Monuments to racism toppling around the world.

Post Reply New Topic

I'd say your analogy is slightly misleading:
The "police" (let's call them the BLM Protesters in this case) are aware of the source of the supply, but are instead targetting the low-level dealers.

I don't know many "police" who wouldn't jump at the chance to catch those higher up the chain (maybe corrupt ones trying to protect those people?)...crack down on the low-level ones, certainly, but the focus is always on catching the top level.

Besides, under your analogy, the defendant wouldn't use that type of defence in court: They'd trade the information with police in order to have charges lowered\sentance decreased through co-operation with the police.

Precisely, so using the analogy to the slave trade, the biggest profiteers were those who sold slaves to farm/landowners in North and South America.

It's not really a functional analogy and it's dehumanizing as f**k cyb.

8-balls don't reproduce, people do. While Bric seems to be unfairly shifting the blame entirely towards the people doing the sales in West Africa (ignoring that it was the purchasers providing the incentive for their behaviour) your analogy is also problematic because it ignores that people have offspring when they become pregnant. What this means is that not all of the people who end up in slavery were taken from West Africa, meaning you're still falling for Bric's shift of blame, but in an even broader way.

The 'big players' in this case have their hands on a much smaller portion of the overall 'product' than if you're comparing it to some sort of consumer goods. There's an inherent financial benefit to keeping a substantial number of the women with child, whether or not they're interested in the same way that other animals are bred. That means the 'production' is much less centralized compared to literally any other product except livestock. That means the moral burden for putting people into that situation is much more widely distributed than with anything your analogy hints at. It means much more of the burden is bore by the American (continent, not country) slave owners, slavetraders, etc who profited from the slave trade; the exact opposite of what Bric is trying to insist.

TL;DR: Your analogy is gross and you're both wrong.

PS: Bric, please don't blame black West Africans for the folks born in the Americas.

Sorry I don't understand the point you are making?

I put it in bold for you.

The moral burden for putting people into slavery in the Americas is much more widely distributed than with anything your drug dealing analogy hints at**. Because many of the people who were born into that situation, rather than sold into it, that means much more of the burden is bore by the American (continent, not country) slave owners, slavetraders, etc who mostly profited from the slave trade driven by people who were born while their mothers were those peoples captives, not taken from Africa directly; the exact opposite of what Bric is trying to insist.



** also, why illegal drugs? (it makes it seem like that's the first thing that comes to mind when you think of African diaspora, even if it's not)

I don't feel different about the Charles Lindberg statue in my area and the Ford motor company and his statue in Michigan who supported Nazi's that killed six million or so of my co-religionists. And while I don't call myself aspie anymore I don't call out people that do.

I completely agree that it is wrong that the bigotry and worse that these historical figures were erased for all these years. I do resent that I was not taught about the Founding Fathers' slave ownership. I am not in favor of whitewashing their accomplishments because of their sins. This is an overcorrection. As much as I would not be sorry if the government or people decided to remove the Lindberg statue I don't want some mob based on the emotion of the moment deciding what to do to them.

What the correct thing to do with each historical figure is different because each individual and their times were different. What they do have in common is that they were flawed humans and most of them held views and did things we find abhorrent today. Since the attitude to looks for anything we can find to cancel the person the logical conclusion is to cancel every historical figure that had something to do with getting America where it is today.

A few years ago when this all started I viewed the phenomenon as college kids in their bubble to much time on their hands. I viewed claims that this was a revolutionary plot to paint America as inherently and systematically evil for the purpose of destroying it to save us as the ravings of paranoid lunatics with well too much time on their hands. Silly me.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 21 Jun 2020, 3:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

To be fair, most of the Confederate generals are primarily known for that, everyone else who's been mentioned might deserve more debate than Nathan Bedford Forrest, for example.

The Confederate argument is largely over. Conservatives who were against the statues being removed are largely in favor of taking them down. The treason argument was very persuasive with that group. Would that have happened without the protests and ironically the white supremacist terrorist designed to preserve the confederacy, no. Did the statues need to be preventatively attacked knocked down by mobs I don't think so? Probably some statues might have permanently stayed or stayed longer but outside of a die-hard group, the view of confederate generals as treasonous white supremacists is accepted.

Ok I can see your point, but what I was trying to convey (and perhaps the analogy can be misinterpreted) is that things like
drug trade
slavery
COVID-19

there is/was vicarious liability among multiple parties in terms of culpability. Happy to ditch the drug trade and stick with slavery though.

The demand for slaves (end market) was primarily European colonies and so my point was that those who generated the demand and sent out ships are more responsible for the predicament of innocent africans captured into bondage than the tribes who did the capturing.

Grant was now added to the list

I agree with all of that; basically I felt you weren't pressing the case as firmly as it should be because of the flaws with your analogy.

Southern conservatives still defend them and Roy Blunt undermined one attempt to legally remove one...

Really, all we've seen is that direct action gets the goods and forces the powers that be to act in accordance with popular will.

Teddy Roosevelt statue to be removed from Museum of Natural History

Sorry I look for patterns in the way things happen and I saw vicarious liability in both scenarios.

I think if people understood why these monuments were put up and how they impacted multiple generations of southern whites they might change their mind
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOkFXPblLpU

The UDC are like the female auxillary of the KKK but they were everyday southern white women numbering in their hundreds of thousands, Rather frightening how much power and influence these antebellum enthusiasts had.

I wouldn't be happy if I had to walk past a "Bomber Harris" statue, every day either.
But I still don't agree with anti-social activity.

Put the statues in Madame Tussaud's, ffs.
Not rocket surgery.