Are taxes oppression? Are environmental zoning regulations oppression?
no, but we are not talking about taxes, we are talking about statues.
And to be clear, I’m not saying that just because something isn’t oppression that it’s right and good. But I think you’re being a bit hyperbolic in your use of language, and it’s an unsound position to hang your hat on.
So you are saying that if Trump dictates that every town must have a statue to his greatness, that you would consider anyone who calls that oppressive to be hyperbolic?
Well, I’m talking about this:
Which is a poor definition and shows a poor understanding of what you’re saying. My point is that taxes and statues both fall under this definition. So maybe this isn’t a great definition of oppression. That’s all.
Taxes are how we fund the government. There certainly are those who consider them to be oppressive.
Statues do not fund the government, they are not necessary for the functioning of the government. They are there to tell the people living near those statues who to look up to, who to honor, who should be a role model.
We all vote on taxes
By being a voter, we consent to be governed
Lets say that a state imposes a 5% tax on cities that is not imposed on the rural areas, would you consider that to be imposing their will on a population that disagrees?
By your definition, nothing could ever be oppressive, as everything would fall under your definition.
If you do not have the consent of the governed, then imposing law and order is oppression. It’s pretty simple. The state is imposing its will on the cities that are within it. The people in the rural areas do not live in the cities, and yet dictate what will be displayed in said cities.
If the people in the city mandated that rural areas have to start putting up statues to Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tubman, I would also consider that to be oppressive.
And why does someone like Robert E Lee or Jefferson Davis deserve anything BUT having their name become synonymous with “traitor” (unless it’s “racist traitor” since their treason was done with the goal of ensuring the continuation of the institution of slavery)?
Maybe they do deserve it, but it simply is not going to happen. IMO.
And that’s exactly why 150 years later the legacy of slavery and racism is still with us. If Germany still idolized prominent Nazis that would be a huge problem. There are certainly elements within Germany that would love nothing more. But recognizing this their government has done its best to discourage nazism and educate the population about why the nazis were evil and wrong. We here in the US didn’t do that. We can keep kicking the can down the road, whining about how reconstruction was a failure and now it’s too late to do anything about it, and allow the festering wounds of the civil war to kill our nation. Or we can start the painful process of reconciliation NOW.
How? Reconciliation requires 2 party consent. It cannot be forced.
I don’t think you know the meaning of the word “heroic”.
The only heroic thing a Confederate soldier could have done would have been blow his own brains out. Or better yet, blow out his commander’s brains first, then those of his squad, and then his own.
You think the nazis magically wanted to stop being nazis when Hitler shot himself in a bunker? Or was there a long and arduous process of deprogramming Germany from the Nazi propaganda?
Or, you know, desert and join the Union
Sorry for the continued pedantry:
The Ottomans didn’t rename it either. It was technically Kostantiniyye right down to the 20th century. The Turkish Republic renamed it in an official capacity. But it is almost certain that ‘Istanbul’ is derived from Greek vernacular and its local use preceded the Ottoman conquest. It’s the equivalent of modern usages like ‘The City’ for whatever city you live in/near( so I’ll refer to driving to San Francisco as “going to The City” ). Istanbul was just the most popular of a half-dozen unofficial and semi-official nicknames that it picked up down through the centuries.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Nor had I considered this brand new hypothetical. Nor does it relate much to what we’re talking about. But Trump does not have that power, does he? And, if he does, what does that power look like? Is Trump going to come into my town and arrest the mayor if there isn’t a Trump statue on the green? Whose property rights are subsumed?
But yes, assuming that Trump has the power to enact what you suggest, that might indeed be oppression, as it seems to me that for him to effectively do so would require drastic action and use of force not granted to him by his office.
Anyway . . .
Don’t we all vote on our state governments, thereby granting them permission to impose laws and statues upon us?
And, my argument is that “imposing will on a population that disagrees” is not the same as “oppression”, particularly if that population has consented to be governed.
I don’t think I’ve posited a definition of oppression, so I don’t know how, as you say, everything could fall under my definition. I just think you’re missing something. I’m not prepared to stand to strongly behind this because I haven’t thought it through deeply, but something like:
“Unjust control over an un-consenting population” might be a better definition. Or perhaps the “unjust” part doesn’t even need to be there.
To me, the great argument for oppression in America today is voter disenfranchisement. Democracy is the promise the government makes to the people in exchange for control. With eroding Democracy, it can feel harder and harder to feel that consent was given to be governed (and of course, disenfranchisement as a matter of course for Black populations in America has been a tool of oppression since forever).
But without an awareness and acknowledgement of consent and voluntary surrender of autonomy, every government action looks oppressive. “Will” getting imposed upon populations who disagree with that imposition is an inevitable outcome of our Democratic process. But, by consenting to be governed, we accept that we will at times be imposed upon. So oppression must be something more.
Anyway, this has all been kind of a hijack and a nit-pick.
I just found out that in Riyahd, Saudi Arabia, they have erected 25 foot statues honoring and commemorating the 19 hijackers who participated in the September 11th attacks.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Okay, that’s a lie (probably). But when you read that, you got a bit angry, didn’t you? You thought, how dare they put up statues to those monsters?
And that’s getting upset about them putting up something in their own country. If the Muslims in Minnesota wanted to put up statues to them, you’d probably be even more incensed at the idea.
But putting confederate propaganda all over the place is okay, somehow.
No, I think the Nazis saw that people were being tried for war crimes, executed, etc., and went underground. Or fled Germany. Literally, the whole world was against the Nazis, they could not survive openly except in small pockets.
That didn’t happen in the South. Maybe it should have, but it didn’t. We coddled. So we are now several generations past that that aren’t literally confederates, but still hold on to some of the legacy of confederacy. You can forcibly tear down all the statues you want, ban flags at NASCAR, whatever. I highly, HIGHLY doubt that some statues or a confederate flags been the main driving force of people maintaining a mindset we don’t like. IMO. Symptom perhaps, not cause. That’s just hiding the symptoms.
But hey, maybe we’ll know differently in 50 years.
Can’t get away with nothin’ around you pedants, can I? 
The point was, far more historically significant name changes were accomplished without destroying an entire empire.
See? I did it again! Somebody stop me before I kill again!