(07-05-2020 03:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 03:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 03:22 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 03:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-05-2020 03:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  We are apparently moving too slowly via legislative avenues, and an unruly populace is taking matters into their own hands.

Do you support or oppose the unruly populace taking things into their own hands?

I oppose.

I oppose it - I would much prefer people on all sides push for change through legal avenues to address the issues they have.

We have seen, throughout history, that populations eventually take matters into their own hands when their elected (or unelected) leaders don’t listen. This seems to be a situation where a lot of people have felt they weren’t listened to so they’ve decided to act, for better or worse.

I am sure there must have been a time or two when they tried legal means first, but I sure cannot think of one.

But being listened to is not the same as getting your way. Suppose you get this measure on a ballot and the voters say keep the statues, 55% to 45%. Have you been listened to? Or is it time to rally the mob and just do whatever the heck you want?

Suppression of the black vote would likely play into the feelings that simply "voting out" these confederate statues may be difficult.

To answer your question, I oppose pulling down these statues during protests. It becomes a slippery slope of mob rule "OK... now who should we tear down?". I would rather that the exploration of legal avenues continue. I am flummoxed, though, as to why it is 2020 and there are still statues that celebrate the Confederacy that were erected in black neighborhoods in order to intimidate black people. That's really gross, IMO.

Suppression? What suppression? We are talking of a hypothetical election and already you are coming up with suppression for losing a hypothetical election? Sounds like Stacy Abrams. The message I get from you is that the only way you could lose is through voter suppression. So if you win, it is the voice of the people, if you lose, it is the voice of the people suppressed.

Now you seem to take it as a given that these statues under attack were erected in black neighborhoods apparently between 1954 (Brown) and now (Floyd) for the purpose of intimidation. probably there were a some. I doubt that every statue was erected for that purpose. there is one in a nearby town that is nearly 100% white. erected in 1910, by the descendants of Confederate soldiers to remember their dads and grandads. That is one for sure that doesn't fit your stereotype. So one size does not fit all, yet I am sure this statue will eventually come under attack. I wonder about the one of Andrew Jackson near the White House. When was it erected, and how does it intimidate anybody? what the ones of columbus and Washington and jefferson? What about the abolitionist in Madison? Mount rushmore? Who were all these statues intimidating?

I think way too much of this is made by both sides. Who cares about dead men? I have been a part of erecting statuary, and I am sure you guys could find a reason to tear them down, as they were of Tejano settlers, and not a black man among them.

Tejano monument

The picture at lower right has a good shot of the back of my head. As you can see, I am in the middle of a crowd of racists trying to intimidate black people.