Blog Archives
Confederate Monuments, Like Nazi Flags, Don’t Belong in Public Spaces
I was long undecided whether Confederate monuments in the South should be preserved or not. I mean, any decent person would agree that the Confederates were scum… but still, monuments are history, and I don’t support the destruction of art or statues no matter how much of a scumbag the subject of the piece was.
We know Nero was a tyrant, we known Henry VIII was voted as the worst monarch in British history for a good reason, we know Genghis Khan was infamous for a reign of terror… but despite all of those personas being absolute degenerates, I doubt anyone would suggest demolishing their monuments, right? I mean, the presence of their monuments does not in any way represent that anyone would like to resurrect them into power today.
However, here is why I’ve come to the conclusion that Confederate monuments should be demolished. Not only that, but I think the Confederate flag (or flags) should be banned from official use… just like the Nazi flag is not waved around Germany.
See, while the historical figures I’ve mentioned are well in the past and have no modern ideological claim… the Confederate ideology is still out there. I mean, it started not long after the end of the Civil War, and lasts to this day, the neo-Confederate ideology and the “Lost Cause” nonsense.
I’ve done my research in various political Facebook groups, and I was horrified to see how much there is an attempt to justify what the Confederacy did. Neo-Confederates attempt to push the “Lost Cause” narrative, claiming the Civil War was not about slavery but about “state rights”… they just omit the part how the “right” they were talking about was mainly the “right” to hold other beings as slaves.
All of the slave women raped, all of the men whipped, all of the abuse, the chains, the humiliation… nope, neo-Confederates conveniently cut it out.
And that ideology never stopped! The lynching continued well into the 20th century. In the 1920, the KKK peaked 6,000,000 members, that was Confederate ideology right there. The horrific segregation laws continued into the 1960s, and same was with the anti-miscegenation laws that literally had humans sent to prison for having interracial relationships.
But that didn’t stop in the 1960s! In 2017, a violent rally took part in Charlottsville, Virginia, called “United the Right Rally” against the removal of Confederate monument. In the rally, Confederate and Nazi flags were waved.
The reason I support the removal of Confederate monuments is because that ideology, the horrific and vile ideology of slavery and the subjugating of other human beings, is still there! The dehumanisation of black people is still there. Those monuments are part of that ideology and are used to preserve it.
And you know what? I honestly understand where neo-Confederates are coming from… it’s not easy to admit your ancestors were lowlife scum who fought to preserve slavery, so you create a new narrative. Will the descendants of Nazi soldiers try the same in the future? Who knows.
And yes, I know not all Confederate soldiers were for slavery, some were drafted against their will… and? So were many soldiers serving in the German Army in WWII. Your point is…? The ones with a moral compass deserted, and the ones with a moral compass and courage did what the great Newton Knight and the Free State of Jones did, and resisted the Confederate regime.
Those monuments need to be demolished, pretty much as we don’t have Nazi monuments around today.
No black child should have to walk past a monument which was the gathering point of those who violently lynched his great uncle, and which still serves as a gathering point for those who lament the loss of the Confederacy and lament the abolition of slavery.
White Privilege does exist, even though it took me a while to get it
I’ve always been aware that racism exists. I was aware of slavery, segregation, police brutality against black people… I never denied racism is, unfortunately, ripe in the world, but I used to hold the perception that white privilege in itself doesn’t exist. The way I saw it, poor white people didn’t benefit from slavery or racism, or weren’t privileged, and therefore, it was more a case of “inherent wealth privilege” rather than white privilege, but a few events have changed that perception.
The first case was when the brave NFL player Colin Kaepernick took a knee during the anthem as protest against police brutality against black people. Despite it being a peaceful protest, conservatives wouldn’t have it, and were in a hurry to slander him as much as possible… the even went to the extent of trying to portray him as the antithesis to heroic Pat Tillman, even though Pat Tillman was murdered by his own “brothers in arms” for him becoming vocal against the Iraq War.
What caught my eye how some were accusing Kaepernick of being a “hypocrite” because he’s half-white and was raised by white parents, and they were doing it on the same threads where others were racially abusing him. So what does it mean, he’s too white to speak about black rights, but black enough to receive racial abuse? I gotta get the hang of that neo-Confederate-trash logic!
The second event was the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, organised by white supremacists… and receiving protection from Donald Trump by stating they were “good people.”
I realised that racists are out there more than we thought, and not only that, but they are everywhere in society. They look at job applications, some of them look at school applications, and as we now now, a huge amount of them are within the police force.
And this is where “white privilege” comes in. As a white person, I don’t have to fear for my life. I don’t need to fear that my colour of skin will prevent me from getting into a job I want or prevent me from getting equal treatment as others by the legal system.
And of course, the George Floyd case…
Slavery and segregation might be over, but besides their long-lasting economic effects on the black community, the people who supported and enforced those policies, those who opposed their cancellation, are still out there! And as we can see, they won’t tolerate Kaepernick take a new during the anthem… but they’ll be more than happy to turn the other way when a police officer murders an unarmed black person by putting a knee on his neck, as in the George Floyd case.
This doesn’t mean all white people are automatically privileged, of course not. A poor white person, just like a poor black person, will not be able to get themselves a place in Harvard without doing exceptionally well, but a white person doesn’t need to feel scared when they see a police car driving past.
Racism is still out there, and when it comes out through the crevices of society, it’s what divides beautiful America in such a violent way, and prevents black and white working-class people from uniting for a better, more progressive future for everyone.
Donald Trump Is a Lying Piece of S*** – on the Heroism of Pat Tillman and Kaepernick
Donald Trump is a lying piece of sh**. He dared to invoke Pat Tillman’s sacrifice in his speech when criticising the brave act of Colin Kaepernick, well… here are some facts.
Pat Tillman did give up on a lucrative contract and a lot of money to join the army, and was killed… by friendly fire, even though Bush’s administration tried to hide it in order to continue the propaganda and encourage people to join the army. By the way, the tragic death of Tillman was under very suspicious circumstances – we’ll get to that.
However, here’s what Trump forgets! Pat Tillman was an intelligent person, a liberal, and a humanist – basically, the opposite of Trump. He was critical of the Iraq War and George Bush. He considered it to be a war crime, and that’s what makes Pat Tillman a true American hero. The fact that he loved America so much that he was willing to sacrifice himself for it, but not the way people might think initially. He sacrificed himself by speaking up, by telling the truth.
He did join the army, but he was also brave enough to criticise the actions of the government, and there is a theory he might’ve been killed on purpose in order to prevent him from becoming more public about it. After all, too many were interested in using him as a “poster boy” for military service. The shots were made at close range, Tillman’s unit were not under enemy fire, and his diary, where he criticised the war, was burnt by soldiers from his unit.
Now, to Colin Kaepernick. You can criticise his playing ability all you want, but fact is, his football career wouldn’t have ended if he hadn’t kneeled during the anthem. Those who claim it was “disrespectful to the anthem” are complete morons who don’t realise that what truly is disrespectful to the American anthem and flag is when racists with Confederate mentality murder unarmed black people while hiding behind uniforms meant to represent America’s servicemen.
In fact, if Pat Tillman were alive, it’s not hard to guess that he’d support Kaepernick’s kneeling, and would probably join him – because that’s what true patriots do.
Trump tried to present Pat Tillman and Kaepernick as polar opposites, when in fact, the two had a lot in common, and both – unlike Trump – can be described as true American heroes. Being American means being an individual, speaking up against injustice, and in that aspect, both of them are MVPs.
The Misogynistic “Witch Hunt” Against Meghan Markle Reminds of the One Against Yoko Ono
For a long time, the misogynistic “witch” motif has been prevalent in the public perception of the role women play in society. In medieval Europe, a woman could find herself burning on a stake if she was too pretty, too smart, to attractive, too opinionated, and many other qualities that were enough to arouse accusations of witchcraft from jealous people.
That ridiculous motif is still prevalent today. Just like it was originally done against Yoko Ono, we can see Meghan Markle, the wife of Prince Harry, being accused of everything evil a woman could be accused of in such a situation, from presumably opening a chasm between her husband and his brother, to almost splitting the royal family.
Before I comment on Meghan’s situation, I’d like to go back to the first truly great rock band, the Beatles. In the early years, the main songwriter and driving force of the Beatles was John Lennon. When you think of such hits as “Please Please Me,” “A Hard Day´s Night,” “I Want to Hold Your Hand” (co-written with McCartney), “Day Tripper,” “Ticket to Ride,” “Help!”, and “Nowhere Man,” they were all Lennon compositions. Of course McCartney contributed some brilliant hits in those years as well, such as “Yesterday,” “Love Me Do,” or “Drive My Car,” but the majority of the hits in those days were written by Lennon.
However, the extensive touring formed frustration and anger within the band, to the extent that George Harrison actually said he was leaving the band in 1966. John Lennon later expressed that he first thought of leaving the Beatles in 1966, and around that time, you could tell a change in John Lennon and the way he saw himself in the band.
About the same time, Paul McCartney’s writing skills absolutely rocketed, and from the time of Revolver in 1966 until the end of the band in 1969-1970, Paul McCartney was in fact the leader and chief songwriter of the band. When you think of the most famous song of the band in that period – songs like “Eleanor Rigby,” “Sgt. Pepper´s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” “Helter Skelter,” “With a Little Help From My Friends,” “Blackbird,” “Paperback Writer,” “Penny Lane,” “Hello, Goodbye,” “Hey Jude,” “Back in the USSR,” “Let It Be,” and “The Long and Winding Road” – they were songs written by Paul McCartney by himself.
That doesn’t mean Lennon didn’t write some brilliant songs in that period, like “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds,” “Come Together,” “Strawberry Fields Forever,” or “Across the Universe” – or George Harrison with songs like “Something” and “Here Comes the Sun” – but it was obvious that McCartney became the driving force behind the band.
Anyway, back to the Yoko Ono situation. Around the time John started feeling out of place with the Beatles, in 1966, he met Yoko Ono. They bonded over both of them having a similar sense of humour, her experimental art (which was a movement that appealed to him musically), and in general, they just had great chemistry. Basically, Yoko Ono was very much what John Lennon was, or wanted to be, or felt comfortable to be.
As a result of seeing John with Yoko, and him looking so different around her compared to what he had looked before, many Beatles fans started basically accusing her of breaking the Beatles up, like it was Yoko who came and drew him away from the band. She was, and still is for many, the “witch” character who put a spell on John and selfishly stole him.
That is, obviously, not true. How do we know it’s not true? Because Paul McCartney said so, and for me, that’s good enough. Paul McCartney’s made it clear on numerous occasions that Yoko Ono was not the reason why the Beatles split.
Were there confrontations between members of the Beatles and Yoko Ono? Yes, of course, but that was when all the relationships were deteriorating within the Beatles, and with Yoko it was more like a case of being caught in the crossfire, considering she found herself a lot around the band in that time.
Not only that, but years after the Beatles had split, it was McCartney who helped Yoko Ono and Lennon save their marriage when it came across some hard times – we know that from a 2010 interview with Yoko. That is, not only did the Beatles not blame Ono for the split, but McCartney actually helped save John and Yoko’s marriage years after the band had split.
The “witch” motif that harms and defames women is still a round, and now we see it aimed against Meghan Markle. She’s accused of breaking the royal family, and, basically, driving Harry to abdicate his position. Only recently, Piers Morgan, a notorious “journalist” in Britain that I can only describe as a complete piece trash – for those not aware, he made his career being the editor of tabloid magazines and was involved in a phone hacking scandal – accused Meghan of being “ruthless,” a “social climber,” and other vile descriptions.
What those people struggle to understand is that Harry is not a dummy. He’s fully aware of how the tabloids played a role in the death of his mother, Princess Dianna; how his father Prince Charles cheated on her and drove her to depression; and how his own grandmother, the Queen, showed her no support and made her feel isolated. He knows very well that the royals are, in fact, normal people, and more often than not, they’re pretty dodgy.
If anything, marrying Meghan Markle, someone outside the royal circle, made him feel freer, a part of the “real world,” and gave him the confidence to be himself. I mean, Prince Harry never felt at ease as a Royal. From his wild parties as a teenager, to joining to fight in Afghanistan; he’s obviously always wanted to find his own place, identity, not just a “prince by birth.” Meghan, through her support and empowering personality, inspired him to do so.
In many ways, Harry, just like Meghan, grew up in a dysfunctional household. Harry grew up with a selfish father who only thinks of his immediate pleasure, the mother he admired was taken away from him, and he never felt comfortable with being forced into a lifestyle he didn’t choose.
Meghan grew up with an absent father who desperately tries to leech to her fame and slanders her regularly in every media outlet possible, again, for the sake of getting attention and sympathy. I mean, he sold stories against her to tabloids! How f***ed up that that? Her father’s family from a previous marriage he had hate her because, well, she’s successful, and they don’t like that. Just like in Harry’s case, she has a strong bond with her mother, which is also a point of similarity.
In fact, if we look at Harry’s history – which is well documented, due to the position he was born into – he is obviously the one driving this move. I mean, for many years he was mostly known for appearing in the tabloids as a “rebel.”
I’m not certain how much racism plays a role in the way Meghan is treated by the British media. I mean, considering that the ones to slander her the most are the Daily Mail and other far-right tabloids, it’s quite possible that racism is a factor in this.
One thing is sure, misogyny is definitely playing a role here. I mean, even the name given to Harry’s abdication, “Megxit.” Really?! That term completely removes Harry from the equation, and removes the fact it’s Harry who’s been feeling disgruntlement towards the royal establishment since long before he had met Meghan.
Let’s be honest, the whole concept of monarchy is an insult to human dignity. No person with any self-respect would acknowledge a system by which one is worth more than the rest, that is, than your children or grandchildren, merely by “birth right” – that is absolute, barbaric nonsense.
And yes, I know that defenders of the system would say, “But the royals bring tourists” – no they don’t! The Queen doesn’t sit outside Buckingham Palace allowing people to sit on her knee and take a picture, does she? It’s not like Paris, Rome, Florence, Vienna, Moscow, New York, or Athens suffer from a lack of tourists because of them not having a monarch. Why worship those who regard you as a “pleb” who is only worthy of worshipping and serving them? Grow up!
Harry always wanted to do something. That is, not just wave his hand and appear to do something, but actually achieve something of his own. Meghan is the best thing that’s ever happened to him, and he knows it.
What we can learn from the painful examples of the way Yoko Ono and Meghan Markle are treated is that the myth of the “female witch” is still prevalent in society, and too many are willing to accuse a woman simply for her being a woman.
Israel is not “the only democracy in the Middle East,” and no, Israel and Palestine don’t “fight for the same piece of land”
Mostly as a result of the pro-Israel lobby propaganda (and I will later explain why this lobby isn’t really “pro-” Israel), many people believe two myths about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. The first myth is that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East,” and the second myth is that “Israelis and Palestinians are fighting for the same piece of land,” which leads many to the false conclusion that one must prefer Israel in this conflict, because “it’s the only democracy…” and so on. As someone who lived in Israel for many years, I can tell you both of these statements are false.
First of all, Israel and Palestine are not fighting for the same piece of land. It’s not like they’re both contesting Tel Aviv, Netanya, Petah Tiqwa, and so on. There is a very clear line between the areas known as Palestine, which are the territories of the Palestinian Autonomy (or Palestinian Authority), which constitute the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and the State of Israel.
In fact, the line is so “clear,” that Israel has never actually annexed the Palestinian territories, because that would require Israel to give citizenship to the Palestinian living there, and citizens get human rights, which is something the Israeli far-right government can’t have.
Saying that “Israelis and Palestinians are fighting for the same piece of land” is like letting the US conquer Canada (or vice versa), and then to say, “Well, they’re both fighting for the same piece of land, so it’s very complicated” – it really isn’t.
What happens in practice is that the Israeli army controls the West Bank, and on a daily basis, a Palestinian is required to go through checkpoints (not only to cross to Israel, but within the West Bank itself), long queues, and humiliation on a daily basis.
At the same time, part of the ruling coalition in Israel are parties promoting religious nationalism. Those parties actually believe in a schizophrenic idea that settling the whole area known as “Greater Israel” – a Biblical myth about a “promised land” which includes parts of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan – will bring the Messiah. So what does the Israeli government do, to appease those political parties? It creates illegal settlements in the West Bank, settlers of those who openly wish to dispossess Palestinians and fulfil their “Greater Israel plan.”
Think of the reality under which a Palestinian has to live. Seeing parts of your family’s lands confiscated by Israel for new settlements, getting abused by soldiers, and having your freedom of movement limited. What kind of reality is that? It breeds anger, and anger breeds irrationality, extremism, and violence. That is literally how after WWI the financial penalties against Germany led to poverty and frustration that gave popularity to such extreme and vile ideologies as Nazism and communism.
As for the “only democracy…” argument, is it though? Is it a democracy? According to Western standards, I really don’t think it is. I mean, in order to appease the fundamentalist parties in Israel, i.e. the religious nationalists and the Orthodox, gay people are not allowed to get married, a Jewish couple can’t get married outside the Rabbinate, there is no public transport on Saturday – despite popular demand – due to the Orthodox parties preventing it.
I mean, does that actually count as a democracy? For an average Westerner, hearing such things leaves them in shock, and surprise, surprise, there’s a reason the pro-Israel lobby doesn’t mention it in its donation campaigns.
Even if that “only democracy…” argument were true, does that justify a country dispossessing and depriving another nation of their human rights? I mean, surely that is a ridiculous argument.
Also, I’m not sure the so-called pro-Israel lobby actually does any good to Israel. When someone shows harmful behaviour, the last thing you should do is enable it. Oh, so you’re a drug addict? Here, take unlimited funds to buy drugs! Or oh, you have anger issues? There you go, unlimited access to guns.
The best thing you can do in such a case is take drastic actions to stop that behaviour. In my view, the best thing the West can do is actually stop financing and supplying Israel with weapons unless it negotiates peace with Palestine. As for now, Israel gets huge funds from the West, and sees no need to work towards changing the situation.
The Trend of Negatively Stereotyping Americans Is Pathetic
One of the most pathetic trends in recent political debate, in my opinion, is the trend of hating America. Don’t get me wrong, I supported Sanders, so naturally, I like neither Clinton nor Trump; I’ve also been critical of American policy in regards to meddling in the Middle East for as long as I can remember (most recently, opposing US involvement in Syria) – I’m not talking about opposing American foreign policy!
The anti-Americanism I’m talking about is the trend of hating America altogether, e.g. comments like “Americans are dumb.”
So let’s talk about facts! In the last century, the United States of America has given the world more new technologies than any other country in the world, and that includes medical advancements that save numerous lives on a daily basis.
Most of the films we watch, modern musical instruments we play (the acoustic guitar and the electric guitar), and the electronic devices we use have either been made or developed in America.
I believe that priding oneself in the achievements of others is lame, and I’ve always disliked any forms of what I see as collectivism (be it class identity or nationalism) – I believe in individualism. Also, just like in every other country, there are most certainly things that could be done better for American citizens, e.g. healthcare and education are not accessible enough to the general population.
However, if Americans are so dumb and have achieved so much, what does it say about the intellectual capabilities of the rest of the world? I’ve only recently seen a person from a third-world country better left unnamed calling Americans “dumb” and wishing war and destruction upon America. If we are to play that stupid game of generalisations, what does it say about that particular person’s country, especially if we look at levels of HIV and illiteracy?
I’m not even an American, but looking how my life is full of things that are in one way or another connected to America, I can confidently say that overall, America has been a positive force in the world. That doesn’t mean that the US government wasn’t involved in some nasty things, like Vietnam, Iraq, and a few other examples, but overall – our lives have been made better thanks to the academic and cultural movements predominantly operating in the United States of America.
Imaginary Gun 