Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[JM5]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Is it your position then, that Lee didn't support the continuation of slavery?

Yes indeed he did, much like Washington. Things change with time and societies do evolve but forcing that evolution at the rate and in the direction that you see fit is what authoritarianism is. Fascists imagined a utopia much different from Communists who imagined it differently from how the current postmodernist globalists do. None the less, all of these visions of utopian futures are doomed to fail and possibly cause suffering for millions along the way.

Currently, postmodernist thought pushes for the questioning and tearing down of the old order/patriarchy/imperialism. People imagine that once this is done, there will be a utopian future where everyone will just get along and have equal opportunities which will result in equal outcomes and an optimum level of happiness. Scientifically speaking this cannot happen except through social or genetic engineering. Anyone with a background in history or human behaviour or group dynamics knows that in fact tearing down the establishment will leave a power vacuum which will be filled by a new establishment with a new elite and new disenfranchised groups and will be accompanied by a lot of suffering along the way. This is how human society works.

I don't blame those who want to tear down the establishment for their own personal benefit, after all that is their prerogative. Mine is to protect my own wellbeing and future and I'm convinced that once people become more aware of the truth behind the thinking/philosophy influencing recent political and social trends, many will agree with me.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by JM5

From what I understand, the nazi march in Charlottesville was organized in protest of the removal of the Robert E. Lee statue on the UVA campus. As I understand it, the public parks in Charlottesville, originally named after Confederate generals Lee and Jackson have been renamed in recent years.

If you actually bother to do some research regarding the history of the US civil war, you will realise that these men were not exactly rabid supporters of slavery. In fact Lee was said to be relieved that slavery ended with the defeat. Rather they were defenders of their home, way of life and the Southern nationalist ideal from the economic and cultural domination of the North. The parks and statues were named/erected long ago, when the victorious federal government did not have the gall nor the legal authority to remove symbols of the defeated rebellion. Instead they are now being renamed and removed by a liberal activist mayor and city council.

As someone who was born and grew up in a socialist dictatorship where renaming streets, removing statues and jailing people for wrongthink was simply par for the course, it's difficult to stand by and watch as the exact same thing happens in the country that has been seen as the leader of the "free world". If you're sitting there reading my words, thinking this is somehow different THINK AGAIN. Decisions like this never came from high up in Socialist countries either, it was always small time local politicians that wanted to leave their mark and kiss up to the higher ups that did this type of dirty work there too.

It's also disheartening that the only people willing to protest this blatant revision of history and disenfranchising of a large segment (if not majority) of the population of Virginia are nazis because many regular citizens are either too afraid to speak out or are themselves brainwashed into thinking that authoritarian social engineering and overturning the established order is in their best interest. I can't predict the future, but based on personal experience, I really don't think it will be.

We'll have to see where this goes. I really think that many people who have been sitting on the sidelines, comfortable in their suburban homes, generous and welcoming to minorities and alternative lifestyles will slowly start to feel the sting of the divisive socialist identity politics. Their generosity will come to an end and those in power, the media and academia who keep pushing the identity politics/equality of outcomes agenda will be left isolated.

At least, that's what I hope will happen.

The problem with this observation is that the statues and monuments were erected by local politicians who were looking to kiss up. It is such an obvious oversight that I can't quite put my finger on it. . .

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

The problem with this observation is that the statues and monuments were erected by local politicians who were looking to kiss up. It is such an obvious oversight that I can't quite put my finger on it. . .

True and they were obviously well received at the time. I don't think a single statue of a historic figure ever put up anywhere was universally acclaimed (except maybe Gandhi). How did loyalists feel about Washington statues? The truth is, a society creates a majority narrative and politicians put up statues after in order to endear themselves to voters. Putting up statues of unpopular figures only works in countries where you don't need to worry about being re-elected.

You can argue that the majority now want the statue removed except I don't believe that. Perhaps the majority living in the college town who have been riled up to see him as a symbol of slavery do, while those living in rural areas who care about keeping it aren't aware that it's due to come down. Before you realise it, the foundation of your society has been delegitimized and vilified. Hmm, I wonder if there is a branch of modern philosophical thought that calls for exactly this?

How about calling for a plebiscite to settle the matter?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't necessarily disagree but there are statues of people like Horatio Nelson and James Wolfe in quite a few places in Canada as well.

Your comment reminded me of the monument on Main Street in Winnipeg put up in honour of the soldiers who quashed the Riel rebellion... it's literally located just a few blocks away from the headquarters of the Manitoba Metis Federation.

It's not really a major symbolic flashpoint, I'd be shocked if 1% of Winnipeggers even knew what it meant. But given how we generally take our lead from the US on this stuff, I could see it becoming the focal point of protests over the next few years.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/lo...291943901.html

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JM5

I don't think a single statue of a historic figure ever put up anywhere was universally acclaimed (except maybe Gandhi).

I digress, but I wouldn't put Gandhi on that list... he had, and still has, plenty of domestic critics although as is often the case with figures who are assassinated (like JFK), there is a tendency to lionize and gloss over shortcomings or other controversial things about them.

[ciudad_del_norte]

Yikes. Many of the posts on here are kind of unsettling. I don't think I have any delusions about canada being some sort of post-racial utopia...but it's still a bit surprising to see so many arguments with echoes of "both sides are just as bad".

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by ciudad_del_norte

Yikes. Many of the posts on here are kind of unsettling. I don't think I have any delusions about canada being some sort of post-racial utopia...but it's still a bit surprising to see so many arguments with echoes of "both sides are just as bad".

Did anybody really say that? I certainly said nothing to that effect.

But I do think that the overall Democratic/progressive/leftist approach to all of this down there is moving them further away from regaining power with every day that passes.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by JM5

True and they were obviously well received at the time. I don't think a single statue of a historic figure ever put up anywhere was universally acclaimed (except maybe Gandhi). How did loyalists feel about Washington statues? The truth is, a society creates a majority narrative and politicians put up statues after in order to endear themselves to voters. Putting up statues of unpopular figures only works in countries where you don't need to worry about being re-elected.

You can argue that the majority now want the statue removed except I don't believe that. Perhaps the majority living in the college town who have been riled up to see him as a symbol of slavery do, while those living in rural areas who care about keeping it aren't aware that it's due to come down. Before you realise it, the foundation of your society has been delegitimized and vilified. Hmm, I wonder if there is a branch of modern philosophical thought that calls for exactly this?

How about calling for a plebiscite to settle the matter?

If the statues were erected without a plebiscite, then why the sudden barrier of a plebiscite for taking them down?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

But I do think that the overall Democratic/progressive/leftist approach to all of this down there is moving them further away from regaining power with every day that passes.

Are you sure about that? It seems that whenever power passes from one party to another in either Canada or the US, we hear talk about the new GOP/Dem/Lib/Con hegemony, but in the end it always falls apart and the electorate lurches back into the other direction.

Who doesn't think that Trump will be followed by a Democrat in the White House?

[JM5]

Originally Posted by esquire

I digress, but I wouldn't put Gandhi on that list... he had, and still has, plenty of domestic critics although as is often the case with figures who are assassinated (like JFK), there is a tendency to lionize and gloss over shortcomings or other controversial things about them.

Looks like I better read up on Gandhi...

[esquire]

Originally Posted by JM5

Looks like I better read up on Gandhi...

I was also taken aback the first time I heard people criticize him. But that's human nature for you, no one is immune to criticism.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by JM5

Looks like I better read up on Gandhi...

Check out Mother Teresa while you're at it. And, of course, Nelson Mandela. I think Albert Schweitzer's still safe. And Bambi.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Are you sure about that? It seems that whenever power passes from one party to another in either Canada or the US, we hear talk about the new GOP/Dem/Lib/Con hegemony, but in the end it always falls apart and the electorate lurches back into the other direction.

Who doesn't think that Trump will be followed by a Democrat in the White House?

They're making the serious mistake of trying to fight the right/alt-right on their turf and their terms. It's a game they can't possibly win.

As a result they will continue to bleed away part of their base ("the little guy", union members, etc.) to Trump and their support becomes increasingly dominated by an élite class of people that is relatively small in any society - and this is very true of the U.S.

I don't see anything going on on the progressive left and Democrats side that is going to win over hardly anyone to their side who isn't already there.

Those who are Trump supporters or Trump-tempted will likely stay with him, especially if the economic numbers continue to hold up.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

If the statues were erected without a plebiscite, then why the sudden barrier of a plebiscite for taking them down?

Was there strong opposition to putting them up? Did they have to be put up in the middle of the night in order to avoid protests? Did people subsequently deface them once they were put up?

It may seem like details but it matters. It matters if a statue is taken down because a vast majority of people disagree with it or if it's done against the will of a large part of the population. I would argue that it's wrong to take down an existing statue even if a simple majority of people want it taken down. It's a long standing symbol for many but now that they're in the minority (for the sake of argument), let's just take it down right away. Let's make it abundantly clear that their culture and way of life is no longer welcome 'round these parts.

How about this: would you put up a statue today which offended 15% of the population if the rest wanted it? No? Then why take one down that's been up for a long time if you offend 30-40% of the population by doing so? I guess double standards make it okay to dump on stupid rednecks.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Check out Mother Teresa while you're at it. And, of course, Nelson Mandela. I think Albert Schweitzer's still safe. And Bambi.

Heard about Mandela, but Mother Theresa? Really?!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

Heard about Mandela, but Mother Theresa? Really?!

She was an absolute nightware to work with and for, apparently.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

She was an absolute nightware to work with and for, apparently.

"She did not devote her life to serving the poor in the slums of Calcutta the way I think someone ought to properly devote their lives to serving the poor in the slums of Calcutta!"

She might as well be a poster child for the saying "there's always a critic". You spend nearly 50 years in the slums trying to help people that no one else was interested in helping, and you still have to put up with Monday morning quarterbacks who tell you everything you did wrong.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

"She did not devote her life to serving the poor in the slums of Calcutta the way I think someone ought to properly devote their lives to serving the poor in the slums of Calcutta!"

She might as well be a poster child for the saying "there's always a critic". You spend nearly 50 years in the slums trying to help people that no one else was interested in helping, and you still have to put up with Monday morning quarterbacks who tell you everything you did wrong.

Well, in my book she's the poster child for nobody's perfect and nobody should be elevated to the status of "perfection".

I don't dispute that she did a lot of good.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Well, in my book she's the poster child for nobody's perfect and nobody should be elevated to the status of "perfection".

I don't dispute that she did a lot of good.

Obviously nobody's perfect but to focus on her faults is absurd... to use a sports analogy, it would be like someone droning on about how sure, Gretzky smashed all those scoring records and all that, but his physical presence was a joke and as such he was a middling hockey player at best.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by esquire

Obviously nobody's perfect but to focus on her faults is absurd... to use a sports analogy, it would be like someone droning on about how sure, Gretzky smashed all those scoring records and all that, but his physical presence was a joke and as such he was a middling hockey player at best.

My sense is we're moving towards a situation where we won't have any figures in history that we could look to for inspiration.

Not saying this is a good or bad thing, but it might be an inevitable byproduct of our growing analytical and intellectual rigour.