Lets see if I can do this without getting booted off the island.

fanfoy wrote: In reply to BrokenYugo: If you look at the article you linked, about a third of the democratic countries use "first past the post" voting and the US is the only one that has a two party system. For example, Canada uses "first past the post" voting and there are currently 5 different parties represented at the parliament. There has to be another explanation? After all, your political system is completely unique in the world. Shouldn't it be a representation of its people?

Historically, we've had two dominant parties. However, in more recent times (20th century-onward), the Democratic and Republican parties have worked to make it much harder for any other parties to gain momentum, enacting laws that tend to hobble them or making it very difficult for them to grow organically. Mostly done at the state level. While parties tend to grow from the grassroots upward, many states have laws preventing a party from being recognized as an official party, and exempt from more egregious rules regarding ballot access, unless their candidate got a certain percentage of the vote in a presidential election. So the small timers need to spend a fortune in an unwinnable election, for a chance to be recognized on a local level.

In reply to SVreX:

This reminds of a few years ago when the NCAA discussed doing away with team names that were native American themed. The Ncaa headquarters happens to be in Indianapolis Indiana.

WilD wrote: Sure, the counter protesters are behaving poorly, but there is no moral equivalency between their positions and those they are opposing. We do cherish freedom of speech in this country, but some ideas are below debate.

We have to give opinions we disagree with a reasonable voice within the confines of the law for progress. Popular opinion hates racist Nazi worshipers, but not that long ago popular opinion didn't really like giving rights to black people much.....or women.....and especially not homosexuals. Much of the change for those groups came from the ability to voice their opinions when people didn't want to listen. Change usually comes from hearing opinions you don't like, and to hear those worthy of meriting change you often have to allow the presentation of a bunch of other opinions you truly cannot stand.

Hopefully this loud marching and demonstrating of the white supremacy types is just the flailings of a group that is losing place in the society around them and is desperately making a feeble attempt to keep hold. Meeting their efforts with violence just gives them relevance when they should have none.

fanfoy wrote: In reply to BrokenYugo: If you look at the article you linked, about a third of the democratic countries use "first past the post" voting and the US is the only one that has a two party system. For example, Canada uses "first past the post" voting and there are currently 5 different parties represented at the parliament. There has to be another explanation? After all, your political system is completely unique in the world. Shouldn't it be a representation of its people?

Sure. That would be nice. But again - the US Constitution wasn't written that way. We hear a lot of rhetoric about "what the Founding Fathers meant" typically along the lines of whatever partisan view one is trying to validate. My own views tend to be more pragmatic. The "founding fathers" were a group of powerful, rich, white men and the government was written in such a way to favor that status. Some 200+ years later, I'd say they succeeded quite well with that goal.

gearheadmb wrote: In reply to SVreX: This reminds of a few years ago when the NCAA discussed doing away with team names that were native American themed. The Ncaa headquarters happens to be in Indianapolis Indiana.

Oh the glorious irony.

Something to keep in mind about Lee in reference to the statue: It really doesn't matter what kind of man he was, what he believed in, or what he did. It matters what people think/believe he and the statue represent.

At least in the case of this statue it's pretty clear what that was when it was put up and pretty clear why it recently became a rallying point.

According to my research so far, there are over 56 bridges, buildings, roads, etc named after former Senator and former KKK member and not so civil rights leader Robert Byrd. In the spirit of consistency and fairness, will these names be changed? Personally they don't bother me. Perhaps he did get better at the end of his life and realized what he did was wrong. Just like perhaps Gen. Lee was glad slavery was abolished after the war was over. How can you try justify one and not the other?

Fletch1 wrote: According to my research so far, there are over 56 bridges, buildings, roads, etc named after former Senator and former KKK member and not so civil rights leader Robert Byrd. In the spirit of consistency and fairness, will these names be changed?

Since he later quit and then forcefully and roundly denounced the Klan, certainly not. On a similar note, I'd also support renaming Columbus day to Bartolomé Day.

GameboyRMH wrote:

Fletch1 wrote: According to my research so far, there are over 56 bridges, buildings, roads, etc named after former Senator and former KKK member and not so civil rights leader Robert Byrd. In the spirit of consistency and fairness, will these names be changed?

Since he later quit and then forcefully and roundly denounced the Klan, certainly not. On a similar note, I'd also support renaming Columbus day to Bartolomé Day.

Your right, he did. And so General Lee was happy slavery was abolished. Again, why does Lee have to come down and nothing said about Byrd. Our current President denounced it too in the 90's and this past week yet he's being labeled racist. Hypocritical.

SVreX wrote: Ok, so let's consider the idea for a minute that Robert E Lee should not be in public places. I wish it meant we needed to take down a few statues... Leesburg, Leesville, Lee County- there are hundreds of places named Lee. Virtually every city south of the Mason Dixon line has a Lee St (and many in the North). If we adopt the idea that Lee should be erased, it would ultimately be pushed at a broad level, and the pressure would be put on hundreds of local municipalities to make the changes. These would be unfunded mandates, the cost and complexity of which would have to be born at the local level. Street signs are paid for with public funds. So are every piece of stationary, truck, ID tag, city park, courtroom, etc, etc. No, I absolutely don't think it should be defined in monetary terms. There are things more important than money. However, it really does have the potential to grow into a rather grand witch hunt. We can't even agree in this thread whether Lee was a good guy or a bad guy. There are communities that would not be able to make the switch in a timely manner. I live in Leesburg, GA. In Lee County, GA. If the good people of Leesburg make the decision that it would be wise to change their name, I'm all for it. I'd like to see it. In fact, I think it would bring some very positive attention to a community that needs it. But I don't think outsiders should pressure them to do it. At the core, I'd rather not judge people. When I have an opinion that something is wrong, I voice that opinion strongly. I do not, however, force my opinions on others. I am vocal, but I am content to accept what the community has decided for itself. I don't think the core concept embraces unity. It forces divisiveness.

Honestly, I'm with you completely there- it should not be forced upon any place to remove/relocate statues or monuments or rename anything, it should be the decision of the local residents and authorities. And honestly, I've not seen (though that doesn't mean it hasn't happened) any calls for Congress or the Federal government to pass any laws requiring any such changes. Do I sincerely hope that an increasing number of places will choose to do so? Certainly- it's why I wholeheartedly support the efforts in my own city to relocate the statues of two Confederate soldiers/politicians out of the city center (and where the city's slave auction was located) and to someplace more appropriate.

But ultimately it falls to the residents to accept that glorifying and (literally, in the case of the statues...) putting the ideology and actions of the Confederacy on a pedestal does not square with the modern world. Do I have a lot of confidence in this happening on a massive scale anytime soon? Nope... I've lived in Kentucky for the last 12 years so I definitely know better- but I have to have some hope that even my new home state will move progressively forward over time.

Since I was curious (and I enjoy reading up on and researching things almost to a fault) I looked up your home county/city, and interestingly while it seems likely the city was named after Robert E. Lee (having been named an incorporated in 1874) the county, which was defined and named almost 50 years prior was named in honor of Henry Lee III, Robert E. Lee's father- a Revolutionary War hero.

In reply to Ashyukun:

I was aware of that. Most people are not, so the name "Lee" would become a target.

Note that I didn't say pushed at the Federal level. I said pushed on a broad level. I.E., when the media or a politician wants to make a stink about the name "Lee", I guarantee statues and street signs alike will begin being torn down by mobs.

They won't stop to ask which Lee a place was named for.

I'm not positive, but I would bet the majority of people in this thread who have voiced strong opinions about taking down the statues do not live in the South.

It becomes an outside pressure (with limited understanding) very easily because of our modern systems of communication.

Fletch1 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

Fletch1 wrote: According to my research so far, there are over 56 bridges, buildings, roads, etc named after former Senator and former KKK member and not so civil rights leader Robert Byrd. In the spirit of consistency and fairness, will these names be changed?

Since he later quit and then forcefully and roundly denounced the Klan, certainly not. On a similar note, I'd also support renaming Columbus day to Bartolomé Day.

Yes he did. And so General Lee was happy slavery was abolished. Again, why does Lee have to come down and nothing said about Byrd. Hypocritical.

There's a great difference in magnitude of offense and symbolic importance between being a Klan member and being a top general in the Confederacy. That symbolic importance taints him too heavily all on its own.

Also, Lee didn't publicly denounce slavery, we only know he had these thoughts through his private communications.

There is one thing I need to correct here that has been repeated many times incorrectly. We are not a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic. There is a distinct difference.

In reply to GameboyRMH:

I'll politely disagree and let you justify it in your own eyes.

In reply to Bobzilla:

True.

In reply to SVreX: I've actually been to Leesburg. My former MIL lived there and taught at the high school until her retirement in 2005ish.

She was astonishingly racist and when I called her out on her language she just said that's how it always was and how she was raised.....apparently not worth trying to change

KyAllroad wrote: when I called her out on her language she just said that's how it always was and how she was raised...

Ive received similar responses from people. When I then explain that at one time it was taught that the sun went around the earth, but people learned that was actually wrong, and stopped saying it, things get interesting. Youll find people start getting really indignant when you call "the way they were raised" into question.

SVreX wrote: In reply to alfadriver: That doesn't sound like a legitimate question. It sounds like you are baiting for an arguement. Who is this "The minorities" guy?? I think we all know the variations on the needs of various people groups are endless. I could give you lots of examples where I live, and they'd be completely irrelevant to where you live and your life experiences. And we'd just argue.

Which argument? I've got a few going here.

I do honestly want to know what "special treatment" minorities are asking for, which somehow makes their protests the same as people who are demanding that others get less rights than they do. If you consider it baiting, fine, but I would like to know what is being asked that is special and unique.

The other RL Lee argument- I do want to point out that nobody is trying to erase Lee, any of the Confederate officers, and especially the soldiers who fought and died. What is being asked- what did they do to deserve any kind of special recognition? I can't see a path here Lee can be considered a hero or a gentleman what so ever. All I can see is a man who can be forgiven for what he did. We should remember the Civil War. But more like how Germany remembers WWII- with mass grave sites- either the people the Nazis murdered or their soldiers dying. There's no reason we can't have monuments with the names of people (that we know of) who died in the Civil War. But none of them are heroes. None. None deserve any kind of accolades.

KyAllroad wrote: In reply to SVreX: I've actually been to Leesburg. My former MIL lived there and taught at the high school until her retirement in 2005ish. She was astonishingly racist and when I called her out on her language she just said that's how it always was and how she was raised.....apparently not worth trying to change

I've had a very similar discussion with my Grandmother. Sadly she's the only one of my Grandparents remaining... the two on the other side of the family were products of the same era AND region but treated everyone equally and lovingly. Especially striking was the difference in their opinions & thoughts on the Japanese- my maternal Grandfather, who fought in the Pacific in the Navy and then was part of the occupying force in Japan following the war had nothing but respect for them but my paternal Grandmother to this day hates them and swears that they're still out to destroy us. I've long given up on trying to change her mind on anything- she's not willing to consider anything contrary to what she's always thought.

MrJoshua wrote: We have to give opinions we disagree with a reasonable voice within the confines of the law for progress. Popular opinion hates racist Nazi worshipers, but not that long ago popular opinion didn't really like giving rights to black people much.....or women.....and especially not homosexuals. Much of the change for those groups came from the ability to voice their opinions when people didn't want to listen. Change usually comes from hearing opinions you don't like, and to hear those worthy of meriting change you often have to allow the presentation of a bunch of other opinions you truly cannot stand. Hopefully this loud marching and demonstrating of the white supremacy types is just the flailings of a group that is losing place in the society around them and is desperately making a feeble attempt to keep hold. Meeting their efforts with violence just gives them relevance when they should have none.

Again, I want to point out a stark difference in the protests of minorities and white supremesits. One is trying to get their legal rights always given to them, just like everyone else. The other is trying to take them away.

They are not even remotely equal to each other.

nine pages of civility, and some excellent discussion points that I hadn't considered. thank you all for that.

You and I agree that they are not the same in value of opinion, but they are equal in their right to mount a lawful demonstration or protest.

MrJoshua wrote: You and I agree that they are not the same in value of opinion, but they are equal in their right to mount a lawful demonstration or protest.

As are their opponents for a counter demonstration or protest.

Free speech does not mean speech free of consequences. Just means that the government isn't allowed to shut you up.

alfadriver wrote:

MrJoshua wrote: We have to give opinions we disagree with a reasonable voice within the confines of the law for progress. Popular opinion hates racist Nazi worshipers, but not that long ago popular opinion didn't really like giving rights to black people much.....or women.....and especially not homosexuals. Much of the change for those groups came from the ability to voice their opinions when people didn't want to listen. Change usually comes from hearing opinions you don't like, and to hear those worthy of meriting change you often have to allow the presentation of a bunch of other opinions you truly cannot stand. Hopefully this loud marching and demonstrating of the white supremacy types is just the flailings of a group that is losing place in the society around them and is desperately making a feeble attempt to keep hold. Meeting their efforts with violence just gives them relevance when they should have none.

Again, I want to point out a stark difference in the protests of minorities and white supremesits. One is trying to get their legal rights always given to them, just like everyone else. The other is trying to take them away. They are not even remotely equal to each other.

Stark difference in motivation between those groups, and the drivers behind their opinions, absolutely. There is no difference in the right of the opinion holders on either side to voice them.

alfadriver wrote: The other RL Lee argument- I do want to point out that nobody is trying to erase Lee, any of the Confederate officers, and especially the soldiers who fought and died. What is being asked- what did they do to deserve any kind of special recognition? I can't see a path here Lee can be considered a hero or a gentleman what so ever. All I can see is a man who can be forgiven for what he did. We should remember the Civil War. But more like how Germany remembers WWII- with mass grave sites- either the people the Nazis murdered or their soldiers dying. There's no reason we can't have monuments with the names of people (that we know of) who died in the Civil War. But none of them are heroes. None. None deserve any kind of accolades.

Especially when you consider his name was added to a University after he died as President of that university. Surely that is enough recognition for the man? Lets look at that--what he actually did to advance society, rather than put it back a few years. EDIT: What I mean here is that honoring him as an educator makes sense. Honoring him by putting up a statue of him on a horse in Confederate Uniform... That doesn't make sense to me. Really, the guy was a traitor who fought to keep people enslaved. That is directly against what this country should stand for. /EDIT

And FWIW, in case that discussion comes up, that honor took place at the right time. It took place shortly after his death, and it was (at least at the time) appropriate. Erecting a statue of him in the 1920's and especially in the 1950's is nothing but putting up a bastion to racism--no matter how much you cry out for honor of your state.