|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On October 15 2020 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different.
Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery.
Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate,
I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious. That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US. Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. Comparing Napoleon to Jackson just show your ignorance as soon as you leave your tiny little world seen through that inflexible unique lens of yours. Glad to see you are back in insinuating I am racist. I know that it is just impotence, but seriously, change your tune. It's pathetic. I know you noticed I said "Andrew Jackson" but you seem to be reacting as if you read "Robert E. Lee"? Jackson is still on the $20 because people believe the same "nuance" argument you're pitching on Napoleon.
Because the Trump administration is blocking it. Harriet Tubman should be on the new 20$ bills. Also as to why Andrew Jackson was chosen in the first place, nobody knows since the US treasury doesn't disclose why they select such and such figure.
|
|
|
On October 15 2020 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different.
Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery.
Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate,
I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious. That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US. Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. Comparing Napoleon to Jackson just show your ignorance as soon as you leave your tiny little world seen through that inflexible unique lens of yours. Glad to see you are back in insinuating I am racist. I know that it is just impotence, but seriously, change your tune. It's pathetic. I know you noticed I said "Andrew Jackson" but you seem to be reacting as if you read "Robert E. Lee"? Jackson is still on the $20 because people believe the same "nuance" argument you're pitching on Napoleon.
I'm not particularly all-in on keeping statues of Napoleon vs. Other historical figures, but even a basic understanding of U.S. and European history should inform you that Napoleon is drastically different than Jackson or Lee and had much more profound and wide-reaching effects on his area's history.
Definitely seems like you're over-reaching your understanding of culture and history in places that you aren't that familiar with.
Also you're the last person in this thread that should be commenting on other people being condescending.
|
Only of those involved in his administration, for no other reasons than their last name. Where da outrage at danglars?
|
On October 15 2020 01:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:32 Doodsmack wrote:
Interesting to see that resistance Twitter, joined by Facebook and Twitter themselves, is being so quick to bury this NY Post story about Hunter Biden's emails. One resistance journalist, Maggie Haberman, did so much as link to the story and she is now excommunicated as "MAGA Haberman." WaPo is pretending to have a policy against publishing leaked materials close to an election (lol):
Facebook exec:
Needless to say, none of these standards would be applied to the Trump family (see leaked tax returns).
That’s a pretty stupid way to make a double standard. These guys circulated the pee tape story. It only goes in one direction. Either you publish with disclaimers about verifiability, or suppress until you find it. The suppression is way more interesting than the story itself, because you do have to be skeptical about the story itself.
About that story, I took a source that you can hardly call left-wing : Fox news.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-burisma-adviser-email
That story says that Biden met with Burisma's #3, which I'm sure the Trump org never did, Trump never met anyone related to his children's business in Mar-a-Lago or elsewhere, for sure xD
No seriously, it's not that good but there's no indication of anything further than a meeting. The emails do not seem to mention any policy discussion or anything.
“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.
An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf.
They do not quote answers from Hunter either, saying that he would use that influence. THAT would be problematic.
The next bit is more interesting :
The message had the subject line “urgent issue” and was also sent to Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the Burisma board at the time.
Pozharskyi said that “the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him.”
N.Z. isn’t identified in the email but appears to be a reference to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, whose first name is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”
'Concrete actions'
When the alleged shakedown failed, “they proceeded with concrete actions” in the form of “one or more pretrial proceedings,” Pozharskyi wrote.
“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” he added.
Hunter Biden responded by saying he was with Archer in Doha, Qatar, and asked for more information about “the formal (if any) accusations being made against Burisma.”
“Who is ultimately behind these attacks on the company? Who in the current interim government could put an end to such attacks?” he added.
So Shokin was removed after pressure from Biden *AND THE WHOLE EU* because it seems he was a corrupt piece of shit. This exchange does not exactly go against that assertion, and does not mean anything improper happened. Hunter asked what formal accusations were being made, and who was behind it. After what looks clearly like corruption :
“the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him.”
When the alleged shakedown failed, “they proceeded with concrete actions” in the form of “one or more pretrial proceedings,” Pozharskyi wrote.
So, worst case, there was some access to the higher levels of the executive. Was that access used for anything corrupt ? It does not really look like so. On the contrary, it provides further proof to what the EU was complaining about and why they wanted that prosecutor fired.
It looks like a huge bunch of nothing to me. Especially if you compare to Trump getting millions in donations, selling access to Mar-a-lago, and giving government position to those same guys in their own field they have incentives in.
I won't even touch the raunchy and drug-related videos of Hunter, that has no relation to his father.
The story stops every time *before* any answer by Hunter that could be problematic and show corruption. Burisma clearly tried to leverage influence, but there doesn't seem to be anything inside that shows Hunter going through with that approach. So either they are keeping the juicy bits that could do damage until the last moment (when ? 3 weeks to go), either they don't have that information and are trying what they can to rile people up with partial bits meaning nothing. We're talking Giuliani, lol.
The article is from this morning. Further articles by Fox News that I tried to find this evening have... even less information, and try to keep things blurry to give the appearance of impropriety a bit more. The wordings mainly, and they include mostly reactions by republicans and Trump-world, which are expected to be overblown and not the hard facts of what was disclosed.
|
On October 15 2020 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:
[quote]
I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive.
He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious. That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US. Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. Comparing Napoleon to Jackson just show your ignorance as soon as you leave your tiny little world seen through that inflexible unique lens of yours. Glad to see you are back in insinuating I am racist. I know that it is just impotence, but seriously, change your tune. It's pathetic. I know you noticed I said "Andrew Jackson" but you seem to be reacting as if you read "Robert E. Lee"? Jackson is still on the $20 because people believe the same "nuance" argument you're pitching on Napoleon. I'm not particularly all-in on keeping statues of Napoleon vs. Other historical figures, but even a basic understanding of U.S. and European history should inform you that Napoleon is drastically different than Jackson or Lee and had much more profound and wide-reaching effects on his area's history. Definitely seems like you're over-reaching your understanding of culture and history in places that you aren't that familiar with. Also you're the last person in this thread that should be commenting on other people being condescending.
We going to ignore Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. ?
|
You must have a splendid view on that hill. I already told you why he was still on the 20$ bill.
|
For clarification on my view of statues, I would also never support statues built of MLK, Einstein, Obama, RBG or any other such figures. I think the practice is inherently flawed and doesn't actually help anything. Make statues of ideas, not people. Or just don't build statues.
|
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes.
|
On October 15 2020 02:47 Mohdoo wrote:
For clarification on my view of statues, I would also never support statues built of MLK, Einstein, Obama, RBG or any other such figures. I think the practice is inherently flawed and doesn't actually help anything. Make statues of ideas, not people. Or just don't build statues.
I think I’m with you, statues like the Russian one of the mouse knitting a DNA helix are great. Too often historical figures have some... unpleasant aspects that make statues of them a little difficult to handle over time.
|
On October 15 2020 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 15 2020 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that.
I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history.
If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious. That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US. Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. Comparing Napoleon to Jackson just show your ignorance as soon as you leave your tiny little world seen through that inflexible unique lens of yours. Glad to see you are back in insinuating I am racist. I know that it is just impotence, but seriously, change your tune. It's pathetic. I know you noticed I said "Andrew Jackson" but you seem to be reacting as if you read "Robert E. Lee"? Jackson is still on the $20 because people believe the same "nuance" argument you're pitching on Napoleon. I'm not particularly all-in on keeping statues of Napoleon vs. Other historical figures, but even a basic understanding of U.S. and European history should inform you that Napoleon is drastically different than Jackson or Lee and had much more profound and wide-reaching effects on his area's history. Definitely seems like you're over-reaching your understanding of culture and history in places that you aren't that familiar with. Also you're the last person in this thread that should be commenting on other people being condescending. We going to ignore Show nested quote +Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. ?
Was on my way to play a concert and read too fast. Doesn't remove anything to the content of my post really.
|
On October 15 2020 02:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 02:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 02:19 Stratos_speAr wrote:On October 15 2020 01:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:45 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:37 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 15 2020 01:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? I would not. Napoleon certainly represents something very different in Haiti than he does in France. In Haiti, what he must definitely be remembered about is how he re-established slavery and behaved like a complete pig to black people in general. In France he represents a colossal sum of transformations and influences, some good, some bad. For the same obvious reasons, he doesn't have statues in Russia, as we don't have statues of Nelson or Kutuzov in France. Context is everything when it's about symbols. I said Haitians in France. So I was talking about the statue at Les Invalides. I'm quite certain they know how central he is in the foundation of our nation and are fully aware that his statue is not meant to celebrate his position on slavery. I wouldn't suspect my fellow citizens to be un-nuanced and lack enough subtlety not to realize something that obvious. That's the same thing almost verbatim (but a bit more condescending than usual) racist white people say about Andrew Jackson in the US. Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. Comparing Napoleon to Jackson just show your ignorance as soon as you leave your tiny little world seen through that inflexible unique lens of yours. Glad to see you are back in insinuating I am racist. I know that it is just impotence, but seriously, change your tune. It's pathetic. I know you noticed I said "Andrew Jackson" but you seem to be reacting as if you read "Robert E. Lee"? Jackson is still on the $20 because people believe the same "nuance" argument you're pitching on Napoleon. I'm not particularly all-in on keeping statues of Napoleon vs. Other historical figures, but even a basic understanding of U.S. and European history should inform you that Napoleon is drastically different than Jackson or Lee and had much more profound and wide-reaching effects on his area's history. Definitely seems like you're over-reaching your understanding of culture and history in places that you aren't that familiar with. Also you're the last person in this thread that should be commenting on other people being condescending. We going to ignore Andrew Jackson didn't contribute for shit to anything else than losing a war and betraying his nation. ? Was on my way to play a concert and read too fast. Doesn't remove anything to the content of my post really.
I'd agree with that.
On October 15 2020 02:47 Mohdoo wrote:
For clarification on my view of statues, I would also never support statues built of MLK, Einstein, Obama, RBG or any other such figures. I think the practice is inherently flawed and doesn't actually help anything. Make statues of ideas, not people. Or just don't build statues.
Where does that put you on existing statues?
|
On October 15 2020 02:55 farvacola wrote:
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes.
Maybe you don't need to see people represented by statues as heroes - or even necessarily good people - and the problem is solved. It's precisely because history is not about heroes that removing statues of everyone who doesn't qualify as a great person by today's standard or did things that we would consider shocking makes no sense at all.
I don't think making new statues of people makes a lot of sense either - and it's out of fashion anyway - but walking through Paris and be surrounded by statues of the great people of history is quite wonderful. And they give opportunities to learn and reflect. Many times when I grew up I got curious and learnt about a king, a writer or a scientist because I passed a statue of him or her regularly.
|
On October 15 2020 02:55 farvacola wrote:
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes.
What about aesthetic objects?
|
On October 15 2020 03:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 02:55 farvacola wrote:
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes. Maybe you don't need to see people represented by statues as heroes - or even necessarily good people - and the problem is solved. It's precisely because history is not about heroes that removing statues of everyone who doesn't qualify as a great person by today's standard or did things that we would consider shocking makes no sense at all. I don't think making new statues of people makes a lot of sense either - and it's out of fashion anyway - but walking through Paris and be surrounded by statues of the great people of history is quite wonderful. And they give opportunities to learn and reflect. Many times when I grew up I got curious and learnt about a king, a writer or a scientist because I passed a statue of him or her regularly.
This raises an important point that lies at the base of the notion that the US has unique problems with its history, problems that serve as excellent fodder for politics that turn on recasting the past as a component of national identity. In a vacuum, I agree with you that having permanent physical reminders of national identity is not itself inherently problematic, but given what statues have been and are used for here, I think the approach needs to be different. Significant numbers of people here think talking about the Founding Fathers having owned slaves is an insult to America, and those same people think that systemic racism is not a problem. To the extent statues in public places are edifices of the System, there are real issues with their continued, unqualified existence. Maybe the answer is better education rather than tearing down or adding heavy disclaimers to statues, but as we know, there are people who think one of America's best qualities is that someone in Arkansas and someone in New York are not guaranteed access to the same things.
On October 15 2020 03:10 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 02:55 farvacola wrote:
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes. What about aesthetic objects?
I think statues are very powerful as far as aesthetic objects go, but beyond that I am really not sure how to approach their use aside from the monument question.
|
On October 15 2020 03:24 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 03:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 15 2020 02:55 farvacola wrote:
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes. Maybe you don't need to see people represented by statues as heroes - or even necessarily good people - and the problem is solved. It's precisely because history is not about heroes that removing statues of everyone who doesn't qualify as a great person by today's standard or did things that we would consider shocking makes no sense at all. I don't think making new statues of people makes a lot of sense either - and it's out of fashion anyway - but walking through Paris and be surrounded by statues of the great people of history is quite wonderful. And they give opportunities to learn and reflect. Many times when I grew up I got curious and learnt about a king, a writer or a scientist because I passed a statue of him or her regularly. This raises an important point that lies at the base of the notion that the US has unique problems with its history, problems that serve as excellent fodder for politics that turn on recasting the past as a component of national identity. In a vacuum, I agree with you that having permanent physical reminders of national identity is not itself inherently problematic, but given what statues have been and are used for here, I think the approach needs to be different. Significant numbers of people here think talking about the Founding Fathers having owned slaves is an insult to America, and those same people think that systemic racism is not a problem. To the extent statues in public places are edifices of the System, there are real issues with their continued, unqualified existence. Maybe the answer is better education rather than tearing down or adding heavy disclaimers to statues, but as we know, there are people who think one of America's best qualities is that someone in Arkansas and someone in New York are not guaranteed access to the same things. Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 03:10 IgnE wrote:On October 15 2020 02:55 farvacola wrote:
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes. What about aesthetic objects? I think statues are very powerful as far as aesthetic objects go, but beyond that I am really not sure how to approach their use aside from the monument question.
Can't disagree with that.
That's also how concepts such as cultural appropriation - another highly "flamable" topic here - might make sense in the US but become completely ludicrous and lead to all kind of absurd conclusions in a european context. Our relationship to culture, history and identity is extremely different.
|
On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues?
What do you think about the statues of the black men who liberated Haiti - and then went for some ethnic cleansing of the white population of the island?
|
On October 15 2020 02:22 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:48 Danglars wrote:That’s a pretty stupid way to make a double standard. These guys circulated the pee tape story. It only goes in one direction. Either you publish with disclaimers about verifiability, or suppress until you find it. The suppression is way more interesting than the story itself, because you do have to be skeptical about the story itself. About that story, I took a source that you can hardly call left-wing : Fox news. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-ukraine-burisma-adviser-emailThat story says that Biden met with Burisma's #3, which I'm sure the Trump org never did, Trump never met anyone related to his children's business in Mar-a-Lago or elsewhere, for sure xD No seriously, it's not that good but there's no indication of anything further than a meeting. The emails do not seem to mention any policy discussion or anything. Show nested quote +“Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure,” the email reads.
An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Pozharskyi, reportedly Burisma’s No. 3 exec, asking Hunter for “advice on how you could use your influence” on the company’s behalf. They do not quote answers from Hunter either, saying that he would use that influence. THAT would be problematic. The next bit is more interesting : Show nested quote +The message had the subject line “urgent issue” and was also sent to Hunter Biden’s business partner, Devon Archer, who also sat on the Burisma board at the time.
Pozharskyi said that “the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him.”
N.Z. isn’t identified in the email but appears to be a reference to Burisma founder Mykola Zlochevsky, whose first name is a Ukrainian version of “Nicholas.”
'Concrete actions'
When the alleged shakedown failed, “they proceeded with concrete actions” in the form of “one or more pretrial proceedings,” Pozharskyi wrote.
“We urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc .to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” he added.
Hunter Biden responded by saying he was with Archer in Doha, Qatar, and asked for more information about “the formal (if any) accusations being made against Burisma.”
“Who is ultimately behind these attacks on the company? Who in the current interim government could put an end to such attacks?” he added. So Shokin was removed after pressure from Biden *AND THE WHOLE EU* because it seems he was a corrupt piece of shit. This exchange does not exactly go against that assertion, and does not mean anything improper happened. Hunter asked what formal accusations were being made, and who was behind it. After what looks clearly like corruption : Show nested quote +“the representatives of new authorities in power tend to quite aggressively approach N. Z. unofficially with the aim to obtain cash from him.”
When the alleged shakedown failed, “they proceeded with concrete actions” in the form of “one or more pretrial proceedings,” Pozharskyi wrote. So, worst case, there was some access to the higher levels of the executive. Was that access used for anything corrupt ? It does not really look like so. On the contrary, it provides further proof to what the EU was complaining about and why they wanted that prosecutor fired. It looks like a huge bunch of nothing to me. Especially if you compare to Trump getting millions in donations, selling access to Mar-a-lago, and giving government position to those same guys in their own field they have incentives in. I won't even touch the raunchy and drug-related videos of Hunter, that has no relation to his father. The story stops every time *before* any answer by Hunter that could be problematic and show corruption. Burisma clearly tried to leverage influence, but there doesn't seem to be anything inside that shows Hunter going through with that approach. So either they are keeping the juicy bits that could do damage until the last moment (when ? 3 weeks to go), either they don't have that information and are trying what they can to rile people up with partial bits meaning nothing. We're talking Giuliani, lol. The article is from this morning. Further articles by Fox News that I tried to find this evening have... even less information, and try to keep things blurry to give the appearance of impropriety a bit more. The wordings mainly, and they include mostly reactions by republicans and Trump-world, which are expected to be overblown and not the hard facts of what was disclosed.
Like I said, the claims themselves should be met with skepticism like everything else. Why Facebook and Twitter multiple journalists through twitter argue for suppression of the story is way more interesting than the story itself.
Trump already played the hits regarding Hunter’s influence peddling in the debates; and I don’t think voters are still able to be convinced one way or another on Biden corruption.
Trump’s guaranteed to focus on the tech elites choosing to limit sharing of the article (nypost specifically) because it could be seen as damaging to the Biden campaign.
(Twitter flags link as “potentially harmful” “unsafe” facebook “reducing its distribution on the platform”)
|
On October 15 2020 03:41 Elroi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 01:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 14 2020 16:44 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 16:00 Silvanel wrote:On October 14 2020 06:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 14 2020 05:50 Elroi wrote:I don't get it. It seems to me that there are so many viable ways to attack him. All of this misquoting and intentional misunderstanding just makes mainstream media look like the bad guys and Trump as the paradoxical hero. On October 14 2020 05:14 Arghmyliver wrote:On October 14 2020 03:44 Doodsmack wrote:On October 14 2020 03:04 NewSunshine wrote:
It sounds a little different coming from a leader who has both refused to condemn and encouraged the violent parts of his base. It also sounds different coming from someone who incessantly accuses his opposition of perpetrating election fraud, and who told the Proud Boys to "stand by". So there's some context. The "stand by" comment was highly suspect but some of this is just liberal media misinformation. For example the Charlottesville comment. Look at what Trump actually said: Reporter: “Do you think that what you call the alt-left is the same as neo-Nazis?”
Trump: “Those people — all of those people — excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee.”
Reporter: “The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —”
Trump: “Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.” He first defined the two "sides" as those opposed to taking down the statue and those favoring it. Thus he defined the white supremacists as a subset of one of the two sides. He then said there very fine people on both sides, which is to say that some among the pro-statue side were fine people. That is not the same as saying that some white supremacists are very fine people. If you believe it is the same, you've basically been duped by misinformation. Oh and by the way, he also said this: I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally. Robert E Lee was a general in the army of the Confederate States of America who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon was also a general who fought to maintain the right to enslave black people. Napoleon never went to war to defend slavery. Lee did. That's extremely different. Napoleon was kind of a dick, everyone agrees on that but his legacy encompass a lot, lot, lot more than his policies on slavery. Statues of Lee were erected by white supremacist groups such as the Sister of the Confederacy; there is absolutely no ambiguity over what they are meant to celebrate, I don't think ANY "fine person" would march to defend a statue of Lee. I will add that Poland mentions Napoleon in its national anthem (in positive light), his legacy is vast and at least parts of it are very positive. He is certainly an extremely complex character. But NOBODY looks at a statue of Napoleon and think "fuck yeah, white power". If anything people learn that one of his many flaws as a person were his racial views and one of his biggest crimes his restauration of slavery. But his role in history is soooo much more important than that. I personally see him as a very negative figure with some contingent positive traits. But he built modern France and inspired generations after him and that's really something worth celebrating. He is a giant in our history. If on the other hand you erect a statue of Lee and if you go demonstrate to preserve it, you absolutely are making a statement about white supremacy. Lee didn't write the Code Civil, didn't spread enlightenment across Europe and isn't responsible for building most of modern america's institution. His only role in history was to fight for rebels who betrayed the country to protect their rights to enslave people. No "fine person" celebrates that. Would you oppose the Haitian population in France tearing down Napoleon statues? What do you think about the statues of the black men who liberated Haiti - and then went for some ethnic cleansing of the white population of the island?
What if I said history is not about heroes and that removing statues of everyone who doesn't qualify as a great person by today's standard or did things that we would consider shocking makes no sense at all?
I'm actually not sure if you're referring to Nèg Mawon or statues of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Toussaint Louverture (cited by John Brown as inspiration), or something else though?
|
On October 15 2020 03:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2020 02:55 farvacola wrote:
My views are similar Mohdoo, statues as civic objects is an outdated concept that needs revisiting. A key component of a rigorous sense of US history (and all history for that matter) is that there are no heroes. Maybe you don't need to see people represented by statues as heroes - or even necessarily good people - and the problem is solved. It's precisely because history is not about heroes that removing statues of everyone who doesn't qualify as a great person by today's standard or did things that we would consider shocking makes no sense at all. I don't think making new statues of people makes a lot of sense either - and it's out of fashion anyway - but walking through Paris and be surrounded by statues of the great people of history is quite wonderful. And they give opportunities to learn and reflect. Many times when I grew up I got curious and learnt about a king, a writer or a scientist because I passed a statue of him or her regularly.
I suppose your childhood curiosities just don't feel remotely important to me. I am totally comfortable carving that entire part of your life out altogether and demonstrating what you have left. Grasping on to that feels weird. If my favorite statue ever made someone uncomfortable in the way people view confederate monuments, I'd say "sure, who gives a shit". I can understand the sentimental value of childhood memories, but I also don't think its productive to pretend it piqued some sort of giant cultural shift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
