Jul 18, 2015

Vandals Hit Two North Carolina Confederate Memorials. On One, They Didn’t Just Use Spray Paint…


By on Saturday, July 18, 2015

In the aftermath of the horrific murders of nine black church members at Charleston, South Carolina’s Emanuel AME Church, vandals have sprouted up across the South, taking extreme measures by defacing monuments to Confederate soldiers – most often by using spray paint to write words expressing their discontent with the displays.

Charlotte, North Carolina, has become the latest Southern city to face such attacks. Just this week, two Confederate memorials were defaced uptown, one by the use of spray paint – and the other by way of liquid cement.

The first monument, seen below, was erected in 1977 and stands across from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department on Old City Hall (city-owned) grounds:

 The second monument is located near Central Piedmont Community College and has been there since 1929:

The 1929 monument has been in the spotlight recently, as it was debated last week by the Mecklenburg County board of commissioners:

[The language on the monument] raised issues for some residents and county commissioners who at a meeting last week discussed removing the monument or erecting beside it a plaque reflecting contemporary attitudes about race. Some members of the public called for the monument’s removal because they felt it celebrated white supremacy. Others were adamant that it be kept in place for its historic value.

Commissioners did not make a decision and have said they don’t plan to take the issue up again.
Democrats control the county commission board 6-3.

Incidentally, a North Carolina bill to prohibit removal of public “objects of remembrance” was approved by a House committee yesterday. The Senate passed the bill in April.

Anyone who has information about the vandal(s) involved in the Charlotte memorial defacements is urged to call Crime Stoppers at 704-334-1600.

21 comments:

  1. Like all those poor Nordic countries?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow the stupidity is overwhelming here.
    Let's face it, we have been trapped under a mutant system of capitalism for 40 years and there has been stagnant growth outside the 1% thieves and little economic development outside the sector of high finance and computer software. After the corrupt governments paid back the banks' gambling losses with their treasuries we now get to endure having social programs being destroyed in order to afford the privilege of getting Goldman Sachs, HSBC and other documented criminal organzations "back on their feet."
    Another world is possible.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When animals rule everybody will eventually starve and the live one left will live in caves or mud huts

    ReplyDelete
  4. You were doing exceptionally well until you ventured into the religious BS. which has absolutely no place in a political conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For an economy in which no one worked, the Soviet Union produced enough military hardware to defeat Nazi Germany and stand against the United States during the Cold War.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That's the problem also: Gorbachev told the Russian Duma before he stepped down, that they, Russia and its strategic long term planning, had adopted Gramski's method of defeating America, that there was no other way but this, and when accomplished, which is nearly is, America will fall apart on itself.
    Gramski, wrote that in order to conquer America, to defeat this country, "God had to be taken out of their culture and lives". Abortion, homosexuality, pornography, contraception, drugs, etc, all these have brought us to where we are today. The Russians and their KGB seem to be having a field day celebrating their successes, as you demonstrate yourself, America has lost its moral compass and is in steep decline, not realizing that religion is the pinnacle of our war against our enemies.
    Communist, Marxist, Socialist (all really identical) Islam, Atheist,Pagan nations, Judaism, Freemasonry, satanic cults, and Satanism itself, all their literature, ideology, is anti-Christian; they, in their own words, teachings and publications, say quite expressly, that Christianity is their main and most feared enemy. You see, if you believe there is a God, and I do, there is only one side to be on, with Him and "religion" or with the above. However, while the majority have abandoned God and taken the "other side", in the end God will turn the tide and all else will be annihilated. An even cursory, understanding and reading of history should make plain to anyone who has done some serious inquiry, that what I have proposed and outlined, is in fact the real happening.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There's a very good reason why intellectuals who wrote the Constitution (most of whom were Deist or agnostics) made it plain there was to be a clear separation between church and state (religion and government). The two (government and religion) do not mix well and when tried, have always resulted in chaos, hatred, religious disputes and civil wars. With Ireland serving as a good example. There's many social and economic problems associated with the United States, but none of them have anything to do with a lack of religion. In fact, the reverse is probably true, because fundamentalist religious teachings which forbids the questioning of religious doctrine and authority figures in general is one of the main reasons why most Americans today never developed the skill of critical thinking. Making it easy for propagandist and demagogues of every description to lead the population from one disaster to another.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And they produced almost nothing else. The US had a huge lead in the military production and also was the world leader in producing nearly everything else. As for NAZI vs CCCP, you are talking about socialist vs socialist here. The Z in NAZI is for "socialist". I could just as easily prove that socialism *doesn't* work because the NAZIs practiced it and lost.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another American trait is they think that American laws apply to them in other countries. They will think they are protected under the US constitution. They are horrified when subjected to local laws. Here in Canada they get turned away for carrying weapons and the scream that they are allowed under the second amendment... not here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Guillotine_readyJuly 18, 2015 at 8:05 PM

    Divide, incite, instigate, go to lunch, repeat.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Get over it. You lost. If you dont like it, go back to Canada with Ted Cruz

    ReplyDelete
  12. Marcus lit you up on RawStory for whining about the ads.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Jesus has to do with everything. reaperishere.weebly.com

    ReplyDelete
  14. You're dead wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  15. In your delusional mind he does.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A friend & I had no problem getting a ruger mini 14 rifle through Canadian customs, ( we called & checked ahead,) the customs guy was not only friendly, but somewhat amused after he checked that it was ok. Coming back however, the U.S. customs agent had us cuffed in separate cells & after two or three hours we each had a creepy, seemingly incriminating, interview about our entire life stories, before he finally relented & let us go....

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cultural purges may not last but they can cut both ways, and they do get ugly. Of greater interest, now that we are living through the People's Cultural Purification Program: what is this being used to distract us from? The great Cultural Purifiers, coming out of the woodwork, are funded...They are getting paid. What is coming that got them deployed?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Markus lit you up about the ads on RawStory.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The Nazis chose the word 'socialism' for the same reason that Republicans use the word 'republican' and Democrats use the word 'democrat.' In other words, because they wished to distract from the fact that they're doing exactly the opposite.

    Yes, the Nazis lost WW2. But they lost eighty percent of their casualties on the Eastern Front. If the Soviet Union had disappeared on the first day of World War II, it is questionable whether the capitalist United States and the British Empire alone could have defeated Nazi Germany. Which is really quite amazing, because according to their own 'impartial' statistics, the US and UK supposedly had several times the economic capacity of Nazi Germany. Yet on the battlefield, this relatively small country with a fraction the population of its enemies and a geographical area the size of the state of Montana was able to hold its own until the very end. I come not to praise the Nazis but to condemn the incompetence and corruption of capitalism.

    The Soviet economy provided enough food to eat, free medical care and free college education for its citizens. You have to what else it might have been able to provide had it not been encircled and economically strangled by the Western powers who controlled almost all the rest of the world. At any rate, the problem with the Soviet Union was not the inefficiency of its economy, but rather its priorities, and that simply argues that democratic socialism could be an optimal political system. Which would explain why people in Norway, Finland, and Sweden tend to be happy with their democratic brand of socialism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. The NAZIs ran on a platform of the nationalization of all corporations, a ban on interest income (or any income not derived from "labor"), national education, national old age pensions. Pretty much the first few steps of the communist manifesto. Hard to see how this could not be considered geniunely socialist. As for their practice? They argued that the needs of the war required delaying of the program. Just like the Soviets, the utopia was always just around the corner once the evil outsiders who "are keeping us down" go away.

    But I am trying to figure out what you think you mean by Soviet efficiecy. It seems you agree that their priorities were largely focused on military, but you also point out that they got their asses handed to them by a country "the size of ... Montana".

    Not sure why you focus on size by the way. Germany had about half the total population of USA + UK in WW2, even in their small area. The USA is mostly empty now, and even more so back then. As for the Soviets, they had more than 2X what Germany had and stil barely managed to hold them off with their efficient socialist economy.


    As for the incompetence of "capitalism", I think you need to define what you mean by "capitalism". If you mean "free market capitalism" then this has not been practiced by the US since it nationalized/socialized in the 1930s. When true free market capitalism was practiced in the US, a country with few people and mostly agrarian economy took less than 100 years to become the world's economic powerhouse. The poor saw an increase in standard of living still unmatched in all of history during this time. Then the economy started evolving into some mongrel of socialism and coorporate fascism and the economy has largely stagnated since.



    So if you are criticizing the system the US has no, then I also criticize it. But the false dichotomy you seem to have set up in your mind is one of democratic-socialist overbearing statism vs beaurocratic-corporatist overbearing statism, as if there were no other choices.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In terms of degree of socialism, the inequality has always been portrayed as US & UK < Nazi Germany < Soviet Union. In WW2, the US & UK were almost defeated by 20% of Nazi Germany's effort, while the Soviet Union bore 80%. In other words, the Soviet Union's performance was four times better than the US & UK in fighting Nazis. That's where I got the notion that socialism isn't quite the dead cat that proponents of the 'free market' accuse it of being.

    My intention is not to portray a dichotomy between variations of socialist statism, but to suggest an anti-statist socialism. For example, the central bank of the United States has had a policy of quantitative easing for several years, in which it has routinely issued upwards of half a trillion dollars in money created out of nothing. This money is pumped into the banking system, where it is expanded ten-fold through fractional reserve practices. This money is unearned by the banking system, yet they are given charge over its distribution in the name of 'capitalism.' Why isn't this money instead given directly to the people, so that investment in capital goods can be driven by consumer demand rather than investments in financial instruments (aka 'derivatives') intended to milk the system?

    In the not-so-far future, computers and robots will be taking virtually every job in our economy. Unless they are provided a guaranteed minimum income through government, how are the majority of people going to survive in a jobless economy? Read Bill Gates' response, "Get down on your knees and beg harder."

    The idea of guaranteed minimum income is routinely attacked as 'socialism,' so I see no need to defend the application of that word here.

    If you look back to the early roots of socialism, before capitalists funded Marx as their controlled opposition, you'll see that people like Bakunin advocated a decentralized anti-statist system better known as 'anarcho-socialism.' Today, countries such as Finland and Norway refer to themselves as 'socialist' even though they allow private property ownership.

    So the idea that socialism is 'bureaucratic' and 'statist' is not necessarily true. Outside of conservative-libertarianism screeds, socialism isn't even limited to 'government ownership of the means of production.'

    I'm defending Soviet Russia only in the context of the argument that oligarchial state capitalism can deliver the goods and every other system can't. Personally, I would prefer a decentralized, localist system with participatory democracy and limited property ownership. World War II did not give us that choice, and neither will the next one. But maybe someday, something will.

    ReplyDelete