He's only made bad moves for the last few months.. If Trump wants to make a point about "left wing violence" he shouldn't have spoken about it after this weekend with the car attack. But taken another moment when the left was plundering and rioting. Now he only made it worse for himself
Agreed.
Thing is the "significant event" these people are glorified for are: fighting for a rebellion against the US and upkeeping slavery.
That's what you and I remember them for, but that is not universal. My understanding is that some/many in the southern US tend to focus on other aspects of them.
We all have historical figures that are celebrated for the good things they did, while their bad deeds are ignored. Almost all historical figures did some fucked up shit, or had unacceptable ideas, if you judge them by todays standards.
We have many statues here in Canada that are of explorers and settlers of the country. Those people did some great things. But ask the natives if they had a bad side.
They did, but we're not going to deny it, and I hope we don't start pulling our monuments.
Once you start pulling down monuments because the figure is politically incorrect, then all monuments are now at risk. Because none that are old, are correct today.
It's not like you see statues of Erwin Rommel in Germany for example
Anything remotely connected with Nazis is taboo, so that's a bit of an exception. But there are many monuments to 'the enemy' all over the world. Here's one. I can provide many more examples, but I assume you get my point.
What I clearly miss from Trump is seperating "violence" and an attack..
I agree that it was the wrong time for the comment. When the car-murder happened he should have condemned it, and left it at that. But I think his point is a valid one. It was just expressed in the wrong way, at the wrong time.
No matter what "escalations back and forth" there is no measure, justification ... This should be pointed out, denounced and rejected by everyone..
I didn't see anyone defend it, or try to justify it.
Do I expect brawls, riots and bullshit when two opposite protestors meet? Yes..
..was begging for it..
Do I expect a terrorist attack with a car? No, that's another level.
So it's all fine as long as it is baseball bats, bike locks, knives, maces, and rifles. But if a car is used, it changes from 'protestors meeting' to 'terrorist'?
Also I don't think its a good idea to call it a terrorist attack. Calling it so just muddies the waters and pushes any solutions further away.
It was not an attack on the public. It was targeted at Antifa. It was not an isolated incedent either. It was a part of hostilities that had been occurring all day.
Calling it terrorism allows people to dismiss any attempt to deal with the problems that led to it. This was preventable, and if nobody is allowed to speak openly and honestly about it, it will be repeated.
Now please, understand, none of what I said is an attempt to 'justify' or minimize anything. Anyone who thinks that is missing my point.
..those usually don't end in murder and death though..
..have been coming more from the right this year..
I don't have any numbers for this year. But over the last couple years I believe the left has the higher body-count.
It does not matter though, murder and violence are not appropriate ways to share ideas, no matter what their politics are.
All sides should be held to the same standard.
Driving a car into a crowd, or organizing a violent, armed attack differ only in degree.
If one is terrorism, so is the other. But I think we would be better off not labeling either as terrorism, because they're something different.
To me, and many others, terrorism is an attack on civilians with the intent of creating fear in the public, to further a political goal.
Not a lot can be done about that, so people don't try.
I think we could have prevented this, but not if people can't talk about it openly and honestly.
This was a terrorist attack due to:
He deliberatly ran into the back of protestors and innocent bystanders alike with high speed.
After his initial crash leaving many wounded on the streets and "innocent passengers" of 2 cars in uncertain state he showed no remorse and violently backed up with speed, trampling over casualties from round one.
A car is the same league as rifles/guns when it comes to "weaponising". A car doesn't scare, hurt, injure or maim.... A car kills!
Innocent bystanders
All in all: Reckless, unremorsefull and with intention to deliberatly cause harm to a group (not individuals) he disagreed with (hates).
So it's all fine as long as it is baseball bats, bike locks, knives, maces, and rifles. But if a car is used, it changes from 'protestors meeting' to 'terrorist'?
First of all i make a distinction of 3 groups of weapons:
A. handweapons and eventual weapons (signs, tikitorches, stones, bats, mace etc).
B. Knives and edged weapons.
C. Firearms and cars.
When confronted as a protestor during rowdy confrontations by category: A. you where most likely in the vanguard/"thick of it", provocating yourself and deliberatly putting yourself at risk. You could've walked away any moment and most likely a lot of provocation between "hotheads" goes on before they "go for it".
Use by category A. can also been seen as "defensive" in most cases, is limited in damage and causes injuries with only incidental deaths. It's also up close so "stop attacking" by "seeing what you did"/injuries or being stopped by fellow protestors is a thing. I see this as rowdy riots, "teaching them a lesson", basically European football hooliganism.
I'm not surprised those weapons are used in these kind of incidents.
However: If you bring Category B. or firearms from category C. to these protests: You come with the intent to harm maybe kill. (lets leave the gunlaw discussion out of this)
Using category B or C violently during these events, is attempted murder without a doubt.
That's what you and I remember them for, but that is not universal. My understanding is that some/many in the southern US tend to focus on other aspects of them.
They are depicted in full confederate general's uniforms on top of battle horses. It's pretty hard to see anything else but "the gloryfication of the confederacy"
Let's say Robert E. Lee was loved for his "community sense, regional vision and cooperation" (just making it up) he should have been depicted in a normal suit, a friendly gesture, feeding a horse or whatever. (I would be against removing that) It's not like your Canadian statues are depicting the men holding decapitated indian heads.
I get it though "where to draw the line", it's even trickier cause it's in the USA. Mine is after the confederate uniformed gentlemen are taken down. They lost their war and their cause, hence the right to be gloryfied.
Like i said if you where an explorer and had slaves you have to be able to put that into perspective. Slaves where custom in those days and you can't look at it with your 21st century goggles on. I mean the Roman's had all kinds of slaves, and we shouldnt tear that shit down.
We have the same brewing somewhere in the distance in NL with streetnames of our hero admirals and captains (condoning and glorifying slavery and imperialism) but I doubt it will take hold in mainstream as the Dutch tend to be allergic to bullshit.
Anything remotely connected with Nazis is taboo, so that's a bit of an exception. But there are many monuments to 'the enemy' all over the world. Here's one. I can provide many more examples, but I assume you get my point.
Mostly those are anonymous depictions of the enemy. Sort of mystical interpretation of old forgotten foes. Glorifying the confederacy is highly political though.
I didn't see anyone defend it, or try to justify it.
Voat had some posts that actually did.
This was a terrorist attack due to: ...
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.
..deliberatly cause harm to a group (not individuals) he disagreed with (hates).
That's right. Targeted, not an attack on the public.
First of all i make a distinction of 3 groups of weapons:
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.
It's pretty hard to see anything else but "the gloryfication of the confederacy"
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.
Robert E. Lee .. he should have been depicted in a normal suit, a friendly gesture ..
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.
you have to be able to put that into perspective. Slaves where custom in those days and you can't look at it with your 21st century goggles on
Yet, you seem to be wearing those glasses when you look at the Confederacy.
Voat had some posts that actually did.
Maybe, but no real people did.
on the subject of Trump:
He's only made bad moves for the last few months, all of them seem to be dominated by gut feelings and short sightedness. If he would tone those down i would have given him a chance to become a half decent president.
Now he's only estranging himself more and more from the republican party and atleast 70% of the citizens by going to much right wing.
I dont understand statues of generals who lost a rebellion in the first place. Especially if they fought for "the wrong cause", these never should have been erected. It's not like you see statues of Erwin Rommel in Germany for example. (not a nazi, he served in the wehrmacht, but a great fucking general)
Most of these statues where erected not during the civil war but between 1911 - 1930
Thing is the "significant event" these people are glorified for are: fighting for a rebellion against the US and upkeeping slavery.
I'd be more concerned if it where monuments of writers, poets, musicians, explorers, inventors, etc etc who had slaves in the time (wich was a custom) or served for the south during the war. This is more a comparrison to Lenin and Stalin statues taken down in my eyes. "you dont glorify the bad the losers or the traitors"
In this trend I am worried about statues in Brussels with Dutch engravings for example. Those where erected while the region was Dutch language but now there are forces pushing to add french language engravings duo to billingual.......
I dont think so: What I clearly miss from Trump is seperating "violence" and an attack by one of the Right wing protestors with a car on counter-protestors and random ppl stuck in their cars in front of him.
No matter what "escalations back and forth" there is no measure, justification, softening or downplaying for him to: plough a car at speed into other people AND innocent bystanders. This should be pointed out, denounced and rejected by everyone, especially a president "calling for unity".
Do I expect brawls, riots and bullshit when two opposite protestors meet? Yes, especially when one side carries swastika's, torches and "Hail Trump" Nazi style. In the NL you would be harrased by just random people on the street for that kind of display, in Germany you even get arrested. The right-wing was begging for it.
Do I expect a terrorist attack with a car? No, that's another level.
There have been many incidents with left wing protestors in the last few years, a lot of annoying actions, some violence and even riots. Not a pretty sight and a lot off bullshit ideology I agree. I'm the first to say they are idiots but those usually don't end in murder and death though. I also think BLM and SJW's are one of the main reasons Trump actually won.
Incidents involving serious attacks and even deaths have been coming more from the right this year i think, as seen on wikipedia: Right wing incidents involving deaths 2017: 4
I dont have info on left wing deaths though, so please enlighten me if you have them as I am intersted.
If Trump wants to make a point about "left wing violence" he shouldn't have spoken about it after this weekend with the car attack. But taken another moment when the left was plundering and rioting. Now he only made it worse for himself