[Closed] Charlottesville

I can't be bothered to trawl through this thread; any chance of a recap on the core points, refutations of said points and references?

In a nutshell Cougar, in a nutshell.

Ninfan is a busted flush - even as a troll.

any chance of a recap on the core points

Jeremy Corbyn is literally Hitler.

Salient point there Dr J. When were these statues put there? I was under the impression that many were put up during the civil rights era, the same period in which the confederate flag saw a resurgence. Are people under the impression that these statues existed in place since the Civil war?

In order to understand what the statues and flag might stand for it's important to note both when and why they are deployed. They were [and are] deployed to demonstrate a resistance to equal rights legislation.

Was the Civil war truly won and lost? or was it resolved in the form of an armistice. Seeing the confederate flag and swastika together seems the most natural of alliances, for surely the confederacy was the Nazism of it's time.

Jeremy Corbyn is literally Hitler.

Decent summary from Philly D.

(Has clips from Charlottesville so swear warning obviously)

Salient point there Dr J. When were these statues put there? I was under the impression that many were put up during the civil rights era, the same period in which the confederate flag saw a resurgence. Are people under the impression that these statues existed in place since the Civil war?

You are correct, many were erected when the Jim Crow laws first started to appear. More followed after Jim Crow laws were struck down in 1954.

Was the Civil war truly won and lost? or was it resolved in the form of an armistice. Seeing the confederate flag and swastika together seems the most natural of alliances, for surely the confederacy was the Nazism of it's time.

1. The Union won the civil war decisively in 1865. They had a harder task; the CSA literally just needed to keep control of its lands and hope that the UK and France would recognise it as an independent state. There was a possibility of this happening until Lincoln finally gave the emancipation proclamation - until then the war was more about states rights (the big one being the right to slavery) after that point there was no going back. Should the union win Slavery would be gone.

2. No, the confederacy was not organized like a Fascist state - although justifications for slavery bore resemblance to arguments later used by the Nazi's. Survival of the fittest, and that it was Gods will that slavery was there. Many Confederate (General Lee himself) held views that God would free the slaves when he was good and ready. IIRC Lee even took the view that slavery did more harm to white people/culture than those that were enslaved!

I think that's about right, it's been 20 years since I wrote essays on the U.S. Civil War...

My view on the current US is that if they don't take care they will end up with an awful sectarianism that we can only comprehend if we think of N.Ireland.

Google 'paradox of tolerance' and also consider that antifascist is not a movement, or a collective or a political stance.
Antifascist should be your default state.
You're supposed to be antifascist...

Ask your bloody grandfather to confirm it.

But didn't lot's of the cotton produced using slavery end up in buisnesses in the north for shipping? so both the north and the south benefited from slavery.

But didn't lot's of the cotton produced using slavery end up in buisnesses in the north for shipping? so both the north and the south benefited from slavery.

Correct, as did the UK, indeed our aristocracy grew rich first from the Atlantic Slave Trade and later from the produce of slavery. You view some stately homes in a new light when you think about where the money came from to build them...

Abolishing slavery was not a war aim of the Union until Lincoln emancipation proclamation took effect in early 1863. In 1861 at the outbreak of war the aim was simply to restore the Union to what it was. Many believed slavery needed to end, but it could not happen at once because of the economic damage it would do.

To put some context into it, whatever your feelings on Brexit or Corbyn might be Southerners feelings on States Rights and Abe Lincoln (a known abolitionist) would likely have been a lot, lot stronger. Chucking a bit of Manifest Destiny and 'God is with us' sentiment and you can see why men were willing to go to war.

'paradox of tolerance'

Agreed, we know what fascism and extreme nationalism does, those who clearly want to live in a fascist state and have a racist agenda want to destroy the democracies we have built (often with blood). To ignore history and to allow them to hide behind the free-speech they would so deny others would be a failure on our part.

Freedom-of-speech and freedom-of-press are worth defending (and I gladly give to the Open Rights Group and view Reporters without Borders positively). I don't for one moment see groups like the EDL/NF/BNP as ones I would trust with doing the job.

....

World wars one and two are seen as being increasingly as part of the same conflict, the first being concluded with an armistice. An armistice is a temporary condition, essentially an extended time out and an acknowledgement that core issues have not been resolved.

Jim crow was Confederacy light, the war was never resolved and a half way solution was reached. As tempting to see the civil rights legislation as closing a chapter it was accompanied by an aesthetic and cultural accommodation where the flag and confederate 'heroes' were allowed to be burnished. At the time of Carters presidency confederate symbols that had been employed by die hards during the 60's were re-imagined and normalised by mainstream culture. Growing up I got to see swastikas on the World at War [meaning bad] and stars and bars on the Dukes of Hazard [meaning good……old boys] See also Lynrd Skynrd, Tom Petty and even Steve Earle, yes….. that Steve Earle!

In Smokey and the Bandit the confederate battle flag is prominent in the first film but entirely absent from the second film, in the space of three years it seems that the entertainment industry realised they may have let a genie out of the bottle. Since the early 80's a lot has been swept under the carpet. see how the Clintons acquiesced with the Daughters of the confederacy, and how elements of the confederate flag were included within states flags.

These symbols have existed within a certain ambiguity for the past 3 decades and now they are beginning to be seen for their true meaning [not that the meaning wasn't explicit for anyone with a brain]. Thats why I said how seeing the swastika and confederate flag together seemed so appropriate. For too long the indefensible has been defended or rationalised when in truth it was just sublimated.

@Inkster

Whilst I agree with most of what you say (esp. with the confederate flag in popular culture) this statement is just wrong:

the war was never resolved and a half way solution was reached.

I'm sure there are many that want to believe that but the Union successfully invaded the key southern states and re-integrated them back into the Union. There was no immediate implementation of Jim Crow laws as a compromise to entice southern states to rejoin - in fact there was outrage against some 'codes' that the initial reconstruction government tried to introduce to control the freed slave population. The Southern armies knew they were militarily beaten and had nothing left - unlike post WW1 Germany where many former soldiers (e.g. Hitler) felt they had never been beaten as an army and had been stabbed in the back by politicians and were up for round 2.

Jim Crow crept in later approximately between 1890-1910 once the Democrats were firmly back in control of the Southern states and their northern counterparts had mostly reconciled their differences with them in order to defeat the Republican party (the presidential election of 1876 was a mess leading to compromise a year later). There never was desire to secede and fight again, nor for any one to take up arms against Jim Crow in the South. The statue/monument building peaked towards the end of this period after 1900.

My view is the problems of today are the problems of today and the references to the nineteenth century are just flimsy excuses to cause trouble - there are few, if any, direct economic or political ties back to 1865 unlike Nazi Germany harking back to the outcome of WW1. In fact it's the opposite - we know most of the alt & far Right backed a Republican candidate in 2016. In 1876 they would have been backing a Democrat and it's doubful anyone who could properly remember Jim Crow would have been at any recent rallies. The far-right loves digging up old history to justify itself, both Mussolini and Hitler did it to great effect, a flowing narrative with goodies and baddies for simple minds is a useful tool for them.

For what it's worth some far/alt-right 'history' web-sites on the Civil War are that it was caused by Jewish immigrants profiteering from slavery and not wanting it to end ~ they probably also tie something in with there wouldn't be African-Americans if it wasn't for a Jewish conspiracy.

If anyone wants to read up on that you can google for the altrighthistoryoftheus. You will probably want a good wash afterwards. The website I scanned through is so slanted you have to wonder if it's actually antifa propaganda...

careful lads, you're in danger of turning this into a decent thread! 😆

I have one question (and yes, I could Google it but I'm seeking informed knowledge here):

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

Loose coalition of [b]Anti-Fa[/b]cists groups. Erring on the militant side.

We have them in the UK, and they usually turn up at EDL marches.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

That's because there's no such thing unless you're a fascist, nazi or apologist for such groups.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

Worth a read Cougar (from that well know fascist, nazi appologist magazine The Atlantic).

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/09/the-rise-of-the-violent-left/534192/

I just knew that link would be posted.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-40930831

Interesting crop on the lead photo, doesn't show that the bearded chap with the goggles and stick (Totally peaceful stick, obviously) has both arms in metal lined casts as body armour (Totally peaceful, obviously).

The Antifa movement and the white supremacist movement are like the two slices of bread on a sandwich full of shit. Vile.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

Interesting crop on the lead photo, doesn't show that the bearded chap with the goggles and stick (Totally peaceful stick, obviously) has both arms in metal lined casts as body armour (Totally peaceful, obviously).

The Antifa movement and the white supremacist movement are like the two slices of bread on a sandwich full of shit. Vile.

If this weekend has proven anything, it is that, in order to challenge Nazis, a certain level of protection is required. If you ride mountain bikes down big hills, you wear protective clothing. If your hobby is fighting nazis, a bit of armour and a big stick seem sensible precautions.

Even Luke Skywalker needed a ****ing lightsaber!

The Antifa movement and the white supremacist movement are like the two slices of bread on a sandwich full of shit. Vile.

Let's not forget Corbyn. He's part of this many sided sandwich.

[quote=BigEaredBiker ]In 1876 they would have been backing a Democrat and it's doubful anyone who could properly remember Jim Crow would have been at any recent rallies. The far-right loves digging up old history to justify itself

Just as an aside, I have a few FB friends in the US, some of which are Trump supporters, some of which are "liberals" but have lots of Trump supporting friends. Hence far from an echo chamber, I get to read lots of opinions from people who still support Trump (I'm not sure if any of them could be described as far right, but part of the core). Anyway I've seen comments quite a few times about the Democrats being the party of slavery and racism (in the context of Trump supporters being accused of being racists), as if that had some relevance to now.

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

as if that had some relevance to now.

But 1930's Germany does?

I mean, if one side is allowed to cherry pick from history...

If it actually exists, was foolish to shorten the name IMO

Trump appears to be trying to brand them as "alt left", presumably to support the whole 'many sides' thing.

Not a phrase I'd heard used until he used it at the press conference.

I'm not sure being against nazis is particularly [i]alt-[/i]anything.

But 1930's Germany does?

Yes. People flying nazi flags, making nazi salutes and chanting nazi phrases makes nazism relevant.

If they start dressing as civil war Democrat slave owners then that would be more relevant.

[quote=ninfan ]

as if that had some relevance to now.

😆 nice try ninfan - sadly present day Nazis think 1930s Germany was a golden era, however present day Democrats don't share many values with 19th century Democrats. So yes 1930s Germany has a lot more relevance.

Nobody is cherry picking from history - the US political system effectively flipped, but modern Nazis have kept the same value system as in 1930s Germany.

Yay!

ninfan's back!!!

My view is the problems of today are the problems of today and the references to the nineteenth century are just flimsy excuses to cause trouble - there are few, if any, direct economic or political ties back to 1865

Seems like an odd conincidence that the former slaves acestors are all so poor and keep getting shot. Its only what 50-60 years since segregation ended.

but modern Nazis have kept the same value system as in 1930s Germany.

I'm not sure about this.

Cougar - Moderator

WTF is "antifa"? I've never heard of it outside of this thread.

You know how everyone that turns up at a demonstration is a looter, unemployed or a student? And everyone that voted Brexit is an ill educated racist? And everyone that supports Jeremy Corbyn is in Momentum? And everyone who's unemployed is a shirker? [i]That's[/i] Antifa. (you'll also see on the alt-right they're universally communists, too. Who knew there were so many communists in the USA?)

It's actually a real thing but it's mostly being used as a convenient term to lump normal everyday people who are principled enough and brave enough to stand up to scumbags in with the minority of extremists. There's a reason it went from being a word you'd never heard to front page news in no time.

(I stood alongside AFA back in the day; I wasn't in AFA, or part of any group. But today, people would say I'm Antifa. Especially people from the National Front and the BNP)

Now my ninfan senses are tingling and I fully expect to hear "Just like you lump everyone on the other side in with nazis". So before that happens, no. The other side here are genuinely mostly literal Nazis and Klansmen, white supremacists, and racists, to coin a phrase it's an Axis of evil. Opposing that isn't even a side at all, not being a nazi isn't a side- that's like saying not being a cyclist puts you on a side.

Been following this thread....

yunki - Member
Google 'paradox of tolerance' and also consider that antifascist is not a movement, or a collective or a political stance.
Antifascist should be your default state.
You're supposed to be antifascist...

This is exactly what I was struggling to verbalise - thanks Yunki

The other thing I have been struggling to concisely verbalise is around the "equivalence of opinions" - we seem so desperate to be fair and even-handed that we are giving undue credence to the options of stupid/uninformed people, or people who's opinions come from hate, bigotry or self-interest.

The Donald (along with some on here) are, either consciously or unconsciously empowering/legitimizing those with views which should be roundly dismissed/rejected (and were until recently) - and it's taking us backwards.

It's ok to be a climate change denier, and now it's ok to be a Nazi? Because, you know, I'm entitled to my opinion, and freedom of speech and stuff? Jesus wept.

The opposite of a Nazi is not a leftie or an alt-leftie (whateverTF that is), it's just a normal, decent human being. Just like being anti-trump doesn't mean you're a snowflake libtard - it just means you can see through somebody who is objectively (not subjectively) a terrible person, lies through their teeth and is morally bankrupt.

Also it's interesting to ask whether people would be defending ISIS's right to hold a protest/rally (on the basis of free speech)? As far as I see it, their stated aims are not so different from those of the Nazis - albeit on religious grounds rather than some idea of genetic superiority.

Of course we wouldn't - they're terrorists! So why aren't the neo-nazi's and the KKK and the like classified as terrorist organisations? Genuine question? They seem to fit the criteria.

ninfan - Member

But 1930's Germany does?

I mean, if one side is allowed to cherry pick from history...

This has nothing to do with the points raised to you earlier.
Why not pick up where you left off?

Oh, that's right. It's because you chat shite then ignore it when it's pointed out.
You are an obvious, and odious troll.
What pleasure do you gain from constantly proving to yourself that you're not very clever?
What pleasure do you gain from being unpleasant?

Are you lonely?

You are an obvious, and odious troll.
What pleasure do you gain

You're responding to him, that's enough TBH

CFH at an anti-nazi rally earlier

[img] [/img]

Seems like an odd conincidence that the former slaves acestors are all so poor and keep getting shot. Its only what 50-60 years since segregation ended.

The conduct of the war on drugs since approximately 1980, the collapse of blue collar jobs Northern US cities, and the profit driven prison system [[i]EDIT: The wording of the 1865 13th Amendment does have some bearing here[/i]] has little to do with segregation in some southern states up until the early 1960's. The most substantial link you could make is that the assassinations and imprisonment/silencing in the late 1960's and '70's of powerful leaders for the African-American population. By the time the war on drugs started in the 1980's the poor had practically no voice...

...I would only ever want to be on trial in the US if I had the means to afford a decent lawyer.

Anyhow, that has little to do with the rise of the alt-right and the emboldenment of the far-right. They will of course make links and cite the 'erosion of white' culture blah, blah, blah. The recent Gamergate nonsense and sexism probably has more to do with the election of Trump and subsequent new-confidence in the older far-right groups than black poverty in the US.

What's Gamergate and WTF has it got to do with Trump; [url= https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/01/gamergate-alt-right-hate-trump ]Guardian; Gamergate & the Alt-Right[/url]

A tour of some of Trump's 'fine people'

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/17/charlottesville-alt-right-neo-nazis-white-nationalists

Just to add to Kimbers link - this is the kind of person that went to Charlottesville.

[url= https://warisboring.com/a-convicted-domestic-terrorist-was-at-the-charlottesville-nazi-march/ ]Convicted far-right member at Charlottesville[/url]

Agents also found notes written by Tubbs that showed that he and John Tubbs planned to set up a new group called the Knights of the New Order and a lists of targets that included newspapers, television stations and businesses owned by Jews and blacks. They also found a group pledge authored by Tubbs. “I dedicate my heart to oppose the enemies of my race, my nation and the New Order,” the pledge read. “I dedicate my life from this moment forward to fostering the welfare of the white Aryan race.”

Many had embraced Gamergate because they felt it wholly matched their ideals, and yet – quite consistently – no one in the movement was willing to be associated with the abuse being carried out in its name. Prominent supporters on Twitter, in subreddits and on forums like 8Chan, [b]developed a range of pernicious rhetorical devices and defences to distance themselves from threats to women and minorities in the industry: the targets were lying or exaggerating, they were too precious; a language of dismissal and belittlement was formed against them. Safe spaces, snowflakes, unicorns, cry bullies. Even when abuse was proven, the usual response was that people on their side were being abused too.[/b] These techniques, forged in Gamergate, have become the standard toolset of far-right voices online.

excerpt from that gamergate article up there. remind you of anyone?

Let's be clear. The opposition to Nazis and their supporters, whose views identify them as differing from Nazis only in the addition of parentheses, are a loose collection of just about all other shades of opinion and political allegiance who otherwise would be spending their time arguing with each other.

Attempts to dilute the acts of the Charlotteville Nazis and their fellow-travellers by parsing the argument, describing the opposition as a homogenous group who are "just as bad", indicates that the person responsible is AT LEAST a Nazi sympathizer and if push came to shove, would be a direct supporter of said slime life.

As to the justification for punching Nazis, it worked in the 1940's. It always does with bullies of any sort.

Some results in the HuffPost/YouGov poll conducted 14-15th August:

48% of the Trump voters polled said that the white nationalists at Charlottesville were either [i]"mostly right"[/i] (11%) or [i]"went too far, but they have a point"[/i] (37%).

68% of the Trump voters polled said that [i]"there is a lot of discrimination against white people"[/i].

Only 3% of Trump voters polled think Trump personally supports white nationalism. Conversely only 3% of Clinton voters polled think he opposes it.

-- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/americans-trump-white-nationalism-poll_us_59941e9ee4b04b193361c305

Shows some quite incredible divides between the Democrat and Republican voters. Seems pretty clear that Charlottesville is just a beginning 🙁

There's a bit to like in those numbers Graham. Look at the way the non or third party voters break.

Frankly, ANY society where it's ok, or even legal for civilians to parade around with assault rifles in public is pretty messed up:

[img] [/img]

( America land of the [s]free[/s] [b]stupid[/b] )

May seem mad to us in the relatively gun-free UK max, but then despite the violent confrontations and guns (on [i]both[/i] sides), no one was shot.

Does feel like a matter of time though

@ Bigearedrider

I think that must be one of the 'good people' Trump was talking about.

@ Batfink

Of course we wouldn't - they're terrorists! So why aren't the neo-nazi's and the KKK and the like classified as terrorist organisations? Genuine question? They seem to fit the criteria.

This... If the Americans cherish their freedom of speech so much surely they would't object to isis opening up a North American office?

@ aracer

Axis of evil indeed.

I noticed the ITV, BBC news channels were using the footage from the Vice documentary last night, thanks to whoever posted it up here. What an example of journalism, following the old fashioned practice of following a story, rather then copying and pasting a Reuters report and adding a few opinions. It reminded me of some of the reports Charles Wheeler delivered for the BBC back in the 60's when he was covering the civil rights protests.

Look at the way the non or third party voters break.

Its strange how white men fell their identity is under threat when they are no longer allowed to oppress non whites and non males.

They literally fear equality.

Junkyard - lazarus

They literally fear equality.

nail on the head.

[quote=yunki]

[b]Antifascist is not a movement[/b]

[b]Antifascist should be your default state[/b]

[b]You're supposed to be Antifascist...[/b]

I've paraphrased, but this needs to be cut and pasted onto every page of a discussion regarding Nazi's vs Anti Fascists.

Don't confuse antifascism with antifa.

Thanks for the clarification

Which type are you then?

Don't confuse antifascism with antifa.

yep one is what normal people call opposing fascism

one is what insecure, paranoid alt-right types call people opposing fascism

its an important distinction!

Don't confuse antifascism with antifa.

Elaborate please.

Frankly, ANY society where it's ok, or even legal for civilians to parade around with assault rifles in public is pretty messed up:

OMG! Guns! wild, violent gun toting nutters, presumably carrying thousands of bullets in their quick-change assault rifle magazines!

How many people got shot? Hundreds presumably?

Uh oh.. the lone wolf is back again

How many people got murdered [s]shot[/s]?

 

lone wolf

You knows it

http://bikesnobnyc.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/inspiring-rides-true-greatness-knows-no.html

How many people got murdered shot?

You're saying we should ban cars?

You're saying we should ban cars?

only those driven by terrorised neo-nazis forced to run people over top avoid being punched in the face

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/08/fox-news-republished-a-celebratory-video-of-cars-plowing-through-protesters-in-january/

ninfan - Member
Frankly, ANY society where it's ok, or even legal for civilians to parade around with assault rifles in public is pretty messed up:
OMG! Guns! wild, violent gun toting nutters, presumably carrying thousands of bullets in their quick-change assault rifle magazines!

How many people got shot? Hundreds presumably?

you do understand you lost this thread right?

Fox News Republished a Celebratory Video of “Cars Plowing Through Protesters” in January

Why not? Cars driving at protesters is [i]literally[/i] a laughing matter

The conduct of the war on drugs since approximately 1980, the collapse of blue collar jobs Northern US cities, and the profit driven prison system

Fynny cause the black populations of southern states were poor and discriminated against before then!

[quote=ninfan ]Why not? Cars driving at protesters is literally a laughing matter

In the same way shooting people with an automatic rifle is:

ninfan - Member

Why not? Cars driving at protesters is literally a laughing matter

humped about 17-0 from my count.

You're saying we should ban cars?

No but I think a lengthy ban from driving would be appropriate for the person who said this

you were near me and suggesting punching me in the face was appropriate then I'd run you over with my car to get away from you

Why not? Cars driving at protesters is literally a laughing matter

thankfully there were enough armed folk there to maintain peace
Without them who knows what may have happened there may have been a riot or death or some unpleasantness from both sides
[img] [/img]

carrying a gun signals one thing, that you are prepared to kill someone. and in that case, imo, you forfeit your right to be treated as a human (ie with compassion, morality and respect)

There's only one group condoning violence round here - the people who think it's ok to punch people you disagree with in the face.

I don't care if you're white, black, or even blue, carrying a gun signals one thing, that you are prepared to kill someone.

Bullshit.

ninfan - Member
There's only one group condoning violence round here - the people who think it's ok to punch people you disagree with in the face.

I'm pretty sure you got 2 men send off in the second half, this game is beyond redemption...

Is it just a fashion thing then, and some people carry guns but wouldn't ever consider using them?

You're saying we should ban cars?

If that's the best you can do, you've clearly lost.

Desperate troll *sadface*

Is it just a fashion thing then, and some people carry guns but wouldn't ever consider using them?

Like brakes on fixies.

I think the sensible point is to accept they would not all preemptively use the gun but it seems utterly pointless to own a gun you are 100% not ever going to use under any circumstances. Therefore it does signal you are prepared to use it - where death is a pretty likely outcome- if "you have to".

Given this, crude though the statement is, it is basically accurate

The thing is if you're carrying a gun it's easy enough to shoot someone, if you're not carrying a gun it becomes much harder to shoot people. Making it harder to shoot people seems like a good thing.

ninfan - Member

There's only one group condoning violence round here

Liar.
Nazis condone violence.
You condone violence.

You can get attention by being nice, not just by being horrid. 💡
Lunch in the canteen, or table for one in Subway? 😉

akira - Member

The thing is if you're carrying a gun it's easy enough to shoot someone, if you're not carrying a gun it becomes much harder to shoot people.

I'm not sure, maybe the fact that you are 45 times more likely to die from a gun in the US compared to the UK is just a statistical anomaly.