Campus Happenings

[Ibanez]

I'm not sure destruction of property is a peaceful assembly as outlined in our Constitution.....ahhh look at who I'm talking to you.

Laws are for white people....not the minorities or the ones with hurt feelings, right?

Those at the top of the food chain often decry the pleas of those on the plate.

Thanks Confucius...

[CID1990]

With that said, millennial babying aside, UNC should've removed this statue a long time ago. When you have the actual wording of the dedication speech and there's no doubt about the intent of a statue like this, it should be removed. I'm not saying everything the mob wants to pull down should be pulled down, but there are a fair number of really easy calls and this is one that should've been done decades ago.

Agreed.

People have been asking for these statues to be taken down for decades, so I'm not sure how much more ignored discourse there can be. The conversation always shifts to how inappropriate and uncivilized the actions are rather than the continued inaction of the people in control of the situation.

Your blathering about making us the perfect democracy is inconsistent with your take on undemocratic processes

[Ibanez]

It's a piece of marble that isn't violating anyone's rights. Hope the participating students are identified and punished.

And hopefully other universities give them full-rides for tearing down symbols of hate.

So I guess we don't honor those that died for their state. I understand the argument and it isn't without merit. However, you people really have to understand how state vs national pride ranked in peoples minds in 1860.

Spoiler: show

It would also benefit people to learn things like how Robert E Lee viewed "slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country." However, he views on RACE were common for his time (they were better off here, learning to be "civilized" then in Africa.) So...he's a paradox just like all these snowflakes that say they are fighting for a Democracy...as long as it's them leading.

[∞∞∞]

Where do you stop? Taking down the Washington Monument? How about the Capitol building that was partially built by slave labor?

The Capitol and Washington Monument don't stand for bigotry and hatred. If attitudes shift and they end up symbolizing such items, then I'd support their removal from the public.

Attitudes shift and each society has a right to create what they believe is best for them.

[CID1990]

Where do you stop? Taking down the Washington Monument? How about the Capitol building that was partially built by slave labor?

The Capitol and Washington Monument don't stand for bigotry and hatred. If attitudes shift and they end up symbolizing such items, then I'd support their removal from the public.

Attitudes shift and each society has a right to create what they believe is best for them.

With mayhem and violence

[Ibanez]

With that said, millennial babying aside, UNC should've removed this statue a long time ago. When you have the actual wording of the dedication speech and there's no doubt about the intent of a statue like this, it should be removed. I'm not saying everything the mob wants to pull down should be pulled down, but there are a fair number of really easy calls and this is one that should've been done decades ago.

Agreed.

People have been asking for these statues to be taken down for decades, so I'm not sure how much more ignored discourse there can be. The conversation always shifts to how inappropriate and uncivilized the actions are rather than the continued inaction of the people in control of the situation.

But there are LAWS in place to remove these things. I seriously doubt these kids tried to use the democracy that apparently car about to bring about change. It's easier to throw a fit, damage property and potentially hurt someone in the process.

[Ibanez]

Where do you stop? Taking down the Washington Monument? How about the Capitol building that was partially built by slave labor?

The Capitol and Washington Monument don't stand for bigotry and hatred. If attitudes shift and they end up symbolizing such items, then I'd support their removal from the public.

Attitudes shift and each society has a right to create what they believe is best for them.

Attitudes are not facts. Remember, it was the attitudes towards southern chivalry and the lost cause that erected these statues.

How dangerous is it for someone to change their opinions based on prevailing attitudes? Wouldn't you rather change your opinion when presented with facts instead of someone's feelings?

To quote Lin-Manuel Miranda

If you stand for nothing, what will you fall for

[Pwns]

And hopefully other universities give them full-rides for tearing down symbols of hate.

Thankfully what defines a symbol of hate is always very clear and certainly not in any doubt. We should really use mobs more often, I can't ever see that being a bad thing.

With that said, millennial babying aside, UNC should've removed this statue a long time ago. When you have the actual wording of the dedication speech and there's no doubt about the intent of a statue like this, it should be removed. I'm not saying everything the mob wants to pull down should be pulled down, but there are a fair number of really easy calls and this is one that should've been done decades ago.

I've got multiple people in my family who are recent UNC grads. The statue is more a landmark where you go to take silly selfies than it is a monument. UNC is really liberal and has been for a long time, and if the Silent Sam were anything other than that there would have been protests long ago to remove it, and not just now in our insane political climate.

I think what these kind of things have evolved into needs to be taken into account and not what they are. The KKK (for example) became a very different organization than what it started out as and we obviously view it through what it became and not what was in its infancy.

[GannonFan]

The Capitol and Washington Monument don't stand for bigotry and hatred. If attitudes shift and they end up symbolizing such items, then I'd support their removal from the public.

Attitudes shift and each society has a right to create what they believe is best for them.

Attitudes are not facts. Remember, it was the attitudes towards southern chivalry and the lost cause that erected these statues.

Agreed - that's the danger in mob mentality and the real issue with the gigantic hole in Trip's thinking here. If we just let "attitudes" rule the day, then, as you say, it was the "attitudes" of the day that resulted in these statues, most of them (not all of them) being erected in the first place. If we let the mob rule, then we would also then have to accept that 100 years of mob rule that developed and enforced Jim Crow laws was justified as well. Because attitudes. Mobs are a terrible way of advancing any particular idea, unless that idea is one that wouldn't pass in the light of day to begin with. Funny how mobs generally work at night.

[Ibanez]

Attitudes are not facts. Remember, it was the attitudes towards southern chivalry and the lost cause that erected these statues.

Agreed - that's the danger in mob mentality and the real issue with the gigantic hole in Trip's thinking here. If we just let "attitudes" rule the day, then, as you say, it was the "attitudes" of the day that resulted in these statues, most of them (not all of them) being erected in the first place. If we let the mob rule, then we would also then have to accept that 100 years of mob rule that developed and enforced Jim Crow laws was justified as well. Because attitudes. Mobs are a terrible way of advancing any particular idea, unless that idea is one that wouldn't pass in the light of day to begin with. Funny how mobs generally work at night.

And how they cover their faces.

[GannonFan]

Thankfully what defines a symbol of hate is always very clear and certainly not in any doubt. We should really use mobs more often, I can't ever see that being a bad thing.

With that said, millennial babying aside, UNC should've removed this statue a long time ago. When you have the actual wording of the dedication speech and there's no doubt about the intent of a statue like this, it should be removed. I'm not saying everything the mob wants to pull down should be pulled down, but there are a fair number of really easy calls and this is one that should've been done decades ago.

I've got multiple people in my family who are recent UNC grads. The statue is more a landmark where you go to take silly selfies than it is a monument. UNC is really liberal and has been for a long time, and if the Silent Sam were anything other than that there would have been protests long ago to remove it, and not just now in our insane political climate.

I think what these kind of things have evolved into needs to be taken into account and not what they are. The KKK (for example) became a very different organization than what it started out as and we obviously view it through what it became and not what was in its infancy.

The thing is, there were protests to remove this statue before, some dating back to the 1960's during the Civil Rights movement. I'd say protests spread over 60 years counts as "protests long ago".

For this particular statue, it's hard to get around the dedication speech that came along with it. It was erected to let it be known that white supremacy was the idea behind it.

As for your views of the KKK, it's views like that that do give people ammunition to tear down statues like this. The KKK, even in its infancy, was never a vastly different organization than what people view it today. Sure, maybe for a couple of weeks or a year it was, but it almost immediately became an organization that helped to organize and commit some of the worst crimes this country has ever seen, and mostly with the intent to subjugate recently freed African-Americans. It was always, almost from its creation, an organization that was focused on re-establishing white supremacy in all social and political aspects of life. There's no reason to try to defend it. By 1870, still in it's infancy, the KKK was labeled a terrorist organization by a federal grand jury and the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871 are clear reminders that the KKK, even during it's infancy, was a wretched and detestable organization. You echo a lot of "Lost Cause" revisionist history when you try to make the point that the KKK was somehow a better thing than we know it now.

[BDKJMU]

College kids now are mostly 18-22. That would put them born 1996-2000. According to the interwebs, the most commonly accepted Gen Y or millenials are those born 1982-2000.

So, yes, they are millenials.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ign=buffer

1996 is becoming the agreed on end of the millennial generation.

When I web searched “millenial generation definition” the 1st thing that popped up was
“The term Millennials generally refers to the generation of people born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s. Perhaps the most commonly used birth range for this group is 1982-2000. The Millennial Generation is also known as Generation Y, because it comes after Generation X-those people between the early 1960s and the 1980s.”

According to wiki there are numerous sources that have it all over the place. Not a concensus on 1996 at all..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

But whatever it is, you are part of the most self centered, narcissistic, snowflake generation ever.

[93henfan]

Years don’t really matter. Millenials aren’t that hard to spot.

[Ibanez]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ign=buffer

1996 is becoming the agreed on end of the millennial generation.

When I web searched “millenial generation definition” the 1st thing that popped up was
“The term Millennials generally refers to the generation of people born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s. Perhaps the most commonly used birth range for this group is 1982-2000. The Millennial Generation is also known as Generation Y, because it comes after Generation X-those people between the early 1960s and the 1980s.”

According to wiki there are numerous sources that have it all over the place. Not a concensus on 1996 at all..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

But whatever it is, you are part of the most self centered, narcissistic, snowflake generation ever.

duplicate

[Ibanez]

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 ... ign=buffer

1996 is becoming the agreed on end of the millennial generation.

When I web searched “millenial generation definition” the 1st thing that popped up was
“The term Millennials generally refers to the generation of people born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s. Perhaps the most commonly used birth range for this group is 1982-2000. The Millennial Generation is also known as Generation Y, because it comes after Generation X-those people between the early 1960s and the 1980s.”

According to wiki there are numerous sources that have it all over the place. Not a concensus on 1996 at all..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennials

But whatever it is, you are part of the most self centered, narcissistic, snowflake generation ever.

I saw that.

I also saw an article from The Atlantic which says, " The experts say the media get to determine when generations happen, and we're the media." So..not all sources are that scientific.




Notice how Tom Brokaw is the source for the Silent Generation.



Also, if you keep reading sources like Newsweek, Business Insider,etc... are using Pew Research.



But really...we're talking about 3 years. Either 1997 or 2000 as the cut off.


It's all theory anyway. Can't we just share a beer and be excellent to one another?

[Ibanez]

Years don’t really matter. Millenials aren’t that hard to spot.

I was at Target yesterday and saw the adult pajamas like this


Who are wearing these!?!?

[Pwns]

You echo a lot of "Lost Cause" revisionist history when you try to make the point that the KKK was somehow a better thing than we know it now.

Actually, I'm doing the exact opposite of what you're saying. I'm saying we should judge the KKK by what it is now and has been for probably 98% of it's history and not it's very beginning.

As for the dedication speech, like you say, most Americans suck at history and young people are even worse. Most people don't even know about that, hence how what the monument represents has evolved.

[CID1990]

You echo a lot of "Lost Cause" revisionist history when you try to make the point that the KKK was somehow a better thing than we know it now.

Actually, I'm doing the exact opposite of what you're saying. I'm saying we should judge the KKK by what it is now and has been for probably 98% of it's history and not it's very beginning.

As for the dedication speech, like you say, most Americans suck at history and young people are even worse. Most people don't even know about that, hence how what the monument represents has evolved.

At its very beginning it wasn’t as violent as the 20th century incarnation, but it’s aim was to scare blacks away from the polls.

The early Klan in my hometown spurred the Kirk-Holden War in Caswell County by murdering the carpetbagger Chicken Stephens in the Caswell County Courthouse.

There is this romanticized version of the Reconstruction era Klan which is just not true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk–Holden_war

It is still a subject of debate as to who actually killed Stephens (the specific person). But it was definitely the Klan.

Edit- not sure why my link is clipping. Copy and paste the whole thing, otherwise you’ll read about what a “Kirk” is

[GannonFan]

Actually, I'm doing the exact opposite of what you're saying. I'm saying we should judge the KKK by what it is now and has been for probably 98% of it's history and not it's very beginning.

As for the dedication speech, like you say, most Americans suck at history and young people are even worse. Most people don't even know about that, hence how what the monument represents has evolved.

At its very beginning it wasn’t as violent as the 20th century incarnation, but it’s aim was to scare blacks away from the polls.

The early Klan in my hometown spurred the Kirk-Holden War in Caswell County by murdering the carpetbagger Chicken Stephens in the Caswell County Courthouse.

There is this romanticized version of the Reconstruction era Klan which is just not true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk–Holden_war

It is still a subject of debate as to who actually killed Stephens (the specific person). But it was definitely the Klan.

Edit- not sure why my link is clipping. Copy and paste the whole thing, otherwise you’ll read about what a “Kirk” is

If you want to say the very first year the klan was organized it wasn't violent, then that's one thing. But that was such a short period of time, and it radicalized so quickly (remember, the war ended in 1865 - the Enforcement Acts, which came after the large wave of violence, started in 1870) that it's missing the point to say that the klan wasn't always terrible. It was. And frankly, the violence in the 1860's and 1870's was arguably worse than the klan in the 20th century. The amount of killing and slaughter was staggering during Reconstruction. Chernow's book on Ulyssess Grant is a great read if you haven't already read it - really gives you a stark picture of the white supremacist resistance during that time, certainly more focused in the South where the majority of the violence was, but in the whole nation as well. But the point is that the klu klux klan was never an organization that didn't deal in intimidation, violence, and white supremacy - it always did.

[CID1990]

At its very beginning it wasn’t as violent as the 20th century incarnation, but it’s aim was to scare blacks away from the polls.

The early Klan in my hometown spurred the Kirk-Holden War in Caswell County by murdering the carpetbagger Chicken Stephens in the Caswell County Courthouse.

There is this romanticized version of the Reconstruction era Klan which is just not true.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk–Holden_war

It is still a subject of debate as to who actually killed Stephens (the specific person). But it was definitely the Klan.

Edit- not sure why my link is clipping. Copy and paste the whole thing, otherwise you’ll read about what a “Kirk” is

If you want to say the very first year the klan was organized it wasn't violent, then that's one thing. But that was such a short period of time, and it radicalized so quickly (remember, the war ended in 1865 - the Enforcement Acts, which came after the large wave of violence, started in 1870) that it's missing the point to say that the klan wasn't always terrible. It was. And frankly, the violence in the 1860's and 1870's was arguably worse than the klan in the 20th century. The amount of killing and slaughter was staggering during Reconstruction. Chernow's book on Ulyssess Grant is a great read if you haven't already read it - really gives you a stark picture of the white supremacist resistance during that time, certainly more focused in the South where the majority of the violence was, but in the whole nation as well. But the point is that the klu klux klan was never an organization that didn't deal in intimidation, violence, and white supremacy - it always did.

I think I was saying that the idea of a nonviolent early iteration of the Klan was a myth. It was organized to deny blacks the franchise, and they used violence or the threat of it to do so. Or maybe you were replying to Pwns


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

If you want to say the very first year the klan was organized it wasn't violent, then that's one thing. But that was such a short period of time, and it radicalized so quickly (remember, the war ended in 1865 - the Enforcement Acts, which came after the large wave of violence, started in 1870) that it's missing the point to say that the klan wasn't always terrible. It was. And frankly, the violence in the 1860's and 1870's was arguably worse than the klan in the 20th century. The amount of killing and slaughter was staggering during Reconstruction. Chernow's book on Ulyssess Grant is a great read if you haven't already read it - really gives you a stark picture of the white supremacist resistance during that time, certainly more focused in the South where the majority of the violence was, but in the whole nation as well. But the point is that the klu klux klan was never an organization that didn't deal in intimidation, violence, and white supremacy - it always did.

I think I was saying that the idea of a nonviolent early iteration of the Klan was a myth. It was organized to deny blacks the franchise, and they used violence or the threat of it to do so. Or maybe you were replying to Pwns


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha. Just responding to the line that it wasn't as violent as the 20th century version of it. By any measure it was very violent from almost the word go. We've tended to forget how violent things were during Reconstruction, but it was really brutal in many places in the South during that time and the klan, or groups like it, were responsible for much of it.

[Pwns]

All I'm saying is that things evolve and come to represent and be understood as different things over time. The Democratic party has a sordid racial history, and Planned Parenthood and the gun control movement do as well. Hell, a lot of our old universities were basically set up specifically to educate only white people.

Like I said, Silent Sam has been up for a long time on a notoriously liberal campus for a long time with not much noise made about it, but now that nazi hysteria has spread you've got a mob of people pulling it down.

[UNI88]

Where do you stop? Taking down the Washington Monument? How about the Capitol building that was partially built by slave labor?

The Capitol and Washington Monument don't stand for bigotry and hatred. If attitudes shift and they end up symbolizing such items, then I'd support their removal from the public.

Attitudes shift and each society has a right to create what they believe is best for them.

So it was ok for the Taliban to destroy statues of the Buddha?

Is it ok for me to use red spray paint on people wearing Che shirts to symbolize all of the innocent people that he sent to their deaths?

[CID1990]

I think I was saying that the idea of a nonviolent early iteration of the Klan was a myth. It was organized to deny blacks the franchise, and they used violence or the threat of it to do so. Or maybe you were replying to Pwns


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha. Just responding to the line that it wasn't as violent as the 20th century version of it. By any measure it was very violent from almost the word go. We've tended to forget how violent things were during Reconstruction, but it was really brutal in many places in the South during that time and the klan, or groups like it, were responsible for much of it.

I think the 19th century Klan and the 20th century Klan were different organizations, and their tactics were different

The Klan of the 20th century was monolithically violent - there were no “gentleman’s Klan” chapters, unlike the 19th century version, where there was a wide range of variance between Klan groups, some of which weren’t violent.

But where I come from, the earlier version of the klan was probably MORE violent than the rednecks we have today. There’s a chapter in Caswell County to this day in Pelham. They send mailings out from a trailer there, and they are pretty pathetic

[css75]

I blame some of this on the WWII so called greatest generation. This group accomplished many many things, but they failed miserably in one aspect. They failed to pass the values and grit they had on to their children. Boomers became soft and it has declined since with some exceptions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk