Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dream_weaver

Guarding the Lincoln Memorial, June 2, 2020

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

101953780_3611339955550113_5756617913201

Our troops protecting the Lincoln Memorial this is the best photo on the internet today.
(Photo and caption was found circulating on social media.)

 

Tell me again why it is necessary to have dozens of U.S. citizens serving as National Guard troupes in front of a memorial of a U.S. President (who was also a U.S. citizen) built on U.S. soil from U.S. citizens?

Best photo, for what? I don't know which is more disturbing to me, the necessity to post troupes on the steps of the memorial, or the caption accompanying the meme, albeit, I suspect the cause of both is related.

Lincoln is credited with having abolished slavery under his watch. Compulsory education was instituted about 65 years after his assassination in 1865.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Tell me again why it is necessary to have dozens

It probably isn't necessary at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Protesters said they are planning to topple a statue of Abraham Lincoln in the capital meant to commemorate his 1863 proclamation freeing enslaved people in the rebel states at the height of the Civil War" (WSJ, pay-walled).

"“As a black man, when I see that statue, I see that my freedom and liberation only lies with white people,” said Glenn Foster, 20 years old, of Montgomery County, Md., an organizer of the Tuesday rally."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Memorial

 

Edited by merjet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a danger lurking in this. There are matters where differences of conclusion are perfectly acceptable. The fact that this may be considered one of them is what I find troubling.

Yes, the threat to destroy the Lincoln Memorial was addressed by displaying the appearance of willingness to use force to deter if necessary. It worked, . . . this time.

The rationalization to justify it . . . is once again . . . to group individuals in terms of non-essentials. In this case, demonstrating what doing so can manifest into.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Yes, the threat to destroy the Lincoln Memorial was addressed by displaying the appearance of willingness to use force to deter if necessary. It worked, . . . this time.

Come on man, do you really gulp this down as if the only possible interpretation is that the Lincoln Memorial was under assault? That's absolutely rich coming from someone who could watch 8 minutes and 46 seconds of a cop kneeling on someone even after they say they can't breathe and even after they go unconscious, and somehow think that they still needed more evidence that the cop did anything wrong. Okay, fine, you talk in riddles, so it would make sense that your criteria for something being a valid conclusion is very convoluted and evidence from all over the place before you can conclude anything. 

But then you see this, and the first thing you think of is "oh yeah, it's under assault, there wouldn't be 60 soldiers unless they really needed 60 soldiers. No reason to ask questions, it's obvious." 

Defense is supposed to be proportional to the threat. You don't call down drone strikes were example to stop a shoplifter. You don't call in 60 soldiers to stop one or two vandals. If there was a raid planned of over 300 people, that would be different. I looked around for articles, and the worst I've seen suggested is just the vague concern of possible vandalism. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

What is wrong with defensive force? Of public monuments or private property?

Nothing. What I am finding wrong is the necessity to have to resort to it. What is being taught in the world that makes it alright to form mobs that act in the fashion that it is required to establish such perimeters of defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Come on man, do you really gulp this down as if the only possible interpretation is that the Lincoln Memorial was under assault?

Did I say it was under assault? Glenn Foster said nothing about it being an assault, in fact, he called it a rally. Do you think he picked his words carefully, or was he perhaps grasping at straws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

Nothing. What I am finding wrong is the necessity to have to resort to it. What is being taught in the world that makes it alright to form mobs that act in the fashion that it is required to establish such perimeters of defense.

Okay, got it. What the world has been taught is that any single, original injustice is proper cause for any violence in response.

Of course what we know the world has been taught in universities is - determinism. That act *must* lead to this outcome. With no distinction made between human beings or entities.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

What the world has been taught is that any single, original injustice is proper cause for any violence in response.

And this ties back into the exploration of the resolution implemented by the 13 colonies against the laundry list of injustices meted out by a King.

In retrospect, it reveals much studying and planning. It is more difficult to try 'projecting yourself in as an observer unfamiliar with the history, and ascertaining it as the events unfold around you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Did I say it was under assault? Glenn Foster said nothing about it being an assault, in fact, he called it a rally. Do you think he picked his words carefully, or was he perhaps grasping at straws?

You didn't say anything at all, you asked idle questions. You made an insinuation, but avoided saying what the insinuation was. But I don't think you actually mean to say nothing. Based on the context of the picture, that you and I both know why soldiers are used (defense), and I'm sure you believe in some proportional force, I'm left to conclude that you are insinuating that there was an impending assault. Insinuating that this amount of force is necessary in response to something. That something being impending attack or assault. 

If you want to voice your concern about various statues being taken down, that's wonderful and I'm with you on that, but please don't do it by posting this sensationalist photograph that relies on triggering emotion rather than analyzing what's going on here. 

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Glenn Foster said nothing about it being an assault, in fact, he called it a rally.

That's a completely different statue they are talking about! That's the Emancipation Memorial! So I have no idea what you're talking about. And you know the kind of defense was used for that? 8 police cars. 

To make it crystal clear: placement of defense is perfectly fine, the issue is that this much force is not fine. Please don't make it look as if I am arguing that having any defense is inappropriate. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

If you want to voice your concern about various statues being taken down, that's wonderful and I'm with you on that, but please don't do it by posting this sensationalist photograph that relies on triggering emotion rather than analyzing what's going on here. 

You seem to be missing the gist of it, which only causes me to introspect and ask if I'm not performing the process of identification correctly, or if there is something else that I may be missing or overlooking.

Yes statues are being taken down. That is beyond dispute.

Yes, the National Guardsmen were photographed on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, a site that was not referred to in the wikipedia article errantly referenced in my earlier reply.

The fact that the statues are being taken down is not my main concern. It is just the evidence that gives rise to the more legitimate concerns that ought arise subsequently. By the time the crime has taken place, a criminal mentality is often already in firmly entrenched.

To re-examine my earlier inquiry would give rise to the rhetorical question @whYNOT  raised parenthetically: Is it determinism: (i.e.:) the act must lead to this consequence . . . with no distinction between human beings or inanimate objects?

Hypothetically, where would you be if King George could have answered the colonial rebels with retaliation of force proportional to the degree insinuated by the 'sensationalist emotional triggering photograph' on the grounds by which you are objecting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It IS a sensationalist photo. Which won't come close to the many other sensationalist photos that have shocked most Americans, of destructive actions by the 'other side' (self-proclaimed, btw). I viewed the picture regretfully (that it had to come to this). Those ominous -looking National Guardsmen in formation on the steps. But I do know that sometimes a show of force is essential as a pre-emptive warning. You will go no further - in effect. Nobody needs to get hurt, unless you try. One must not lose sight of whom and what was the cause of this train of events, Eiuol, it was NOT the manslaughter of a civilian by a cop. That was the self-justification.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Hypothetically, where would you be if King George could have answered the colonial rebels with retaliation of force proportional to the degree insinuated by the 'sensationalist emotional triggering photograph' on the grounds by which you are objecting?

This sentence doesn't make much sense. The British weren't in the wrong because they used disproportionate retaliation, so nothing would change if the hypothetical retaliation was proportional to the colonists.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

This sentence doesn't make much sense. The British weren't in the wrong because they used disproportionate retaliation, so nothing would change if the hypothetical retaliation was proportional to the colonists.

Let me rephrase my question. What would America be had the British won?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The display of troops here is just a re-election show for the Pres. It's free advertising to him. Maneuvering troops in show is an old propaganda ploy. 

I love the major memorials on the Mall. Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington memorials will stand fine under a Democratic President in 2021 just as in the past. Although I love these grand memorials (and the war memorial with my cousin's name on it), I'd like to mention, in connection with the Emancipation, a collection of interviews of former slaves that is available to read online. I return to it again and again. https://www.loc.gov/resource/mesn.130/?sp=10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are These Troops Guarding the Lincoln Memorial?
A Snopes follow-up special.

Not sure how far I'll make it through the interviews. Some of them bustle with pride of what their maws and paws accomplished after the war. Conspicuously absent, the woe is me victim talk, that permeates some of the media presentation of folk today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe so, Stephen, in part. There are also the many Americans who are rightly nervous and scared now (that Antifa has entered the fray) so a "show" that there are limits to destruction and anarchy, is a governmental obligation, I'd think, as well as a political tactic. Which every politician has done.

Going back, it seems obvious that Trumps re-election was in the bag. Until 6 months ago, when America was in a growth cycle (arguable, what he had to do with that, but confidence was on a high), and I've known how much that - the economy and employment - solves problems, racial and otherwise.

Going back, I can assume with certainty that Trump would have vastly preferred *that* America to continue, before the double blows which hit. Then - he'd not be needing to make a show, a ploy, as a re-election bid. Even his enemies should have to concede his intentions were honorable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Let me rephrase my question. What would America be had the British won?

No need to be Socratic, just ask me what you want to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

No need to be Socratic, just ask me what you want to know. 

That last was an unanswerable scenario, except in the form of speculation. 

So far, on the table I have

It probably isn't necessary

Protesters were planning to topple the statue.

A lashing out stemming from a single original injustice

A re-election propaganda ploy

Are there any of these listed that are contradictory on their own, to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way you wrote the second one makes it sound like you think that the Lincoln Memorial is the same as the Emancipation Memorial. 

All we even have as a threat is this according to the Washington Post:

"A spokesman for the D.C. National Guard, Senior Master Sgt. Craig Clapper, said the troops seen there were called in to protect the memorial after some minor damage over the weekend, and in response to potential new threats. The D.C. National Guard serves under the authority of the secretary of the Army, and the order to protect the memorial is ongoing. But despite earlier closure of the memorial and the appearance that it is being occupied by soldiers, said Clapper, the public still has access, and the soldiers were not carrying riot shields."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

That last was an unanswerable scenario, except in the form of speculation. 

So far, on the table I have

It probably isn't necessary

Protesters were planning to topple the statue.

A lashing out stemming from a single original injustice

A re-election propaganda ploy

Are there any of these listed that are contradictory on their own, to you?

You could add "disproportionate (defensive) force" to your table. (I think was mentioned here). The question is how did one know what is "proportionate" until the force is needed? Are the soldiers going to be facing five defacers of monuments, or a thousand rioters? 

Again, seeing that we live in the most superficial, "symbolic", sensationalist and style-above-substance, short attention span**, period: the sound bite and an image and their evoked feelings, are accepted as the universal substitutes for hard thinking, identification and evaluation. Governments too are aware of and will employ "the image" to their P.R. purposes.

*Also "cynical", if only to keep the alliteration going.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...