After Palmyra ISIS Targets Monuments on U.S. Soil

Hmm. According to you, people petitioning the government to remove statutes celebrating the confederacy constitutes fascism.White people shooting up Wilmington NC to remove the elected government consisting of a black/white coalition is 'democracy in action'; at least according to you.An actual race riot is democracy, but petitioning the government is fascism.Please explain.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

This is true. However, what you can put an end to is state sponsorship of a symbol. And that is pretty much the only thing that people are asking for when they want the confederate flag removed from the statehouse or when they petition to have the name of their school (whose attendance was 90% black children) changed from Nathan Forest.Further, nobody is taking the German route of outlawing such symbols. Everyone is still free to put these symbols on their pickup trucks or to fly them from flag poles in their yards. But asking the state to stop endorsing symbols of hate seems to be a very effective tool. It's also highly appropriate.No, burning symbols does not end them. But you could say the same thing about making laws against segregation. Outlawing segregation does not stop hate. But stopping state support for hatred does make a difference and asking the state to stop speaking (as opposed to private individuals) isn't fascism.

Good question, and one that is pretty personal given that I grew up in Atlanta. During the time I was in elementary school, we made annual picnic trips to Stone Mountain at the end of the school year.The carving on Stone Mountain was Klan sponsored project that eventually was taken over by the state. It is a physical embodiment of the false 'Lost Cause' history that was taught after the civil war. I can still remember my 9th high school English teacher spouting that BS. That said, destroying the carving, in my opinion, is out of the question. Only a few people actually ask for that to happen. I am not one of them.What people do seem to want is to have additional attractions and features added to the park associated with the mountain that tell more of the history behind the civil war. I find that request completely practical. Of course the United Daughters of the Confederacy are completely opposed to the park being anything other than a shrine to three traitors.I don't care about the coins. I assume that they are all in the hands of collectors at this point, and that is fine. I don't think it is appropriate for the US government to mint any more of them, and I don't consider it fascist to request that they not do so.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

So apparently, the victimization of the ancestors of black people as slaves is imaginary as is any racism that they currently believe they face that may have roots in such treatment. In fact, the mere holding of such mistaken impressions is actually fascism. No need for any coercion, or authoritarianism. Just holding an opinion that Jon does not is enough.Your definition is worthless.Perhaps you have a point about whether removal of confederate symbols are bad. It might even be possible to have a discussion about the topic. But your insistence on the term fascism is an obstacle to any meaningful discussion.If, in fact, soldiers actually tearing down statutes is not fascism, and you've continually ducked that question, then asking to remove a statue because you find it offensive is not fascism either.

I note that these two statements are not contradictory. No, the North did not fight the war because they wanted to abolish slavery. That much is true. The North fought primarily to preserve the union.On the other hand, the idea that the preservation of slavery, and its expansion into new territories were not the most substantial reason that the Southern States were at odds with the North is just a blatant untruth. Slavery was the single issue on which the two sides could never agree. We've had this discussion at EvC before. As Rrhain has shown, the southern states themselves declared their intentions in writing when they left the union. The southern states then went on to adopt a constitution pretty much like the US constitution, but which denied each state the right to disallow slavery. I'm willing to assume ignorance rather than outright lying, but yeah. States rights? Yeah, the right to own slaves and take them into non slave states and to force the new territories to accept slaves was the proximate cause of the civil war. It was the most important issue under contention and many of the other problems stemmed directly from the prospect that slavery might die out.

None of your goal post shifting or insults change the fact your position is complete unsupportable. Fascism has an actual definition, and it bears little to no resemblance to your own descriptions.But your refusal to defend your position that racism and slavery are/were imaginary is noted.

Your topic is being discussed. Both your definition of fascism and your unfavorable comparison of people who petition the government to move statutes into a museum with ISIS have been disputed. In addition your statements about imaginary victimization have been disputed. I suspect the silly hyperbole sprinkled among those extreme comparisons does not help either.Perhaps it is the topic itself that is flawed. Perhaps it is your insistence on comparing people with opinions different from your own to Nazi's that is inhibiting any real discussion. If so, that's no surprise. Usually such comparison do create more heat than light.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.