How are these cases of symbolic destruction different?

The statues of Buddha were never symbols of hate, nor were they created as symbols of oppression and enslavement.

It is a false parallel to even pose the question of equivalence.

^ Exactly.

(And how is removing a symbol of oppression and hate from government property “destruction”? Assholes can fly it on their own property whenever they want; right there in front of their meth labs.)

The Buddhist statues were an integral part of history and were not connected to systematic oppression, hatred and even murder.

The Nazi swastiks definitely was so it’s perfectly understandable why Germany wants nothing to do with it representing their country in any way.

There has been a bunch of rhetoric about how it wasn’t only a Nazi symbol. It was appropriated from the pre-Nazi past so that’s how some white supremacy groups here in the US try to sidestep the issue.

The confederate flag also connects integrally to the systematic oppression of blacks as slaves. It was purposely resurrected from dis-use in the 50s by those who were opposed to integration and became their banner.

So, claiming that it is merely historic is hogwash. And it can be preserved in a museum just fine. It does not need to fly in official capacity over govt. buildings.

The Buddhist statues were works of art totally disconnected from any hatred or oppression. The same cannot be said for either the swastika or confederate flag. There is no way that they can be severed from the oppression they were chosen to represent. They certainly belong in an educational setting like a Museum or textbooks to warn against the repetition of what they represent. But that’s it.

There is a difference. The Taliban are dumb as cavemen, and always will be. They would like to be able to pretend it is still the year 1000. I know this in no small part from personal experience.

The SC politicians are starting to get smarter. Keeping politically incorrect symbols on public grounds is never a good idea. I call this encouraging progress.

It is worth mentioning that South Carolina has been a difficult partner since the 1780s and the debates over the Articles of Confederation.

OMG what? Who really needs to ask this, and why are they allowed to be treated as an adult?

1500 year old Buddhist statues are 1500 year old Buddhist statues. Buddhism is a very peaceful religion and isn’t even opposed to Islam. The statues were sitting where they sat for millennia.

So:

* Ancient
* Inoffensive
* Unique and irreplaceable works of art
* Unique and irreplaceable spiritual / religious sites / artifacts
* Unique and irreplaceable archaeological sites
* Had nothing to do with current politics
* Not done by anyone currently living

Confederate flags put up in the South have:

* A modern product made by a factory of no particular value
* Due to association with murderous racist scumbags (the Klu Klux Klan), and ongoing racial violence, abuse, and cultural screwed-upped-ness, the Confederate flag understandably frightens, upsets, enrages, and offends all sorts of people all across the country.
* Easily replaceable, exists in large quantities, inexpensively bought and easily replaceable
* Near-zero artistic value
* Near-zero spiritual value
* Zero archaeological value
* Stinky vague political statement. Placing a flag that offends many people on a public building, additionally insults everyone who might otherwise associate with that government building.
* Put up by currently living people with some wacked attention-wanting agenda, but utterly insensitive to many people.

Moreover, putting up and taking down a flag is different from destruction by dynamite, even if one weren’t irreplaceable and the other a simple flag.

Whoever has this question should ask themselves more clearly what they really have to say and to ask.

Yeesh, Zaku, calm down a little before you stroke out. No need to be insulting just because someone asked a Q.

Lucky Guy is an intelligent adult who, in all likelihood, was asking the Q to stimulate conversation, not necessarily because he has no idea of what the answer is.

Character assassination is not necessary here. Take a deep breath, pause, and calm down already.

These are great answers. I was wondering if, to an Islamic extremist, the massive statues of Buddhas represent idol worship and are offensive. Heck, they were willing to pass up a lot of money that other countries offered to preserve the statues. They had such strong negative feelings about the statues they had them destroyed. And most of the planet was appalled since they were historic.
I couldn’t help notice the similarity. I’ll bet some of the language and arguments, for and against, use the same rhetoric.

@Hey Zaku, I was coming here for input not to start an argument. Don’t worry. I get it.. We’re cool.

The line is drawn as it is with anything, where the masses want to draw the line and who had enough might to enforce the line being where they want. If it illegal for them to use physical might, they use the might of the attorney they can afford to hire.

@LuckyGuy I agree we use the same justification for either side of the argument. Much like many of our political arguments in America today. We use the same rhetoric and continue to be polarized by the object/subject. Sometimes justice can’t follow a specific set of laws and remain just.

That said why should we bury our Nazi or Confederate past. Not all history is beautiful and we only learn from what we remember. By wiping the slate clean we are trying to wipe away the darker side of humanity and that just doesn’t work. And the confederate flag and memorabilia not having any monetary value may not always be true. Then also we need to understand that as brought up in another thread today that the civil war was not just based on slavery. That was the justification and actual freedom for slaves was slow in coming and involved a lot of freedom fighters and reformers. The north actually did terrible things to the south. Starving them, raping and pillaging cutting off supply ships. And that was just during the war, that didn’t involve the political motives that fueled the war. I can’t remember what they were specifically but taxation comes to mind as well as forcing certain unwilling states to fall under the governmental control of the President. I could be wrong, but saying the confederate flag is just a symbol of oppression to black people is misguided. Or it should be. The swastika was once a powerful symbol of prosperity to not one but three religions. It’s like certain words becoming taboo because they were once used to offend someone. I do understand people taking offense but also think it is almost willful ignorance to do so. And in my opinion it gives the actual tragic events more weight and therefore extends the recovery time of healing.

@Unbroken

I don’t forsee either the Swastika or the confederate flag being buried so much that we forget the unsavory parts of the past.

But there is an essential difference between a flag flying over a US Capitol (as if it represents what that government stands for) and its use by private citizens or groups for whatever purpose.

But currently, the only groups (not necessarily individuals) currently using either the Swastika or the confederate flag are SELF-identified racist white supremacy groups. Nobody is putting this on them. This is what they have chosen to symbolize their belief system.

So, it isn’t just the past. It is very much the present.

I will grant, however, that not every single individual with a penchant for either symbol can automatically be assumed to be racist.

For example, even tho he has not used it as the backdrop for his shows in several years, Kid Rock is catching flack (from Trump, of all people) and being called racist for having previously used the confederate flag.

He has stated that to him it represented Southern Rock music. And I tend to take his statement at face value because there is zero evidence that he is racist in any way.

As a matter of fact, he has collaborated for years with various black and Latino hip hop and rap artists. That’s hardly the mark of a racist.

So, I think each case needs to be judged on its own merits without automatic assumptions.

But when a state which had not previously been flying the confederate flag up and decides to begin doing so in protest to integration, I think the message is pretty damn clear, as they intended it to be.

@Buttonstc you do make valid points

I did realize that @LuckyGuy may not have been literally asking that question, but it’s still my response to the question. I’m not stroking out, but I think when people ask a question that is many many levels of absurd, it deserves for all of the levels of absurd to be addressed, or at least summed up. Otherwise, there are several levels of absurd that may slip through, and each one is still absurd.

And in fact, that is exactly the sort of problem that exists all over the place in American “news” media (i.e. corporate-owned disinformation) and politics (more corporate-owned nonsense), as well as in American “religious” arguments that vilify homosexuality, which I have no doubt Jesus himself would have condemned, or all of the things that the current Pope IS calling out. The bullshit has got so very deep, that the current level of discourse in absurd to address at face value, because that discourse is floating upon a giant river of unexamined refuse, offal, and dung.

I’m not upset. I’m just saying, that’s what there is to say. Not saying it is like politely dining with cannibals and not asking what’s in the chutney.

@LuckyGuy Yeah, I didn’t mean it personally. I figured it was a rhetorical question. I was just commenting about if there were an actual person honestly asking that question. The thing is, there are people like Fox News talking heads, Sarah Palin, Ministers, corporate lobbyists & apologists, KKK mouthpieces, Neo-Nazis, etc., who do say extremely outrageous things and often don’t get called out about it.