Maybe NOW we can stop fighting the Civil War?

[Big RR]

I checked and it appears that the vote was to include an authorization in the defense authorization bill (which provides defense funding) ito require the renaming; Trump has threatened to veto the bill if the amendment is included, which would be pretty asinine in his part, but we'll see what the full senate does (somehow I see a filibuster on the horizon).

[BoSoxGal]

A bipartisan House bill to remove the names of Confederate generals from military installations has been introduced by Rep. Anthony Brown, a Democrat from Maryland, and a Rep. Don Bacon, a Republican from Nebraska.

“The symbols and individuals that our military honors matter. It matters to the Black soldier serving at an installation honoring the name of a leader who fought to preserve slavery and oppression. It matters to the culture of inclusivity and unity needed for our military to get the job done,” Brown said in a news release. “Removing these names will be another step in an honest accounting of our history and an expression that we continue to strive to form a more perfect union.”

This bill comes after the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee adopted an amendment behind closed doors for the Pentagon to remove the names of Confederate generals from military assets within three years, just as President Donald Trump vowed to fight any such effort.

The amendment was added to the annual defense authorization bill, and it could still be stripped out as it makes its way through the legislative process.

[Big RR]

I'm not sure where the defense authorization bill is in the House, but I think it would be better to add that requirement to the Bill; if it passes both houses, it would put Trump in a pretty uncomfortable situation as he would have to veto funds for defense because of his idiocy. Also, if the Senate removed the amendment and the House kept it, conference committee negotiations would be problematic as well .

My guess is that it will be ultimately dropped, but the ongoing process will ferret out positions of certain persons, especially in the Senate, who would prefer those opinions not be made public.

[eddieq]

eddie--I agree everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but when one is representing a community in an elected or appointed position (not sure how your school boards are formed, expressing those opinions publicly can be a basis for removal if the public (s)he is represents demands it.

I don't have the same problem with private citizens expressing the same opinion or displaying confederate flags.

The school board members are elected by the community (normal election day process). They elect their own leadership internally. The superintendent, who has gone on record that it's inappropriate, reports to them and is in a "nothing I can do" situation (outside of resigning in protest, etc.).

School Board meeting is this evening. A lot of people are planning to attend (zoom meeting - should be fun to watch the recording). I have fire dept training tonight otherwise I'd plan to attend.

[Guinevere]

We have a local issue here where the president of our school board made a transphobic slur against the secretary of health (who is a transgender woman). People are rightly up in arms about it and demanding her resignation. However, her defenders keep saying stuff like, "well, she's entitled to her opinion, you're not being very tolerant". Replace "transphobic" with "racist". "That's just her opinion that n******s suck and you're not very tolerant". I believe most of the people defending the school board member also display the confederate flag in some fashion. We live in PA. Last I looked we were NOT part of the confederacy.

True, but there is a reason it’s referred to as Pennsyltucky.

[Big RR]

Then again, Kentucky remained part of the Union as well.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--while I understand your sentiments, I disagree that any political statement or symbol should be banned by law.

And yet you might be comfortable making it a crime for Mr and Mrs Baker and all the little Bakers to . . . oh, refuse to bake a cake for anyone who offends THEIR sense of right and wrong and wishes to make a political statement to that effect?

Or is that just fine and dandy now? (I can't keep up). Also, I would genuinely have used a different example could I think of one.

[Guinevere]

Not a crime, a violation of the civil rights act, which forbids discrimination in places of public accommodation.

[Big RR]

Meade--while I understand your sentiments, I disagree that any political statement or symbol should be banned by law.

And yet you might be comfortable making it a crime for Mr and Mrs Baker and all the little Bakers to . . . oh, refuse to bake a cake for anyone who offends THEIR sense of right and wrong and wishes to make a political statement to that effect?

Or is that just fine and dandy now? (I can't keep up). Also, I would genuinely have used a different example could I think of one.

A crime? As guin said, by no means. But they should clearly lose any public licenses for refusing to serve the same public who grants them. If I, as a non licensed baker and a non business, refuse to bake a cake for anyone in my own home, that's my clear right.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah, I wasn't very happy with that example. But in the end, it's always "what I (or we) disapprove of" that's forbidden and "what I (or we) agree with) that is allowed. So I don't see why "we" can't disapprove so strongly of a racially offensive display that we forbid it. Or perhaps I should say, I do see why but wish it were not so.

[Big RR]

As a proponent of free speech, I will defend it as broadly as possible; I see a distinct difference between speech and action, as well as between the actions of a private citizen and a licensed business--FWIW, lunch counters cannot refuse to serve african americans and remain in business (although as a private citizen OI can legally refuse to let them in my house and refuse to serve them any meals.

As for

it's always "what I (or we) disapprove of" that's forbidden and "what I (or we) agree with) that is allowed

I disagree. I have no great love for or agreement with white supremacists or neo nazis, but still think their speech is protected within the bounds of the constitution; to do any less will run the risk of the government forbidding speech (or displays, etc.) I agree with. It comes down to what you think is more important, and I will always defend free speech.

[eddieq]

Circling back to "my" local issue - at the school board meeting last night, the person was removed as president. She's still on the board as there is little the board can do to "kick her off". She stated that it was a witch hunt, that she did nothing wrong and has great relations with the LGBT community. All sounded familiar. Perhaps she's campaigning for a cabinet position on the national level.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But in the end, it's always "what I (or we) disapprove of" that's forbidden and "what I (or we) agree with) that is allowed.

Oh Big RR. Surely you must understand that "we" who don't approve of (pick one) . . . discrimination on the basis of sex, creed, color, age, handicap, whatever there is . . . are the ones who decree that such is wrong?
(ETA or do you believe there are universal rights and wrongs as I do?)

There was a time when one or the other of those was not regarded as "wrong" - just "normal". I am not arguing for discrimination in public accommodation on the basis of any of those things. Merely pointing out that it's what we don't like that gets to be forbidden by us.

All that's needed is a sufficient number of us to decide it and a sufficiently bigger number to go along with that decision.

That seems so self-evident that I'm surprised we have difficulty agreeing on it. "Free speech" is a great idea - lots of support. "Right to bear arms" - now there's one that "we" haven't yet thrashed out to great satisfaction. That "sufficiently bigger number" is not yet sufficiently big. But the effort to restrict/parse the meaning of that amendment indicates that those of "us" who don't like it are willing to chisel away at it.

No problem. So I see no problem if enough of "us" decide to ban the rebel battle flag as a symbol of racial hatred and getting a sufficiently bigger number of folks to go along with it. It's just that society and its rules are whatever we decide they are. Simple. Or its one of those magic penumbra things that the Supremes enjoy expanding. Or contracting.

[Big RR]

Maybe, but then I sincerely hope that the "rules" are not dictated by the whims of the electorate when it comes to the constitution. Indeed is that not the reason we had a bill off rights to begin with?

And I will continue to defend free speech (as will others on both sides of the political spectrum), and hopefully this will do some good. There may be some practical limitations, like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater or a call to imminent violent action, but hopefully they will be few.

[MajGenl.Meade]

OK, then we agree that "rights" are subject to correction as time (and attitudes) go by.

[Econoline]

I just learned about The Boot Monument. Now *THAT'S* the way to memorialize a traitor!

The Boot Monument is an American Revolutionary War memorial located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. It commemorates Major General Benedict Arnold's service at the Battles of Saratoga in the Continental Army, but does not name him.

(image is a link)

[Big RR]

OK, then we agree that "rights" are subject to correction as time (and attitudes) go by.

do we?

[Scooter]

[Big RR]

Come on Scooter, once the King's statue is torn down (and not ultimately replaced) everyone will realize that the other side (here the US) won. Face it, the victor can generally control history (although some are better (or more diligent) at it than others); indeed, that's why my US history teacher insisted that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves in the US, and I got in a lot of trouble disputing it (she seriously downgraded by paper on the EP--not that I cared). After all, the Union was foghting to free the slaves, and had no slaves in US territory. But then, the true history was never taught.

[Scooter]

Except that, in this case of the Civil War (oh, my bad, I meant the War of Northern Aggression ), it was the losers who, unwilling to resign themselves to defeat, were intent on, and for at least 100 years were largely successful in, recreating Southern society in the image of its antebellum predecessor, i.e. a society where whites were the masters and blacks were slaves in everything but name. One of the underpinnings of that society was the invention of a historical narrative that painted their cause as just and themselves as the moral victors. They weren't fighting to preserve slavery, and even if they were, slavery was really a benevolent institution that suffered from a few aberrant excesses.

In that context, Confederate monuments are not simply memorials to a "glorious" past. They are propaganda in support of the Jim Crow version of that past established after the war. They are a message to every black person to "know their place", and what will happen if they don't. They form every bit a part of maintaining that regime as segregation, voter suppression and lynchings. And when the federal government participates in perpetuating that narrative and that regime, by naming its own institutions after men who fought to preserve it, what message does that send?