutshell there’s an argument about a fairly routine act of reconsidering the past with new evidence, authors with different backgrounds as predominant authors, and new insights derived from living in a different time period, compared to the act of creating or spreading disingenuous or “bad” history.

My own research has been to look at a social policy and bureaucratic practice from the lens of a service user rather than merely from the lens of a politician or bureaucrat who lose job it is to carry out the social policy. As an example, education histories are typically written by and for educators or professors of education.

I haven’t broken all that much from the source material they used or created, I don’t reject their viewpoints and their concerns. But what I do do is come at it from a different perspective, because I am reading these same documents from the perspective as someone who had been through those systems as a former service user rather than a professional. I also utilize new sources, sources that have not had the benefit of receiving state government publication, promotion, or sanction. Sometimes you find out with your other sources that things that your government said happened did not necessarily happen for the reasons they provided. But often, those people who know better have had to keep quiet for professional reasons and/or don’t have the resources or social networks to correct the record.

In addition to being the beneficiary of time and the conscious effort to dig into past documents and programs in a field that is ever-focused on the here and now, I use the knowledge I have about previously overlooked groups of people in the existing historiography. This has led me to reinterpret the standard interpretation of the public policies, those who carried them out, and how they viewed themselves and those who they were providing services to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[jcgriff2]

Some of us are looking forward to an autonomous country filled with women in shorts and tank tops.

How old are they? :0

 

[SheWolf]

I haven’t really studied socialist, communist, or otherwise Marxist regimes, but we should pause to consider that the regimes that follow the revolutions tend to focus on the concentration of power and can themselves be vehicles of new or existing oppressions toward ethnicities. The Soviet Union, after all, was quite anti-Semitic and the Chinese Communist Party is currently creating concentration camps for its Muslim minorities.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I don't know much about Chinese Communism, NK, or Cuba. The USSR's leadership style seemed to vary on who was in charge. I believe the Soviets divided and conquered, and used racism at times. They also used class, and attacked "kulaks." However, they did not exploit historical racism like the Nazis nor act like genocide and ethnic cleansing would unify the people. When the Nazis invaded, the the people saw the treatment of Jews, the Soviet people were horrified. If a person organized a Nazi pogrom against Soviet Jews, he was horrible. If he were a kulak, even worse. The way the USSR went after the "kulaks" is an example of how they were more interested in the class.

I am curious, as a historian, there are a ton of Americans calling everything communism now. WTF is happening? :lol: Do you think it's the remnants of the red scare? It seems a lot of these people are around 50 and over. Is it a relic of American history? I hope the generation growing up doesn't act like this, Fiddy... I don't know what I will do... these people see communists everywhere

 

[TheGoverness]

Wow, Di, thank you.

X only puts the 'X' in Extravagant!

 

[X Factor]

X only puts the 'X' in Extravagant!

Awww, love ya too, Gov.

 

[Fiddytree]

I don't know much about Chinese Communism, NK, or Cuba. The USSR's leadership style seemed to vary on who was in charge. I believe the Soviets divided and conquered, and used racism at times. They also used class, and attacked "kulaks." However, they did not exploit historical racism like the Nazis nor act like genocide and ethnic cleansing would unify the people. When the Nazis invaded, the the people saw the treatment of Jews, the Soviet people were horrified. If a person organized a Nazi pogrom against Soviet Jews, he was horrible. If he were a kulak, even worse. The way the USSR went after the "kulaks" is an example of how they were more interested in the class.

I am curious, as a historian, there are a ton of Americans calling everything communism now. WTF is happening? :lol: Do you think it's the remnants of the red scare? It seems a lot of these people are around 50 and over. Is it a relic of American history? I hope the generation growing up doesn't act like this, Fiddy... I don't know what I will do... these people see communists everywhere

I’m an anti-Communist, but I’m also antagonistic toward populist movements, so my view may not be welcomed by multiple groups.

Yes, in many respects the rhetorical anti-communist flexes of the public are holdovers from various points of the Cold War. And yes, a lot of them are lacking sophistication and do not deal with the issues at hand, becoming a catch-all dismissal of what’s happening.

Nonetheless, there is a danger, long prevalent on the left and a unique risk now, that some may downplay the injustices perpetrated by communists and communist regimes. We should recognize and decry the consequences of Stalin’s purges, it’s genocide of the Ukraine, of the Soviet Union crushing dissent by any means necessary. It was not uncommon for American or other western lefties to downplay that phenomenon.

On top of that, there is a danger that the lack of personal touch to the Cold War will weaken the consensus that communist regimes were both disasters and injurious or oppressive to its populations.

That being said, this is no monolithic danger. There’s plenty of ardent left-wingers who do not play the fellow-traveler card of automatically defending those regimes (current or present) from accusations of wrongdoing. Plenty have been angered by what they witnessed about Hong Kong, plenty are incensed about North Korea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Metric Mouse]

Yet another statue of a Democrat being called to be removed. Good.

 

[Nap]

Or maybe he really is that way because he is in or from Seattle surrounded by the same type of people who think creating a police free area is a good idea. :lol:

Extremist begets extremist? Makes sense, but still seems a bit off. I would imagine that area would produce more of your Nazi skinhead types rather than religious zealots. If this were the deep south I could see it.

 

[Ringo Stalin]

Hans Christian Heg was colonel of the 15th Wisconsin Volunteer Regiment, who led his brigade at the Battle of Chickamauga and died there on 20 septermer 1863. Ironically, although Heg fought to end slavery and was an abolitionist, his statue was pulled down by "activists" on June 23, 2020 and rolled into nearby Lake Monona following the arrest of Black Lives Matter "activist' Yeshua Musa.

 

[Hypothetical]

The Confederate statues and the entire Lost Cause movement is about revisionist history, and that fact is totally lost on you

the confederate cause doesn't matter one bit. that was 150 years ago. there are no slaveowners in america. there are BARELY any white supremacists in this country.

there are at least 3 reasons NOT to tear ANY statues down:

1. as we have now seen it leads to them bringing other statues down that DO deserve to stand.
2. we lose artwork that gives us a window to the past, good or bad
3. we allow lawlessness to gain a foothold and it blossoms out

IF these statues should come down then it needs to be by a VOTE of locals or state authorities/citizens.

 

[Tangmo]

the confederate cause doesn't matter one bit. that was 150 years ago. there are no slaveowners in america. there are BARELY any white supremacists in this country.

there are at least 3 reasons NOT to tear ANY statues down:

1. as we have now seen it leads to them bringing other statues down that DO deserve to stand.
2. we lose artwork that gives us a window to the past, good or bad
3. we allow lawlessness to gain a foothold and it blossoms out

IF these statues should come down then it needs to be by a VOTE of locals or state authorities/citizens.

After that you can have a referendum on whether the Constitution should apply locally or in the state. Or maybe vote on 'em simultaneously. Y'know, equal protection of the laws, equal justice under law; all men are created equal and so on.

That would include of course whether treason should be unconstitutional as it has always been since the War of Independence. You could include in the vote whether people view R.E. Lee favorably or not, to include Jefferson Davis, Nathan Bedford Forrest, Stonewall Jackson and perhaps other racist traitors. Questions like that included in the local voting should bring out every redneck in the county.

Find out how certain people really feel and believe. It would be a must too that open carry of firearms laws would need to be modified so that there's no open carry within a mile or so of voting stations that are visible to voters, easily accessible, welcoming and free of all Confederate symbols and stuff in 'em or near 'em.

Voter ID would need to be reasonable and just, and provisional ballots would need to be available and readily accessible. Paper ballots only of course to include provisions for postal ballots for anyone out of town on the day, or the county or the country; to included citizens who might be limited in their physical mobility.

And of course, in the Red states the Republicans would be in charge of the whole of it and then some -- throughout the South especially.

 

[SheWolf]

I’m an anti-Communist, but I’m also antagonistic toward populist movements, so my view may not be welcomed by multiple groups.

Yes, in many respects the rhetorical anti-communist flexes of the public are holdovers from various points of the Cold War. And yes, a lot of them are lacking sophistication and do not deal with the issues at hand, becoming a catch-all dismissal of what’s happening.

Nonetheless, there is a danger, long prevalent on the left and a unique risk now, that some may downplay the injustices perpetrated by communists and communist regimes. We should recognize and decry the consequences of Stalin’s purges, it’s genocide of the Ukraine, of the Soviet Union crushing dissent by any means necessary. It was not uncommon for American or other western lefties to downplay that phenomenon.

On top of that, there is a danger that the lack of personal touch to the Cold War will weaken the consensus that communist regimes were both disasters and injurious or oppressive to its populations.

That being said, this is no monolithic danger. There’s plenty of ardent left-wingers who do not play the fellow-traveler card of automatically defending those regimes (current or present) from accusations of wrongdoing. Plenty have been angered by what they witnessed about Hong Kong, plenty are incensed about North Korea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I am anti Communist too btw, but these middle aged anti Communist Americans are not sophisticated as you point out. They don’t really understand Communist systems or Marxism. These newer regimes like China and NK have moved away from traditional Communism. NK is like a Communist Monarchy. China is opening their economy, and using high end technology to oppress people. Their social currency system is really brutal. Despite Communist regimes evolving, they are still deeply anti democratic and the antithesis of freedom and liberty.

I hope the coming American generations will be anti Communism and pro Democracy, and will be so on a more sophisticated and intellectual level.

As for Americans not knowing much about the brutal repressions of Stalin, I will probably offend some when I say this, but I don’t think many Americans are very knowledgeable in world history or the history outside of America. Americans seem to be keen on protecting their liberties and freedoms. It’s a stereotype of Americans all over the world, but I don’t personally think Americans understand the histories of human oppression nor the risks such movements can pose to America. It’s a area of human history very beneficial to study.

I hope the coming generations are actually informed. The mindless accusations of Marxist and Communist is not a good sign for the moment being.

 

[mrdeltoid]

I just said I wasn't frightened, but your post seemed to more than insinuate that when the black and brown people outnumber white people, the republic will be gone...or something to that effect.

Then allow me to clear that up for you. You posted " Marxist view of History and society has tended to lead to conflict between minorities and Marxists, because Marxists tend to dismiss the grievances and experiences of those folks and tell them to focus their attention on the class struggle instead. "
I was pointing out, that the BLM cofounders, being minorities themselves, didn't view class struggle and their struggle as black people in America as mutually exclusive. And if their goal of transforming the system into some form of Marxism comes to pass, by that time, Marxist's being dismissive of things like race and gender etc won't be an issue anyway, as they will no longer be a minority. Even if they fail, and our government remains the same as it is now, people of color will be a statistical majority in the near future. My theory is, BLM's main goal is to change our system of government to some type of Marxism. Anything else is secondary. Otherwise, why would the cofounders make it a point to say they are trained Marxists? Maybe they believe that the Marxist Utopia they envision would eliminate racism. I don't know. Anyway, it's JMHO.eace

 

[mrdeltoid]

I'm not the only one who knows the oath of office to the Constitution so I'm not the only one to know that ain't it.

Your version is a fragment of the enlisted oath and you omit entirely the officer oath; each oath is anyway to the Constitution, ie, the Law of the Land in contrast to any single individual of the government. No one in the USA is above the law of the land.

Your views on Black Lives Matter are your views and have nothing to do with any law, court ruling or the Constitution. Indeed, you guys of the American Armband Right like to expand on laws inside your own heads only. Your paragraph has nothing to do with anything in statutory law, case law, the Constitution.

So no matter how you slice it it's still baloney.

All of it.

The more desperate you guys get the more off the wall you guys get. That's because the worse Trump makes things the worse Trump gets with the worst of Trump yet to come. It's after then Americans can get some peace and order -- some calm after the storm.

So here's the entire oath: "I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Here's a little background on "Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic ".
"This phrase was added in 1862 as a direct result of the Civil War- specifically, to address the possibility of Union soldiers joining the Confederacy (most notably the forces commanded by Gen Robert E. Lee). That is, people who had previously sworn allegiance to the United States were now fighting against it.
Although people now have little concern about another civil war, our military must still prepare for all enemies and contingencies. The terrorist attack of 11 September 2001 caught many Americans off guard. The response to the launching of fighter escorts shows how the nation’s leadership faced the dilemma of flying combat air patrols over the United States (defending the Constitution) while trying to comply with current laws on posse comitatus (supporting the Constitution).26 Military officers cannot simply maintain the status quo- they must look toward the future, identify emerging trends, and develop capabilities to counter the entire range of threats. Apparently, our current capability to respond to and, more importantly, prevent a future asymmetric attack is inadequate. Officers must ensure that they address all enemies and not merely advocate servicecentric needs at the expense of national requirements. For example, we have long known about the shortage of intelligence from human sources that we need if we are to analyze the capability and intent of emerging nonstate actors; yet, the Air Force intends to purchase over 300 F-22 aircraft at a cost of $63 billion to replace existing fighters that can already counter the air forces of any major state actor for the foreseeable future.27 We must think hard about making improvements to an existing service strength instead of funding a known national shortfall.28 Our oath demands that we support and defend against all enemies- not just high-profile or high-profit threats. "

So there's the oath and the history of what we are speaking of. I may have been sworn into the corps 46 year's ago, but some things don't change. I don't know what kind of straw man argument you are trying to construct, but it doesn't change the fact that there is an armed movement atacking monuments, people, and buildings, and seizing property that doesn't belong to them. Citizens and cops have been killed in these riots. The democrat mayors and governors are allowing it. Even supporting it. It needs to be stopped. So far, there's no political will.... I wonder how many will have to die before there is?