Consider, though, that the US has statues of CSA rebels everywhere. These enemy leaders fought to maintain the institution of slavery.

Why should black citizens (and not only them) be expected to tolerate such statues? — Yellow Horse

And why were they tolerated before and not anymore? I think one mass shooting doesn't answer everything here. Why are there even now, in the halls of power in Washington DC, statues of those CSA rebels? That's the important question.

I guess many will eagerly argue that it shows the inherent widespread racism that prevails in the US still today. Others will correctly point out the "Lost cause" myth making and those southern politicians that were putting them there well after the civil war. That is a fact which is now often mentioned: statues being put up as a way to support a cause of Jim Crow. Likely nobody will dare to say now anymore that northerners accepting these statues in the first place was part of consolidation, trying to get over a painful civil war. I of course can mention that as I'm just an ignorant foreigner. Luckily there was a time that at least the old veterans could meet peacefully afterwards and respect each other, which still is quite rare after civil wars.



But that is ancient history that has no use for this time. Now we can use that history to divide Americans again. So that's a no to Confederate statue parks like what they have in former countries of the Soviet Union and Easten Bloc for socialist statues. Better be like it never happened.

What's the problem with removing a couple of statues? I'm probably the wrong guy to ask because I think the veneration of anybody is just insanity. The idolisation of people who were just as fallible as you and me. I don't like how people look up to successful businessmen, soldiers, politicians or historic figures. They're just men and women. Statues belong in musea, not in the public sphere. All that can be laid at the feet of my fundamental disdain for authority for authority's sake. By that I mean authority that expects respect for carrying the titel instead of earning it through actions.

The Harper letter is funny and so is NOS4A2's idea that the right is the victim of cancel culture. For years, and even to this day, Marxist thought is all but banned in the US. They try to discredit BLM because a bunch of Marxists push a fucking conservative agenda (respect my rights and life!), totally ignoring what they stand for. Now a couple of rabid racists and their enablers are barred from a couple of shows, because - hello - racism is out of vogue (Fucking finally, right?!), and all of a sudden it's a problem. Those cancellations are profit driven and not ideological. It's not a culture war, it's marketing. Live goes on and the racists will retreat in their "cultural norms and values" code and how it's under threat from everything they don't like, which includes leftists and anything with pigment.

A couple years ago the city in which I live removed the statue of John MacDonald, Canada’s first prime minister, due to his residential school policies. They did this due the politically correct pressure, behind closed doors and in the dead of night, without any consultation with the people who live here. There was a small protest with the typical fare: those who opposed it on grounds that it erased history, and those in favor because it was a symbol of racism. Now there is only one MacDonald statue in the entire country and is currently in petition for removal.

I am bothered by the removal of statues because I hate to see the destruction of art and history. I don’t want to see the removal of a statue for the same reason I don’t want to see the destruction of a totem pole (Slavery was rife in local tribes). Because where does it end? Might we deface the pyramids?

It seems to me a free society demands that we allow more room for history to be written. Instead of tearing down a statue, build a statue.

The Harper letter is funny and so is NOS4A2's idea that the right is the victim of cancel culture.

I’ve never said such a thing. But I will say everyone is a victim of cancel culture. You will only deny it until it comes for you.

What's the problem with removing a couple of statues? — Benkei

What's the problem with statue cemetaries I say?

I'm probably the if guy to ask because I think the veneration of anybody is just insanity. The idolisation of people who were just as fallible as you and me. I don't like how people look up to successful businessmen, soldiers, politicians or historic figures. They're just men and women. — Benkei

Well, we don't worship statues and we don't adore those who have statues made of them. As a person who loves history I cherish remembrance of history. I don't like iconoclasts. Old catholic churches that have been painted over in white during the days of protestant fury simply look sad. Iconoclasm and the need to destroy statues and art tells clearly that non-permissive idealism is on the rise.

Statues belong in musea, not the public sphere. — Benkei

Statues aren't for this time, it seems.

The Harper letter is funny — Benkei

Why do you think it's funny? You think all those that signed it don't have any point?

For years, and even to this day, Marxist thought is all but banned in the US. — Benkei

It wasn't banned. Americans just have these "scares" from time to time. The focus of the scare just changes.

Now a couple of rabid racists and their enablers are barred from a couple of shows, because - hello - racism is out of vogue (Fucking finally, right?!), and all of a sudden it's a problem. — Benkei

Who are the rabid racists you refer to?

Those cancellations are profit driven and not ideological. — Benkei

You should give an example.

Live goes on and the racists will retreat in their "cultural norms and values" code and how it's under threat from everything they don't like, which includes leftists and anything with pigment. — Benkei

Life will surely go on. Just hope that the only body count we follow will be with the pandemic. As I said, in the fall a lot of Americans will go off their unemployment benefits. And they have toxic elections in front of them. Hope everything goes well and we are just a couple of foreigners talking nonsense here.

Our friend Noam signed a letter today opposing cancel culture and supporting free speech. JK Rowling and many others also signed. — fishfry

It is not clear what are the forces that are fighting for the liberal values. The letter appeals to resist primarily just one wing. I still do not understand: Trump declares that he is the defender of free speech, but he is represented as a real threat. After reading this letter one can get impression that there is just one real threat, and there is also" stifling atmosphere".

These are dangerous times. People think awful stuff "couldn't happen here," but every bad thing that ever happened in the world happened in a place where the people thought it couldn't happen. — fishfry

Probably, people who do not live in the US cannot understand what is going on there.

You should give an example. — ssu

NYT sacking of their opinion editor because of complaints from readers. The guy with the Greek sounding name that was a thing for a while. Ivanka Trump. University gets pressured by its clients. University doesn't want to lose clients. People really are over analysing this stuff.

Yeah, you were totally on the barricades for the Marxists all those years when days ago you were trying to discredit BLM for being started by Marxists. Whatever.

It is not clear what are the forces that are fighting for the liberal values. The letter appeals to resist primarily just one wing. I still do not understand: Trump declares that he is the defender of free speech, but he is represented as a real threat. — Number2018

Perhaps the letter should be examined a bit:

But this needed reckoning has also intensified a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments that tend to weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity. As we applaud the first development, we also raise our voices against the second. The forces of illiberalism are gaining strength throughout the world and have a powerful ally in Donald Trump, who represents a real threat to democracy. But resistance must not be allowed to harden into its own brand of dogma or coercion—which right-wing demagogues are already exploiting. The democratic inclusion we want can be achieved only if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.

The fear basically is that fire is fought with equal fire, that the resistance "hardens into its own brand of dogma or coercion". You see that illiberalism which the paper refers to is basically pushed from both sides. Remember that populism, the idea of "the people" who are forgotten and even discriminated by "the elite" is a juxtaposition which creates an enemy, is much used both on the left and on the right. Populism doesn't seek to discuss things, it seeks to dominate and stifle other opinions.

I'd like to add that the decoration of public space is definitely subject to changing opinion. Why should we accept things that we consider ugly just because of history?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/news.artnet.com/art-world/most-hated-public-sculptures-591839/amp-page

Lol.

Well, something being simply ugly is a bit different!





The above was so f*cking awful that nobody wanted it, because president Kekkonen is still respected by many in the country. As it was transferred from place to place it finally broke (so no iconoclast was the culprit here below). My old grandmother felt bad for the artist as he was for a time the butt of jokes in the country.

value — Kev

It is a mistake to assume what someone else thinks.

You see that illiberalism which the paper refers to is basically pushed from both sides. Remember that populism, the idea of "the people" who are forgotten and even discriminated by "the elite" is a juxtaposition which creates an enemy, is much used both on the left and on the right. Populism doesn't seek to discuss things, it seeks to dominate and stifle other opinions. — ssu

I understand your points: there are a few arguments that are commonly used in the discussions about
populism, and I am familiar with them. I would not like to discuss Trump in this thread; yet, could you
explain me why

Donald Trump ... represents a real threat to democracy.

?
When he was elected, it was quite common to determine it as 'a fascist upheaval'.
In four years, differently from Hitler, he did not destroy democratic institutions in the US.
I am not going to defend Trump, I just do not understand why it was written in the letter.

When he was elected, it was quite common to determine it as 'a fascist upheaval'. — Number2018

Well, that is typical leftist rhetoric. Just like the rhetoric of marxists taking over the Democratic Party/the DNC is common at the right. One has to learn to tone down the rhetoric, you know.

I just do not understand why it was written in the letter. — Number2018

Let's say Trump's praising of authoritarian leaders makes people worry as the US President is still one of the most (if not the most) powerful person in the World. Yet of course Trump's ineptness evidently shows he's not a person that could change the US to an authoritarian state. What he can do is create a huge mess.

I think this interview below with Stephen Pinker makes the case pretty well as he was one of the signatures of the Harper's letter and someone who has been tried (unsuccessfully) to be silenced in the typical fashion after making "politically incorrect" points. Freddie Sayers interviews Pinker and here they discuss the letter, the culture war, why the illiberal woke left and the nationalist populist right pose a threat to freedom of speach and also how the two sides share a lot in common, both for example eager to deploy the race card. Pinker as usual makes good calm arguments.

I think this interview below with Stephen Pinker makes the case pretty well as he was one of the signatures of the Harper's letter — ssu

On the contrary, I do not think that this interview fully clarify the case. We still do not know if we witness the culmination of the process or it is just the beginning. What will shape the parameters of the allowed debate? How the new political correctness will change the freedom of expression in various fields? This is how Jordan Peterson describes situation in the academic domain: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/jordan-peterson-the-activists-are-now-stalking-the-hard-scientists

We still do not know if we witness the culmination of the process or it is just the beginning. What will shape the parameters of the allowed debate? — Number2018

I don't think we have seen any culmination here. Let's remember that even if similar uproar was in the universities in the sixties and seventies, this started basically just in the 2010's. I figure this thing will endure at least this decade or so.

This is how Jordan Peterson — Number2018

And this is where many stop instantly reading.

Yet the example Peterson gives is actually a perfect example how cancel culture works today and how the culture war is fought in the academic circles.So the horrible racist attack against human rights, women, minorities and diversity that Hudlicky did is to write the following:

In the last two decades many groups have been designated with ‘preferential status’ (despite substantive increases in the recruitment of women and minorities). Preferential treatment of one group leads inexorably to disadvantages for another. Each candidate should have an equal opportunity to secure a position, regardless of personal identification/categorization. Hiring practices that aim at equality of outcome is counter-productive if it results in discrimination against the most meritorious candidates. Such practice has also led to the emergence of mandatory ‘training workshops’ on gender equity, inclusion, diversity, and discrimination.”

You can judge what Hudlicky says, but what is noteworthy is the dramatic response. First was the absolute crisis that the journal Angewandte Chemie endured:

Editor-in-Chief Neville Compton said Hudlicky’s views “do not reflect our values of fairness, trustworthiness and social awareness,” and added aside from “spread[ing] trusted knowledge,” his journal also must “stand against discrimination, injustices and inequity.”

Compton said publishing the article was a “clear mistake” and two Angewandte Chemie editors were suspended. In addition, 16 members of the journal’s international advisory board who criticized the piece submitted their resignations.

So suspensions and resignations. Yet this wasn't the only actions that the Journal took to cleanse it from such ugliness that had creeped into the Journal (for an hour) with Hudlicky's article:

The journal says it is introducing a new process for peer-reviewing opinion pieces that will rely on experts in the topic of the essay instead of reviewers from the field of the journal. The journal also pledges to build more diversity within the editorial and advisory boards and develop new editorial guidelines incorporating diversity equality and inclusion principles and practices. An external review is planned to evaluate the journal’s processes, while an internal review is ongoing.

The official response from Hudlicky's university, Brock University, is telling:

On Friday, June 5, the University became aware of a paper written by Professor Tomáš
Hudlický that was published and then retracted by the journal Angewandte Chemie.

The paper includes highly objectionable statements that contrast the promotion of equity
and diversity with the promotion of academic merit. These statements are hurtful and
alienating to members of diverse communities and historically marginalized groups who
have, too often, seen their qualifications and abilities called into question.

Luckily the university has done a lot to advance human rights and reconciliation with the following organizational reforms, which it proudly states (to separate the fine university from Hudlicky):

Together we have made significant strides to foster an institutional culture advancing
human rights and reconciliation. Among other actions, in recent years the University has:

• established a Human Rights and Equity Office;
• created a new Ombuds Office;
• hired its first Vice-Provost, Indigenous Engagement;
• launched the President’s Advisory Council on Human Rights, Equity, and
Decolonization;
• invested significant resources in training and education, including sessions on
unconscious bias;
• collectively made an explicit commitment to foster a culture of inclusivity,
accessibility, reconciliation and decolonization, under Brock’s Institutional
Strategic Plan.

Despite this progress, and the shared values that animate these efforts, we recognize there
is still much work to do. The University released a statement Friday outlining its deep concerns and strong opposition to the views expressed in the article. Today, I sent a letter to our graduate students in Chemistry to let them know there were supports available to them and to provide further assistance should they have questions. Please be advised that further steps are being considered and developed and these next steps will be shared with the community in the next few days.

At least the graduate students weren't offered crisis help, but it's good to hear that the Canadian university is deeply committed to the decolonization of it's chemistry department.

And why were they tolerated before and not anymore? — ssu

That's a separate question, also worth looking into.

Still, you did not answer why black citizens of the USA should tolerate statues honoring CSA rebels who fought for the institution of slavery.

Why should they tolerate them?

As an European, I made the point how in Europe statues from a very painful past of a totalitarian dictatorship have been dealt with. You don't have to destroy the statues, you can put them into a statue park as a reminder of the past history. And those who glorify the ideology that caused so much misery today? They are annoying, but they aren't exactly the same kind as their historic predecessors. Those statues do tell of a past, just as does the ruins of the labour camps. Yet then comes the question what about any slave owning American politician in the past starting from George Washington? How Americans deal with their past is their thing.

How do you deal with political parties that have risen up in arms against the country and lost? It's actually easy, if after defeat they change their ways, they can be accepted back. That's how you get past civil wars. The leftist party that started our civil war and then luckily was defeated, is now at present in the government here. And nobody, neither the prime minister or any other member of the party, is thinking about a bolshevik revolution as they did in 1918.

How do you deal with political parties that have risen up in arms against the country and lost? It's actually easy, if after defeat they change their ways, they can be accepted back. That's how you get past civil wars. The leftist party that started our civil war and then luckily was defeated, is now at present in the government here. And nobody, neither the prime minister or any other member of the party, is thinking about a bolshevik revolution as they did in 1918. — ssu

It is my understanding some states in the US are more highly identified with military prestige than others. They are more inclined to believing the US represents the Power and Glory of God. This seems at odds with a growing sense of guilt and our notions of national destiny and what this has meant to those who are not White Anglo Saxon Protestants. As Israel is for Jews, the US has been for White Saxon Protestants and neither nation embraces equality. Their commitment to democracy is questionable, and perhaps both nations are divided by the hypocrisy of standing for a limited democracy that is not all-inclusive

There two concerns in that paragraph. Both sides of the Civil war believed God was on their side and people who believe they are doing the will of God are much more committed than those who don't think they are doing the will of God. Some of us are godless peaceniks. We are more in line with Quakers who have always opposed war. Where do you stand on the issue of God and war?

The other issue is how inclusive or exclusive are you? A major force behind the racism in the US was Southern Bells who used media and education to assure their elitist position in the south would be culturally protected at the expense of people of color. This is very much with us today, with a Black man being killed by police after a White woman reported she felt threatened. This prejudice is part of people's identities just as military prestige is part of some people's identities. "I am important because you are not and as the police officer kneeling on a Black man's throat I am gloating with my sense of power". I am a southern bell. I am a southern gentleman who serves God and country. We go together like a right hand and left hand. That is so much better than being a dirty hippie, at a love-in with people of all colors, right?

A major force behind the racism in the US was Southern Bells who used media and education to assure their elitist position in the south would be culturally protected at the expense of people of color. — Athena

My mother was a "Southern Belle" and I can assure you she was anything but what you describe. In her later years she helped "women of color" as best she could.

Did you grow up in the deep south? I did.

The Harper's Letter was dumb as hell; a circle-jerk for the signatories, all of whom have immense platforms and each of whom can directly reach an audience that all of us combined are unlikely to ever experience. The letter was so pitiful that it couldn't even provide direct, unambiguous examples of people who have been "canceled" and the whole term, (which is extremely goofy, by the way) is primarily a concern for people of a certain class or occupation or politico-ideological beliefs that want to distract away from actual material concerns that a majority of people face. What's also exceptional to me, is that a number of signatories are prominent political scientists who are unable to grasp the fact that "cancel culture" is a fundamental component of liberal democracy, i.e., the ability to freely associate with a group of other individuals with a common identity (ideological, ethnic, class, etc.) and to defend/protect that collective identity, which will always be in tension with the freedom of speech insofar as the latter does or potentially harms the former, as is the case with say transrights (which signatories Jesse Singal and JK Rowling have done), or Black Americans (Haidt et. al. has defended race science), or Palestinians (Bari Weiss, who in fact become famous by trying to "cancel" i.e. fire a pro-Palestinian professor at Columbia). What the signers decry as a "force of illiberalism" is in actuality an element of liberalism, Freedom of Association, expressing itself.

I think that the letter is appropriate to be fully quoted:
Editors are fired for running controversial pieces — ssu

NYT sacking of their opinion editor because of complaints from readers — Benkei

Even more to the point than losing subscribers and caving to "mOb mEnTaLlIty" James Bennet, the Editorial Page Editor, was fired because he didn't do his job. He said he "did not read the essay before it was published" and an internal review found that the publication was rushed and contained multiple false statements. This has happened multiple times under Bennet (here is my favorite one). This was simply the straw the broke the camel's back. What the letter is expressing is an outright lie. Being fired because you suck at your job isn't an example of "cancel culture".

But do you know what is an example of "cancel culture"? An Amazon worker who was fired for leading a protest due to the company's poor COVID response (and at-will employment in general), but I didn't see that example spelled out in the letter. In fact that right there is a more concrete example than anything offered by the letter.

And no one is "learning history" via a statue and you are feasting on your own bs if you believe that.

I think that the letter is appropriate to be fully quoted: — ssu

Yes thank you. You know that in the last couple of days some of the signatories have actually apologized for daring to agree to something that J.K. Rowling agrees with. I won't bore you with the details, those who follow the transgender wars know the story and if the rest haven't heard it by now they're not interested.

So yes, people apologized to the cancel mob for putting their name to a letter supporting free and open speech and dialog.

This frightens me greatly. Not just because of the mob, but because the entire corporate apparatus is behind it. If you're not woke you're ostracized and the very idea of free speech comes from privilege.

This is sick. This is a nightmare. Somebody talk me down, tell me this isn't happening.

I had a thought the other day. Every awful thing in the world that ever happened, happened in a place where the inhabitants believed such a thing could never happen. This is Mao's cultural revolution on the streets AND in the halls of corporate and political power, come to our country. It's here now.

None of the people with these authoritarian ideals would ever put themselves in danger to advance their agenda. The fact that Noam Chomsky is now alt-right is just hilarious, not scary. — Kev

I don't find it funny in the least. Nor that some of the signatories to the letter have now apologized for daring to come out in support of free speech. I find that very dangerous and scary.

There is violence ramping up in the States, but it's gang violence in places where the police have been neutered/walked out. Stay out of those places. — Kev

That's a pretty glib way to speak of major parts of the country falling outside the control of the government.

I wonder where those writers and academics were years, even decades ago, when the alarm bells were being rung. Better late than never, I suppose. — NOS4A2

The alt media have been screaming their heads off for decades. And frankly the left used to support free speech. This anti-freedom left is a frightening development. It's been percolating for a long time but really got going when Trump won the election. All they want to do is blow up the country now, whether literally as Antifa or figuratively like Pelosi and Biden. Biden just adopted Bernie's entire platform, plus said he wanted people to buy American. So he's just coopted Trump's platform too. Amazing. And Pelosi just said that "people will do what they do" in response to protesters pulling down a statue of Christopher Columbus in Pelosi's home city of Baltimore. That's disgraceful. She cares about nothing but her own power now, and her power depends on staying in front of the mob.

But special consideration needs to be given to Chomsky. He’s been a free speech warrior throughout his entire career, even defending the rights of Holocaust revisionists (his defence of Robert Faurisson was legendary) and war criminals. — NOS4A2

He's always been there. Like I say, I'm a big fan.

Trump declares that he is the defender of free speech, but he is represented as a real threat. After reading this letter one can get impression that there is just one real threat, and there is also" stifling atmosphere". — Number2018

Hope you don't mind if I prefer to keep the issue of free speech nonpartisan. It is for me. I'll stipulate that there's not much of a constituency for free speech either on the left all the right these days.

These are dangerous times. People think awful stuff "couldn't happen here," but every bad thing that ever happened in the world happened in a place where the people thought it couldn't happen.
— fishfry

Probably, people who do not live in the US cannot understand what is going on there. — Number2018

People in China who remember Mao's cultural revolution, and people in Germany who remember You Know Who, understand all too well.

"It can't happen here" is happening here.

:rofl:

I think every aspect of life has gotten subsumed in the culture war. Science, politics, racial issues, history. Climate change should strictly be a scientific issue but it gets entangled in debates about freedom and altering ‘ways of life’. I live in Japan and it’s next to impossible to explain to people that wearing a mask in a pandemic or recycling is a political issue. It’s a foreign concept to them.

As Israel is for Jews, the US has been for White Saxon Protestants and neither nation embraces equality. — Athena

I would really dispute this. Americans might have this hubris of "Manifest Destiny", but their attachment isn't similar as the Jewish have for their homeland... starting from the religious texts of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament.

There two concerns in that paragraph. Both sides of the Civil war believed God was on their side — Athena

Yet every side in every civil war believes that their cause is righteous, morally right and justifiable. Why would they otherwise resort to violence in the first place than to defend what is right? Civil wars aren't fought just by mercenaries, who are quite rare in reality.

This prejudice is part of people's identities just as military prestige is part of some people's identities. "I am important because you are not and as the police officer kneeling on a Black man's throat I am gloating with my sense of power". — Athena

And how many do you think there are who believe this today?

Someone calling JK Rowling a TERF on Twitter is Maoism, absolutely