People Arrested for Dancing at Jefferson Monument

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Discuss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2DW6u-7Ks

[cacian]

Oh well that is one too many utube disasters yet again.
Whatever next can't look at the plaques or statues next in case one's look is not good enough.
At the end of the day these grounds wherever they are public property ie belong to the public and if somoene decides to plant something somwhere in the middle of a public place then they should expect a public reaction be it dancing shouting eating ramsacking destroying or whatever.

I do not get this sacred this or that just because someone decided on behalf of the population it was.
I wonder whether Thomas Jefferson allowed such memorial to be raised. I wonder what he would make of it.
Has he been asked before he died whether it was ok to raise such sacred grounds on his behalf?
I doubt very much he would have allowed his name to be dragged in this way without his permission.


Space is space and if you decide to take it up with stuff then expect some kind of action/reaction.

[Emil Miller]

Discuss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2DW6u-7Ks


This comment posted on the video seems to sum it up quite neatly.

A memorial site is sacred grounds. Any form of demonstration in such a place is unlawfull. Demonstrating in these locations shows disrespect. Memorial sites are not public grounds. They are federal sites that are open to the public, however they can be closed to the public if the government wishes to do so.  If the violator is told to stop and leave and refuses to do so, then they are now trespassing on federal grounds and are subject to arrest. This is what happened here.

[cacian]

Hi Emil do you also think this an offense and is disrespectful?
In other words is a picture sacred too?


https://i.chzbgr.com/completestore/12/8/22/MmWwH1C9S0ukqOBvxgGozg2.png

[Emil Miller]

Hi Emil do you also think this an offense and is disrespectful?
In other words is a picture sacred too?




Sorry, but I fail to see the connection. I've no idea what the law is in Spain but if an indictable offence has been committed, then whoever is guilty should be punished in accordance with the law,

[cacian]

Sorry, but I fail to see the connection. I've no idea what the law is in Spain but if an indictable offence has been committed, then whoever is guilty should be punished in accordance with the law,

Hi Emil what I mean about the connection is this:
Both subjects, one is a site, the Jefferson Memorial, and the other is a painting of Christ which is also sacred, have been somehow 'tempered with'' by the public.

[Emil Miller]

Hi Emil what I mean about the connection is this:
Both subjects, one is a site, the Jefferson Memorial, and the other is a painting of Christ which is also sacred, have been somehow 'tempered with'' by the public.

The circumstances pertaining to both events are not comparable.
If an individual defaces a religious artwork it bears no relation to a group of people who were demeaning a sacred site by their behaviour. In the case of the latter, if, as has been stated, the site is administered by the federal authorities and is subject to certain regulations, then those in breach of them should expect to be dealt with accordingly.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Of course you'd side with the cops, Emil.

[Drkshadow03]

Apparently "disrespect" is a crime these days.

Anyway, the prosecutors dropped the case (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5WubfxrBuk&feature=related).

And the group held a second much larger rally (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km4R_cq-kKk&feature=relmfu).

[Emil Miller]

Of course you'd side with the cops, Emil.

Nope, I side with the law.

[cacian]

Nope, I side with the law.

What about the law that says one must ask Thomas Jefferson or anyone involved in that matter before errecting their sacred site on their dead behalves?
Does that count? :p

[stlukesguild]

Without a doubt there are far to many employed in positions of authority who overstep or abuse their authority... or have a difficulty with making moral judgments. This is true whether we are speaking of guards at Auschwitz or Abu Ghraib, the National Guard at Kent State, the LA Police Dept.... or in this case, the D.C. Park Dept. Police. Unfortunately, such abuses commonly go all the way to the top of the "food chain"... but these individuals are often good at avoiding the consequences for their abuses (or plain stupidity). Having said this much, it is clear that the "protesters" in question are not poor innocent bystanders. They clearly knew the possible consequences of their actions and had contacted the press ahead of time, intent upon making a political statement. There are far more pressing instances of our governments continued encroachment upon the various freedoms that we have long taken for granted. Personally, I think the law in this instance seems rather stupid... but I'm not certain that it is something worth engaging in illegal action as protest over. It would seem the government felt much the same, throwing the case out.

Does anyone else here suspect that some of cacian's leaps of "logic" seem more the result of free-basing as opposed to free-association?

[Emil Miller]

Does anyone else here suspect that some of cacian's leaps of "logic" seem more the result of free-basing as opposed to free-association?

I strongly suspect it but at the moment my brain is wrestling with the meaning of her last post.

[cacian]

I strongly suspect it but at the moment my brain is wrestling with the meaning of her last post.

Sorry Emil the wording of my last post is slightely wanky.
What I meant is:
Shouldn't there be a law that says one must ask permission from the people involved such as Thomas Jefferson before erecting them into sacred sites?
Another example:
There are many statues of famous people scattered around the globes including Jesus on the Cross and I often wonder whethe there should a policy a law that must say ask the person their permissions before erecting not some kind of shrine.
Who knows maybe these dead people do not wish for them to be erected into a statue.
It is just a polite suggestion.

[cacian]

Without a doubt there are far to many employed in positions of authority who overstep or abuse their authority... or have a difficulty with making moral judgments. This is true whether we are speaking of guards at Auschwitz or Abu Ghraib, the National Guard at Kent State, the LA Police Dept.... or in this case, the D.C. Park Dept. Police. Unfortunately, such abuses commonly go all the way to the top of the "food chain"... but these individuals are often good at avoiding the consequences for their abuses (or plain stupidity). Having said this much, it is clear that the "protesters" in question are not poor innocent bystanders. They clearly knew the possible consequences of their actions and had contacted the press ahead of time, intent upon making a political statement. There are far more pressing instances of our governments continued encroachment upon the various freedoms that we have long taken for granted. Personally, I think the law in this instance seems rather stupid... but I'm not certain that it is something worth engaging in illegal action as protest over. It would seem the government felt much the same, throwing the case out.

Does anyone else here suspect that some of cacian's leaps of "logic" seem more the result of free-basing as opposed to free-association?

I had to look up the word since I have never heard of it.
Freebasing without a hyphen right?


freebasing present participle of free·base
Prepare or take (cocaine) in such a way.

And on that note NO, God forbid, I am on natural me.

[Emil Miller]

Sorry Emil the wording of my last post is slightely wanky.
What I meant is:
Shouldn't there be a law that says one must ask permission from the people involved such as Thomas Jefferson before erecting them into sacred sites?
Another example:
There are many statues of famous people scattered around the globes including Jesus on the Cross and I often wonder whethe there should a policy a law that must say ask the person their permissions before erecting not some kind of shrine.
Who knows maybe these dead people do not wish for them to be erected into a statue.
It is just a polite suggestion.

Well considering that Jefferson had been dead for 117 years before the memorial was built it would have been difficult asking him. Similarly, Jesus Christ had gone missing presumed dead long before statues began to be erected in his name.
Statues are seldom erected to living people except in totalitarian countries and a memorial is, as its name implies, in memory of someone who has passed away.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

This video shows how ****ed up our "laws" can be. I don't think it matters if they were trying to make a statement by bringing the press there. The cops can't tell them what law they'd be breaking by dancing. The cops don't even read them their rights. And if it is a law (from what I gather it's not so much a law as it is some sort of order to not dance at memorials issued by a judge) it's an idiotic and anti-American law in every sense of the phrase. Laws like these should be challenged. Thomas Jefferson agrees:

"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical."

P.S. I don't know what point cacian is trying to make, either, but this isn't unusual.

[billl]

For the same reason a lot of people wouldn't want to have the "peace disturbed" by dancing at, say, the Vietnam Memorial, I think even a place like the Jefferson Memorial might represent a sort of solemn pilgrimage for some people, and it is certainly intended to be available for those sorts of visitors.

I watched the beginning of the video, and there seems (?) to be some "protest" behind the dance? Is it just protesting a law against dancing there? Or was it originally a dance against some other political position or law or something? Why did people ever want to dance there, or get upset if they were asked to stop?

The park police are responsible for the area around these monuments as well, and they don't just target all dancing, this is just about some people not listening to them in the memorial.

Anyhow, they are cops, and they definitely ended up looking bad. But what if some people had started doing "The Twist" along the Vietnam Memorial? On Veteran's Day? Shouldn't there be some means by which that could be dealt with, besides cops telling the mourners who are attending a place designed precisely for their mourning that, "well, dancing isn't a crime"?

Of course, it's the Jefferson Memorial (not a place specifically of mourning, at least not like the VM), and whatever incident sparked this probably should've been handled better (although I hope it wasn't some goofball feeling pissed just because a policeman asked them to stop dancing, as if "dancing" specifically were being outlawed, rather than "disrespectful behavior" in a solemn environment or whatever, which can end up looking a lot less comic and bewildering than "Stop! No dancing!" depending on its manifestation). As it is, it turned into a big confrontation, and it's hard to get behind armed law enforcement throwing people to the ground. But these other guys were being dickish by putting them in that position. The people guarding the Jefferson Memorial are not, I don't think, of the opinion that freedom of expression isn't an important "American" or Jeffersonian value. But, like a lot of "laws" and principles important to us, there are gray areas, and these people who could've stopped dancing, and had their joyful/romantic moment outside decided to turn it into a protest and then a mess over the sort of gray area we're supposed to work to negotiate through (and, it seems, people eventually did).

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

In America, people have the right to peaceful protest. This includes dancing. So, yes, people should be able to dance at the Vietnam memorial, or the 9/11 memorial, or any memorial. Would it be in bad taste? Yes. That's not the point.

And I'm not getting this "Are they just doing it to protest a law against dancing" argument. So laws shouldn't be protested?

[billl]

In America, people have the right to peaceful protest. This includes dancing. So, yes, people should be able to dance at the Vietnam memorial, or the 9/11 memorial, or any memorial. Would it be in bad taste? Yes. That's not the point.

And I'm not getting this "Are they just doing it to protest a law against dancing" argument. So laws shouldn't be protested?

Just to be clear, we're in agreement about protesting being allowed. In fact, those Park Police are involved in that aspect of U.S. democracy more than anyone else you will ever meet. Do you think you would simply be allowed to protest in a hospital waiting room, without interference? In the hallway of a public school? In the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol building? Do you think those things would best be allowed, lest we lose our freedom?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Aside from the hospital waiting room (where a clear risk to others' health could be an issue), if done in a peaceful manner, yes. I've generally found protests aren't done for arbitrary reasons.

[JuniperWoolf]

I come from a family of law folks (cops and guards) and this is pretty embarassing. Damn unprofessional, I call it. Did their training last one week or something? They know they're going on youtube, the camera was right up in their face and there were others with camera phones out as well, and yet they played right into the situation. Idiots.

Canadians already see American cops as deeply stupid after the recent "have you been to the stampede yet?" (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/08/08/calgary-nose-hill-gun-stampede-police-us.html) debacle. Has this become big news in the United States? It's a huge joke in Canada right now.

http://i426.photobucket.com/albums/pp349/cellar_door17/th_d69785bb483791e31559427eff71.jpg (http://s426.photobucket.com/albums/pp349/cellar_door17/?action=view&current=d69785bb483791e31559427eff71.jpg)

The cops were getting off on the authority rush ("STOP RESISTING!!!" with a knee in the back) and the protestors were getting off on the rebellion buzz ("Watch my arm! WATCH MY ARM!!!" after he barely touched him). They both looked pretty lame. It reminded me of Britta vs. Chang (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rd8vWo2OKcc).


As it is, it turned into a big confrontation, and it's hard to get behind armed law enforcement throwing people to the ground. But these other guys were being dickish by putting them in that position.

Yeah, but they're just citizens, they could be anyone, some of those people could have been mentally unfit for all those cops knew. Police are held to higher behavioural standards than random people on the streets, they're supposed to transcend the situation and be responsible and professional at all times. The fault lies with those officers that this situation got out of hand.

[billl]

Yeah, but they're just citizens, they could be anyone, some of those people could be mentally unfit for all those cops know. Police are supposed to be responsible and professional at all times, the fault lies with them that this got out of hand.

Yeah, I agree with that, I'm kind of surprised how bad it went considering the training they'd be expected to have had. I'd love to see footage of the protesters dealing with the officer that called these guys in... From what I remember seeing when I lived there, the Park Police are, by the nature of their role, generally pussycats when they are assigned to work at these types of places. In most cases, they're generally well-trained in handling delicate/challenging situations. For the ones working in D.C., this sort of thing is supposedly their "specialty".

Anyhow, the guys on bikes (the ones with shorts/helmet) and maybe some other burly dudes were quite likely a case of the "goon squad" getting called in. We are almost certainly not seeing the first warnings that this crew were given. The Park Police "goon squad" should be better than that, though.

EDIT: I'm joking here, a bit, I'm not suggesting that the Park Police has an official or unoffical "U.S. Goon Squad" sent to squash dancers on behalf of those we aren't supposed to mention in these forums.... Got it, Mr. Beck???

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I agree, the dancers were being a bit dickish, but that's their right, just as it's the right of those nuts from the Westboro Baptist church to protest funerals of dead soldiers. It may not be right, but it isn't against the law, nor should it be.

Plus, I've come to the conclusion that cops can be dicks anywhere, including Canada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRgLWFIKEjc&feature=related).

P.S. Billl!!! You got an avatar! That took me by surprise.

[billl]

It is against the law, though, no one is allowed to protest in there.

The Park Police in D.C. are regularly dealing with issues of where people can or can't protest, there are established rules, and there're processes for getting permits for special demonstrations, etc. I'm not sure where the D.C. Police and the Park Police divide or share responsibilities about these things, but the Park Police are regularly involved with these issues.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Then it is a law that should be protested. I can think of few better places to protest a law that prohibits protests than the Jefferson memorial.

[prendrelemick]

There are strong resemblences with the Pussy Riot cause celebre that the liberal chattering classes are geting worked up over at the moment. Pussy Riot who's arrest and prosecution after protesting/performing in a Moscow Church was highlighted in the west as evidence of a re awakening of Russian totalitarianism.

For once and perhaps the only time ever, I agree with Emil. People have the right to protest and the authorites have the right (or the duty even) to apply the laws of their land.

[MystyrMystyry]

I don't speak Russian, but I get the unshakable feeling that their name might actually translate to Cat Fight, but would the media agree?

Actually there was a survey that seemed to indicate that most of the population thought they'd got off too easy - not for insulting Mr Potatohead, but the church itself.


As for needing laws to prevent people playing silly buggers in hallowed places, you'd best make sure everyone's on side before deciding to be outrageous. The cops overreacted sure, but the kids came across as being smartarses. The 'ignorance of the law is no excuse' comes to mind - if they (or anyone with an authority act) tell you to stop whatever you're doing, best to heed their advice and minimise any short term trouble. And then vow to not do anything ever again that would draw their attention to yourself (experience speaking here).

'I don't respect your authority!' are lonely last words when you're removed from a relatively comfortable holding cell with a bed and dragged off into solitary without one.

[OrphanPip]

Plus, I've come to the conclusion that cops can be dicks anywhere, including Canada (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRgLWFIKEjc&feature=related).


Our cops can certainly be jerks, but the one in that video is arresting the guy because he was trying to hitch-hike, he probably would have just got a warning if he hadn't started acting like a defensive jerk.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

I’m not entirely clear what they are protesting.
-Is it the “right” to dance on/ at national monuments in general?,

-A “right” to dance at this particular monument in protest to the sign seen at 0:19 in the Drkshadow03’s first video that begins with a humble “Please respect…”?
(Reposted here for convenience - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=km4R_cq-kKk&feature=relmfu)

-or a right to exhibit a particular style of dance that Mr. Kokesh and his disciples believe must be brought to the attention of the public?

If it’s imperative that the law must be ignored, then is it too much to ask for common courtesy toward your fellow citizens, tourists in this case, by conducting the dance routine away from the center of the rotunda where the Jefferson statue stands? Moving the routine away from the center would allow the innocent tourist sufficient space to approach the statue, photograph, read inscriptions, etc.

Now that Mr. Kokesh and his troupe have achieved their fifteen minutes of YouTube fame, it is likely that future performances are in the making. With this eventuality, I would suggest the two parties (The dance troupe and the National Park Service) meet to establish dance zones and times amenable to both.

Looking at the Memorial floor plan, I have identified a dance area away from the primary tourist area well suited to their disjointed circular train dance style.

Please refer to the following link and select the floor plan image to enlarge:

http://oldblueprints.com/jefferson-memorial-floor-plan.html

Note the circular side aisle just inside the perimeter colonnade. The dance train can jiggy-jaw to their hearts content within this ring, while the tourists can circulate respectfully and reverently as required by the sign/law, within the center area.

In fact, protest dancing could be included as a scheduled event on Memorial publications and website, e.g. “Protest Dancing – 10:00 am to 12:00 pm WT&F and 4:00pm to 8:00 pm on Saturdays”.

It’s a win-win for the law, protestors and the tourist

Now for something light hearted – remember the Pink Panther rice dance scene?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BqSDTGKLNU


.

[stlukesguild]

Then it is a law that should be protested. I can think of few better places to protest a law that prohibits protests than the Jefferson memorial.

Of course it should be obvious to you that while you have the right to peaceful protest, there are legal limitations as to the form such protests may take, as well as to the place and time. I personally do not wish to deal with protesters when I attend the National Gallery of Art, enter the school building in which I teach, or a place of quiet contemplation such as the Lincoln Monument, Arlington National Cemetery, or the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It would seem that many others agree as laws have been enacted restricting protest from such venues and there has been no great public outcry to change these laws. If, however, you truly imagine this as being some great threat to your Constitutionally guaranteed rights, you can certainly protest such laws by protesting in these very venues, but you surely understand that by doing so you are knowingly breaking the law and subject to the consequences. Undoubtedly, there are instances in which breaking the law in order to draw attention to an injustice is truly merited. I immediately think of various protests of the Civil Rights Movement. Somehow I just don't think that restricting me from making a public protest at a cemetery or memorial... or from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is really enough of an instance of a limitation of the rights of Freedom of Speech. I am far more concerned with way in which Freedom of Speech and the voice of the populace has been superseded and suppressed by corporate influence, lobbyists, and the media... to say nothing of government imposed restrictions on voters' rights, than I am with not being able to dance on Lincoln's tomb.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is another example of how government is getting too big and controlling. Too many laws and too much interference over things that are trivial. These cops should be reprimanded, maybe lose their jobs.

[Emil Miller]

If you haven't already done so, check out Adam Kokesh on Wikipedia in relation to the demonstrations; there has been more than one. Kokesh's supporters are a bit of an eye-opener.

[KCurtis]

Sorry Emil the wording of my last post is slightely wanky.
What I meant is:
Shouldn't there be a law that says one must ask permission from the people involved such as Thomas Jefferson before erecting them into sacred sites?
Another example:
There are many statues of famous people scattered around the globes including Jesus on the Cross and I often wonder whethe there should a policy a law that must say ask the person their permissions before erecting not some kind of shrine.
Who knows maybe these dead people do not wish for them to be erected into a statue.
It is just a polite suggestion.
Ummmm- Thomas Jefferson was not asked if he wanted a statue because he was dead.

[cacian]

Ummmm- Thomas Jefferson was not asked if he wanted a statue because he was dead.



Yes of course he was not.
What I am trying to say is that one should ask persmission before erecting anything.
I personally find it iimpolite presumptious and rude to erect statues and sites of people who have passed away. There should be a law that ''says ask before you do'' and if and when you cannot then you must not.
It might well not be the wishes of these dead people to be erected into a hiddeous artform because they reason want to rest in peace and not have their names dragged out in this way.
How do we know it is OK to erect a monument/statues on behalf of someone's dead?
I am just thinking that would be the correct and rightfull thing to do.
Who are we to think we could that?
One must respect the deads and things like this are disrespectfull to them simply because they have not been asked.

[KCurtis]

Discuss.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_2DW6u-7Ks

Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he could!!! The arrests were outrageous- this is Thomas Jeffersonwe are speaking of here- yeah you know that freedom guy.
And that is probably why that crowd chose to protest (or whatever they were doing, looked like not much to me) there. He stood for their freedom to dance near his statue. Regardless of the fact that some of the crowd were acting like dunderheads, I don't think old T.J. would have minded- he would probably have welcomed it. And I would like to think that most were there doing what they were doing because they respected him for what he was. Thank goodness for Thomas Jefferson, maybe the cops arresting people should read up on him.

[KCurtis]

Yes of course he was not.
What I am trying to say is that one should ask persmission before erecting anything.
I personally find it iimpolite presumptious and rude to erect statues and sites of people who have passed away. There should be a law that ''says ask before you do'' and if and when you cannot then you must not.


Nope- there should be no law, not in my country. We have more than enough laws.
When I die I want to be laminated into a glass coffee table. People could leave coffee rings where my open mouth will be.

[cacian]

Nope- there should be no law, not in my country. We have more than enough laws.
When I die I want to be laminated into a glass coffee table. People could leave coffee rings where my open mouth will be.

I see.
No incarnation then for you?!

[Paulclem]

Nope- there should be no law, not in my country. We have more than enough laws.
When I die I want to be laminated into a glass coffee table. People could leave coffee rings where my open mouth will be.

They do a good plasticisation these days. They casn even open you up and expose your innards if you want to go for shock value.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg7FuKqKY4E

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Then it is a law that should be protested. I can think of few better places to protest a law that prohibits protests than the Jefferson memorial.

Of course it should be obvious to you that while you have the right to peaceful protest, there are legal limitations as to the form such protests may take, as well as to the place and time. I personally do not wish to deal with protesters when I attend the National Gallery of Art, enter the school building in which I teach, or a place of quiet contemplation such as the Lincoln Monument, Arlington National Cemetery, or the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. It would seem that many others agree as laws have been enacted restricting protest from such venues and there has been no great public outcry to change these laws. If, however, you truly imagine this as being some great threat to your Constitutionally guaranteed rights, you can certainly protest such laws by protesting in these very venues, but you surely understand that by doing so you are knowingly breaking the law and subject to the consequences. Undoubtedly, there are instances in which breaking the law in order to draw attention to an injustice is truly merited. I immediately think of various protests of the Civil Rights Movement. Somehow I just don't think that restricting me from making a public protest at a cemetery or memorial... or from yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is really enough of an instance of a limitation of the rights of Freedom of Speech. I am far more concerned with way in which Freedom of Speech and the voice of the populace has been superseded and suppressed by corporate influence, lobbyists, and the media... to say nothing of government imposed restrictions on voters' rights, than I am with not being able to dance on Lincoln's tomb.
Good points all. I still think you should be able to dance at memorial sites if you wish. That's just me being kooky, though.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Our cops can certainly be jerks, but the one in that video is arresting the guy because he was trying to hitch-hike, he probably would have just got a warning if he hadn't started acting like a defensive jerk.

He was hitch hiking with two other guys? Never heard of group hitch hiking. And I'm not sure I'd classify asking why you're being arrested and trying to let someone know when you're being arrested qualifies as being a defensive jerk.

[KCurtis]

They do a good plasticisation these days. They casn even open you up and expose your innards if you want to go for shock value.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg7FuKqKY4E

Oh no I want to look my best

[KCurtis]

I see.
No incarnation then for you?!

No....nothing special

[Alexander III]

I don't think the law should mingle with such things and it is sad to see that it does, but it is even more sad to see that recourse to the law is necessary in such situations. It is a memorial site, it should be treated with respect and I don't think the law should ever need to have laws protecting it because in a civilized and educated country, the people should have been thought the common decency to respect memorials. When I was in the town outside my university I saw a group of young kids sitting on top of a memorial smoking pot, it was a memorial for the university students which had left to fight in WWI and had died. I don't want to sound moralistic but shlt what are they teaching in schools nowadays, that just because we posses freedom we should feel at liberty to rape her too, just to remind her that she is our property.

[stlukesguild]

This is another example of how government is getting too big and controlling. Too many laws and too much interference over things that are trivial. These cops should be reprimanded, maybe lose their jobs.

On what basis?

[stlukesguild]

What I am trying to say is that one should ask persmission before erecting anything.
I personally find it iimpolite presumptious and rude to erect statues and sites of people who have passed away. There should be a law that ''says ask before you do'' and if and when you cannot then you must not.

Now that law would be worth protesting... by raising several god-awful statues... simply because it is one of the most moronic things I have ever heard.

[stlukesguild]

I don't think the law should mingle with such things and it is sad to see that it does, but it is even more sad to see that recourse to the law is necessary in such situations. It is a memorial site, it should be treated with respect and I don't think the law should ever need to have laws protecting it because in a civilized and educated country, the people should have been thought the common decency to respect memorials.

I was browsing through a book on the Italian Renaissance with another artist (one of my studio partners). We came upon this:

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_Orvieto_cathedral.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=Orvieto_cathedral.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_OrvietoCath.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=OrvietoCath.jpg)

It is the magnificent Cathedral of Orvieto. Both of us were absolutely stunned... not only by the beauty of this building... but by the fact that it has survived intact for more than 500 years. Just look at the splendid paintings and mosaics... on the exterior of the building!!!

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_NativityMaitani.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=NativityMaitani.jpg)

http://i1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/th_VisitationMaitani.jpg (http://s1245.photobucket.com/albums/gg581/StlukesguildOhio/?action=view&current=VisitationMaitani.jpg)

Look at the brilliant and ornate sculpture that lines the walls... on the outside of the cathedral!!! We both immediately thought the same thing. Such a building could not exist in America for the simple reason that some uncultured morons would soon vandalize it. Some creep with a ladder would tear off the gold mosaic and sell it to some low-life scrap metal dealer (who wouldn't ask questions). Some idiotic bored teenagers would vandalize the sculpture just as they bust up antique cemetery tombstones in the US. Ghetto gang-bangers would "tag" the walls with graffiti claiming the Cathedral as their turf as a dog marks its tree by p***ing on it. There are times I fully agree with Ezra Pound who turned his back on the US because he felt it was the most uncultured nation of Neanderthals.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wow. Those cathedral pictures don't even look real.

To be fair, though, there are plenty of churches, memorials, and works of art that aren't vandalized in the US.

[BienvenuJDC]

This is another example of how government is getting too big and controlling. Too many laws and too much interference over things that are trivial. These cops should be reprimanded, maybe lose their jobs.

On what basis?

On the basis that they were abusing the authority that was entrusted to them to protect and serve. They violated these people's rights. Rights that are protected by a document that ironically was partially written by Jefferson.

[cacian]

What I am trying to say is that one should ask persmission before erecting anything.
I personally find it iimpolite presumptious and rude to erect statues and sites of people who have passed away. There should be a law that ''says ask before you do'' and if and when you cannot then you must not.

Now that law would be worth protesting... by raising several god-awful statues... simply because it is one of the most moronic things I have ever heard.

Not really moronic just do not erect stuff at the expense of people who are no longer in case more riotting are to be had.
let the deads rest in peace. R.I.P and all that.

[prendrelemick]

Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave if he could!!! The arrests were outrageous- this is Thomas Jeffersonwe are speaking of here- yeah you know that freedom guy.
And that is probably why that crowd chose to protest (or whatever they were doing, looked like not much to me) there. He stood for their freedom to dance near his statue. Regardless of the fact that some of the crowd were acting like dunderheads, I don't think old T.J. would have minded- he would probably have welcomed it. And I would like to think that most were there doing what they were doing because they respected him for what he was. Thank goodness for Thomas Jefferson, maybe the cops arresting people should read up on him.


Is he the guy who wrote of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within hearing distance of his slave huts?

It is difficult to assert rights without imposing on the rights of others. This is not a new observation and is really an intractable problem. If St Lukes wants to enjoy quiet contemplation at a memorial it is his right to do so - part of his pursuit of happiness. If people can't protest there it is a denial of their liberty. All the Law and Legislature can do is scurry along after each new conflict, getting more and more clumsy and always favouring the short term view prevalent at that moment.
The glib sound bite:- With Rights come Responsibility, should somehow be written in Law, but of course that would only further confuse the courts and enrich the lawyers.

[Shevek]

I find the outrage a bit silly, particularly the "top" comment on the video claiming this as proof that the U.S. has become "1000 times worse" than Nazi Germany. The cops' behaviour was disturbing, but as other posters have already discussed, the protesters clearly wanted to be provocative. Maybe the protesters' legal rights were infringed, but my gripe is that viral videos like these showing relatively minor incidents with the police encourage an oversimplified sense of injustice. It allows people to say "this is what's wrong with the world today/our country/our government" without delving too deeply into the complex, long-term issues that affect the well-being of everybody.

[tonywalt]

To be honest - I have no time for either the protestors (good god, there are so many other things to protest - Nor do i have time for the (sorry) doughnuts arresting them.

[cacian]

What I am trying to say is that one should ask persmission before erecting anything.
I personally find it iimpolite presumptious and rude to erect statues and sites of people who have passed away. There should be a law that ''says ask before you do'' and if and when you cannot then you must not.

Now that law would be worth protesting... by raising several god-awful statues... simply because it is one of the most moronic things I have ever heard.

stluke what do you have those four paintings as your signature?
Are they linked somehow?
I hope you do not mind me asking. Just intrigued.:smile5:

[stlukesguild]

On the basis that they were abusing the authority that was entrusted to them to protect and serve. They violated these people's rights. Rights that are protected by a document that ironically was partially written by Jefferson.

The job of the Police is to enforce the law... not to interpret it. The law stated no dancing. Perhaps a dumb law... but the law nevertheless. So are you suggesting that the police should selectively choose which laws they will or won't enforce and that they should be held accountable for doing their job?

[tonywalt]

On the basis that they were abusing the authority that was entrusted to them to protect and serve. They violated these people's rights. Rights that are protected by a document that ironically was partially written by Jefferson.

The job of the Police is to enforce the law... not to interpret it. The law stated no dancing. Perhaps a dumb law... but the law nevertheless. So are you suggesting that the police should selectively choose which laws they will or won't enforce and that they should be held accountable for doing their job?

Yes - that is sort of what I had in mind. Many (most, you could say) laws are not enforced. For instance it's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in most US states and many countries(obviously a safety issue in a pedestrian path). While they were doing those arrests, houses were being burgled in areas where there is a distinct lack of police presence.

But more importantly, they would not dance, if police did not bother with them.

[stlukesguild]

Yes - that is sort of what I had in mind. Many (most, you could say) laws are not enforced. For instance it's illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk in most US states and many countries(obviously a safety issue in a pedestrian path). While they were doing those arrests, houses were being burgled in areas where there is a distinct lack of police presence.

But more importantly, they would not dance, if police did not bother with them.

Of course the Police in question were those of the DC park services. Their job is to patrol, keep the peace, and enforce the laws at the various sites that fall under the jurisdiction of the Park Services. Now obviously we can all point to the lack of fairness involved in how police protection (and other government services) are divvied up... which is essentially based upon money... and clearly tourism is a major source of income in DC and as such the enforcement of laws and maintaining the peace and order at tourists sites is of prime concern. Ultimately, the issue isn't merely the right to dance... but the right to engage in public protest or political demonstrations on federal properties that have been deemed off limits to such protests. Again, I am fully of support of civil disobedience under the right circumstances... with the full recognition that one is breaking the law and as such there will likely be consequences. Banning dancing at such memorial sites seems stupid... but it doesn't strike me as a law that is so egregious or intrusive of our civil rights that I feel it worthy of civil disobedience. The law may be stupid... but so were the protesters whose only goal, in all likelihood, was to make a scene so that they could see themselves on TV... or at least YouTube and claim their 15 minutes of fame.

[KCurtis]

Is he the guy who wrote of the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness within hearing distance of his slave huts?

It is difficult to assert rights without imposing on the rights of others. This is not a new observation and is really an intractable problem. If St Lukes wants to enjoy quiet contemplation at a memorial it is his right to do so - part of his pursuit of happiness. If people can't protest there it is a denial of their liberty. All the Law and Legislature can do is scurry along after each new conflict, getting more and more clumsy and always favouring the short term view prevalent at that moment.
The glib sound bite:- With Rights come Responsibility, should somehow be written in Law, but of course that would only further confuse the courts and enrich the lawyers.

Yep! Same guy! He NEVER wrote that slaves should not be denied those rights, he was smarter than that! I knew someone would post about that to criticize the U.S. I will not counter with a criticism of the U.K.

[prendrelemick]

My question was mischievous. I apologise.

When he wrote those words he was living in his time. Having slaves gave him time and wealth to think and compose and help create a new country on a new model. The greater good ensued.

[Alexander III]

My question was mischievous. I apologise.

When he wrote those words he was living in his time. Having slaves gave him time and wealth to think and compose and help create a new country on a new model. The greater good ensued.

Look, you are taking one of arguably the most complex realities of history, from Athens to America, the same problem had always existed; all men are born equal, except slaves; freedom for all, except slaves, human life is valuable, except slaves. And sure from our historical perspective we can make things black and white, but to show you how unfair that is: right now, roughly one third of the world if overweight( by overweight I mean fat enough that it harms ones health) and another third of the world is suffering from malnutrition and starvation.This is clearly wrong. But this is a complex issue with countless nuances and facets. But there will be some narrow minded douche who a 100 years from now call's all of us hypocritical and heartless beasts for not having done anything about it. Does he have a point? Yes. Is he able to condemn us with utmost ease because from the future he can view everything of the past as black and white and ignore various complication and realities? Yes. Does he realize the latter? No.

Furthermore, eventually at some point of human history we shall become vegetarian. I am not saying we shall become vegetarian because we have morally evolved, but because it is the only sustainable way of life as our numbers get higher and higher. And there shall be plenty in the further who think the common western man of today the moral equivalent of the slaveholder of yesteryear, because undoubtedly to said future douches the massacre of animals for our pleasure is inhumane. Does the future douche have a point? Yes, anyone who looks at how meat is cultivated in the factory system of the 21st century can't help but feel a strong revulsion and disquetiment. Does the future douche display intellectual narrow mindedness because he is only able to understand history through his limited context? Yes. Does he realize that the only reason he can make things so black and white is because he has the benefit of not having actually lived through them and thus understand their complex nature. Yes. Does he realize that had he been born in 1992 in London, he would most likely have eaten plenty of mean throughout his life and out of his income less than 1% (1% being already a high estimate) would go to help the poor and starving in the world, while most likely he would spend at least 10-20% on alcohol, drugs and parting?

[prendrelemick]

So we are in agreement then.




I suppose it had to happen eventually

[Alexander III]

So we are in agreement then.




I suppose it had to happen eventually

I thought your last reply had been sarcastic, I did not realize that you were in earnest. In such a case my post was not directed to you.

[KCurtis]

My question was mischievous. I apologise.

When he wrote those words he was living in his time. Having slaves gave him time and wealth to think and compose and help create a new country on a new model. The greater good ensued.

Yes, you are correct. I know he was in love with his slave Sally-I think was her name, and they did have a child or children, not sure how many.

[OrphanPip]

Well saying Jefferson was a product of his times gives him maybe too much of a pass. It's not like abolitionism wasn't a widespread belief at the time. Hell, most of the US population lived in free states by the time Jefferson died. He not only owned slaves, but he also aligned himself politically with those who opposed abolitionism.

You can't just brush it under the rug as an error of the times, when most of his prominent political opponents, like Hamilton and Adams, were supporters of abolition. Jefferson's relationship to slavery was also relevant because of his symbolic importance to Virginia and his use as a symbol (he was also an anti-federalist) by the Confederacy.

[prendrelemick]

All that may be true, but it is too easy to criticise with hindsight using modern values.

I refer you back to Alexander's analogy of greedy fat westerners eating meat. At this time we know the consequences and the unfairness, but when do we start to condem ourselves officially.

Whatever the rights and wrongs or the irony at their creation, Jeffersons words have passed down the ages and are perpetually appropriate. They have a life of their own.

[OrphanPip]

All that may be true, but it is too easy to criticise with hindsight using modern values.

I refer you back to Alexander's analogy of greedy fat westerners eating meat. At this time we know the consequences and the unfairness, but when do we start to condem ourselves officially.

Whatever the rights and wrongs or the irony at their creation, Jeffersons words have passed down the ages and are perpetually appropriate. They have a life of their own.

Sure, but do you get to claim to be a product of your time when the majority of people living at the same time seem to have been on the right side of history, so to speak. It's not really a matter of hindsight, it's not like he lacked the awareness of the arguments for or against slavery. He even agreed with the principles of abolition, but he resisted abolition in his role as a politician. The honest answer is that Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he just didn't care enough to do anything about it, unlike many of his contemporaries.

[Alexander III]

Sure, but do you get to claim to be a product of your time when the majority of people living at the same time seem to have been on the right side of history, so to speak. It's not really a matter of hindsight, it's not like he lacked the awareness of the arguments for or against slavery. He even agreed with the principles of abolition, but he resisted abolition in his role as a politician. The honest answer is that Jefferson knew slavery was wrong, but he just didn't care enough to do anything about it, unlike many of his contemporaries.

That is fallacious thinking. That would be like you saying, hey Alex you have a 20,000 euro car, why don't you sell it and give the money to help the starving children in india, by not doing it you are doing nothing to prevent the death of hundreds of innocents. Is there some truth behind said reasoning? Undoubtedly; is it also completely detached from reality? Indubitably.


Look at who was pro and anti slavery at the time. Britain? It abolished slavery at round about the same time that the industrial revolution hit off and thus slavery was solely the livelihood of a few of the old breed, the new financiers and industrialist stood to loose absolutely nothing from the abolition of slavery, furthermore abolition would damage the old colonial landowners and would help facilitate economic and political power into the hands of the new industrialists.

America was more divided as the south lived off of slavery while the north was mostly industrialists and financiers. Is it not remarkable how the latter which had nothing to loose were all morally "aware" yet those of the south whose entire livelihood and that of their children depended upon slavery had an objection? The american civil war was not about the morality of slavery, it was about the economics of it; is it not remarkable how once the south was defeated the industrialists of the north doubled and even tripled their fortunes overnight by buying out at ridiculously low prices everything which used to belong to the slaveholding class?

If ones livelihood and more importantly that of their children depends upon slavery, the matter becomes more delicate - you seem to be ignoring the fact that those who were anti-slavery mostly only stood to profit from it's abolition.

I am not justifying slavery, only trying to say that you are taking a complex subject and reducing it to such simple terms that it is devoid of any sense of reality. Do you think Jefferson enjoyed slavery? Or can we agree that a man who stands to reduce his children and the children of his entire community into destitution; and hand over the economic and political power of the nation to what was then perceived (and somewhat justly) as a vulgar and tasteless and mercenary class of nouveau riche industrialists whom had no notion of what constituted a gentleman; that said man is not in such a simple black and white position as you make him out to be?

Once again, I cannot help but feel that those who have nothing to loose are those who can afford to take a simple and narrow view of the subject.

I do not justify it, but the people who were on the abolitionist end of things, had not much higher moral ground often than those who were anti-abolition. One merely needs to look at the post-civil war era to see that not to many fvcks were given about blacks once the war was over and the ex-slaveholding political and economic powerhouse had surrendered their money and influence to the northern industrialists.

[OrphanPip]

That is fallacious thinking. That would be like you saying, hey Alex you have a 20,000 euro car, why don't you sell it and give the money to help the starving children in india, by not doing it you are doing nothing to prevent the death of hundreds of innocents. Is there some truth behind said reasoning? Undoubtedly; is it also completely detached from reality? Indubitably.

Sure, go do it. And people 100 years hence will be in a perfectly reasonable position if they referred to you as a selfish ****. You only get to claim ignorance as a defence when one is actual ignorant of the immorality of their position. How much are we willing to write off as just mere product of circumstance?



Look at who was pro and anti slavery at the time. Britain? It abolished slavery at round about the same time that the industrial revolution hit off and thus slavery was solely the livelihood of a few of the old breed, the new financiers and industrialist stood to loose absolutely nothing from the abolition of slavery, furthermore abolition would damage the old colonial landowners and would help facilitate economic and political power into the hands of the new industrialists.

Actually, abolition pre-dates industrialization, it has more to do with the emergence of liberalism. While the final end to the slave trade didn't come until 1834, it was abolished on English soil by 1777, and there were gradual restrictions made to the slave trade over the years leading to the final Empire wide abolition.



America was more divided as the south lived off of slavery while the north was mostly industrialists and financiers. Is it not remarkable how the latter which had nothing to loose were all morally "aware" yet those of the south whose entire livelihood and that of their children depended upon slavery had an objection? The american civil war was not about the morality of slavery, it was about the economics of it; is it not remarkable how once the south was defeated the industrialists of the north doubled and even tripled their fortunes overnight by buying out at ridiculously low prices everything which used to belong to the slaveholding class?


Well there children hardly depended on slavery, because the same work could be done for little pay without much loss in profit for the plantation owners.

Also, the war was not about removing slavery from the South initially, it was over the conflict over the new territories established in the West. There were violent struggles between abolitionist and those who favoured slavery in these new territories. The North rightfully thought that new territories should be free soil. A prominent advocate of this was the Republicans, when Lincoln was elected the south seceded from the union. The Emancipation Proclomation was not made until after the war was started. So, it was partly about slavery, but it was mostly about Southern states feeling like they were losing power in federal system they disagreed with ideologically.

Much of the abolitionist sentiment in the North and South came from their religious convictions, sects related to puritanism tended to object to slavery on moral and religious grounds.



I am not justifying slavery, only trying to say that you are taking a complex subject and reducing it to such simple terms that it is devoid of any sense of reality. Do you think Jefferson enjoyed slavery? Or can we agree that a man who stands to reduce his children and the children of his entire community into destitution; and hand over the economic and political power of the nation to what was then perceived (and somewhat justly) as a vulgar and tasteless and mercenary class of nouveau riche industrialists whom had no notion of what constituted a gentleman; that said man is not in such a simple black and white position as you make him out to be?

Jefferson hardly stood to lose very much by giving up his slaves, or converting them to paid labour. His livelihood didn't depend on slavery, it depended on a massive landholding and agricultural products (including his post as an ambassador and 3rd POTUS).



I do not justify it, but the people who were on the abolitionist end of things, had not much higher moral ground often than those who were anti-abolition. One merely needs to look at the post-civil war era to see that not to many fvcks were given about blacks once the war was over and the ex-slaveholding political and economic powerhouse had surrendered their money and influence to the northern industrialists.

That's not relevant. It doesn't matter that some people were not perfect either. I just don't get the need to jump through hoops of apologetics to act as if some important people were also bad people in many ways. Human beings tend to be ****ty people, and I don't think a conversation about Jefferson is really complete without also acknowledging the ways he was wrong. And it is not only a matter of slavery, he also had terrible ideas about economics and the future of the USA.

[Shevek]

I am not replying to Orphan or Alex in particular, but I would like to add that "abolitionism" was a particularly radical view and the people who opposed slavery did not necessarily subscribe to abolitionism. Jefferson spoke of inalienable rights, but whether he was sincere about including blacks in this Enlightenment worldview -- and the logical next step of abolishing slavery -- is another matter. There are letters he wrote that indicate his racist views about indigenous peoples not just of North America, but Asia and Africa, comparing peoples of the latter to baboons. I bring this up because most people who deplored slavery didn't necessarily deplore it on the basis of black equality, and like Jefferson (although his case is a complicated one) did not hold blacks in much esteem.

Abolitionists tended to be quite vocal, with public burnings of the constitution a notorious protest tactic in the North, but many people held more "moderate" views on whether slavery should be abolished. Many thought it a "peculiar institution," but Northern segregation in early nineteenth century speaks for itself -- abolitionism, in the proper sense of the term, was not widespread. The movement became even more of a fringe when feminists like Susan B. Anthony connected the plight of slaves to that of women, black and white. A lot of people (or more precisely men, black and white) wanted nothing to do with this and took Lincoln's attitude that slavery, if it exists, ought to be restricted to the South.

[prendrelemick]

History is constant revision, and it is impossible to keep our own time out of it.


There is another explanation of Jefferson's agenda - Tax avoidance.

[tonywalt]

It's always difficult to pin down the views of a long living historical figure, but as for Lincolns views on race there is a distinction in Lincoln's position between 'what he would do for the slave' and 'what he would do for the Negro.' 'All men are created equal,' he would say, on the authority of the Declaration of Independence, only to add: 'I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.' He opposed allowing blacks to vote, to sit on juries, to marry whites, even to be citizens." (Garraty and McCaughey, The American Nation, p. 413)

He also stated 'I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.'" (McPherson, The Battle Cry of Freedom, p. 186)

21 August, 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debate Lincoln stated "I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary...." of course he goes on to they gaining the right to liberty etc..

[prendrelemick]

The mythology surrounding Lincoln is quite astonishing when compared with the historical reality.

[cafolini]

The mythology surrounding Lincoln is quite astonishing when compared with the historical reality.

You will have to admit that it has held. That's even more astonishing. But you might like the other astonishment. Your pick.:beatdeadhorse5:

[Emil Miller]

The mythology surrounding Lincoln is quite astonishing when compared with the historical reality.

It's the victors who write the history. Can you imagine what Lincoln would have been called if the South had won?

[cafolini]

True. It is the victors who write the history. The South could not have won because Lee gamble 18,000 and Lincoln never figured out Meade to be the general he actually needed to win. Yet, you will have to admit that most of the patriotic music of America carry that simple idea of liberty above all. When you look at other national anthems, America's is one of the very few that does not cry war before anything else. It fits that the American Dream built America, not America the Dream. Lincoln did pick up on that.

[prendrelemick]

That part isn't astonishing. He is after all America's greatest hero ever, both for achievement and legacy. So the kind and wise ol' uncle Abe is who everyone wants.

I prefer the warts and all version, it does not detract from his achievements.


Edit: sorry this is in reply to post 73.

[OrphanPip]

When you look at other national anthems, America's is one of the very few that does not cry war before anything else. It fits that the American Dream built America, not America the Dream. Lincoln did pick up on that.

Oddly enough it's about a battle though, the naval bombardment of Ft. McHenry outside Baltimore during the War of 1812.

There are few anthems that don't involve war, mostly because they come from a more violent era. A 20th century anthem, like the English version O Canada, is probably less likely to mention war directly. Although, even a seemingly innocuous anthem like O Canada has certain militaristic tendencies. The line "True North, Strong and Free" refers to Canada's loyalty to the crown against the "tyranny" of American Republicanism, not simply to its geographic position.

[prendrelemick]

Mmm "Magnetic North strong and free" hasn't the same ring to it.

[OrphanPip]

Mmm "Magnetic North strong and free" hasn't the same ring to it.

Ya, well Weir ripped it from Tennyson, the "true" here having a double meaning of loyalty to Britain and the geography.