I have that book, but I have yet to read it. And you are correct on the title. I have something like 50 books on the war and have only read like 25. That goes for my whole library though. I have a nasty habit of being both compulsive and scatter brained.
Looking back on that thread I was too forgiving. When your biggest supporters are neo nazis and carpet baggers you lose The cultural memory of the war argument. the majority of the monuments have always been about race and were meant to consolidate white power. I still think about the slippery slope argument sometimes. There is a hardcore group of committed leftists who would see the whole antebellum portion of American history stricken. This is a battle over the National Myth not history. I suppose I should have been more clear in that thread. It should also be noted that most of the counter protesters were locals who hated nazis (big suprise lol)
I still believe that class is not the major reason for the crime rates (Or should I say crime statistics) in this country. And simply leveling the economic field won't even things out. American culture and policing have to change. A conviction is the result of so much more than a crime. One only needs to look at exoneration rates to draw that conclusion. I have some great books on that too. Michelle Alexanders "The New Jim Crow" being required reading for anyone serious about police reform.
I have seen a lot of people saying they refuse to wait for the local legislatures to take care of this problem. I will point out that direct action is strongest when backed by legislation. Merely tearing things down does no good because the other side will simply follow that mob mentality. Roving mobs tearing things down they don't like will simply entrench the majority of people who simply want order. Call your councilman, picket the sign, and you will enjoy much longer lasting and concrete effects.
I like Montys idea about no guns at rallies but that would live in the court system, probably for the rest of our lives.
Robert E Lee was not really a man of his times. He was part of the elite Southern Planter class. He was, quite literally a feudal style overlord. Like many southern planters of his time, he was allowed to pursue a career in politics or the officer core because of the labor of his slaves. Had the union not been so forgiving, he would have been hung. He was also not a "states" rights man either. Him and Davis quite literally bowled over the states for the needs of the CSA. I think Arlington is a fair trade for his transgressions.
Edit: Also entertaining the slippery slope argument does not mean you can't outright condemn Neo-Nazis and does not mean you can engage in false equivocation, Mr.President.
Bookmarks