by The Confederacy stood for the forcible subjugation of other people. If there is a benefit to honoring the concept of or symbols for the Confederacy I don’t see it. Taking these symbols out of the public sphere is a net positive, even if some people are able to simultaneously a) disassociate those symbols from the oppression they represent and b) venerate those symbols. To be consistent, note that the radical Islamic ideology also calls for the forcible subjugation of other people. Furthermore, it seems clear that in the last few decades a heck of a lot more people have been killed or enslaved by those following a radical Islamist ideology than a Confederate (or similar fellow traveler) ideology. So… are there symbols that matter to the radical
Topics:
Mike Kimel considers the following as important: Uncategorized
This could be interesting, too:
John Quiggin writes Dispensing with the US-centric financial system
John Quiggin writes How to dispense with Trump’s US
John Quiggin writes Trump has thrown out the global economic playbook. It’s time for Australia to write its own rules
tom writes Germany’s election & why it is important to understand the Ukraine War
The Confederacy stood for the forcible subjugation of other people. If there is a benefit to honoring the concept of or symbols for the Confederacy I don’t see it. Taking these symbols out of the public sphere is a net positive, even if some people are able to simultaneously a) disassociate those symbols from the oppression they represent and b) venerate those symbols.
To be consistent, note that the radical Islamic ideology also calls for the forcible subjugation of other people. Furthermore, it seems clear that in the last few decades a heck of a lot more people have been killed or enslaved by those following a radical Islamist ideology than a Confederate (or similar fellow traveler) ideology.
So… are there symbols that matter to the radical Islamists that should get the Confederate statue treatment?