I do not agree. I see how you can make the argument. It does meet the most basic definition. But it is a stretch at best. It was targeted, and a part of larger events. Most importantly, by framing it that way the preventable causes go ignored. But hey, it furthers a political agenda, so there is that.
That's right. Targeted, not an attack on the public.
Yet he also injured members of "the public" (car passengers) and jeopardized anyone walking in that street.
The protestors in question where also part of "the public" and walking on a public street. We dont even know how "die hard" or provocative this group of protesters at that street where.
Within your current used definition an attack on a church, mosque, military base etc etc. cannot be a "terrorist attack" as it is not "against the public".
I see both as seperate incidents, with connections, but the car incident is a hate crime at the very least and in my eyes it fits the definition of terror attack very comfortably.
Yet, you seem to be wearing those glasses when you look at the Confederacy.
I get southern pride to some extent (these days it's getting harder and harder to completely understand rednecks as an outsider) and i dont want to "erase" history by all means. I'm mainly saying in this case it is completely misplaced. My arguments against these "monuments" are:
The monuments where erected 50-60 years after the war took place, not during the era that events took place and these men and their values lived. Hence complete lack of historical sentiment or context.
The monuments as they are; glorify men that fought in a rebellion against the USA and it's principles, for the only reason that they actually fought in a rebellion against the USA and it's principles (confederate uniforms) and LOST. They didn't accomplish anything relevant, all their efforts where in vain, the men and "their cause" plainly lost. Hence the the statues should never be erected anyway.
The uniform glorifies and stands for "the cause" and it is one of the main reasons of this war. You cannot seperate this when viewing objectively. Even historically seen "the cause" was considered bad at the time. UK and France denounced it with vigour and campaigned to ban it globally. UK especially hated slavery and actively hounded the practise. "The north" was immensely more popular under common people in western Europe during the war. One of the reasons France and UK never could interveine even if the confederacy would have been a better option. (in many ways it was) I mean even Even the Dutch abolished slavery in our most dubious colony of Indonesia in 1863. Within context slavery was already seen as bad.
To look at the statues in proper context we need to put on our 1910-1930 goggles though (when the statues where erected) it doesn't change that much with current day views on slavery, i'm affraid.
If anything the monuments themselves are "fake history"
Like i said Rommel (not a nazi) never got a statue either and i think that is good. I compare this to removal of statues of Lenin, Saddam Hussain, Stalin, Franco etc etc. If they start removing Jefferson and Washington poke me and i'll denounce that.
The Confederate States of America only lasted for 4 years. Let's be honest, it wasn't that great. The men didn't do such "great things" and didn't accomplish "historical landmarks". They rebelled and then lost a short war without chance. I get that this gets inflated by US media/entertainment/nostalgia due to the lack of other "big events" in U.S. history, but when looking at it trough global history it was nothing but a small fizzle of failure.
The fact that these statues where standing on grounds belonging to the United states of America (241 years and counting) and being maintained by taxdollars is the world upside down anyway.
I'm a stubborn European and I studied history so I'm not easily impressed. If we would erect statues for every failed rebellion, revolutions, cause, last stand, losing war etc etc in Europe we wouldn't have the space to put anything else down.
I found this a fitting article: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450470/charlottesville-virignia-robert-e-lee-statue-remove-right-decision-confederate-monuments-museums
Are we going to expect muslims to tear down mecca because Mohamed loved slavery too?
I actually use this argument and the argument that Mohammed "would be a pedofile" against Dutch Muslims making arguments against Dutch monuments and street names. It is very effective.
Context:
There is a Muslim populist party, Denk , that got elected for the first time with 3 seats (out of 150) in NL. They are generally seen as "the long arm of Erdogan" for their Turkish affiliation. It's the only Dutch political party not denouncing Erdogan's "the dutch are nazi remnants" remark for example. One of the guys is making remarks about "dutch heroes" Admirals, captains etc and removing their names. This is not going down well with national popularity. They are copying a lot from SJW's and BLM tactics and playing some of their cards.
Luckily "being Dutch" also means being very level headed/sober, being very very direct and we cut trough bullshit rather quickly, so i doubt they will gain more traction and will fall down to 1 seat next election.
Yet he also injured members of "the public" ..
I don't see any relevance. Sure, he hit bystanders as well as his target. That does not change that it was targeted.
It was also not premeditated. It was a crime of passion.
And again, it was one part in a series of events that day.
I do not understand your desire to mislabel it. It does not make it any less horrible to call it a murder.
But pretending that it was unavoidable will have consequences.
Within your current used definition an attack on a church, mosque, military base etc etc. cannot be a "terrorist attack" as it is not "against the public".
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on why the church was selected.
A random attack on a specific church would be a hate crime, not terrorism. But if a church attack was planned because it was a convenient target, not because of the religion, then it terrorism.
To look at the statues in proper context we need to put on our 1910-1930 goggles though
And in that context, there was nothing wrong with the statues. They were seen as significant historical figures, not symbols of slavery.
Like i said Rommel (not a nazi) never got a statue
Actually, Rommel did get monuments. This is not the only one.
I actually use this argument and the argument..
But you don't see the contradiction in defending your offensive statues, while vilifying the Americans for doing the same?
That article you linked starts out by declaring that their opinion is knowingly based on misinformation, then goes on to explain how the facts don't matter though because 'feelings'.
So it has failed to convince me.
I don't see any relevance. Sure, he hit bystanders as well as his target. That does not change that it was targeted. It was also not premeditated. It was a crime of passion. And again, it was one part in a series of events that day.
I do not understand your desire to mislabel it. It does not make it any less horrible to call it a murder. But pretending that it was unavoidable will have consequences.
"It was also not premeditated. It was a crime of passion." - this is an assumption
"And again, it was one part in a series of events that day." - And again i dont see it like that and you can read my reasons in previous replies
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on why the church was selected. A random attack on a specific church would be a hate crime, not terrorism. But if a church attack was planned because it was a convenient target, not because of the religion, then it terrorism.
I dont follow your reasoning in above cases, i had trouble following you in your previous reply to. You accuse me of mislabeling while it seems you have your own desire to "mislabel this". I don't see the difference if an attack was targeting "the public" or a specific group.
Driver attends a right-wing hate protest, gets in car, targets a group of counter protestors, ploughs into them and bystanders, then violently and remorselessly backs up. hatecrime - yes: terrorist attack - yes
But i dont think we will get closer on this point.
And in that context, there was nothing wrong with the statues. They were seen as significant historical figures, not symbols of slavery.
Check previous reply for extensive explanation about why the uniform represents "bad values" (even in historical context), cannot be seen without them and the statues where placed without historical context.
When you see a Nazi uniform do you think "It's nice they built the Autobahn"? No, you think, holocaust, Bombing Rotterdam, invading neutral countries etc etc.
Robert E. Lee himself hated Slavery and saw how bad it was. He just couldn't bare to fight against his beloved Virginia. It seems he also didnt want monuments commemorating the war or statues of himself (I'm a little uncertain about this as it only popped up in US media this week)
But you don't see the contradiction in defending your offensive statues, while vilifying the Americans for doing the same?
I take it you mean: "offensive statues"
It's not the same as I offered extensive context, historical context and nuance in my reasoning. You choose to ignore those, take a shortcut, call me a hypocrite and offer me apples and oranges here......
Like I said twice before; I draw the line right after Statues glorifying men in Confederate uniforms. The moment they start fucking around with Jefferson or Washington you will find me protesting their removal.
Actually, Rommel did get monuments. This is not the only one.
Mind you those are not statues glorifying him, they are not placed in the middle of towns and there are most likely none where he is actually depicted wearing a German wehrmacht uniform.
That article you linked starts out by declaring that their opinion is knowingly based on misinformation, then goes on to explain how the facts don't matter though because 'feelings'. So it has failed to convince me.
Did we read the same article?
I do not agree. I see how you can make the argument. It does meet the most basic definition.
But it is a stretch at best. It was targeted, and a part of larger events.
Most importantly, by framing it that way the preventable causes go ignored. But hey, it furthers a political agenda, so there is that.
That's right. Targeted, not an attack on the public.
I have a much simpler take on that. Two groups, those who use potentially lethal force, and those that don't.
If someone tried to run me over with a car, and I was able to kill them in defense instead. I would.
If someone tried to cave my scull in with a baseball bat, I would do the same.
There is no difference except in magnitude.
If a 'protester' brings potentially lethal force to a rally, they are just as bad. Just less ambitious.
I think that's where we're viewing it differently. To us the confederacy was a bunch of slave-owners fighting to own slaves. That is not what it means to many Americans. They don't see glory to the confederacy as being glory to slavery, or even racism. The south was not exterminated after the war. The confederate culture survived, but adapted. Now they are supposed to be ashamed of it all and burn everything?
Are we going to expect muslims to tear down mecca because Mohamed loved slavery too?
We all descended from assholes. Every single person. Every single culture.
So we should all get the same treatment. If the south is expected to scrub themselves from history because they were slow to get on board with human rights, then we will need to scrub my history next. And at some point we will work our way down to yours.
He was a brilliant general that was respected by his Union counterparts. Of course they put a sword in his hand. He was an impressive and influential figure in history.
Yet, you seem to be wearing those glasses when you look at the Confederacy.
Maybe, but no real people did.