• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,391
Points
39
First, we don't have to do it all at once. Let's start with the Confederates, because, you know, they committed treason against the rightful government. Do I recommend taking down every Confederate statute? No. Some are interpretive, and can and should stay, as an example, those on Civil War battlefields. Most, however, are commemorative and celebrate the continued ownership of fellow human beings as property, chattel. Those need to go, and ASAP.

As to others, we have time to have a rational debate. Columbus didn't come to the new world in order to sicken the natives and had no clue that that was what he was doing. He did however, come to exploit the resources he found here, and did that knowingly. Does that make him good or bad? Or both? We have time to debate those questions.

But, the Confederates were traitors, and they lost the war. The victor, after all, gets to write the history. Take your damn statues (and flags, while you are at it) and go. Their time is over.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,608
Points
49
As I noted, there are people who's statutes need to come down. But what about George Washington or Thomas Jefferson? How about Ted Kennedy, Ghandi, Churchill, Lincoln, John Lennon, Henry Ford, JFK, MLK, Frank Sinatra, Jonny Cash, John Wayne, or Coco Chanel? All of these people have a statute somewhere in the US. Yet if you look into their personal lives, they all and elements that were highly offensive.
I have nothing to add here, but your list is a real mixed bag there. I think some are much easier than others.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
12,846
Points
51
This county has a confederate monument in downtown. It was erected in 1905 I believe.

It is not a statue that glorifies or honors a certain individual. It is a memorial to the men (& women?) who served & only recognizes regiments.

I have less heartburn with that & that its been standing for 115 years.


About the Battle Flag - that flag/symbol has been hijacked by racist & hate groups, just like the Nazis did with the swastika. It should be banned.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,985
Points
49
First, we don't have to do it all at once. Let's start with the Confederates, because, you know, they committed treason against the rightful government. Do I recommend taking down every Confederate statute? No. Some are interpretive, and can and should stay, as an example, those on Civil War battlefields. Most, however, are commemorative and celebrate the continued ownership of fellow human beings as property, chattel. Those need to go, and ASAP.

As to others, we have time to have a rational debate. Columbus didn't come to the new world in order to sicken the natives and had no clue that that was what he was doing. He did however, come to exploit the resources he found here, and did that knowingly. Does that make him good or bad? Or both? We have time to debate those questions.

But, the Confederates were traitors, and they lost the war. The victor, after all, gets to write the history. Take your damn statues (and flags, while you are at it) and go. Their time is over.
There is no disagreement what so ever from me. My question is specifically related to other statues that are being pulled down, such as the Columbus statue in Richmond VA. What next, change the names of all the Cities associated with Columbus... (I would support it in Ohio since it is home to OSU...) What about Washington (City and State) should those names be changed? How about New York or Pennsylvania since both of these were representative of the tyrannical British rule and the Penn Family were opposed to property rights in the colony. Should these names be changed?

I have nothing to add here, but your list is a real mixed bag there. I think some are much easier than others.
100% agree, which is why I posted that list. If you look into the details of each of those people, they all did something that we would deem offensive today. But where are the lines of acceptance, tolerance, and opposition? I don't know. I do know that I would not want the monuments to Franklin, Washington, or Jefferson to come down. Others, I am not so sure about. Thurmond and Byrd should not have statues and should be noted for the racists that they were.
 

Super Amputee Cat

Cyburbian
Messages
2,196
Points
29
And protesters pull down the statue of Andrew Jackson in DC.

What are your thoughts on this one?
Next to Trump, Jackson has got to be my most loathed president. Just hearing about all the atrocities the he committed makes my skin crawl. Of course, (I never heard about this in my sanitized American History classes.)

Not only should all his statues be removed, but he should be removed from the $20 also.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,649
Points
51
He was supposed to be replaced on the $20. That didn't happen.

As far as statues go, I think it's a bad time to stand around for too long or someone will knock you over.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
7,006
Points
37
He was supposed to be replaced on the $20. That didn't happen.

As far as statues go, I think it's a bad time to stand around for too long or someone will knock you over.
Wasn't it supposed to be Rosa Parks?
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
7,006
Points
37
I think is was Harriet Tubman
Yes! That is correct. I remember that now. I found an article from July of 2019 that says the re-design was complicated by new security guidelines and it would be delayed by at least 6 years. The bill was supposed to roll out this year. Seems like it's basically a Trump stall tactic to stop the redesign.

I've never been a fan of any sort of historical figure being depicted on money.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,608
Points
49
Yes! That is correct. I remember that now. I found an article from July of 2019 that says the re-design was complicated by new security guidelines and it would be delayed by at least 6 years. The bill was supposed to roll out this year. Seems like it's basically a Trump stall tactic to stop the redesign.

I've never been a fan of any sort of historical figure being depicted on money.
We need to have new money. Our money is so poorly designed and boring. I am reminded of this article...

 

Linda_D

Cyburbian
Messages
1,745
Points
20
The statues/monuments issue is a thorny one.

I think the statues of Confederate generals and government leaders in public places need to go. These were individuals who not only committed treason but did so in order to protect and promote one of the most heinous institutions ever devised by people into perpetuity. Keep in mind that while many cultures over the millenia had slavery as a labor system, slavery as it developed in the Americas, and especially in the US, declared people of African descent to be property like a horse or cow. These statues can be moved to private property, including museums as long as those museums don't receive government funds. The only exception to this would be statues of Confederate generals in battlefield parks where those generals actually fought because the battlefield parks provide context for the existence of the statue or monument.

I think that monuments to the Confederate soldiers from a local area who served in the Civil War can stay because most of these men weren't slave holders and many were draftees (the Confederacy instituted a draft in 1862, a year before the US did). I also think, though, that local historical societies or other groups should also be allowed to place monuments/statues/plaques honoring Union soldiers, white and black, from the local area if they know of some. While supporters of keeping Confederate statues continually whine about their "Southern heritage" being "erased", the fact is that white Unionists and black soldiers are part of "Southern heritage", too.

I think that the monuments to the Founding Fathers -- the leaders of the Revolutionary War and early republic -- should stay even if they were slave holders. They are national heroes. Some of them had views that would be unacceptable today, but without them, we wouldn't have a country. What they achieved was truly remarkable, and if they had feet of clay, well, everybody does.

Andrew Jackson needs to go. Maybe they could be sent to museums where his accomplishments would be put into context of all his actions. Contrary to myth, he was an awful president, no matter how popular he was. He introduced the infamous "spoils system" into US politics. His treatment of the Native Peoples was reprehensible even for the time. He defied the Supreme Court in removing the Cherokees from their lands in Georgia and the Carolinas in order to open the land for speculators. Jackson's refusal to renew the charter of the Second Bank of the United States and encouragement of land speculation not only brought on the Panic of 1837 but also resulted in the US suffering devastating economic panics with some regularity throughout the rest of the 19th century until the Federal Reserve was created in 1913.

As for other monuments, they need to be looked at individually. Certainly the Roosevelt statue that was removed was racist. I'd keep Columbus unless there was something offensive about the particular statue.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,649
Points
51
The big thing to me is that you place these statues in a museum or some other place of historical significance. Put up a monument at the battle site, list names of people from the town that fought in the war in the historical society. You don't need to erase history, but you don't need to put it in the town square where people can be reminded of the great men that beat their great, great grandfathers and continue to remind them of the oppression they feel today.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
7,006
Points
37
to remind them of the oppression they feel today.
That's exactly why they were placed in the town square. The statutes were never intended to honor anyone, they were intended to continue the oppression and serve as a constant reminder that African Americans were less than their white counterparts. That's why they were in highly public areas, on well traveled streets, or in large public parks.

I think that's a fact that many people who continue to defend these statutes fail to realize. Confederate memorials largely went up in the early 1900's (Jim Crow Laws) and the 50's and 60's (Civil Rights Movement). Both times were rife with civil rights issues and growing tensions. The statutes were, and have always been, purely political. This isn't conjecture, it's not opinion, it is fact. There's no difference between a Confederate war statue on the grounds of a state capital and the KKK erecting a burning cross in the yard of African American's. They're both threats, one's just a little more obvious than the other.
 
Last edited:

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
25,584
Points
59
Mount Rushmore should be 'removed,'
tribal president says ahead of Trump visit: What's behind the site's controversial history


Meghan McCain says removing historic statues is problematic:
'We're a week away from blowing up Mount Rushmore'

 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
25,584
Points
59
Trump said -
The ships that they were building, they looked terrible. I changed designs, I said ‘that’s a terrible looking ship, let’s make it beautiful.'”
Trump said the ship is beautiful, in his words, “like a yacht with missiles.”
How is he qualified ?
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,608
Points
49
And now the Star Spangled Banner is under attack. I just . . . . . forget it.
Not that I am advocating for its removal, but who cares if it were to be removed? Why do we hold these things that don't really mean anything so high? I certainly think our country is fighting right now to re-imagine how we want to be in the future. Maybe now is the time to get a new song? I mean can't we find a song that makes everyone feel good? Not some old dusty song that happens to have a verse that we conveniently don't sing that is blatantly racist?

---

I am sad that Disney is changing Splash Mountain. It is a great ride with a really fun theme that my kids love. With that said, my kids have never seen Song of the South, and have no idea what the ride is about beyond liking that a bunny outwitted a fox. I like zip-a-dee-do-dah and that is as far as I care. I am excited that they are going to re-imagine it to have a Princess and the Frog theme that is inclusive and not trying to hide the original racist undertones. This is the right move and one that likely took way too long. I am sure it was hard for Disney to do, but in the end, they made the hard choice, knowing a lot of people will be angry, but they did it because they also know a lot of people are hurt by the theme. They went with the change so they were on the right side of history.

---

I think we will look back and see this as an inflection point on our society, on our country, and on our ability as Americans to get past ourselves, our "history", and our comfort, and find more solid ground. Ground that feels safe and sound for all of us.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,985
Points
49
Not that I am advocating for its removal, but who cares if it were to be removed? Why do we hold these things that don't really mean anything so high? I certainly think our country is fighting right now to re-imagine how we want to be in the future. Maybe now is the time to get a new song? I mean can't we find a song that makes everyone feel good? Not some old dusty song that happens to have a verse that we conveniently don't sing that is blatantly racist?

---

I am sad that Disney is changing Splash Mountain. It is a great ride with a really fun theme that my kids love. With that said, my kids have never seen Song of the South, and have no idea what the ride is about beyond liking that a bunny outwitted a fox. I like zip-a-dee-do-dah and that is as far as I care. I am excited that they are going to re-imagine it to have a Princess and the Frog theme that is inclusive and not trying to hide the original racist undertones. This is the right move and one that likely took way too long. I am sure it was hard for Disney to do, but in the end, they made the hard choice, knowing a lot of people will be angry, but they did it because they also know a lot of people are hurt by the theme. They went with the change so they were on the right side of history.

---

I think we will look back and see this as an inflection point on our society, on our country, and on our ability as Americans to get past ourselves, our "history", and our comfort, and find more solid ground. Ground that feels safe and sound for all of us.
I like the idea of changing the national anthem from Star Spangled Banner to America the Beautiful.

In regards to Disney, I think updating splash mountain is a great PR move. I too have never seen Song of the South and until they mentioned the redesign of the ride, I did not even know that it was related.

Overall, I think that there are several different things at work here, most of which I support, but I also fear it going to far. I would not support the removal of monuments of the founding fathers or Abraham Lincoln. Outside of that, I have no loyalty to any others.... Well, maybe the Vince Lombardi statute in front of Lambeau Field, but then again, he stood up for racial equity during Jim Crow.
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
7,006
Points
37
Re-branding Splash Mountain is an absolute slam dunk. Disney has basically locked up "Song of the South" for decades. Most people who go to Disney have probably never even seen it. The kids will appreciate "Princess and the Frog" far more.

In other news, NC's Lieutenant Governor is suing the Governor over his COVID-19 mandates. Did I mention that the gubernatorial race is against the Lt. Gov and the Gov? Not politically motivated at all..... :r:
 

WSU MUP Student

Cyburbian
Messages
10,371
Points
43
Re: Disney - I remember seeing Song of the South at the little local movie theatre when it was being re-shown some summer day when I was little sometime back in the mid '80s. I was probably like 7 or 8 and can recall even back then thinking, "man, this is outdated!"

Re: The Star Spangled Banner - It's not a particularly good song and I'd welcome a new national anthem. I like MSkis suggestion of America the Beautiful or I'd also suggest the 1944 version of This Land Was Made For You And Me by Woody Guthrie.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
12,846
Points
51
This is from Hannity's Town Hall conversation with tRump & 50 people in the audience (emphasis is mine):

Numerous political reporters concluded that the biggest bit of news from the TV event was Trump's failure to answer this Hannity softball: "What are your top priority items for a second term?"
"It's a good question," CNN's Kaitlan Collins said, but Trump didn't answer. She said "it's difficult to think of another president being asked about their second term priorities and ultimately providing none, with just over four months to go before the election.



He has no idea about what to do during a second term, except he stays king.
 

Linda_D

Cyburbian
Messages
1,745
Points
20
I like the idea of changing the national anthem from Star Spangled Banner to America the Beautiful.

In regards to Disney, I think updating splash mountain is a great PR move. I too have never seen Song of the South and until they mentioned the redesign of the ride, I did not even know that it was related.

Overall, I think that there are several different things at work here, most of which I support, but I also fear it going to far. I would not support the removal of monuments of the founding fathers or Abraham Lincoln. Outside of that, I have no loyalty to any others.... Well, maybe the Vince Lombardi statute in front of Lambeau Field, but then again, he stood up for racial equity during Jim Crow.
There was a debate about replacing the 'Star Spangled Banner' with another anthem decades ago, and I think 'America the Beautiful' was the leading candidate. I think it was during the Vietnam War era. Keep in mind that the 'Star Spangled Banner' only became the official national anthem in 1931.
 

Doohickie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,723
Points
37
And now the Star Spangled Banner is under attack. I just . . . . . forget it.
I'd much prefer America the Beautiful but even that has issues, "God shed his grace on thee" and other petitions to the almighty are a nice sentiment but atheists and polytheists would probably not be happy with that. Still, if you look at each verse, there is praise of the nation and its people tempered with a humble desire to improve the nation. I like that.
O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!

America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern, impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!

America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!


O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!

America! America!
May God thy gold refine,
Till all success be nobleness,
And every gain divine!


O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!

America! America!
God shed His grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood

From sea to shining sea!
 

Doohickie

Cyburbian
Messages
2,723
Points
37
I think we will look back and see this as an inflection point on our society, on our country, and on our ability as Americans to get past ourselves, our "history", and our comfort, and find more solid ground. Ground that feels safe and sound for all of us.
Or if not, we will look back and say that this was the point where we failed as a nation. But I like to think that you are right.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
12,846
Points
51
From the good mayor of Tupelo, MS after mandating masks be worn in the city:

“Also, ANTIFA is not coming to Tupelo, Elvis statues are not being removed, you are not the target of some type of global conspiracy, it is impossible to erase history and no one has attempted to do so, COVID is not a hoax, you shouldn’t believe and share posts that are obviously false or used as political propaganda, and there is nothing ‘liberal’ about any of the actions that have been taken by our administration regarding these matters.”
 

Linda_D

Cyburbian
Messages
1,745
Points
20
From the good mayor of Tupelo, MS after mandating masks be worn in the city:

“Also, ANTIFA is not coming to Tupelo, Elvis statues are not being removed, you are not the target of some type of global conspiracy, it is impossible to erase history and no one has attempted to do so, COVID is not a hoax, you shouldn’t believe and share posts that are obviously false or used as political propaganda, and there is nothing ‘liberal’ about any of the actions that have been taken by our administration regarding these matters.”
Sadly, the mayor could very well be addressing the citizens of any number of places around the country where stupid, selfish individuals resist taking simple and effective measures to help prevent the spread of covid 19. Here in New York, once the epicenter of the pandemic and where mask wearing and social distancing are the norm, the infection rate has dropped below 1% even though New York has one of the highest testing rates in the country, and that's despite the many days of mass protests in late May and early June in every major city in the state and many smaller cities as well.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,608
Points
49
So anytime someone asks me how I feel about politics... I want to use this tweet from our President. The man who is elected to represent our entire country.

President Trump via Twitter said:
95% Approval Rating of President Trump in the Republican Party. I would imagine the 5% are the RINOS’ and stupid people who don’t want to see great Judges & Supreme Court Justice’s, a new & powerful Military, Choice for Vets, 2A Protection, big RegulationCuts, Life, & much more!
He not only doesn't want support from Democrats or Independents, but he doesn't want support from the "stupid people" who are republican and yet don't support him blindly.

Sigh. This is what it has come to?
 

Linda_D

Cyburbian
Messages
1,745
Points
20
So anytime someone asks me how I feel about politics... I want to use this tweet from our President. The man who is elected to represent our entire country.



He not only doesn't want support from Democrats or Independents, but he doesn't want support from the "stupid people" who are republican and yet don't support him blindly.

Sigh. This is what it has come to?
Was this a Russian poll? Back in the bad old days of the USSR, they held elections and the CP candidates put up like that, too.

The last poll numbers about Trump's support among Republicans that I saw reported by any legitimate news outlet showed his support was at its lowest ever, less than 60% I think. Biden's campaign has been hauling in significantly more in contribution than Trump recently.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,985
Points
49
I am curious what everyone's thoughts are on the CHOP zone in Seattle. Would you want to be inside this zone? Why or why not? Would you want to own property within this zone.

What should the City of Seattle do?
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
12,846
Points
51
Don't know if I can really answer that question based on the limited information I've seen and read. There have been similar efforts that have received good reviews and others that turned out very bad.

Since you bring up the question, what's your thoughts?
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,985
Points
49
Don't know if I can really answer that question based on the limited information I've seen and read. There have been similar efforts that have received good reviews and others that turned out very bad.

Since you bring up the question, what's your thoughts?
The CHOP Zone is a mix between the wild wild west and anarchy. Based on my understanding of it, it is the Capitol Hill area of Town that forced the police out of the area, burned down the police precinct, and is running lawless at the moment as protesters are preventing law enforcment from entering. There have been several crimes including the murder of a teenage boy in the area.

Personally, I am not in support of the CHOP zone remaining. I believe that the City needs to try to continue to step in and work with the folks to return some since of order. If the protesters refuse, increase the levels with the police in a non-violent/non-confrontational manner, but be willing to ramp it up with National Guard if necessary.

I support peaceful protests, but I do not support riots or anarchy.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,649
Points
51
Not that I know much about the CHOP thing, but it doesn't sound like complete anarchy to me. You know if the cops wanted to take it back they could. They have the equipment. It sounds like Seattle is trying to do the right thing and figure out some of this racism stuff without using a hammer to hit every nail. I also try to avoid the hyperbolic nature of the news that loves to report the end of the world stuff.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,985
Points
49
Not that I know much about the CHOP thing, but it doesn't sound like complete anarchy to me. You know if the cops wanted to take it back they could. They have the equipment. It sounds like Seattle is trying to do the right thing and figure out some of this racism stuff without using a hammer to hit every nail. I also try to avoid the hyperbolic nature of the news that loves to report the end of the world stuff.
They had four shootings in 10 days within the district and there have been reports of other assaults because police have not been paroling the area at all and have been kept out. Riots, looters, and continued civil unrest, including the forced abandonment and burning of a police precinct, without any enforcment intervention sounds a bit like anarchy to me.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,266
Points
71

Looks like the gloves are coming off earlier than usual in the election season. Votevets has run with a traitor theme. They had another ad suggesting that because Trump shot down changing bases named after Confederate generals he was somehow a traitor. That one was a complete dud imho and will utterly fail to resonate, but this one seems rather more effective.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,985
Points
49
I had lunch with a super conservative friend of mine who campaigned for Trump last time. I asked him if he was going to do the same this year. He informed me that not only was he not campaigning for Trump, he was voting for Biden, and went on to say this is the first time in his voting life that he is not voting for a republican in any race.

It makes me wonder how many others are like him this fall.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,649
Points
51
Had to write my senator (McSally). Today's article talked about how she's trying to find out who leaked the information about the soldier bounties. In other words she doesn't care about our actual Marines dying over there, she only cares about the politics of it. She screams every minute that she's a vet (I believe she was the first woman to fly combat missions for the Air Force), but after this she's not a vet, she's just another politician. From what I can tell no one in her unit respected her. In the world of the military that means a lot.

It's Arizona, I never would have voted for her anyway (she was appointed after McCain died), but I'm voting for the combat pilot/astronaut who's wife was a Senator and survived getting shot in the head at a meet and greet over the politician who hasn't done crap for Arizona other than brag that she is also a vet.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,266
Points
71
I know some folks howled about choosing the date of Juneteenth for a reelection kickoff was an intentional dog whistle for the alt right, or retweeting images with white supremacists in the background was something Trump didn't notice, or a host of other situations where folks have gotten into a twist about something symbolic said or shown by Trump that his minions have always maintained was simply a coincidence. I've generally taken the view that in the majority of cases they likely have been coincidences, but this latest one has got me starting to question whether the benefit of the doubt should continue to be extended.
 
Messages
2,278
Points
20
And now the Star Spangled Banner is under attack. I just . . . . . forget it.
At this moment in time, the very biggest issue is the third stanza
of the Natiional Anthem--the fifth & sixth lines. (Bold/larger print by me):

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore,
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a Country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the
hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
 
Top