[gwnn]

Has this solution been mentioned? (sorry for being late to the thread.) Hungary chose to collect its Communist symbols in a "statue park."

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Memento_Park

[RedSpawn]

gwnn, on 2017-November-15, 04:03, said:

Has this solution been mentioned? (sorry for being late to the thread.) Hungary chose to collect its Communist symbols in a "statue park."

https://en.wikipedia...ki/Memento_Park

This is a nice idea but there is a problem here. Under no uncertain terms should Confederate statutes be treated as "less than".

If we relegate (or retire) Confederate statues to a certain park, we are indirectly corralling them and treating them as if their useful life in the local community is over. It is viewed as a symbolic rejection of the values of America's past and that, my friend, is where you will hear people raise their spears and yodel a tribal chant that will shame even Tarzan!

There are a lot of Americans who simply do not subscribe to the notion of letting go of Old Dixie as their family heritage, self-identity, and American struggle is inextricably linked to the Confederate statue. Retiring the statue is analogous to retiring the heritage embodied in it.

In America, people are gentle souls who desperately want to be heard, understood, and validated. If we retire, relocate, or relegate the Confederate statues to a "certain" park, we dishonor the underlying meaning people attach to those statues in their local community; too late, they are offended and feel dejected by a change in tribal symbols and customs.

That's why we have to talk about the underlying notion of tribalism in the Deep South that is guiding the attachment to these Confederate statues.

We have to talk about how tribalism has an overarching effect on the race politics in the Deep South. It's the ugly elephant in the room because when statues get moved, tribal members feel a sense of pain and loss and resentment. And such resentment easily spills over into our politics and policy positions as the offended get defensive. We might even hear language dripping with stereotypes such as "those people", "your kind" or even worse, "you people".

Tribalism matters but we have to get folks to acknowledge there is a tribal instinct at play in the South. People don't like to talk about this matter because they perceive the relocation of Confederate statues as a personal attack on the rich history of the Antebellum South and a categorical rejection of what once was. They view the relocation of Confederate statues as an appeasement offering to overly sensitive "adopted members" of the hyphenated American family.

These Confederate statues are essentially good will ambassadors of Old Dixie. And make no mistake about it, Old Dixie will rise again like a phoenix from the ashes if we don't have a healthy dialogue about what the South is and isn't. We are an adopted family in America and we all are fighting for our spot in the American dream and in the annals of American history.

This is a very interesting article on tribalism and how it affects how people see themselves in America.

Source: http://www.wnd.com/2...-tribe-america/

[Zelandakh]

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-15, 07:00, said:

There are a lot of Americans who simply do not subscribe to the notion of letting go of Old Dixie as their family heritage, self-identity, and American struggle is inextricably linked to the Confederate statue. Retiring the statue is analogous to retiring the heritage embodied in it.

There are a lot of Americans who are racist, some openly and many more passively. Do you think it makes sense to reject otherwise good ideas because it disturbs this group of the population? Do you think that the rights of this group are more important than the rights of those that feel Old Dixie represents a heritage that is hateful and should not be celebrated in any way, shape or form?

[Winstonm]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-15, 09:13, said:

There are a lot of Americans who are racist, some openly and many more passively. Do you think it makes sense to reject otherwise good ideas because it disturbs this group of the population? Do you think that the rights of this group are more important than the rights of those that feel Old Dixie represents a heritage that is hateful and should not be celebrated in any way, shape or form?

This part of that post you commented on is the whole point of retiring confederate statues:

Quote

Retiring the statue is analogous to retiring the heritage embodied in it.

The heritage embodied in it was the state-sponsored position that dark-skinned people were less than human and should be used as slave labor. End it? It should be ended and vilified.

[RedSpawn]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-15, 09:13, said:

There are a lot of Americans who are racist, some openly and many more passively. Do you think it makes sense to reject otherwise good ideas because it disturbs this group of the population? Do you think that the rights of this group are more important than the rights of those that feel Old Dixie represents a heritage that is hateful and should not be celebrated in any way, shape or form?

Very good question.

I agree that a certain group's rights are not more superior than the other's but that is where diplomacy is so damn hard!

If we shame the racist, we just move their behavior to the shadows of the community. Racism tends to grow exponentially in the shadows. That's why you have to engage the racist in a dialogue but not in an accusatory way. When you categorically reject the dogma and overlook the nostalgic privilege inherent in the Antebellum South period, you dismiss the racist and his ideas and the Old Dixie culture.

You get nowhere fast.

I honestly try not to crucify the racist culture and its symbols but try to provide a historical framework of how these symbols evolved in the 1st place.

I try to get the racist to acknowledge the tribalism inherent in the Confederate statues. I want them to recognize the power of that symbol and how it is a painful reminder of a complicated past in which the South was built by exploiting certain minorities for the financial gain of a protected Anglo-Saxon class. I want them to see how the South was built for almost a full century on the backs of and the sweat equity of slaves who were chattel property with no legal standing in the eyes of state and federal governments.

For example, Winston provided an article in which an Italian-American citizen of a declining rural town discussed that NFL stood for "Ni&&ers For Life" and how he believed the NFL was a franchise participating in a race to the bottom because it is overrun by well, you know.

One of the participants suggested that African-Americans haven't worked as hard as his Italian ancestors and had not really earned the respect of others in the community. He posited that African Americans want respect handed to them on a silver platter and that offends his American values of success through hard work and enterprise.

No one challenged him about how there were millions of African-American slaves who provided a seemingly inexhaustible supply of FREE labor to help build the South and create a wealthy class of genteel Southern Anglo-Saxon aristocrats who ruled with South and its politics with an iron fist.

No one challenged his notion that African-Americans have endured a long journey to freedom where they have evolved from chattel property to second class citizens to 1st class citizens on this American soil. No one reminded this guy how a 170+ year journey of sweat equity alone more than qualifies African-Americans as an American brother.

Tribalism can lull people into an alternative universe of facts when reinforced with groupthink psychology.

His stereotype of "the lazy, shiftless uneducated Negro" made him overlook that "minor" donation of almost 100 years of FREE labor African Americans provided to help transform the South (and Old Dixie) into an powerful economic and political engine of wealth and prosperity that rivaled the Northern states of America.

If that achievement alone is not good enough to earn the respect of the community, then I don't know what is. True, African-Americans didn't choose to be slaves; they had to play their position in the community and embrace an American dream deferred for centuries.

In short, that citizen ignored the well-documented history of America to support his visceral and misguided point of view of the African-American work ethic and value to the larger community. His tribalism was on autopilot and no one checked it, so he embraced HIS truth as valid even though it was grossly inaccurate.

Racism and extreme tribalism are borne from the fertile ground of ignorance and naiveté.

I believe we must challenge that ignorance and naivete with American history as provided and documented in various libraries and archive systems in the South. Racists need to get up close and personal with American History and if they still choose to double down on their racism and tribalism, they at least know its bravado and false disguise.

And then we can both wink at each other knowing the inconvenient truth as they disseminate their propaganda.

[gwnn]

Quote

It is viewed as a symbolic rejection of the values of America's past

Yes, rejection of the values of the past (like slavery) would be the whole point.

[y66]

I like gwnn's statue park idea which is sort of like Hamsterdam for racists.

[RedSpawn]

gwnn, on 2017-November-15, 12:07, said:

Yes, rejection of the values of the past (like slavery) would be the whole point.

I definitely see your point, but racists aren't going to have a mea culpa by being told their dogma is reprehensible.

You have to dismantle their dogma one leg at a time until it becomes a jalopy resting on 4 cinder blocks. You want a racist left with no legitimate leg to stand on from a verified historical perspective.

Remember, racists believe their TRUTH is very real because it is a belief system. It is taught and learned behavior in social settings. It's been taught through a network of friends, peers, parents, extended family members, and even corporate product brand marketing. You could almost consider it a very intriguing form of brainwashing.

That's why one must practically perform a Vulcan mind meld with a racist to transfer all of that damn American History to them with bibliographic references so they can see you aren't just making $hit up.



I would suggest a place like the Library of Congress or the Georgia Archives Library in Atlanta, Georgia. When people start to see the real history up close and personal without all of the exaggerated myths and mystique that family members add to it, they begin to loosen up.

Source: http://www.georgiaarchives.org/
Source: https://www.loc.gov/

Racists start to realize that at the very least they were misinformed but you don't want to cause them any public shame or embarrassment because of their condition. The "aha" moment when a racist realizes he was taken for a ride becomes the catalyst where he can prostrate himself before the altar of truth and migrate from tribalism to true American nationalism.

We have to be honest here.

We aren't going to shame racists into higher, elegant thinking. Didn't work back in the day and won't work now. Shamed racists become sitting ducks for an alleged tragic hero like President Trump. He provides them with legitimacy, validation, and a lovely national political platform to spew hateful rhetoric and political dog whistles.

We have to bring the racist to the fountain of truth in his own hometown with his own history from libraries. Only then can the decontamination process truly begin.

EXAMPLE OF TAUGHT RACISM THROUGH CORPORATE BRAND MARKETING
THE EVOLUTION OF AUNT JEMIMA (MAMMY) FROM OLD DIXIE TO POSTMODERN ERA




Note how the Quaker Oats Company gave Aunt Jemima, the quintessential subservient mammy, a "Jenny Jones Makeover" in 1994 by removing her "Dixie bandanna" and giving her a coiffed leisure curl, a pearl earring, and a dainty lace collar. They wanted to give their trademark an air of respectability in a post-modern era. My, my, my how times have changed.

[RedSpawn]

duplicate-please Delete.

[jjbrr]

y66, on 2017-November-15, 13:56, said:

I like gwnn's statue park idea which is sort of like Hamsterdam for racists.

Where's Wallace at, String?

[barmar]

RedSpawn, on 2017-November-15, 14:27, said:

I definitely see your point, but racists aren't going to have a mea culpa by being told their dogma is reprehensible.

Yeah, kind of like after Hillary made her "basket of deplorables" comment, lots of Trump supporters adopted "I'm a deplorable" as a badge of pride.

But a problem with trying to point out all that African-Americans have done for the country for centuries as slaves is that racists still think that they're "lesser" people, so they didn't deserve any better. Convincing them that we owe them something in return would be like convincing them that we owe horses some reparations for the many centuries that we used them for transportation before the automobile was invented.

[y66]

jjbrr, on 2017-November-15, 16:15, said:

Where's Wallace at, String?

We focus grouped that. 80 percent said the schoolhouse door. So that's where he's going.

[Zelandakh]

y66, on 2017-November-16, 14:12, said:

We focus grouped that. 80 percent said the schoolhouse door. So that's where he's going.

Well it's the place to go for 14 year olds....

[Chas_P]

barmar, on 2017-November-16, 09:53, said:

Yeah, kind of like after Hillary made her "basket of deplorables" comment.

Thereby changing the course of history. Love her or hate her, I think everyone would have to agree it was a really, really poor choice of words. It won the election for Trump.

[y66]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-16, 17:35, said:

Well it's the place to go for 14 year olds....

No. That would be the mall which is where the Roy Moore statue is going obviously.

[jjbrr]

Chas_P, on 2017-November-16, 19:26, said:

Yeah, kind of like after Hillary made her "basket of deplorables" comment.

Thereby changing the course of history. Love her or hate her, I think everyone would have to agree it was a really, really poor choice of words. It won the election for Trump.

This is such a weird comment.

[barmar]

Chas_P, on 2017-November-16, 19:26, said:

Thereby changing the course of history. Love her or hate her, I think everyone would have to agree it was a really, really poor choice of words. It won the election for Trump.

I don't think we can point to any one thing that swung the election. But it certainly didn't help her, it emboldened her opposition.

[Zelandakh]

barmar, on 2017-November-17, 09:34, said:

I don't think we can point to any one thing that swung the election. But it certainly didn't help her, it emboldened her opposition.

I disagree. When one looks at the statistics it is fairly clear that one factor that certainly swung the election was Comey's statement. There are possibly other aspects that affected the votes (or non-votes) of enough people that one could say it was a decisive point but others tend to be less clear because their signal is hard to pinpoint against the noise of what came afterwards.

[barmar]

Zelandakh, on 2017-November-17, 09:52, said:

I disagree. When one looks at the statistics it is fairly clear that one factor that certainly swung the election was Comey's statement. There are possibly other aspects that affected the votes (or non-votes) of enough people that one could say it was a decisive point but others tend to be less clear because their signal is hard to pinpoint against the noise of what came afterwards.

True, on her book tour Hillary frequently cited Comey as a major factor in her loss.

[Chas_P]

jjbrr, on 2017-November-17, 09:33, said:

This is such a weird comment.

I guess it is weird since this thread is supposed to be about Confederate Statues. But Barry brought it up.