FINAL UPDATE: So many Confederate monuments, place names and other tthings are disappearing or being toppled or otherise gotten rid of ttthat tthere is no way I can keep up with it. I am spending the whole day collecting documentation for my archives on stuff being taken down and will be working into this evening to get everything filed away.
There might have been a Confederate statue that wasn't spray painted, perhaps in some remote area, but it seems that most got a lot of spray paint.
Some statues have come down.
Here the United Daughters of the Confederacy removed this statue which was at a prominent public place.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/us/confederate-statue-alexandria-trnd/index.html
They might put it up on private property, but it doesn't have any real power as a private statue as opposed to a statue on public property. When it is on public property it is basically endorsed by the government. On private property it can still do work as a private shrine, so it isn't completely powerless.
On private property the cost of the maintainancce and keeping the statue falls on private individuals. This isn't just the statue itself and the pedestal. A path to the statue and gates and lawns and bushes have to be maintained. Trash has to be picked up. Governments with Confederate statues expend money on them in doing these functions.
It does happen that private groups raise funds for statues on public property such as restoration, but the fact that the statue is on public property gives the statue status making it easier to raise funds.
The neo-Confederates are aging and how much money they will have to maintain statues in the future.
In Birmingham, Alabama another statue wass removed last night or the night before.
https://www.al.com/news/2020/06/watch-live-birmingham-taking-down-confederate-monument.html
The State of Alabama is stating they will sue Birmingham. It will be interesting how this works out.
https://www.wvtm13.com/article/alabama-attorney-general-files-lawsuit-against-city-of-birmingham-after-removal-of-confederate-monument/32746959
The Republican Party will be identified with the Confederacy.
Another story about both statues.
https://apnews.com/810a6cb13ce6cdbde5b534661c5f2da6
I think that if the Democrats get elected, they won't be giving a free pass to Confederate monuments and symbols.
Recently the New York Times had an article about military bases named after Confederates.
They really couldn't care less up until 2015. Now they want the names changed. The centrist Democrats and neoliberals have decided that being anti-Confederate is part of a winning strategy.
Updated 6/3/2020
Athens, Georgia
https://www.redandblack.com/athensnews/mayor-orders-county-to-look-into-removing-confederate-monument-downtown-commissioners-speak-on-sunday-protest/article_1db335a0-a5a9-11ea-845e-bf003e49571c.html
Bentonville, Arkansas
https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/jun/01/confederate-monument-bentonville-square-be-moved/
Birmingham, Alabama
https://www.today.com/video/birmingham-mayor-discusses-decision-to-remove-confederate-monument-84290629554
Robert E. Lee statue taken down at Lee High School in Montgomery Alabama.
https://www.wsfa.com/2020/06/01/robert-e-lee-statue-taken-down-lee-high-school
Richmond, Virginia
https://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/northam-to-order-removal-of-richmonds-robert-e-lee-statue/article_311a23b3-fb8c-5d87-a0cb-ca564241b29a.html
Showing posts with label neoliberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neoliberals. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 02, 2020
Wednesday, May 09, 2018
Kanye West, Obama, Bill Clinton, slavery and selective neo-Liberal outrage
I review Breitbart routinely since I feel they represent White House ideology generally and also in monitoring Breitbart I get a fairly good idea of the Trump supporting right wing ideas and positions on issues relating to historical memory. I have discussed this before in this blog.
So recently I have been printing out all the Breitbart postings about the controversy surrounding Kanye West and West's statements regarding slavery. I initially wasn't thinking that much about it, but I noticed that there was a tremendous amount of condemnation of Kanye West but also, it was interesting that other pop cultural figures came to West's defense, such as Justin Bieber.
Something about the outrage over Kanye West got me thinking.
Former president Bill Clinton wrote three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The neoliberal press and the media that is just furious about Kanye West has never been interested. Democrats have given me all sorts of rationalizations over the years.
Hillary Clinton had her infamous "super predator" remarks some time back, but that doesn't seem to be a concern.
Then there was the 2009 letter sent to former president Barack Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument. Letters were later written asking Obama to put an end to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) handing out of neo-Confederate awards at the U.S. Military Academies. Additional letters were sent about the Arlington Confederate. Never got any response to any of the issues about neo-Confederate involvement in the federal government.
https://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/
In 2009, prior to Obama sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument the neoliberal press mounted an effort to sideline the issue and rationalize Obama sending the wreath. The Washington Post took a leadership role in this with the New York Times in a supporting role.
When Obama spoke at the Arlington Cemetery in 2009 what references that were made to the issue sounded like he was channeling former president Woodrow Wilson. At the end I was somewhat glad that Obama's speech didn't involve any history written with lightning. Democrats had all sorts of rationalizations for Obama and it was made really clear that the letter was not welcome. The persons who had supported the effort lost interest. Obama did send a wreath to the African American Civil War Museum in DC and that was supposed to make it okay and I was told, "Let's declare victory and move on."
Of course there was the Obama "Beer Summit" which occurred before cell phone cameras and social media had advanced such that police abuse and murder of African Americans was routinely captured on video and shared online in social media and new online media websites.
Regarding Confederate monument removal you read here and there in the neoliberal media that being active against Confederate monuments is supposedly falling into some trap that Trump is setting.
I am not seeing a lot of interested by the Democratic Party in the Black Lives Matter movement or discussion about Confederate monuments.
The operating policy of the Democratic Party is that African Americans have no place to go so if they don't like the Democratic Party policies they can lump it.
Meanwhile there a desperate searching for some magic formula to shake loose a few more white votes for the Democratic Party. Progressives are lectured in the neoliberal press to stop being concerned about Democratic candidates positions on issues, that the winning of elections is paramount.
So into this situation comes Kanye West openly admiring president Donald Trump and saying slavery was a choice. West's views and behavior suggests that African Americans do have the Republican Party as an alternative.
Kanye West is a major entertainment figure and has a substantial base of fans. On Twitter he has 28.2 million followers. (The story that he lost 10 million followers is incorrect, twitter had a glitch and when corrected there was no loss of 10 million followers.) This number of Twitter followers is after all the controversy over West and any supposed lost.
A short tweet, "free thinking is a super power," on May 8th, by West gets 5,100 comments, 46,000 retweets, and 180,000 hearts.
On Facebook there are various pages for him, with hundred or millions of likes. One page which is just a topic page has over 9 million likes. West currently has his Instagram account shut down, but the number of comments about Kanye West are over 5 million.
What is worrisome to the Democrats is that their program of civil rights is not very substantial and West might be validating to African Americans that African Americans should consider the Republican Party of Donald Trump.
David A. Love had an article in the Atlanta Black Star titled, "Should the Kanye West MAGA Debacle Remind Black People That It's Time to Hold Democrats and Liberals Accountable?"
http://atlantablackstar.com/2018/05/06/kanye-west-maga-debacle-remind-black-people-time-hold-democrats-liberals-accountable/
Nice sentiment, and good luck with that.
Chance the Rapper was chastised for a tweet in support of Kanye West but had this to say:
But also, I sense there is a little bit of panic. I don't think that the general public really cares about what the Washington Post or New York Times has to say on West. I don't think the neoliberal press will have that much affect on West's fan base.
I live in Oak Cliff section of Dallas, and I notice that there are a lot off African American male pants not pulled up. Maybe I should tell them that Obama says pull up their pants and see what the reaction is. I wonder what the response would be? (I am being sarcastic and ironic and in no way would I do that.)
In short the fan base of of Kanye West largely isn't going to care about the fulminations of the neoliberals. Justin Bieber realized his fan base doesn't care either and came out in support of Kanye West. I am not hearing a lot of condemnation from Hollywood figures either who I think realize that West does have a lot of fans who would not be sympathetic to such a condemnation of West.
Remember when the National Review put out an issued devoted to the single topic of condemning Donald Trump and it had no impact on politics? I think that is what might be happening here. Neoliberals go thunder your Bull against West.
Of course Kanye West career might be on the way out, but pop stars are like meteors. They flash across the sky and blaze in the heavens and vanish. I don't think his career is going to be that much impacted. What will happen to it will not be that impacted by this. In a month West might be focused on something else and the media will be on some other topic. West's career might go one way or another and these recent remarks will have little impact.
Basically I think that the reaction to Kanye West's statements is in some sectors of the press, selective outrage. Bill Clinton sends letters to the United Daughters of the Confederacy and bringing up the topic is dismissed with annoyance. Obama sends a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument and bring up that as a topic is dismissed with annoyance. Kanye West saying something about slavery being a choice, and all hell breaks loose.
I think the neoliberals see the Trump presidency as some type of inter period. The Blue Wave will come and if they can just keep the Progressives under control everything will be restored to the earlier status quo. Even better they will have sunk the Republicans and thus defeated the neoconservatives as competitors for establishment support.
However, I see the situation as fluid. One of the things that I was taught in ancient history is that when the Western Roman Empire fell it took a while for people to realize it was really over. The empire had lost provinces and restored itself many times before. Maybe the old political regime is gone forever. This doesn't necessarily mean that Trump is the future, but we are entering a new situation.
The Democratic narrative is that with time demographics will mean the doom of the Republican Party. Tomorrow belongs to them is the thinking. The Blue Wave is one idea of inevitable triumph. However, with Kanye West maybe some demographic groups are not locked up after all.
Labor market shows signs of tightening also. Articles talk about companies dropping drug testing for marijuana so they can find more workers, others about wage increases in fast food. Economics counts for a lot in elections and I don’t think the Democrats crediting it to the previous administration will have much effect.
Trumph has invited Colin Kaepernick to the White House. Would a Democratic president do such a thing? I doubt it. Obama invited police officers who had abused Louis Gates. Has Hillary Clinton met with Kaepernick? No. Nor is it likely that would ever happen. Yes, Trump uses the term “Bigly,” and neoliberals can be disdainful, but he did defeat both the Republican and the Democratic establishments with very little money or campaign apparatus. I think he has a type of cunning.
By the way here is another neoliberal lecture being given to Kaepernick for bringing up that the Democratic Party is missing in action about the issue of Black Lives Matter. Kaepernick crime was pointing out Clinton’s comments about “super predators.”
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/opinions/where-kaepernick-lost-me-cane/index.html
It seems that these lectures to African Americans are becoming a regular thing.
The Democratic Party is out of power, neither controlling either house of Congress or the presidency. The neoliberals in particular are out of power, and so they can't necessarily punish dissenters as they might. I think people are realizing that being scolded by the New York Times or the Washington Post isn't quite the thing it used to be.
The whole matter with Kanye West might be just a blip, or it might be the beginning of a trend of African Americans realizing that the Democratic Party doesn't really care that much about their rights. If it is a new trend, in five years it will be proclaimed as an obvious beginning of a new trend, by various pundits and historians, like those who would write for the Washington Post, but I don't really know. I do think that the neoliberals are afraid that it could be a trend, that the African American vote won't be locked up.
Remember the victory in Alabama over Roy Moore? It was due to the Democrats getting an extremely high percentage of the vote of African Americans men, 93%, and African Americans women, 98%, which gave a sort of nothing Democrat Doug Jones a small percentage win. Of course Roy Moore was a neo-Confederate lunatic and that helps.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-alabama-black-women-dahleen-glanton-20171213-story.html
If the percentages for Doug Jones by African American women had only been 95% against Roy Moore, an African American men 90%, Roy Moore well might be in the U.S. Senate today. Even a small loss of African American votes to the Republicans could have severe consequences to Democratic Party fortunes.
The Democrats have come to depend a lot on extremely high percentages of the African American vote falling their way. Of course it remains to be seen what Doug Jones' election means for African American women.
Well actually it doesn't. Read this article.
https://www.theroot.com/doug-jones-and-the-democratic-party-just-screwed-black-1823802570
That didn't take long.
What the Democrats should be concerned about is that low turnout for voting in the African American community is driven by the fact that voting for Democrats has had limited benefits for the African American community as pointed out by Chance the Rapper quoted above.
As for “choice,” the idea of slaves choosing suicide to avoid slavery goes way back in history. If I remember the accounts of ancient slavery in Pierre Dockes, “Medieval Slavery and Liberation,” Roman slave owners had punishments of throwing slaves into pits of moray eels or crucifixion because slaves were quite willing to commit suicide or get themselves killed to escape the brutal horror of ancient slavery and so death had to be really horrific to be a punishment.
There is in popular culture the whole idea of the captured African committing suicide rather than being a prisoner or slave. The character Killmonger does it in the movie Black Panther, Toni Morrison has a character who does it, in the movie Amistad there is a scene where a woman jumps overboard with a baby to prevent them from being enslaved.
What does this say about those who didn’t commit suicide. Those who survived and those from whom the present generation of African Americans are descended?
This is somewhat a modern and American historical problem. Slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil mostly meant being worked to death as did slavery in most places in most historical times. There sometimes weren't too many survivors. Slaves in mines just died and largely didn't have surviving generations.
The other issue is that race marks out African Americans as being descended from slaves. There were English slaves, villain is derived from the term villianage a type of bondage in early and medieval England. You can't tell among modern day English who was likely descended from slaves. Some of these ideas about choice have a consequence of potentially stigmatizing African Americans.
There are various classes of bound labor also, serfs, peons, etc. What are we saying about their survivors?
Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” He was a slave owner. In ancient history soldiers who were captured were enslaved as an alternative to death and this was part of pro-slavery ideology. Are there historical roots of pro-slavery ideology in the narrative of dying rather than be a slave?
I am not saying that one should live under any circumstances. The idea of suicide being a sin is a Christian and Western idea. Japanese and other cultures don’t have a horror of it. I don’t know what the many African cultures thought in the past or think in the present about suicide.
I think that this whole thing about slaves committing suicide hasn’t been thought through.
It could be that with 2016 the neo-liberals win the U.S. House and in 2018 the U.S. Senate and the White House, and we do live in an inter-period and neo-liberalism will be restored but I am not so sure that is the case.
I am not saying that the future will be where Trump or others like him continue in power either. It could be that politics will have a new structure and new contenders and new alliances and configurations. There won't be a restoration of the pre-Trump political world.
So recently I have been printing out all the Breitbart postings about the controversy surrounding Kanye West and West's statements regarding slavery. I initially wasn't thinking that much about it, but I noticed that there was a tremendous amount of condemnation of Kanye West but also, it was interesting that other pop cultural figures came to West's defense, such as Justin Bieber.
Something about the outrage over Kanye West got me thinking.
Former president Bill Clinton wrote three letters of congratulations to the United Daughters of the Confederacy. The neoliberal press and the media that is just furious about Kanye West has never been interested. Democrats have given me all sorts of rationalizations over the years.
Hillary Clinton had her infamous "super predator" remarks some time back, but that doesn't seem to be a concern.
Then there was the 2009 letter sent to former president Barack Obama asking him not to send a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument. Letters were later written asking Obama to put an end to the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC) handing out of neo-Confederate awards at the U.S. Military Academies. Additional letters were sent about the Arlington Confederate. Never got any response to any of the issues about neo-Confederate involvement in the federal government.
https://arlingtonconfederatemonument.blogspot.com/
In 2009, prior to Obama sending a wreath to the Arlington Confederate Monument the neoliberal press mounted an effort to sideline the issue and rationalize Obama sending the wreath. The Washington Post took a leadership role in this with the New York Times in a supporting role.
When Obama spoke at the Arlington Cemetery in 2009 what references that were made to the issue sounded like he was channeling former president Woodrow Wilson. At the end I was somewhat glad that Obama's speech didn't involve any history written with lightning. Democrats had all sorts of rationalizations for Obama and it was made really clear that the letter was not welcome. The persons who had supported the effort lost interest. Obama did send a wreath to the African American Civil War Museum in DC and that was supposed to make it okay and I was told, "Let's declare victory and move on."
Of course there was the Obama "Beer Summit" which occurred before cell phone cameras and social media had advanced such that police abuse and murder of African Americans was routinely captured on video and shared online in social media and new online media websites.
Regarding Confederate monument removal you read here and there in the neoliberal media that being active against Confederate monuments is supposedly falling into some trap that Trump is setting.
I am not seeing a lot of interested by the Democratic Party in the Black Lives Matter movement or discussion about Confederate monuments.
The operating policy of the Democratic Party is that African Americans have no place to go so if they don't like the Democratic Party policies they can lump it.
Meanwhile there a desperate searching for some magic formula to shake loose a few more white votes for the Democratic Party. Progressives are lectured in the neoliberal press to stop being concerned about Democratic candidates positions on issues, that the winning of elections is paramount.
So into this situation comes Kanye West openly admiring president Donald Trump and saying slavery was a choice. West's views and behavior suggests that African Americans do have the Republican Party as an alternative.
Kanye West is a major entertainment figure and has a substantial base of fans. On Twitter he has 28.2 million followers. (The story that he lost 10 million followers is incorrect, twitter had a glitch and when corrected there was no loss of 10 million followers.) This number of Twitter followers is after all the controversy over West and any supposed lost.
A short tweet, "free thinking is a super power," on May 8th, by West gets 5,100 comments, 46,000 retweets, and 180,000 hearts.
On Facebook there are various pages for him, with hundred or millions of likes. One page which is just a topic page has over 9 million likes. West currently has his Instagram account shut down, but the number of comments about Kanye West are over 5 million.
What is worrisome to the Democrats is that their program of civil rights is not very substantial and West might be validating to African Americans that African Americans should consider the Republican Party of Donald Trump.
David A. Love had an article in the Atlanta Black Star titled, "Should the Kanye West MAGA Debacle Remind Black People That It's Time to Hold Democrats and Liberals Accountable?"
http://atlantablackstar.com/2018/05/06/kanye-west-maga-debacle-remind-black-people-time-hold-democrats-liberals-accountable/
Nice sentiment, and good luck with that.
Chance the Rapper was chastised for a tweet in support of Kanye West but had this to say:
My statement about black folk not having to be democrats (though true) was a deflection from the real conversation and stemmed from a personal issue with the fact that Chicago has had generations of democratic officials with no investment or regard for black schools, neighborhoods, or black lives,” he said. “We have to talk honestly about what is happening and has been happening in this country and we have to challenge those who are responsible, as well as those who are giving them a pass,” the rapper concluded. “If that happens to include I love, someone who is my brother-in-Christ and someone who I believe does really want to do what is right, it’s not my job to defend or protect him. It’s my job [to] pick up the phone and talk to him about it.” (Taken from David A. Love's article.)It is not just leftists or political economists who are realizing that the Democrats policy on civil rights is the general idea that African Americans have nowhere to go and a Democratic candidate needs to search for a Sistah Souljah moment, or speak out and tell those African American men to pull up their pants to validate themselves with white voters.
But also, I sense there is a little bit of panic. I don't think that the general public really cares about what the Washington Post or New York Times has to say on West. I don't think the neoliberal press will have that much affect on West's fan base.
I live in Oak Cliff section of Dallas, and I notice that there are a lot off African American male pants not pulled up. Maybe I should tell them that Obama says pull up their pants and see what the reaction is. I wonder what the response would be? (I am being sarcastic and ironic and in no way would I do that.)
In short the fan base of of Kanye West largely isn't going to care about the fulminations of the neoliberals. Justin Bieber realized his fan base doesn't care either and came out in support of Kanye West. I am not hearing a lot of condemnation from Hollywood figures either who I think realize that West does have a lot of fans who would not be sympathetic to such a condemnation of West.
Remember when the National Review put out an issued devoted to the single topic of condemning Donald Trump and it had no impact on politics? I think that is what might be happening here. Neoliberals go thunder your Bull against West.
Of course Kanye West career might be on the way out, but pop stars are like meteors. They flash across the sky and blaze in the heavens and vanish. I don't think his career is going to be that much impacted. What will happen to it will not be that impacted by this. In a month West might be focused on something else and the media will be on some other topic. West's career might go one way or another and these recent remarks will have little impact.
Basically I think that the reaction to Kanye West's statements is in some sectors of the press, selective outrage. Bill Clinton sends letters to the United Daughters of the Confederacy and bringing up the topic is dismissed with annoyance. Obama sends a wreath to the Arlington Confederate monument and bring up that as a topic is dismissed with annoyance. Kanye West saying something about slavery being a choice, and all hell breaks loose.
I think the neoliberals see the Trump presidency as some type of inter period. The Blue Wave will come and if they can just keep the Progressives under control everything will be restored to the earlier status quo. Even better they will have sunk the Republicans and thus defeated the neoconservatives as competitors for establishment support.
However, I see the situation as fluid. One of the things that I was taught in ancient history is that when the Western Roman Empire fell it took a while for people to realize it was really over. The empire had lost provinces and restored itself many times before. Maybe the old political regime is gone forever. This doesn't necessarily mean that Trump is the future, but we are entering a new situation.
The Democratic narrative is that with time demographics will mean the doom of the Republican Party. Tomorrow belongs to them is the thinking. The Blue Wave is one idea of inevitable triumph. However, with Kanye West maybe some demographic groups are not locked up after all.
Labor market shows signs of tightening also. Articles talk about companies dropping drug testing for marijuana so they can find more workers, others about wage increases in fast food. Economics counts for a lot in elections and I don’t think the Democrats crediting it to the previous administration will have much effect.
Trumph has invited Colin Kaepernick to the White House. Would a Democratic president do such a thing? I doubt it. Obama invited police officers who had abused Louis Gates. Has Hillary Clinton met with Kaepernick? No. Nor is it likely that would ever happen. Yes, Trump uses the term “Bigly,” and neoliberals can be disdainful, but he did defeat both the Republican and the Democratic establishments with very little money or campaign apparatus. I think he has a type of cunning.
By the way here is another neoliberal lecture being given to Kaepernick for bringing up that the Democratic Party is missing in action about the issue of Black Lives Matter. Kaepernick crime was pointing out Clinton’s comments about “super predators.”
https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/opinions/where-kaepernick-lost-me-cane/index.html
It seems that these lectures to African Americans are becoming a regular thing.
The Democratic Party is out of power, neither controlling either house of Congress or the presidency. The neoliberals in particular are out of power, and so they can't necessarily punish dissenters as they might. I think people are realizing that being scolded by the New York Times or the Washington Post isn't quite the thing it used to be.
The whole matter with Kanye West might be just a blip, or it might be the beginning of a trend of African Americans realizing that the Democratic Party doesn't really care that much about their rights. If it is a new trend, in five years it will be proclaimed as an obvious beginning of a new trend, by various pundits and historians, like those who would write for the Washington Post, but I don't really know. I do think that the neoliberals are afraid that it could be a trend, that the African American vote won't be locked up.
Remember the victory in Alabama over Roy Moore? It was due to the Democrats getting an extremely high percentage of the vote of African Americans men, 93%, and African Americans women, 98%, which gave a sort of nothing Democrat Doug Jones a small percentage win. Of course Roy Moore was a neo-Confederate lunatic and that helps.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-alabama-black-women-dahleen-glanton-20171213-story.html
If the percentages for Doug Jones by African American women had only been 95% against Roy Moore, an African American men 90%, Roy Moore well might be in the U.S. Senate today. Even a small loss of African American votes to the Republicans could have severe consequences to Democratic Party fortunes.
The Democrats have come to depend a lot on extremely high percentages of the African American vote falling their way. Of course it remains to be seen what Doug Jones' election means for African American women.
Well actually it doesn't. Read this article.
https://www.theroot.com/doug-jones-and-the-democratic-party-just-screwed-black-1823802570
That didn't take long.
What the Democrats should be concerned about is that low turnout for voting in the African American community is driven by the fact that voting for Democrats has had limited benefits for the African American community as pointed out by Chance the Rapper quoted above.
As for “choice,” the idea of slaves choosing suicide to avoid slavery goes way back in history. If I remember the accounts of ancient slavery in Pierre Dockes, “Medieval Slavery and Liberation,” Roman slave owners had punishments of throwing slaves into pits of moray eels or crucifixion because slaves were quite willing to commit suicide or get themselves killed to escape the brutal horror of ancient slavery and so death had to be really horrific to be a punishment.
There is in popular culture the whole idea of the captured African committing suicide rather than being a prisoner or slave. The character Killmonger does it in the movie Black Panther, Toni Morrison has a character who does it, in the movie Amistad there is a scene where a woman jumps overboard with a baby to prevent them from being enslaved.
What does this say about those who didn’t commit suicide. Those who survived and those from whom the present generation of African Americans are descended?
This is somewhat a modern and American historical problem. Slavery in the Caribbean and Brazil mostly meant being worked to death as did slavery in most places in most historical times. There sometimes weren't too many survivors. Slaves in mines just died and largely didn't have surviving generations.
The other issue is that race marks out African Americans as being descended from slaves. There were English slaves, villain is derived from the term villianage a type of bondage in early and medieval England. You can't tell among modern day English who was likely descended from slaves. Some of these ideas about choice have a consequence of potentially stigmatizing African Americans.
There are various classes of bound labor also, serfs, peons, etc. What are we saying about their survivors?
Patrick Henry said, “Give me liberty or give me death.” He was a slave owner. In ancient history soldiers who were captured were enslaved as an alternative to death and this was part of pro-slavery ideology. Are there historical roots of pro-slavery ideology in the narrative of dying rather than be a slave?
I am not saying that one should live under any circumstances. The idea of suicide being a sin is a Christian and Western idea. Japanese and other cultures don’t have a horror of it. I don’t know what the many African cultures thought in the past or think in the present about suicide.
I think that this whole thing about slaves committing suicide hasn’t been thought through.
It could be that with 2016 the neo-liberals win the U.S. House and in 2018 the U.S. Senate and the White House, and we do live in an inter-period and neo-liberalism will be restored but I am not so sure that is the case.
I am not saying that the future will be where Trump or others like him continue in power either. It could be that politics will have a new structure and new contenders and new alliances and configurations. There won't be a restoration of the pre-Trump political world.
Tuesday, September 19, 2017
Excellent article from "The Baffler" about the effort to dump civil rights by Mark Lilla
Mark Lilla has written a book in which he says the Democratic Party should reject what he calls "identitarian politics." Which means dropping the issues of race and civil rights.
This is the link to the article.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/mark-lillas-comfort-zone
The Baffler has an excellent article on this and shows the historical background to this thinking. The author Kimberle' Williams Crenshaw shows its origins going back to Reconstruction.
This critique of identity politics is not new. Indeed, it can be traced to the repudiation of Reconstruction itself. The lethal critiques trained against the shortlived Freedmen’s Bureau and congressional efforts to create a national commitment to eliminate widespread discrimination against former slaves sought to discredit and dismantle equality projects by framing them as dangerous pandering and insidious favoritism. It was, in effect, a critique of identity politics, with the Supreme Court intoning that black men should relinquish the status of special victims and stop making a federal case out of every slight they might encounter. Being told to live lives like everyone else while barely emerging from a status that was not like everyone else was a tough-love repudiation of a reform-oriented identity politics. Of course, the politics that underwrote white supremacy were as untamable as ever, but these were not the conceits of identity that troubled the ruling elite nor its white clients.
The Centrist Democrats and neo-Liberals are frantic over Trump winning the 2016 election. Rather than critique themselves, they are looking at who they can throw overboard to win the next elections. They reason I think that racial minorities and gays have nowhere to go, and they can depend on minority members of the Democratic Party to make rationalizations to justify voting for Democrats in elections even though the neo-Liberals are proposing to drop civil rights.
This argument to drop identity politics of course includes dropping the issues of Confederate monuments and flags.
What doesn't occur to the Democrats is that they themselves might be dropped by large section of the public. The Democrats don't control either house of congress nor the white house nor many of the state houses. They are not in power largely as a result of their own strategies. The current situation is fluid. They still think they will dictate the future.
What also needs to be observed is that various establishment Democrats in urban centers have attempted to do some type of rationalization for Confederate monuments. It hasn't worked well. The core locations of Democratic Party strength are rejecting Confederate monuments everywhere.
Mark Lilla and his supporters need to be dump and not racial justice if we are to progress on removing Confederate monuments.
The Baffler has some wickedly delicious send ups of various elites' reasoning. It is very intelligently written. It is one of the few magazines I subscribe to in print.
This is the link to the article.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/mark-lillas-comfort-zone
The Baffler has an excellent article on this and shows the historical background to this thinking. The author Kimberle' Williams Crenshaw shows its origins going back to Reconstruction.
This critique of identity politics is not new. Indeed, it can be traced to the repudiation of Reconstruction itself. The lethal critiques trained against the shortlived Freedmen’s Bureau and congressional efforts to create a national commitment to eliminate widespread discrimination against former slaves sought to discredit and dismantle equality projects by framing them as dangerous pandering and insidious favoritism. It was, in effect, a critique of identity politics, with the Supreme Court intoning that black men should relinquish the status of special victims and stop making a federal case out of every slight they might encounter. Being told to live lives like everyone else while barely emerging from a status that was not like everyone else was a tough-love repudiation of a reform-oriented identity politics. Of course, the politics that underwrote white supremacy were as untamable as ever, but these were not the conceits of identity that troubled the ruling elite nor its white clients.
The Centrist Democrats and neo-Liberals are frantic over Trump winning the 2016 election. Rather than critique themselves, they are looking at who they can throw overboard to win the next elections. They reason I think that racial minorities and gays have nowhere to go, and they can depend on minority members of the Democratic Party to make rationalizations to justify voting for Democrats in elections even though the neo-Liberals are proposing to drop civil rights.
This argument to drop identity politics of course includes dropping the issues of Confederate monuments and flags.
What doesn't occur to the Democrats is that they themselves might be dropped by large section of the public. The Democrats don't control either house of congress nor the white house nor many of the state houses. They are not in power largely as a result of their own strategies. The current situation is fluid. They still think they will dictate the future.
What also needs to be observed is that various establishment Democrats in urban centers have attempted to do some type of rationalization for Confederate monuments. It hasn't worked well. The core locations of Democratic Party strength are rejecting Confederate monuments everywhere.
Mark Lilla and his supporters need to be dump and not racial justice if we are to progress on removing Confederate monuments.
The Baffler has some wickedly delicious send ups of various elites' reasoning. It is very intelligently written. It is one of the few magazines I subscribe to in print.
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Where are we now and is there an emerging counter revolution on Confederate statues
When a movement is at flood tide it is easy for the people in that movement to believe that their forces are irresistible and that they will sweep away all opposition. History shows that this is very often not true. The opposition is thinking and strategizing. They are testing methods and refining them or changing them if they don't work.
Suddenly an effective opposition emerges or effective tactics and the movement which seemed irresistible now is stalled.
So where are we now?
Seven things are working in favor of the monuments being removed.
1. They are located in center cities which aren't very Republican, have high minority populations, and are more populated by liberals and leftists. The poll for the nation or a state or even the local metropolitan area may be in favor of keeping the statue, but in the center city the polls are very likely to be against the Confederate monument.
An counter strategy might be to put a monument on private land, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) have put flags on private plots of land. However, this strategy has limitations. It does show that there is an opposition and an opposition large enough to afford the land and flag pole. However, it isn't on public land and so it doesn't have the cultural authority of a monument on public land.
Further, being a private plot of land and flagpole, the maintenance cost falls on the individuals or group behind the plot of land. Something they have to keep up over decades. Monuments on public land usually are kept up by the local municipal government or they get donors since they are on public land.
2. As monuments go down elsewhere the cities with remaining monuments will look aberrant. The monument will be references as an indicator of what type of town the city is. Corporations will note the monuments when considering locations of a factory or business unit. They will be concerned about recruiting employees to live there and realize that Confederate monuments will be a negative. Competing towns and cities which have removed their monuments will make reference to the Confederate monument in the city.
I have been amazed that Confederate things that only a few specialists like me and the neo-Confederates know about have been removed. What remains will really stick out.
3. Trump has come out for Confederate monuments which has provoked a reaction of many people to suddenly care much more about the issue and be willing to take actions against the monuments. For some people if Trump is for something they are against it. Others were against Confederate monuments but now it is on the top or near top of their agenda. Some people started to think about the issue and now care about removing Confederate monuments.
More importantly a lot of people who might otherwise chatter about rationalizations to keep the monuments are keeping quiet. Trump has discredited for many the arguments they might make.
4. There is an ongoing shift in peoples attitudes to be increasingly against the Confederacy. The high school American history textbooks are still terrible, but they aren't believed. There have been movies giving a more accurate history of the American past.
The percentage of people who grew up with segregated schools is declining. Fewer and fewer people support the Confederacy. The Civil War Round Table population is aging out.
So when there are incidents, like the Charleston Massacre or the murder of Heather Heyer, there is a sudden burst of activity. A lot of people who have rejected the Confederacy already and for them when there is some event they have just had it and they want the Confederate stuff to go.
It was just a few years ago, people who were against neo-Confederacy would tell me solemnly that they couldn't make comparisons to the Nazis. Now it is mainstream. People discuss how the Germans process the historical memory of the Third Reich. They compare honoring the Confederates to honoring other horrific people in history. The climate has really changed and is changing.
5. Finally for the residents in a lot of cities the failure to remove Confederate monuments will be a big revelation about what city they live in and who the city leaders really are. Residents will ask why does their city still has Confederate monuments when so many others have removed them. This would be a question that some city leaders don't want to make and a revelation about their city and themselves that they don't want residents to make. A mayor who is against the removal of a Confederate monument is just not going to be take seriously when he or she has some pronouncement about Martin Luther King day or has a statement to make in the case of a police shooting of an African American.
6. Politicians who have greater ambitions then elected city office will have to consider how having the retention of a Confederate monument on their resume will impact their political futures.
7. Various scholars and others have folded on this issue, like Kevin Levin. Preservation societies, local historical associations have to consider if they want to have defending Confederate statues as part of their history when they so often go to city hall to appeal for one thing or another.
However, there is an opposition.
Right Wing:
The right wing press is defending the monuments. Breitbart in particular is reporting every incident of excess. There have been calls to remove other monuments that aren't Confederate and this is being reported as an inevitable consequence of Confederate monument removal. It is an appeal to white racial fear.
Donald Trump is in favor of the Confederate monuments thus mobilizing his base in favor of Confederate monuments. He is also the president of the United States which has its advantages.
There is an organized neo-Confederate movement. Many African American conservatives are speaking out to retain monuments. Though this strategy doesn't seem to be that important. This strategy was brilliantly satirized in this hilarious YouTube Video, "Buy Confederate Flags From a Black Guy."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is7SeH-gkHM
I think the right wing opposition will actually fuel more action against Confederate monuments. States with Republican Party majorities will have to wonder whether they want to be the party of the Confederacy. I am sure that in Alabama the Republican legislature has some regrets.
Neo-Confederates:
They aren't that relevant anymore. There aren't many that are going to be persuaded by arguments for the Confederate monuments because the Confederacy was a good thing.
I think that there will be people dropping out of the groups since they don't want to be explaining to their relatives, fellow club members, fellow church members or co-workers why they are members. They will quit if they aren't purged first.
Centrist Democrats:
The centrist Democrats, aka neo-Liberals are I think a serious factor to consider. I have an earlier blog posting with links to articles where they argue against a campaign against Confederate statues because it is falling into a trap that Trump is setting.
What the real reason they are against it is that they want to get more white voters in the next election. This is part of a campaign among many in the Democratic Party who are saying that "identity politics" needs to be de-emphasized which can be translated as, "let's drop civil rights from the Democratic Party agenda."
I haven't heard anything from Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton on the issue.
However, what the centrist Democrats can do is limited. They have lost both houses of Congress and lost the presidency to Donald Trump. They have no power in government and they have lost a lot of credibility with Democrats and the general public. Their politics have led to Donald Trump being in the White House. They have limited ability to control the agenda.
The centrists run the risk that by waffling on Confederate statues or effectively opposing any real action against Confederate statues they will be further revealed as a group that stands for nothing but re-election and fudging on the issues.
Richmond mayor Levar Stoney and Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer are probably now regretting their respective courses of action. They will have eventually to have the monuments taken down, but they will get no credit for it since initially they opposed removal, but they will anger all the supporters of the Confederate monuments.
However, I think that there will be cases where individuals, organizational leaders, and some elected officials will use centrist Democratic arguments to not take action. It will act as a drag in the effort to remove Confederate monuments.
Left:
There are exceptions, like Mother Jones which is covering the movement to remove statues, but a lot of the left publications aren't giving this issue much attention. However, they will continue to drift into irrelevancy and it isn't much of a concern.
OVERALL:
I think at some point the movement to remove Confederate monuments will slow down. One reason is that the monuments that can be easily removed will be removed. The monuments that remain will be in rural areas and small cities where the opposition to Confederate monuments is limited and the support for them is strong. Though in those cases the chamber of commerce will be concerned about their city's image and wish they could just go away.
The centrist Democrats are mobilizing on this issue and more generally on a campaign against "identity politics" which means dump civil rights. Their reasoning is that minorities have no place to go so lets not do much on civil rights. However, I think that there are probably a lot of Democrats who aren't ready to sign up for this. Long term demographics argue against it.
However, I don't think any fraction of the establishment can put a break on this issue. Independent groups, both for and against Confederate monuments, are going to be taking actions on their own which will continue to put the issue before the public. Trump and the conservative media will then comment on this issue. Centrist Democrats will find themselves looking like centrist Democrats. Other Democrats will decide that they don't want to look like centrist Democrats.
This issue of Confederate monument removal after the initial easy removals will then become an issue of protracted struggles over the monuments that remain in cities where the support for monument removal isn't so strong. These struggles will keep it in the news. Right wing media and Donald Trump will keep it in the news.
The struggle will then result in the removal of monuments, one city at a time. After awhile it cities will decide that they don't want the constant agitation and decided that they need to go.
I think that after 2018 we will find it an ongoing struggle. It will require a developed strategy and a focused effort.
However, by the end of the next 12 months there will have been removed a great many Confederate monuments and those remaining will appear to be aberrant, an indicator of backwardness. Many residents in those cities will find them a painful reminder of what type of city they live in.
Also, at that time there should be a campaign about churches hosting neo-Confederate groups, the U.S. military working with neo-Confederate groups, and American history textbooks which pander to neo-Confederate groups. These campaigns will be synergistic with the campaigns to remove Confederate monuments and likely necessary for the success of campaigns to remove Confederate monuments.
Suddenly an effective opposition emerges or effective tactics and the movement which seemed irresistible now is stalled.
So where are we now?
Seven things are working in favor of the monuments being removed.
1. They are located in center cities which aren't very Republican, have high minority populations, and are more populated by liberals and leftists. The poll for the nation or a state or even the local metropolitan area may be in favor of keeping the statue, but in the center city the polls are very likely to be against the Confederate monument.
An counter strategy might be to put a monument on private land, and the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) have put flags on private plots of land. However, this strategy has limitations. It does show that there is an opposition and an opposition large enough to afford the land and flag pole. However, it isn't on public land and so it doesn't have the cultural authority of a monument on public land.
Further, being a private plot of land and flagpole, the maintenance cost falls on the individuals or group behind the plot of land. Something they have to keep up over decades. Monuments on public land usually are kept up by the local municipal government or they get donors since they are on public land.
2. As monuments go down elsewhere the cities with remaining monuments will look aberrant. The monument will be references as an indicator of what type of town the city is. Corporations will note the monuments when considering locations of a factory or business unit. They will be concerned about recruiting employees to live there and realize that Confederate monuments will be a negative. Competing towns and cities which have removed their monuments will make reference to the Confederate monument in the city.
I have been amazed that Confederate things that only a few specialists like me and the neo-Confederates know about have been removed. What remains will really stick out.
3. Trump has come out for Confederate monuments which has provoked a reaction of many people to suddenly care much more about the issue and be willing to take actions against the monuments. For some people if Trump is for something they are against it. Others were against Confederate monuments but now it is on the top or near top of their agenda. Some people started to think about the issue and now care about removing Confederate monuments.
More importantly a lot of people who might otherwise chatter about rationalizations to keep the monuments are keeping quiet. Trump has discredited for many the arguments they might make.
4. There is an ongoing shift in peoples attitudes to be increasingly against the Confederacy. The high school American history textbooks are still terrible, but they aren't believed. There have been movies giving a more accurate history of the American past.
The percentage of people who grew up with segregated schools is declining. Fewer and fewer people support the Confederacy. The Civil War Round Table population is aging out.
So when there are incidents, like the Charleston Massacre or the murder of Heather Heyer, there is a sudden burst of activity. A lot of people who have rejected the Confederacy already and for them when there is some event they have just had it and they want the Confederate stuff to go.
It was just a few years ago, people who were against neo-Confederacy would tell me solemnly that they couldn't make comparisons to the Nazis. Now it is mainstream. People discuss how the Germans process the historical memory of the Third Reich. They compare honoring the Confederates to honoring other horrific people in history. The climate has really changed and is changing.
5. Finally for the residents in a lot of cities the failure to remove Confederate monuments will be a big revelation about what city they live in and who the city leaders really are. Residents will ask why does their city still has Confederate monuments when so many others have removed them. This would be a question that some city leaders don't want to make and a revelation about their city and themselves that they don't want residents to make. A mayor who is against the removal of a Confederate monument is just not going to be take seriously when he or she has some pronouncement about Martin Luther King day or has a statement to make in the case of a police shooting of an African American.
6. Politicians who have greater ambitions then elected city office will have to consider how having the retention of a Confederate monument on their resume will impact their political futures.
7. Various scholars and others have folded on this issue, like Kevin Levin. Preservation societies, local historical associations have to consider if they want to have defending Confederate statues as part of their history when they so often go to city hall to appeal for one thing or another.
However, there is an opposition.
Right Wing:
The right wing press is defending the monuments. Breitbart in particular is reporting every incident of excess. There have been calls to remove other monuments that aren't Confederate and this is being reported as an inevitable consequence of Confederate monument removal. It is an appeal to white racial fear.
Donald Trump is in favor of the Confederate monuments thus mobilizing his base in favor of Confederate monuments. He is also the president of the United States which has its advantages.
There is an organized neo-Confederate movement. Many African American conservatives are speaking out to retain monuments. Though this strategy doesn't seem to be that important. This strategy was brilliantly satirized in this hilarious YouTube Video, "Buy Confederate Flags From a Black Guy."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is7SeH-gkHM
I think the right wing opposition will actually fuel more action against Confederate monuments. States with Republican Party majorities will have to wonder whether they want to be the party of the Confederacy. I am sure that in Alabama the Republican legislature has some regrets.
Neo-Confederates:
They aren't that relevant anymore. There aren't many that are going to be persuaded by arguments for the Confederate monuments because the Confederacy was a good thing.
I think that there will be people dropping out of the groups since they don't want to be explaining to their relatives, fellow club members, fellow church members or co-workers why they are members. They will quit if they aren't purged first.
Centrist Democrats:
The centrist Democrats, aka neo-Liberals are I think a serious factor to consider. I have an earlier blog posting with links to articles where they argue against a campaign against Confederate statues because it is falling into a trap that Trump is setting.
What the real reason they are against it is that they want to get more white voters in the next election. This is part of a campaign among many in the Democratic Party who are saying that "identity politics" needs to be de-emphasized which can be translated as, "let's drop civil rights from the Democratic Party agenda."
I haven't heard anything from Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton on the issue.
However, what the centrist Democrats can do is limited. They have lost both houses of Congress and lost the presidency to Donald Trump. They have no power in government and they have lost a lot of credibility with Democrats and the general public. Their politics have led to Donald Trump being in the White House. They have limited ability to control the agenda.
The centrists run the risk that by waffling on Confederate statues or effectively opposing any real action against Confederate statues they will be further revealed as a group that stands for nothing but re-election and fudging on the issues.
Richmond mayor Levar Stoney and Charlottesville mayor Michael Signer are probably now regretting their respective courses of action. They will have eventually to have the monuments taken down, but they will get no credit for it since initially they opposed removal, but they will anger all the supporters of the Confederate monuments.
However, I think that there will be cases where individuals, organizational leaders, and some elected officials will use centrist Democratic arguments to not take action. It will act as a drag in the effort to remove Confederate monuments.
Left:
There are exceptions, like Mother Jones which is covering the movement to remove statues, but a lot of the left publications aren't giving this issue much attention. However, they will continue to drift into irrelevancy and it isn't much of a concern.
OVERALL:
I think at some point the movement to remove Confederate monuments will slow down. One reason is that the monuments that can be easily removed will be removed. The monuments that remain will be in rural areas and small cities where the opposition to Confederate monuments is limited and the support for them is strong. Though in those cases the chamber of commerce will be concerned about their city's image and wish they could just go away.
The centrist Democrats are mobilizing on this issue and more generally on a campaign against "identity politics" which means dump civil rights. Their reasoning is that minorities have no place to go so lets not do much on civil rights. However, I think that there are probably a lot of Democrats who aren't ready to sign up for this. Long term demographics argue against it.
However, I don't think any fraction of the establishment can put a break on this issue. Independent groups, both for and against Confederate monuments, are going to be taking actions on their own which will continue to put the issue before the public. Trump and the conservative media will then comment on this issue. Centrist Democrats will find themselves looking like centrist Democrats. Other Democrats will decide that they don't want to look like centrist Democrats.
This issue of Confederate monument removal after the initial easy removals will then become an issue of protracted struggles over the monuments that remain in cities where the support for monument removal isn't so strong. These struggles will keep it in the news. Right wing media and Donald Trump will keep it in the news.
The struggle will then result in the removal of monuments, one city at a time. After awhile it cities will decide that they don't want the constant agitation and decided that they need to go.
I think that after 2018 we will find it an ongoing struggle. It will require a developed strategy and a focused effort.
However, by the end of the next 12 months there will have been removed a great many Confederate monuments and those remaining will appear to be aberrant, an indicator of backwardness. Many residents in those cities will find them a painful reminder of what type of city they live in.
Also, at that time there should be a campaign about churches hosting neo-Confederate groups, the U.S. military working with neo-Confederate groups, and American history textbooks which pander to neo-Confederate groups. These campaigns will be synergistic with the campaigns to remove Confederate monuments and likely necessary for the success of campaigns to remove Confederate monuments.
Thursday, August 24, 2017
The Centrist Democratic Counter Revolution Arises to Retain Confederate monuments, Update: More articles.
I have been wondering where the Counter Revolution to retain Confederate monuments would come from. Pres. Donald Trump has come to the defense of Confederate monuments, but since the monuments are located in the center cities of urban areas this can be more an incentive for them to come down.
When there is a social revolution there can be the illusion that the social revolution is unstoppable. Often the forces of social revolution are surprised when the counter revolution arises and is unprepared.
The movement to remove Confederate monuments is not unstoppable and the counter revolution has shown up. It is being lead by the centrist Democrats.
This article first showed up on Slate, the news website of the centrist Democrats.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/18/trump_impeachment_chances_confederate_statue_edition.html
The title is "Are Democrats Making a Mistake by Fixating on Confederate Statues?" I don't think the Democrats are "fixating" on Confederate statues. The author, Ben Mathis-Lilley is with the title trying to stigmatize Democratic concern over Confederate monuments by using the term "fixating."
Mathis-Lilley's thinking is driven by polls and wants Democrats to focus on Trump's support for white nationalism and avoid the topic of the Confederate monuments.
Then there is this column reported in the S.F. Chronicle and then reported by Breitbart.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Trump-lays-a-trap-and-Pelosi-walks-into-it-11943839.php
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/08/21/ex-sf-mayor-willie-brown-nancy-pelosi-dems-fell-for-trumps-identity-politics-trap/
Now we have a prominent African American Democrat saying we shouldn't go after Confederate monuments. It is supposed to be a clever trap laid by Trump. The Republicans have their Walter Williams, it seems centrist Democrats have Willie Brown.
Now Dershowitz is comparing liberals who want to take down statues to Stalinists.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/08/22/dershowitz-liberals-stalin-statue-issue/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Or course Breitbart wants this generally known.
I don't know why Dershowitz is called a liberal.
These articles give a rational for many liberal/left individuals to oppose efforts to remove Confederate monuments on the basis that they want to fight white nationalism but not fall into a trap or be a Stalinist. The reality is that these individuals are banal white nationalists unwilling to give up a white landscape.
I would think Democrats would learn from a policy of having candidates always triangulate their positions and filter their principles through five focus groups from the results of recent elections.
UPDATE:
As more articles like this appear I will put them in this update.
Article quoting a Democratic centrist warning that the anti-Confederate statue campaign will undermine the Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/monuments-confederacy-remove-rename.html?platform=hootsuite&mtrref=t.co
A quote from the article.
Another article from Politico titled, "Charlottesville fallout divides Democrats." The lead for the story is, "The party is wrestling with how much to focus on Confederate statues, or racially tinged issues at all." That is some are wanting to dump civil rights from the agenda.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/29/charlottesville-democrats-race-confederate-statues-242109
UPDATE:
This is a valuable article to show a larger context for this centrist neoliberal counter effort in the Democratic Party. This one of the few magazines I subscribe to.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/mark-lillas-comfort-zone
When there is a social revolution there can be the illusion that the social revolution is unstoppable. Often the forces of social revolution are surprised when the counter revolution arises and is unprepared.
The movement to remove Confederate monuments is not unstoppable and the counter revolution has shown up. It is being lead by the centrist Democrats.
This article first showed up on Slate, the news website of the centrist Democrats.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/18/trump_impeachment_chances_confederate_statue_edition.html
The title is "Are Democrats Making a Mistake by Fixating on Confederate Statues?" I don't think the Democrats are "fixating" on Confederate statues. The author, Ben Mathis-Lilley is with the title trying to stigmatize Democratic concern over Confederate monuments by using the term "fixating."
Mathis-Lilley's thinking is driven by polls and wants Democrats to focus on Trump's support for white nationalism and avoid the topic of the Confederate monuments.
Then there is this column reported in the S.F. Chronicle and then reported by Breitbart.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/williesworld/article/Trump-lays-a-trap-and-Pelosi-walks-into-it-11943839.php
http://www.breitbart.com/california/2017/08/21/ex-sf-mayor-willie-brown-nancy-pelosi-dems-fell-for-trumps-identity-politics-trap/
Now we have a prominent African American Democrat saying we shouldn't go after Confederate monuments. It is supposed to be a clever trap laid by Trump. The Republicans have their Walter Williams, it seems centrist Democrats have Willie Brown.
Now Dershowitz is comparing liberals who want to take down statues to Stalinists.
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/08/22/dershowitz-liberals-stalin-statue-issue/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Or course Breitbart wants this generally known.
I don't know why Dershowitz is called a liberal.
These articles give a rational for many liberal/left individuals to oppose efforts to remove Confederate monuments on the basis that they want to fight white nationalism but not fall into a trap or be a Stalinist. The reality is that these individuals are banal white nationalists unwilling to give up a white landscape.
I would think Democrats would learn from a policy of having candidates always triangulate their positions and filter their principles through five focus groups from the results of recent elections.
UPDATE:
As more articles like this appear I will put them in this update.
Article quoting a Democratic centrist warning that the anti-Confederate statue campaign will undermine the Democrats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/us/monuments-confederacy-remove-rename.html?platform=hootsuite&mtrref=t.co
A quote from the article.
Paul Begala, the Democratic strategist, said his party was “driving straight into a trap Trump has set,” because the president seeks to shift the focus away from comments he made about white supremacists to his charge that opponents are trying to “take away our history.”
“While I understand the pain those monuments cause,” said Mr. Begala, who was an adviser to President Bill Clinton, “I just think it in some ways dishonors the debate to allow Trump to hijack it.”
Begala's last statement just doesn't make sense.Another article from Politico titled, "Charlottesville fallout divides Democrats." The lead for the story is, "The party is wrestling with how much to focus on Confederate statues, or racially tinged issues at all." That is some are wanting to dump civil rights from the agenda.
http://www.politico.com/story/2017/08/29/charlottesville-democrats-race-confederate-statues-242109
UPDATE:
This is a valuable article to show a larger context for this centrist neoliberal counter effort in the Democratic Party. This one of the few magazines I subscribe to.
https://thebaffler.com/latest/mark-lillas-comfort-zone
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
