Yes. I think if a majority want it, then they should stay…for now. But a 51% majority is pretty slim, and I’d say watch this space…public opinion is obviously shifting on this, and I doubt that the status quo will remain in place once it shifts the other way. Now…if/when it does shift, will you and, more importantly, the minority on this issue equally accept the democratic process and allow those statues to be brought down?
51% to 49% is slim. 51% to 28% is not.
Not in Charlottseville. Virginia has a law that prohibits such a decision being made by the local, not state, government. And that law was made by elected representatives within the scope of their duties, and, from the poll, apparently reflecting the wishes of their constituents.
The state government is not making these decisions. Local governments are.
And we are a representative democracy. Dealing with statues in their localities is within the scope of the jobs of elected leaders, and their decisions do not and don’t need to always align perfectly with polling.
The Charlottesville government has had debates and voted on whether to remove it. There are lawsuits about state law, but this decision came from Charlottesville, not from the whole state.
No. In Virginia, it is outside the scope of local authorities.
Says you. If this is in dispute, the courts will resolve it, not you.
Presumably, the rest are undecided, so it’s slimmer than you think it is. Those on the fence could and probably will get off it at some point. All the while, those for keeping it could potentially erode too, especially as a new generation grows up. This is exactly the trajectory we had for the civil rights movement.
And you didn’t answer the question I asked.
What question - that if more than 50% wants them removed, they should be removed? I fully agree with that. But - if it is very controversial, I want proof of that 50+%. As in, run a referendum on it.
Well, it’s only 51% now…shouldn’t there be a referendum? I mean, that seems pretty controversial to me, and I’d like some proof…
Basically, we have such a referendum process already…it’s called voting for your representatives. That’s what I’m talking about in this thread, personally. Those representatives are, IMHO, authorized to make the call on this topic. If they are wrong about it then they will be voted out of office in the next election cycle, assuming enough people are riled enough by their actions to vote them out.
Yes, and this decision was debated and is being made by the Charlottesville government.
Sure.
If things were this simple, there would be no need for referendums ever. But there is.
Conservatives - opposed to local governance since 1776.
I’m not sure if that question makes sense.
What exactly is American? Would the USA change in some way if Washington DC was named something else? Yeah it would change. Would it make it lesser or greater? I don’t see a single variable that we can call American and then measure that accurately.
I do think that process and precedent are important in order to uphold some of the concepts that make the USA as dominant in the world as it is. I think some of the biggest cultural issues that are used by groups to manipulate the populace are exacerbated by short circuiting the normal democratic process by using judicial fiat and mob pressure.
Hey Okrahoma, I got some polls for you.
Do you approve or disapprove of what the Freedom Riders are doing? (asked in 1961)
22% approve, 61% disapprove
Do you think ‘sit-ins’ at lunch counters, ‘freedom buses,’ and other demonstrati
ons by Negroes will hurt or help the Negro’s chances of being integrated in the
South? (also 1961)
57% hurt, 28% help
What are your feelings about the proposed civil rights rally to be held in Washington on August 28, 1963? (asked in 1963, this is the “I have a dream” speech rally)
23% favorable; 35% unfavorable; 7% unfavorable and predict violence; 18% unfavorable and it won’t accomplish anything
All in all, do you feel the demonstrations by Negroes on civil rights have helped more or hurt more in the advancement of Negro rights? (asked in 1966)
85% hurts Negroes, 15% helps Negroes
I’m sure you will agree, there’s a certain risk in blindly following the will of the majority.
51% is a red herring. Of course majority rule is an essential part to democracy, but minority rights are also essential. If James Meredith had to wait for 51% of Mississippians to agree that he be allowed to attend Ole Miss, he might still be waiting.
Majority rule with minority rights means that if a minority can make a case that the appropriate shot callers (judges, city council members, what have you) that something does more harm than good, they don’t need to clear the extra hurdle of convincing half the population.
So you agree that America would not be less American, or least that a conclusive measurement needed to demonstrate such is impractical.
None of which has anything to do with the question I asked.
I agree with all of this. And that’s why I don’t think democracy holds the solution here.
IMHO, most Americans don’t really give a fuck about these monuments. Only the people who hate them and love them really notice them; they are just background scenery to everyone else. Ask the majority what they think about the monuments and of course they’re going to say some variation of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I’d probably say the same thing if I felt completely neutral about the Civil War, slavery, and the Confederacy. And I believe most Americans are emotionally neutral with regards to these things, even if they lean one way or the other in an intellectual discussion.
I’m starting to realize that it doesn’t naturally occur to lots of people that feelings of offense should be given more weight than feelings of happiness and acceptance, even when those who feel offended are outnumbered. Like, say you’re hosting dinner for me and two other people, and two of us will eat anything while the other person only eats poultry. Isn’t it rude to serve pot roast based on the reasoning that “majority rules”? Yes, it is. There is nothing wrong with preparing something that everyone sitting at the table will either like or feel neutral about. Now let’s say your dinner guests have paid you to cook for them. Isn’t it even ruder to side with the majority? OF COURSE IT IS. For 100+ years, the offended minority have been paying for something they don’t like for very valid reasons while people who don’t really have strong feelings have overruled them (while, as we’ve seen lately, accusing them of being history-hating titty-babies). Just because this is democratic doesn’t mean its right.
Someone in this thread or some other thread suggested that the Confederate monuments be paired with monuments showcasing the horrors of slavery to balance things out. So now you’ve got citizens being upset by reminders of the Confederacy and all that entails, but also slavery and all THAT entails. And go figure! Most of these citizens will just happen to be the descendants of those most brutalized by the Confederacy and slavery. Meanwhile, white people, most of whom are emotionally disconnected from both of these things, can be proud of themselves for paying lip service to the History That Shall Never Be Forgotten. Well, good for them! But for a lot of black Americans, slavery and Jim Crow and racism are things that are always on the brain for rather obvious reasons. Personally, I don’t want to be reminded of slavery every time I pay a bill at the post office or walk into the lobby of city hall. Sometimes a person just wants to feel like a first-class Murican living in the year 2017. If I need an injection of history to keep me grounded, I can open a book, go to a museum, or watch “Roots” to remember from whence we came.
The “we can’t tear down this statue of Robert E. Lee because then we’ll be erasing our history!” argument is clearly bogus. As if, without that equestrian statue in the middle of town, people would be saying “Robert Who? The Civil War? What is this ‘Civil War’ of which you speak?”
That Canadian monument, on the other hand, seems genuinely educational about an aspect of history that I (an American Southerner) had certainly never heard of. I was aware of there being a certain amount of peripheral involvement of Canada in the American Civil War (the St. Albans Raid, for example), but this statement from the article:
was a real eye-opener. That was a fascinating article.
So, yes, well done, Canada!