(08-14-2017 12:21 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote: (08-14-2017 12:31 AM)Rick Gerlach Wrote: There were undoubtedly white supremacists in attendance.
However the motivation of every person at the protest was not the same.
You are normally one of the more level headed posters, Rick, but with all due respect, what planet are you on? It was an explicitly white supremacist march, organized by and for neo-Nazis and white supremacists, FFS. They were doing Nazi chants and salutes.
I probably need to clarify my position. First, my understanding of the situation in Virginia was primarily focused on the news of the individual who had killed one person, and injured a number of others with their car.
Second, the limited reading I had done on the rallies indicated that the attendees "included white supremacists, neo-Nazi's and alt-right groups" (as well as counter protestors).
The word 'included', as well as a list of at least three types of groups, led me to believe that there were a variety of people in Charlottesville, and that the range of their beliefs might not be narrow enough that they should all be lumped together.
In perusing articles and photos today, there were clearly disturbing elements in attendance (which I believe I have already acknowledged). I trust that everyone on this forum understands I have zero sympathy with neo-Nazis or white supremacists. If that needs to be said explicitly, consider this an explicit statement.
Having said that, the word 'included' does suggest that the protests included people (Lord knows at what percentage, but it's the same valid point made with regard to defending the range of people in the counter protest groups) who don't meet the definition of white supremacist or neo-Nazi.
You are correct that there is no nuance in 'KKK' or 'Nazi'. I will charitably (and only where applicable, not trying to excuse the behavior on film) assume that there were people who attended, who, once they saw what some of their bedfellow groups consisted of, regretted coming. I will also assume that the news media, rightly, focused on the large, extremist element of the gathering, and had no reason or interest in looking for people who were leaving town thinking, 'geez, how did this turn out like this, where did this turn into 1930's Germany?"
While I anticipate the response "they should've known", I'll point out that young people easily get swept into activities they regret, some immediately, some after time.
At any rate, my aggravation with the characterization of Robert E. Lee, which I've expressed prior to this tragedy, is my only motivator in commenting, as the statue debate was a trigger. I think concepts - - racism, slavery, the KKK - - - are what we should be describing as abhorrent. I think when we start down the path of trashing individuals, it ought to be based on actual actions (hence the Nathan Bedford Forrest distinction. No one is defending Hitler or Pol Pot), and not demonize people carte blanche because of the time period in which they lived.
Charity, assuming or looking for the best in people, was in short supply in Virginia. When it comes to Nazis and the KKK, charity is not required. However, giving every group that showed up the label of KKK or Nazi is probably not fair either, even if it was only 25%, 10% or even 5% that deserve that charity.