Political Correctness

[TenEightyOne]

The conclusion is that, after noting the fact that 86% of the population of the UK are White according to the last census: so what?

My post was that in the context of grooming children (especially in being involved in grooming gangs), Asians (read: Pakistani/Bangladeshi) are over-represented no matter the study.

In the context of abusing them the 86% of the white population provide 95% of the fondlage... so?

I'm seeing from the opposing posts that ethnic background is entirely superflous when talking about crime and was wondering if that is the case when it comes to medicine too

Yes, I bet you were.

 

[Danoff]

They are ethnic groups.

So that's a "no" then. So tell me exactly what you mean when you say "ethnic group". What is an ethnic group?

I was using the term "punished" as a follow on from the example of Champion, who was punished by the Labour party (see earlier posts).

So then you're asking me if I think that someone should be asked to resign for saying that "black people" (presumably this means people with certain genes?) are more susceptible to a disease than "white people". Well, it would have to do with whether that statement and the science behind it was well posed. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. Especially if there is some link between skin pigmentation genes and vulnerability to coronavirus. That's entirely possible.

But... it's a pretty big stretch to say that linking skin pigmentation to coronavirus susceptibility is the same as linking nationality (or especially nationality of one's ancestors) to violent tendencies. Especially violent tendencies toward people of a particular skin color. Where's the "science" in that? Where's the link between something you can inherit and your predisposition to rape someone of a particular skin color?

 

[HenrySwanson]

In the context of abusing them the 86% of the white population provide 95% of the fondlage... so?

Gonna need a source for that as I can't find stats to back that up - from my source the conclusion reached was:

There isn’t much publicly available information on this. The data we do have shows a large majority of those convicted of sexual offences (no matter the age of the victim) are white.

This is based on:

Naz Shah’s office pointed us towards several newspaper articles written by Nazir Afzal, former Chief Crown Prosecutor for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), as the source of her statement that nearly 90% of people convicted of child abuse offences were white men. Mr Afzal had said that between 80% and 95% of offenders were white males.


We contacted the CPS who provided us with the information they publish on defendants in child sex abuse cases. 98% of defendants were male in 2015/16, but no information about the ethnicity of the defendants was published. We then submitted a freedom of information request to the CPS asking for information on the ethnicity of defendants prosecuted in child sex abuse cases.

It provided us with data on the number of defendants prosecuted for sex offences in cases flagged as relating to child abuse in 2015/16. It also included the ethnicity of those defendants.


Of the 6,200 or so defendants in these prosecutions, 67% were white, 4% were Asian, 3% were black, 1% were mixed race and 1% were other. For 24% of defendant’s there was no information on their ethnicity. Of all these prosecutions, around three quarters resulted in a conviction.


The information on defendant’s ethnicity came from information given by the defendants to police, the CPS told us that “It follows that there may be errors or omissions at local levels”.


There are other figures published by the government on those found guilty of offences against children, but these aren’t as recent. Almost 85% of offenders found guilty of sexual activity with a minor in England and Wales in 2011 were white. 3% were black and 4% were Asian and the rest were either listed as ‘other’ or unknown.


But these figures don’t tell us everything about sexual offences committed against children. For example, if someone is found guilty of raping a child under the age of 16, this will appear in the figures under ‘rape’ rather than ‘sexual activity with a minor’.

Where offenders’ ethnicity was known, 81% of people convicted of sexual offences in 2014 were white, 7% were black and 9% were Asian in 2014. These proportions were similar over the previous four years. The government told us it doesn’t regularly publish information on the ethnicity of those found guilty of sexual offences so there is no more recent information.

Bear in mind that Champion (and I) were talking about grooming gangs, and in terms of those involved in grooming children:

Studies on those involved in grooming children do suggest that a disproportionate number of offenders are categorised as being of Asian ethnicity. The proportion of offenders or suspected offenders varies from study to study, but was anywhere from 27% to 75% in the studies we looked at.

Yes, I bet you were.

I'll answer that in response to Danoff below.

So that's a "no" then. So tell me exactly what you mean when you say "ethnic group". What is an ethnic group?

I think the wiki definition is sufficient.

I don't think anyone is arguing that she was forced to resign because she said British Pakistanis are a race rather than ethnic group.

So then you're asking me if I think that someone should be asked to resign for saying that "black people" (presumably this means people with certain genes?) are more susceptible to a disease than "white people". Well, it would have to do with whether that statement and the science behind it was well posed. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't. Especially if there is some link between skin pigmentation genes and vulnerability to coronavirus. That's entirely possible.

But an ethnic group is so much more than genes. Many factors go into making up an ethnic group's identity, and who knows which of these are relevant to susceptibility to disease or any other outcome in life. For all we know coronavirus may be more deadly to people who eat ackee and saltfish regularly and that's the main reason for a discrepancy in death statistics between the black British Carribbean population to others - it doesn't matter because that's a distinctive part of that particular ethnic group and we've reported on the disproportionate make-up of that group in deaths.

We note the ethnicity when reporting on all sorts of things:

- Governmental representation
- Representation in the arts
- Sports
- Jobs
- Medicine
- Education

What we do with that information determines if we should be punished, as we can look at ways to positively affect change (e.g. different treatments in medicine, more outreach programs from universities etc) or we can make bad faith arguments. Champion never made such an argument - instead she highlighted that we do have a problem with majority Pakistani men in grooming gangs. Why should crime and ethnicity be taboo?

Is it wrong to say the world has a problem with Catholic paedophile priests? How about white mass shooters?

Targeted approaches to tackle crime also rely on recognising patterns. Would an anti-terrorism team be more or less effective if they targeted British Hindus more than white extremists/Muslim extremists? How about an anti-gang taskforce targeting British Chinese/Japanese kids rather than focussing on British Caribbean kids

But... it's a pretty big stretch to say that linking skin pigmentation to coronavirus susceptibility is the same as linking nationality (or especially nationality of one's ancestors) to violent tendencies. Especially violent tendencies toward people of a particular skin color. Where's the "science" in that? Where's the link between something you can inherit and your predisposition to rape someone of a particular skin color?

See above.

At no point did she say that they were predisposed to rape, rather that there was a problem with members from that community.

 

[HenrySwanson]

So I'm looking at the America thread and reading the posts on the Arbery shooting and....

What the goose?

How has the general sentiment deviated so far from that expressed in this thread. Suddenly it's ok to report on the ethnicities involved in the crime, moreso we can say it's racially motivated?!

Erm....

Why the acceptance of saying one crime is racially motivated but reserving the opprobrium for someone only highlighting the ethnicity of the offenders of multiple crimes - crimes in which the perpetrators were found to have said actual racially disparaging remarks.

Is it so hard to say that we had racist ****holes in both instances?

 

[UKMikey]

^That's a ...unique way of looking at things.

The difference is that with the rape cases you have the motive that they were evil sexual predators exercising their power as males over underage minors. Take away the race element and you have exactly the same thing.

With the Arbery case, take away the race element and you have two people deciding to go out and shoot a jogger because... erm... he was jogging?

I'm arguing that racism was not the primary motivator in the first case (otherwise, wouldn't all racists be sexual predators?) but that it was overwhelmingly the motive in the Arbery case. To conflate the two is to diminish the monstrousness of the second crime in my opinion. I'm not sure how else it could be reported than as a racist murder.

 

[Danoff]

I think the wiki definition is sufficient.

I don't think anyone is arguing that she was forced to resign because she said British Pakistanis are a race rather than ethnic group.

I was asking you what you mean so that you could see what a nebulous concept it is. You missed the exercise, which is to try to clearly establish what you're talking about.

But an ethnic group is so much more than genes.

I see, so you can belong to an ethnic group without the necessary genetics? Or perhaps you can not belong to an ethnic group despite having the requisite ancestry simply because you don't have the right frame of mind?

For all we know coronavirus may be more deadly to people who eat ackee and saltfish regularly and that's the main reason for a discrepancy in death statistics between the black British Carribbean population to others - it doesn't matter because that's a distinctive part of that particular ethnic group and we've reported on the disproportionate make-up of that group in deaths.

Then we should be trying to find that main reason rather than reporting on and hyping the superficial elements that aren't the actual cause. If it's particular food consumption, then reporting on skin color is not helpful.

We note the ethnicity when reporting on all sorts of things:

- Governmental representation
- Representation in the arts
- Sports
- Jobs
- Medicine
- Education

...and to what end? Is it helping?

What we do with that information

determines if we should be punished, as we can look at ways to positively affect change (e.g. different treatments in medicine, more outreach programs from universities etc) or we can make bad faith arguments. Champion never made such an argument - instead she highlighted that we do have a problem with majority Pakistani men in grooming gangs. Why should crime and ethnicity be taboo?

Because it should be clear that ethnicity (and race) is not causal of criminal behavior.

Is it wrong to say the world has a problem with Catholic paedophile priests? How about white mass shooters?

Catholic is an ethnicity now?

Is White also an ethnicity? White mass shooters is a good example to pick on here. Do we think there is something about skin color that leads to mass shooting? Obviously, at least I think this is obvious, skin color is a superficial element to mass shooting, and there is (hopefully) some other underlying link. We have no underlying scientific theory which links mass shooting to skin pigmentation, and so pointing out any correlations should stay strictly limited to that and no transgress into a discussion of causation. Until there is some kind of scientific theory behind it, we should treat it at most as interesting statistical data, and be careful not to move any farther than that.

Targeted approaches to tackle crime also rely on recognising patterns. Would an anti-terrorism team be more or less effective if they targeted British Hindus more than white extremists/Muslim extremists? How about an anti-gang taskforce targeting British Chinese/Japanese kids rather than focussing on British Caribbean kids

As far as I know, Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist is not an ethnicity or a race. It is, however, a doctrine that promotes terrorism. Do you see the significance here? There is a theory that lines up with statistical data. The statistical data is that Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists are big players in terrorist acts. And the theory that supports that statistical correlation is that the doctrine actually encourages and promotes those acts. That's causation.

At no point did she say that they were predisposed to rape, rather that there was a problem with members from that community.

Now it's a community and not an ethnicity. I don't know of any theory tying Pakistani ancestry with rape. There's something else.

 

[HenrySwanson]

^That's a ...unique way of looking at things.

The difference is that with the rape cases you have the motive that they were evil sexual predators exercising their power as males over underage minors. Take away the race element and you have exactly the same thing.

With the Arbery case, take away the race element and you have two people deciding to go out and shoot a jogger because... erm... he was jogging?

I'm arguing that racism was not the primary motivator in the first case (otherwise, wouldn't all racists be sexual predators?) but that it was overwhelmingly the motive in the Arbery case. To conflate the two is to diminish the monstrousness of the second crime in my opinion. I'm not sure how else it could be reported than as a racist murder.

OK....let's start with the Arbery case:

1) Arbery, who is black, ran into a house under construction, something which he had done before sometimes at night. On this occasion someone called 911 (NOT the McMichaels)
2) Gregory McMichael (both McMichaels are white) said Arbery looked like a guy suspected of break-ins and called to his son so they could pursue him (there was only one burglary report to the police during this time, and it was for a gun stolen from Travis McMichael's truck. There were, however, calls made to 911 and posts put on the neighborhood Facebook page. Arbery did have a record for bringing a gun to a football game and shoplifting, and Gregory McMichael had been involved in a prosecution against him, although we don't know what it was for).
3) The McMichaels shouted to Arbery that they "wanted to talk to him" while brandishing weapons
4) The McMichaels say that Arbery started attacking Travis McMichael, who had a shotgun, and that they shot him amidst the struggle. There is video evidence of the shooting available.

Now we'll look at the grooming gang offences in the UK:

1) Multiple gangs are found throughout England with Pakistani/Bengalis as the main perpetrators who target vulnerable children.

Some of the Rotherham grooming gang (over 1400 victims):

Huddersfield gang:

2) Victims are overwhelmingly white, working class girls (usually in care) and describe being called "white trash", "white ****" and kaffirs
3) One victim says that her main perpetrator quoted the Quran while beating her

-----

Now to me, I don't know how you can say Arbery is a monstrous case of racism while the other one isn't. Frankly you're showing me how political correctness takes a hold of the discourse and how it, through trickle down effects sets a narrative.

Please note I'm not saying racism was the primary factor in either case - though I believe it very likely played a part in both. I'm more interested, however, in why punishment was appropriate in one case for someone not even arguing a racist motive but just highlighting the problem we have in the UK of majority Pakistani grooming gangs.

I was asking you what you mean so that you could see what a nebulous concept it is. You missed the exercise, which is to try to clearly establish what you're talking about.

I think ethnic grouping is not so nebulous a concept so that the majority of us cannot identify as being a member of a group.

Then we should be trying to find that main reason rather than reporting on and hyping the superficial elements that aren't the actual cause. If it's particular food consumption, then reporting on skin color is not helpful.

That's the thing. It is helpful because we've identified a group that is more susceptible. We just don't know what part of that groups characteristics makes them so.

...and to what end? Is it helping?

I like to think so.

For instance I don't believe in affirmative action but I believe in concentrating resources where it will be beneficial. So, rather than lowering the boundaries for entry because of a race quota I'd be happy with increased expenditure in areas that will create a more equal society.

Catholic is an ethnicity now?

Is White also an ethnicity? White mass shooters is a good example to pick on here. Do we think there is something about skin color that leads to mass shooting? Obviously, at least I think this is obvious, skin color is a superficial element to mass shooting, and there is (hopefully) some other underlying link. We have no underlying scientific theory which links mass shooting to skin pigmentation, and so pointing out any correlations should stay strictly limited to that and no transgress into a discussion of causation. Until there is some kind of scientific theory behind it, we should treat it at most as interesting statistical data, and be careful not to move any farther than that.

Skin colour may be superficial, but what if we can recognise something deeper in that group.

There are sometimes potentially useful facts to be gleaned based on separating people into ethnic groups. Taking the analysis of child groomers as an example:

It found that of around 300 offenders whose ethnicity was provided and who were part of groups targeting children based on their vulnerability (rather than because they had a specific sexual interest in children), 75% had been categorised as Asian and 17% as white, 5% were listed as black and 3% as Arab. Of the groups who did target children based on a sexual interest in them (fewer than 20 people studied) all were white.

Now we see that motives may possibly differ according to ethnicity.

As far as I know, Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorist is not an ethnicity or a race. It is, however, a doctrine that promotes terrorism. Do you see the significance here? There is a theory that lines up with statistical data. The statistical data is that Fundamentalist Islamic Terrorists are big players in terrorist acts. And the theory that supports that statistical correlation is that the doctrine actually encourages and promotes those acts. That's causation.

And why can't that be the case with ethnic groups, considering that they aren't limited to genetics

Now it's a community and not an ethnicity. I don't know of any theory tying Pakistani ancestry with rape. There's something else.

As I said before, culture is a big part of ethnicity.

 

[UKMikey]

The McMichaels should have you as their lawyer. Of course they're innocent and Arbery deserved it. ‍

If someone was pointing a shotgun at me I'd want to defend myself.

Love the way you are mixing up religion and race as if they're the same thing btw.

 

[MatskiMonk]

OK....let's start with the Arbery case:

1) Arbery, who is black, ran into a house under construction, something which he had done before sometimes at night. On this occasion someone called 911 (NOT the McMichaels)
2) Gregory McMichael (both McMichaels are white) said Arbery looked like a guy suspected of break-ins and called to his son so they could pursue him (there was only one burglary report to the police during this time, and it was for a gun stolen from Travis McMichael's truck. There were, however, calls made to 911 and posts put on the neighborhood Facebook page. Arbery did have a record for bringing a gun to a football game and shoplifting, and Gregory McMichael had been involved in a prosecution against him, although we don't know what it was for).
3) The McMichaels shouted to Arbery that they "wanted to talk to him" while brandishing weapons
4) The McMichaels say that Arbery started attacking Travis McMichael, who had a shotgun, and that they shot him amidst the struggle. There is video evidence of the shooting available.

Now we'll look at the grooming gang offences in the UK:

1) Multiple gangs are found throughout England with Pakistani/Bengalis as the main perpetrators who target vulnerable children.

Some of the Rotherham grooming gang (over 1400 victims):

Huddersfield gang:

2) Victims are overwhelmingly white, working class girls (usually in care) and describe being called "white trash", "white ****" and kaffirs
3) One victim says that her main perpetrator quoted the Quran while beating her

-----

Now to me, I don't know how you can say Arbery is a monstrous case of racism while the other one isn't. Frankly you're showing me how political correctness takes a hold of the discourse and how it, through trickle down effects sets a narrative.

Please note I'm not saying racism was the primary factor in either case - though I believe it very likely played a part in both. I'm more interested, however, in why punishment was appropriate in one case for someone not even arguing a racist motive but just highlighting the problem we have in the UK of majority Pakistani grooming gangs.


I think ethnic grouping is not so nebulous a concept so that the majority of us cannot identify as being a member of a group.


That's the thing. It is helpful because we've identified a group that is more susceptible. We just don't know what part of that groups characteristics makes them so.


I like to think so.

For instance I don't believe in affirmative action but I believe in concentrating resources where it will be beneficial. So, rather than lowering the boundaries for entry because of a race quota I'd be happy with increased expenditure in areas that will create a more equal society.


Skin colour may be superficial, but what if we can recognise something deeper in that group.

There are sometimes potentially useful facts to be gleaned based on separating people into ethnic groups. Taking the analysis of child groomers as an example:

It found that of around 300 offenders whose ethnicity was provided and who were part of groups targeting children based on their vulnerability (rather than because they had a specific sexual interest in children), 75% had been categorised as Asian and 17% as white, 5% were listed as black and 3% as Arab. Of the groups who did target children based on a sexual interest in them (fewer than 20 people studied) all were white.

Now we see that motives may possibly differ according to ethnicity.


And why can't that be the case with ethnic groups, considering that they aren't limited to genetics


As I said before, culture is a big part of ethnicity.

HOLY ******* ****.

MEN are Evil, aren't they.

 

[HenrySwanson]

The McMichaels should have you as their lawyer. Of course they're innocent and Arbery deserved it. ‍

If someone was pointing a shotgun at me I'd want to defend myself.

He didn't deserve it - I'm just showing you the facts and why the GBI decided they should be charged with murder and aggravated assault. Some may argue that since Gregory McMichael was involved in law enforcement in the past this should work in their favour, BUT you have to consider that he lost his power of arrest in 2006 after failing to complete sufficient basic law enforcement training when making such an assumption.

Love the way you are mixing up religion and race as if they're the same thing btw

I don't think I've conflated the two. In fact I believe it is people agitating to make discriminating against Muslims an offence who are more likely to class it as "rooted in racism"

The bigger connection between the grooming gang perpetrators was their religion and not their ethnicity, but that's largely irrelevant to the discussion anyhow.

For the purposes of this thread, I want to know why one person was punished for highlighting a particular criminal problem that is more prevalent in certain ethnicities and how this compared to how we treat people who cry racism when reporting on other crimes.

HOLY ******* ****.

MEN are Evil, aren't they.

With regards to (at least) violent crime and especially sexual assault, yes they can be.

 

[Danoff]

Please note I'm not saying racism was the primary factor in either case - though I believe it very likely played a part in both.

Could be, and I agree that you have a point here where it's not politically correct to call out racism when exhibited by non-white people.

I think ethnic grouping is not so nebulous a concept so that the majority of us cannot identify as being a member of a group.

I'm not even sure what an ethnic group is anymore, so I can't identify as being part of one. Is American an ethnic group? Is Atheist? Is White? None of those necessarily strike me as ethnic groups, but your own comments suggest that perhaps any of them are.

That's the thing. It is helpful because we've identified a group that is more susceptible. We just don't know what part of that groups characteristics makes them so.

You're clearly still not understanding statistics, and so you continue to misapply them. Let's say that a large number of pirates go blind. We spot this in the data and we say "it's clear that there is a correlation between being a pirate and being blind". But we don't know what part of the group's (pirate) characteristics make them blind. So we theorize that perhaps stealing is causing blindness (it's a sin afterall, like masturbation). This leads people to say that stealing anything makes you blind. Or even masturbating, since stealing is a sin, and masturbating is too, and we know that stealing makes you blind, therefore so will masturbation. Or perhaps we theorize that perhaps it is the food that they eat, or the exposure of the eyes to salt air.

All we know is, pirates are statistically more likely to be blind.

Then eventually someone digs further into the data and finds that there are pockets of southern pirates that are not going blind. So we theorize that perhaps the northern pirates are going blind because of the combination of food and cold. Or because of a particular plague that was occurring in the north. Or because southern pirates tended to wear less clothing.

All we know is, stealing in northern latitudes makes you blind. That group is more "susceptible" to blindness. There is something inherent in that group, perhaps genetics, perhaps upbringing, that makes them go blind.

And someone digs into the data a bit more and finds a correlation with socioeconomic status.

The pocket of southern pirates that isn't going blind is more well off. So again we start theorizing about why this might be. Perhaps they can afford better food, or they're just smarter, and blindness occurs in dumb people. And on and on with the speculation.

Eventually someone realizes it's because they can afford accurate pocketwatches and don't need to rely on a sextant.

Ooooooooohhhhhh.

Actually it has nothing to do with piracy, or northern latitudes, or even socio-economic status. All of that stuff was caused by something else... by looking at the sun to determine longitude. It turns out that it affects everyone, pirates and non-pirates included. Rich and poor. North and South. It's just that one group, a group which is not more "susceptible" to anything at all, is using a tool that is making them go blind. It has nothing to do with biology, sin, food, clothing, none of it.

So you can see how identifying a group where something is occurring does not tell about the causality of the behavior.

I like to think so.

I know.

It found that of around 300 offenders whose ethnicity was provided and who were part of groups targeting children based on their vulnerability (rather than because they had a specific sexual interest in children), 75% had been categorised as Asian and 17% as white, 5% were listed as black and 3% as Arab. Of the groups who did target children based on a sexual interest in them (fewer than 20 people studied) all were white.

Now we see that motives may possibly differ according to ethnicity.

No. You see correlation, not causation. It's not piracy that's causing blindness.

And why can't that be the case with ethnic groups, considering that they aren't limited to genetics

As I said before, culture is a big part of ethnicity.

"Culture" is another huge nebulous word. But if you're looking for a specific teaching, stick to that instead of generalizing that someone of a particular "ethnic background" which you're using a substitute for race, will be predisposed to a particular teaching. Find the actual problem. Not the distraction. Piracy is not causing blindness.

 

[Danoff]

So mine is an inaccurate prediction? If you're going to continually re-evaluate their existence then you're going to have to be consistent and judge their past lives by standards of the current age. Is it not reasonable to assume that a lot of statues will be removed?


You honestly don't understand why the case for removing a statue of Churchill is clear?
You honestly don't understand why the case for removing a statue of Gandhi is clear?

I'll ask again, what does your quote add other than that he wants to teach Churchill's past in schools - which has nothing to do with my original point


But you misinterpreted that part of the conclusion:

Religious belief as a whole (comprising of many different religions) isn't linked to peace (when using GPI metrics).

That doesn't mean you can conclude that one religion isn't linked to peace (see the biased coin example). The cherry picking accusation is also unfounded.

And what I was saying in that thread is no different to when I say Christianity is a more homophobic religion than others and yet I'm not accused of targeting Christians.

Why?

I'm judging you on what you said/did 30+ years ago based on societal norms of the present day.


Why should Churchill be safe this time around?


Yes I'll have those memories. But we've (potentially) destroyed the chance for thousands/millions of future students to have them.


I've always said that.... If you remember the sentence after saying he was safe from the commission:

"Will we need to re-review all statues all over again in 2040 once we have more "enlightened" views on racists and their roles in government?"

implying that he isn't safe from removal in the future.

It an assumption presented without evidence. That which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Should, for example, the statue of Kimmy Saville have remained up in Scotland? NO public debate was carried out around that, no due process was followed for its removal


I've already answered that twice and you have already ignored it twice.


Then head back to that thread to be proven wrong again.


Utter and complete nonsense.

What exactly did the statue of Colston teach people about him?

Ditto any statue at all, all a statue teaches people is that at some point this person was deemed worthy of being looked up to, you really think a slave-trader is worth looking up to? (and school children in Bristol were taken to throw flowers at the statue, without any way of knowing about his full past).

Statues honour, museums and books teach, and no one has advocated removing either of those.

Let's give it a go, without a reverse image look-up or any googling, tell me what this statue teaches you, it can be found in Central Park.

View attachment 929707

I think that some general discussion of statue removal ties into an overall view of political correctness. I agree with the sentiments that statues are not history, and removing them does not remove (or even attempt to remove) history. I also want to mention that statues are not always erected for noble purposes - to teach, to enlighten, to provide context... sometimes they're erected to intimidate, to threaten, to defy... A lot of civil war statues were erected for those purposes.

I also agree with the sentiment that we should not be tearing down wonderful works of art that salute the great life achievements of people who were imperfect. We're not going to find perfect people that align exactly with our modern state of mind when we look back across centuries. But we can still recognize great achievements and symbolize them.

Ok so now that I've thrown in my 2 cents. What should we do about stone mountain georgia:

 

[polysmut]

Ok so now that I've thrown in my 2 cents. What should we do about stone mountain georgia:

I have no idea who it represents but as a piece of art, even just for the scale and ambition of the work (I'm guessing it's massive by comparing to the trees), I'm pleased to have seen even just a picture of it.

 

[Danoff]

I have no idea who it represents but as a piece of art, even just for the scale and ambition of the work (I'm guessing it's massive by comparing to the trees), I'm pleased to have seen even just a picture of it.

Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson. The top 3 heroes of the confederacy.

 

[ryzno]

Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson. The top 3 heroes of the confederacy.

I say leave it alone. I use to live about 20 minutes from there. My friend and I would run up and down it Mon, Wed, Fri. every week back when I worked out.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm really not up to speed with the American civil war, but I recall the controversy around the Dukes of Hazzard's use of the Confederate flag.

Genuine question, is it really as simple as Confederate = Slavery? I know that was a factor, but was it the only one? Was there not support for leaving the union anyway? Is the Confederacy not considered also as an ideology for independent control?

 

[Liquid]

Was there not support for leaving the union anyway? Is the Confederacy not considered also as an ideology for independent control?

Most of that is the so-called Lost Cause myth about "tradition" and "southern values". It started becoming popular in the 1890s (after Reconstruction was over and "Northern" federal troops were removed) and reached its zenith with the second, most infamous and influential incarnation of the KKK around the time of World War One. It's negationist, revisionist history and, somewhat uncommonly, a history written by the loser rather than the victor.

Films such as Birth Of A Nation, a piece of brilliant epic film making for its time (1915), helped to perpetuate this myth. Such was its prevalence that D W Griffith, the head honcho behind the film, claimed ignorance to its factual inaccuracy.

Here's a typical rebuttal to it today:

Person A: The Confederacy was about states' rights.
Person B: States' rights to do what?
Person A: Uhh...

It's a basic broad stroke but not even wholly inaccurate.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Genuine question, is it really as simple as Confederate = Slavery? I know that was a factor, but was it the only one? Was there not support for leaving the union anyway? Is the Confederacy not considered also as an ideology for independent control?

Here's an old post from yours truly that summarises the articles of secession forwarded by the Confederate states.

 

[MatskiMonk]

It's a basic broad stroke but not even wholly inaccurate.

Fair enough.

I certainly don't know enough to make a case either way. It makes sense, but at the same time the (terrible) Dukes of Hazzard film was the first time I was aware there was any racial connotations to the use of the confederate flag.. sounds ignorant I know, but then it's not like we get taught U.S. history here.

I found myself genuinely questioning if the focus on the slavery aspect is a more modern interpretation of events, since to me it had never been anything more than the South versus the North, and to this day I hear Americans joke about certain states desiring independence (usually Texas)... I've previously taken it to be just a question of independence in the same was vein as Northern Ireland or Scotland here, rather than the suggestion of racism.

With no clue about how American politics worked at that time, I would have assumed that the secession would have to have been publicly, democratically supported, and therefore the motivations would surely have been wider than just the slavery issue, in the same way as people state different reasons for wanting Brexit, for example (I can assume they're all racist, but the fact is some peoples motivations were in other areas).

I'll reiterate, this isn't my position on it, just a summary of assumptions previously made.

Here's an old post from yours truly that summarises the articles of secession forwarded by the Confederate states.

Yeah, I mean, that makes those states position pretty clear on the matter, but, were they part of a larger discussion, or was that really it?

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, I mean, that makes those states position pretty clear on the matter, but, were they part of a larger discussion, or was that really it?

They tried to make it about more than that, but when it came down to it that was the reason. The confederacy adopted its own constitution, which is almost the exact same as the US constitution except for essentially a single change.... you guessed it.... enshrining slavery.

https://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/1378#:~:text=The Confederate Constitution was adopted,protected slavery as an institution.

In fact, the next biggest change was to ban importing new slaves, which was a way of entrenching fortunes of existing slaveholders.

Basically nothing else was touched. The US government was fine except for that issue.

There's a more detailed list of the changes here (which I'll admit is more than I thought they had done):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_Constitution

If you check out the states rights section you will be unimpressed at the changes they felt they needed to make.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Basically nothing else was touched. The US government was fine except for that issue.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Danoff]

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

The reason you were wondering is because the south did (and still does) make a lot of puffery about this particular point. Arguing that the war was over "northern aggression" and "states' rights" and that they felt that the US was deeply broken (this is known as the "anything but slavery" defense). In reality, they did very little to make their government different. You'd expect broad sweeping changes about how states interact within the Union. You might expect almost no centralized government at all from the amount of bluster they made. They seceded from the union so that states could make their own contracts regarding common waterways? I don't think so.

Edit:

Heh... here's a nice nugget in the analysis part of that wiki page.

According to an 1861 speech delivered by Alabama politician Robert Hardy Smith, the State of Alabama declared its secession from the U.S. in order to preserve and perpetuate the practice of slavery, the debate over which he referred to as the "Negro quarrel". In the speech, Smith praised the Confederate constitution for its un-euphemistic and succinct protections of the right to own "Negro" slaves:

We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.

— Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861.[46][47][48]

 

[MatskiMonk]

If you check out the states rights section you will be unimpressed at the changes they felt they needed to make.

It wouldn't be surprising to me if additional amendments were made in order to protect the existence of the Confederacy, but I certainly take the point that it was an attempt to protect the ownership and use of slaves.

The reason you were wondering is because the south did (and still does) make a lot of puffery about this particular point.

I live in white, working/middle class England. I'm not sure it's so much the bluster made of other supposed motivations, as much as a simple lack of context. My knowledge of the American civil war comes from a couple of games I played on the C64 and Amiga 500 when I was about 12, and I don't recall ever getting the impression of good guys and bad guys, just of opposing sides.

In light of this conversation, I'll admit I'm still on the fence when it comes to things like that rock carving in Georgia.

 

[Danoff]

I live in white, working/middle class England. I'm not sure it's so much the bluster made of other supposed motivations, as much as a simple lack of context. My knowledge of the American civil war comes from a couple of games I played on the C64 and Amiga 500 when I was about 12, and I don't recall ever getting the impression of good guys and bad guys, just of opposing sides.

In light of this conversation, I'll admit I'm still on the fence when it comes to things like that rock carving in Georgia.

It's kinda part of the ethos around the confederacy. It would be hard to learn about the US civil war at all without hearing some of the redirect to "anything but slavery". I just assume that anyone who knows of the confederacy at all knows something about how righteous they attempted to make their cause.

During and since the civil war, there has been a lot of romanticizing of the confederacy. So while it's clear from a historical perspective that secession was over the issue of slavery, the person who made that rock carving in 1972 may have had a very different ideal in mind. That carving may essentially be a tribute to the romantic impression of rebelling against tyranny. Or it might be a tribute to racism.... or both.

Hmmm... research helps here.

In response to Brown v. Board of Education of 1954 and the birth of the Civil Rights Movement, in 1958, at the urging of segregationist Governor Marvin Griffin,[6]:21 the Georgia legislature approved a measure to purchase Stone Mountain at a price of $1.125 million. In 1963 Walker Hancock was selected to complete the carving, and work began in 1964. The carving was completed by Roy Faulkner, who in 1985 opened the Stone Mountain Carving Museum (now closed) on nearby Memorial Drive commemorating the carving's history.[21] The carving was completed on March 3, 1972.[22] An extensive archival collection related to the project is now at Emory University, with the bulk of the materials dating from 1915 to 1930; the finding aid provides a history of the project, and an index of the papers contained in the collection.[18]

So the carving of people attempting to enshrine slavery was done in response to the fight against segregation. So basically this is a monument to racism.

Edit:

Let's think about this from a Nazi Germany perspective. Suppose a mountainside was carved with a giant swastika in response to attempts to treat jews equally under the law following WW2.

Edit 2:

"You can't remove that swastika! You're trying to rewrite history! How will children learn about Nazi Germany?"

 

[MatskiMonk]

Let's think about this from a Nazi Germany perspective. Suppose a mountainside was carved with a giant swastika in response to attempts to treat jews equally under the law following WW2.

If you were to see someone walking around wearing a sandwich board that says "I hate *******" (think Die Hard 3), there is no interpretation of the message required. Two different people may look at it, and have opposing views on whether they agree with the sentiment, but the message they both see requires no interpretation. The statement and the message is inherently racist... and protected by your constitution I believe.

If you can stand and look at a carving of Robert E. Lee and think, 'that was a terrible person', whilst simultaneously the person next to you can look at it and think 'that was a great person', then it's clear that their is no inherent message. You may look and think 'we've erected a statue so we don't forget the perpetrators of terrible acts', someone else may say 'why are we celebrating these terrible people'... again the purpose of the carving isn't inherent in its existence... it's meaning is derived by peoples reaction to it.

If you see me wearing a confederate flag T-shirt, do you think 'That bloke's a massive Black-hatin' racist', or 'That bloke's a huge Dukes of Hazzard fan'? I can't think of something analogous with the Nazified swastika, but for example, post lock-down, I'm looking forward to a games night at friends playing the 'Escape from Colditz' board game. He sourced an old one, because the new one features no Swastikas... are we massive Jew-hatin' Nazi's, or do we just appreciate the historical accuracy and relevance? If I went to the pub wearing a Buddhist swastika T-Shirt, I can imagine a few people would take massive offence to it on the grounds they'd see me as a Nazi... which would be entirely a case of them taking offence, and not at all me giving it, since they've misinterpreted the Buddhist meaning of the symbol.

Ultimately, I don't think a carving or flag is necessarily inherently racist, it's what people associate with it that makes it racist, and even then the statement made by the existence of a carving or flag is also down to the individuals perspective -- but I get that sometimes things can be genuinely distressing for people, and they serve no other useful purpose, so why keep them.

That's why I'm on the fence about it.

I think it's far more likely that local explanations of the carving (such as at the local museum) could convey far more racist attitudes than the carving itself.

 

[Danoff]

If you were to see someone walking around wearing a sandwich board that says "I hate *******" (think Die Hard 3), there is no interpretation of the message required. Two different people may look at it, and have opposing views on whether they agree with the sentiment, but the message they both see requires no interpretation. The statement and the message is inherently racist... and protected by your constitution I believe.

If you can stand and look at a carving of Robert E. Lee and think, 'that was a terrible person', whilst simultaneously the person next to you can look at it and think 'that was a great person', then it's clear that their is no inherent message. You may look and think 'we've erected a statue so we don't forget the perpetrators of terrible acts', someone else may say 'why are we celebrating these terrible people'... again the purpose of the carving isn't inherent in its existence... it's meaning is derived by peoples reaction to it.

If you see me wearing a confederate flag T-shirt, do you think 'That bloke's a massive Black-hatin' racist', or 'That bloke's a huge Dukes of Hazzard fan'? I can't think of something analogous with the Nazified swastika, but for example, post lock-down, I'm looking forward to a games night at friends playing the 'Escape from Colditz' board game. He sourced an old one, because the new one features no Swastikas... are we massive Jew-hatin' Nazi's, or do we just appreciate the historical accuracy and relevance? If I went to the pub wearing a Buddhist swastika T-Shirt, I can imagine a few people would take massive offence to it on the grounds they'd see me as a Nazi... which would be entirely a case of them taking offence, and not at all me giving it, since they've misinterpreted the Buddhist meaning of the symbol.

Ultimately, I don't think a carving or flag is necessarily inherently racist, it's what people associate with it that makes it racist, and even then the statement made by the existence of a carving or flag is also down to the individuals perspective -- but I get that sometimes things can be genuinely distressing for people, and they serve no other useful purpose, so why keep them.

That's why I'm on the fence about it.

I think it's far more likely that local explanations of the carving (such as at the local museum) could convey far more racist attitudes than the carving itself.

Yea I understand your point. Actually I don't assume that the confederate battle flag is racist. As I mentioned above:

So while it's clear from a historical perspective that secession was over the issue of slavery, the person who made that rock carving in 1972 may have had a very different ideal in mind. That carving may essentially be a tribute to the romantic impression of rebelling against tyranny. Or it might be a tribute to racism.... or both.

The US confederacy means different things to different people. It has such a romantic atmosphere around it for some people that I honestly believe one can fly the battle flag without racist intent. That being said, it also has meaning to the people who see it, and that meaning is more and more shifting away from the "rebel" interpretation toward the "racist" interpretation.

But my point is more specific than the message the certain people might take from looking at a symbol or monument. I was making a point about the meaning that the creators of the monument had in mind. Which was for it to be a symbol against the civil rights movement and an act of defiance against anti-segregation policy.

And this is the point that I think so often goes unaddressed. What was the reason the monument was erected. Sometimes, as in the case of Stone Mountain, it seems that we can determine that reason. The civil war was long gone in 1958. But suddenly a new monument was needed to the confederacy because of... civil rights and anti-segregation policies.

So while it is all fun and good to see a swastika in a historical sense, or play a nazi soldier in a re-enactment or board game, it's another thing entirely for a monument to be erected memorializing nazi heros in response to movements against nazi policies. That's what stone mountain represented to its creators, defiance of equal rights. It is a monument to racism. Whether someone views it differently doesn't really affect that point.

 

[UKMikey]

Wasn't there a thing called the Cornerstone speech?

If it were up to me it'd be engraved on a gigantic plaque and mounted beneath the carving to show folks what the Confederacy was all about.

 

[Danoff]

Wasn't there a thing called the Cornerstone speech?

If it were up to me it'd be engraved on a gigantic plaque and mounted beneath the carving to show folks what the Confederacy was all about.

The first time I discovered that speech I was shocked. It went against everything i had been told about the confederacy and the civil war.

Edit:

This sums up the confederacy nicely. General U.S. Grant on meeting Robert E. Lee to accept surrender of the Confederate army:

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Running right through the heart of, arguably, the limousine-liberal capital of the United States (Marin county) is a an avenue called "Sir Francis Drake Boulevard" that runs from San Francisco bay all the way to the Pacific Ocean at Point Reyes. Predictably, there is now a campaign to remove the statue that commemorates Drake and to rename the road. Drake was 1, an English person, and 2, a slave trader (among other things), and 3, definitely not from California and there is limited evidence to suggest he ever even landed here.

Incidentally, I've been suggesting this to anyone who would listen (nobody would listen) for several years. Running through notable people either from Marin or had substantial presence here, I arrived at two people who I think would be a good fit to rename the road after:

1. Tupac Shakur - Famous Hip Hop singer and something of an activist for rights/quality of life of blacks (I mean, changes is a pretty brilliant song on the subject)
2. Anton LaVey - Founder of the church of Satanism and all around good guy

In reality, I think it would be best if the road was given a native name...considering it's importance as the main East-West spine through Marin, Avenue of the Miwok sounds good. Unfortunately, there just aren't really any Miwok around to get their input on it.

 

[Liquid]

It went against everything i had been told about the confederacy and the civil war.

What had you been told or instructed at school prior to this?