Should Canada Be Preparing for a Destabilized USA?

[whatnext]

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.

Great, in your last paragraph you're basically hoping for a rerun of National Socialism's rise in Germany during the 1920s and 30s. You should be proud.

[rousseau]

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.

This is the most vacuously idiotic post on the topic so far. The Civil War wasn't really about slavery; tearing down statues celebrating slavery is akin to the machinations of low-level functionaries in Communist countries; and the Nazis in Charlottesville were bravely protesting "historical revision."

Well done.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Great, in your last paragraph you're basically hoping for a rerun of National Socialism's rise in Germany during the 1920s and 30s. You should be proud.

Nope, although admittedly this is a legitimate concern. In fact, throughout recent elections in both European countries as well as the US, it's sad/scary to see that no centrist right wing candidate has emerged. The platform would be fairly simple: an end to identity politics, no more legalised favoritism to anyone, no legal definition by which anyone is differentiated from anyone else be it race or religion (gender I'm not sure about). In such an environment equal outcomes would be hard to push for, because simply asking people to voluntarily identify their race/religion would be seen as discriminatory. It wouldn't be a perfect system, but we had this for a moment in time before suddenly it became fashionable to hire "diverse" candidates instead of qualified ones.

I think a lot of people were hoping Trump would be this candidate, but I always suspected that he was only in it for himself. Looks like the value of his election is only that it put an end to the globalist dynasty, it doesn't seem like he has any coherent plan as to what to replace it with and if things go too badly during his term, voters might run back to Hillary. The new paradigm needs to ripen first before it can be instated so a leader with vision is required. Currently, it seems like nazis are the only ones speaking out. People need to step forward and speak their mind that although all citizens are equal and everyone should be treated equitably, those calling for revising history, vilifying traditional values and tearing down the establishment are wrong and in the minority. Once there is a platform, a leader will arise.

As of yet no-one has stepped up, so people have no other choice but to continue to be scared of the nazis and vote liberal until it's too late, abstain and close your eyes and ears and hope for the best, or become a nazi. This scarcity of choice is what's leading to polarization and conflict. I'm either crazy for seeing this as a simple problem or the rest of society is just plain blind.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by rousseau

This is the most vacuously idiotic post on the topic so far. The Civil War wasn't really about slavery; tearing down statues celebrating slavery is akin to the machinations of low-level functionaries in Communist countries; and the Nazis in Charlottesville were bravely protesting "historical revision."

Well done.

That's not what I said. The civil war was in fact about slavery, but it was also a good opportunity for a power grab by the federal government as well as Northern industrialists and opportunists - in fact there's term made up especially for this: carpetbagger.

The statue represent the leader of the Confederate army and hero of the South, it does not represent slavery. You can say he was a traitor if you wish, but he was never charged with treason by the very people he fought against. If you don't like statues of traitors, drop by and I'll give you my axe to chop down Riel, although I personally like the guy.

[rousseau]

Originally Posted by JM5

The statue represent the leader of the Confederate army and hero of the South, it does not represent slavery.

And statues of Mussolini didn't represent Fascism, busts of Hitler didn't represent Nazism (no statues of him), and statues of Lenin and Mao didn't/don't represent Communism?

Okay. So that bust of Pol Pot? Why, he was just the leader of Cambodia, that's all. Nothing to do with the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge.

I think I'm seeing the light, now that you explain it. I mean, how could anyone possibly see a statue of Robert E. Lee as a celebratory symbol of a man who fought for the right to own human beings? He was just a general, that's all. Fighting nobly against northern aggression. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Hey, this is fun. Eichmann? Just a colonel in the army. Karadzic? Just the president of Bosnia. Ghandi? He was just the leader of the Indian National Congress, that's all. He didn't represent anything beyond that.

Really now, why on earth should African-Americans be upset about a statue of a man who lead the effort in a war to continue to own African-Americans as slaves? Makes no sense, now that you've explained it.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by JM5

The civil war was in fact about slavery, but it was also a good opportunity for a power grab by the federal government as well as Northern industrialists and opportunists - in fact there's term made up especially for this: carpetbagger.

The statue represent the leader of the Confederate army and hero of the South, it does not represent slavery. You can say he was a traitor if you wish, but he was never charged with treason by the very people he fought against. If you don't like statues of traitors, drop by and I'll give you my axe to chop down Riel, although I personally like the guy.

Don't even bother. Talking to "liberals" in Canada about American history and politics is an exercise in futility. "The civil war was about slavery and General Lee was a traitor", "Conservatives are racist", and other such vapid nonsense just rolls over their tongues, and they think repeating these things like mindless parrots puts them in the upper echelon of minds in Canada who understand these things.

In any case, Lincoln's election has zero modern analogue, and people should understand that. He wasn't even on the ballot in most Southern states and the states he was on the ballot of, such as Virginia, he garnered less than 1% of the vote. Imagine that. Even in Alberta, where the Liberals are arguably the most hated political party, even in the darkest time when the NEP was in full swing and full resentment against PET was in effect - Liberals still managed to garner 20%+ of the vote in the province. Imagine a Federal leader was elected to lead the country and wasn't even on the ballot West of Ontario?

Again, there is zero modern analogue to Lincoln in Canadian politics. His election led directly to states challenging secession - something that arguably would repeat itself in Canada if indeed a Federal politician garnered less than 1% of the vote west of Ontario - if you think otherwise you are fooling yourself.

General Lee didn't care about slavery, he was in the United States army, and bravely decided to come home to the south to defend his home.

[jmt18325]

Pretending that the civil war wasn't about slavery is completely dishonest.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by rousseau

And statues of Mussolini didn't represent Fascism, busts of Hitler didn't represent Nazism (no statues of him), and statues of Lenin and Mao didn't/don't represent Communism?

Okay. So that bust of Pol Pot? Why, he was just the leader of Cambodia, that's all. Nothing to do with the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge.

I think I'm seeing the light, now that you explain it. I mean, how could anyone possibly see a statue of Robert E. Lee as a celebratory symbol of a man who fought for the right to own human beings? He was just a general, that's all. Fighting nobly against northern aggression. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Hey, this is fun. Eichmann? Just a colonel in the army. Karadzic? Just the president of Bosnia. Ghandi? He was just the leader of the Indian National Congress, that's all. He didn't represent anything beyond that.

Really now, why on earth should African-Americans be upset about a statue of a man who lead the effort in a war to continue to own African-Americans as slaves? Makes no sense, now that you've explained it.

Well, things aren't black and white (pun intended), they're relative. There's a difference between convicted war criminals, instigators of genocide, politicians instrumental in instituting discriminatory policies versus a man who fought for his way of life, even though a fundamental aspect of that way of life was flawed.

Think about how today, 160 years later, you - living in another country, with most likely little knowledge of him - see him as a caricature of slavery and racism, while those he fought against, who's friends and relatives died because of his orders, simply let him carry on (although of course with poor economic prospects after the defeat). Who are YOU to pass judgement on the man?

After you're through with the Riel statue, keep the axe and start a decent strength and endurance training routine. You'll need it to chop down every single statue of slaveholder George Washington. Apparently, he owned 317 human beings at the time he died.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by JM5

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.

I don't share the "hopeful" conclusion you made, but if you put your ear on the railway tracks, you will sense that this is a train that might be coming down the line.

Whether or not I think this is a good or bad thing doesn't really make any difference.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by lio45

That's a really interesting observation.

I would venture a hypothesis that in Western countries, ordinary, "centrist" people might turn out to be more sympathetic to the "right" on issues related to immigration/integration/culture, and that it did translate into a bit more political clout than before for such movements. Meanwhile, there's a certain element in the left that is saying exactly the wrong things to these people's ears. The two trends combined work together.

My sense is that once the progressive left finally gets reorganized in the US, they may end up somewhere along the lines of Bernie Sanders' views.

So you'd have a Bernie Sanders Left opposed to a Fox News - Donald Trump Right for a while as your political choices down there.

I don't know if there is any realistic possibility for a Third Way to come up the middle between them either.

One thing is certain is that long gone are the days when there was little to differentiate between the Democrats and the Republicans.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Don't even bother. Talking to "liberals" in Canada about American history and politics is an exercise in futility. "The civil war was about slavery and General Lee was a traitor", "Conservatives are racist", and other such vapid nonsense just rolls over their tongues, and they think repeating these things like mindless parrots puts them in the upper echelon of minds in Canada who understand these things.

In any case, Lincoln's election has zero modern analogue, and people should understand that. He wasn't even on the ballot in most Southern states and the states he was on the ballot of, such as Virginia, he garnered less than 1% of the vote. Imagine that. Even in Alberta, where the Liberals are arguably the most hated political party, even in the darkest time when the NEP was in full swing and full resentment against PET was in effect - Liberals still managed to garner 20%+ of the vote in the province. Imagine a Federal leader was elected to lead the country and wasn't even on the ballot West of Ontario?

Again, there is zero modern analogue to Lincoln in Canadian politics. His election led directly to states challenging secession - something that arguably would repeat itself in Canada if indeed a Federal politician garnered less than 1% of the vote west of Ontario - if you think otherwise you are fooling yourself.

General Lee didn't care about slavery, he was in the United States army, and bravely decided to come home to the south to defend his home.

No bro, the time for staying quiet is over. Rousseau is a good and intelligent guy but his views are stereotypically skewed. If I were mean, I'd say he was brainwashed. He needs to be more questioning. Maybe a good discussion and/or ragequit will do him wonders, after that he can use his brains for good instead of postmodernist thought policing.

[hipster duck]

I think there's something very inisidious about a culture that puts up statues honouring a general everywhere. You don't put up statues to honour generals. Generals enter the lore of armchair military historians who study and appreciate their tactics, but they're not personalities that usually get statues dedicated to them. How many statues of Omar Bradley or Marshall Zhukov do you see? They exist here and there, but not nearly in the numbers that you see of Robert E. Lee in the South.

The statues of Robert E. Lee aren't just honouring a military strategist.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by harls

Mr. Aylmer knows what's up, and I'm not just saying that because I live in Aylmer. I always enjoy his point of view.

He's very learn-ed, I'm learnding lots from him.

• Video Link

I do agree that Aylmer is very learn-ed and like him a lot, but at least one of those kudos was for me!

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think there's something very inisidious about a culture that puts up statues honouring a general everywhere. You don't put up statues to honour generals. Generals enter the lore of armchair military historians who study and appreciate their tactics, but they're not personalities that usually get statues dedicated to them. How many statues of Omar Bradley or Marshall Zhukov do you see? They exist here and there, but not nearly in the numbers that you see of Robert E. Lee in the South.

The statues of Robert E. Lee aren't just honouring a military strategist.

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.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by Acajack

My sense is that once the progressive left finally gets reorganized in the US, they may end up somewhere along the lines of Bernie Sanders' views.

So you'd have a Bernie Sanders Left opposed to a Fox News - Donald Trump Right for a while as your political choices down there.

I don't know if there is any realistic possibility for a Third Way to come up the middle between them either.

One thing is certain is that long gone are the days when there was little to differentiate between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Yeah, I always thought that Bernie and Trump were two sides of the same coin: liberal and conservative anti-globalists. It would be alright to find out which direction Bernie would takes us. He probably has a more coherent vision for the future than Trump does.

[hipster duck]

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.

Aren't most of those in Quebec? The fact that they haven't been torn down, despite the fact that Quebecois have had the power to do so for over 50 years, either speaks highly of Quebec society (or Canada-Quebec relations) or shows that these guys are mainly forgotten military tacticians and that whatever ideology they might have had carries very little weight for people on either side.

If they wanted to tear down the monument to Nelson in Place Jacques Cartier, I think you might get a handful of people writing in letters of complaint from the Monarchist league of Belleville, or wherever, and some Montrealers - maybe even some pure laine separatists - lamenting the destruction on architectural preservationist grounds. You certainly wouldn't have to call in the police.

[JM5]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Aren't most of those in Quebec? The fact that they haven't been torn down, despite the fact that Quebecois have had the power to do so for over 50 years, either speaks highly of Quebec society (or Canada-Quebec relations) or shows that these guys are mainly forgotten military tacticians and that whatever ideology they might have had carries very little weight for people on either side.

If they wanted to tear down the monument to Nelson in Place Jacques Cartier, I think you might get a handful of people writing in letters of complaint from the Monarchist league of Belleville, or wherever, and some Montrealers - maybe even some pure laine separatists - lamenting the destruction on architectural preservationist grounds. You certainly wouldn't have to call in the police.

Lee and Nelson have statues dedicated to them not necessarily/only because they were generals but because they were heroes. Nelson's defeat of the Franco-Hispanic fleet at Trafalgar destroyed the combined enemy fleet without a single British ship lost and saved Great Britain from being invaded by Napoleon, he died from a bullet wound shortly after the battle

At the time of the secession, Lee had a desire for the country to stay together and was even OFFERED A SENIOR COMMAND IN THE UNION ARMY but knowing that the Union was planning an invasion, he chose to return to Virginia and defend his home instead. He was indeed a superior tactician, winning numerous battles in which he was outnumbered. After the war, he worked towards reconciliation and grew popular in the North. Not bad.

Looking at things from 160 years distance, with few facts and next to no understanding, it's easy to condemn Lee as an evil supporter of slavery, just as it's easy to condemn Nelson as an evil imperialist who enabled 150 more years of British imperialism and oppression of indigenous people around the globe. Not to mention, slavery would still be legal in the British Empire for 33years after Nelson died. Scum of the earth indeed.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

Pretending that the civil war wasn't about slavery is completely dishonest.

The civil war being about slavery and the civil war being about a President of the country getting 1% of the vote in a vast swath of the country are two sides of the same coin.

The latter would have similar reverberations in modern democracies (including Canada), and pretending otherwise is being completely dishonest.

[jmt18325]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The civil war being about slavery and the civil war being about a President of the country getting 1% of the vote in a vast swath of the country are two sides of the same coin.

The latter would have similar reverberations in modern democracies (including Canada), and pretending otherwise is being completely dishonest.

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

[JM5]

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/t...ight-1.4120204

The city of New Orleans robs you of your cultural heritage like sneak thieves in the middle of the night. At least Communists had the common decency to shove an AK-47 in your face when they did it so you could make an informed choice about priorities in life.

It's good that the politicians are better informed than the common plebs that elected them so they can tell them what to think.