Carl,

Sometimes the Mobs dont bother waiting for permission

John

Then , I guess,you would have to wait to determine if unapproved removal is a state or federal crime.

Sheesh!

From what I've seen,  it's been at the state level or below. For example,  Stacey Abrams wanted to sandblast Lee and the boys off Stone Mountain had she won the governor race in GA.  I suspect that cost her a lot of votes. Mostly,  it's at the city government level.

I wonder how long Seattle will keep their statue of Lenin?

I think those decisions are being made at the local level, wherever the statue is located. And probably only where there is local and vocal opposition.  But the commentary that mobs don't obey rules is true as well.  You can't erase history, but by repeating a  lie over and over again, more people take it as the truth.

"I wonder how long Seattle will keep their statue of Lenin?"

Tim, it's on private property, just like the one in the lower east side of Manhattan. The Seattle one is for sale … $250,000.

I think this represents part of a big step backwards in the civil rights movement that started around a decade ago.

"African-American progress since the Civil Rights Act"

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to eliminate discrimination in workplaces, schools, public facilities, public accommodations, voting and state and local governments. Results over the years:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/19/civil-rights-act-progress/4641967/

One thing that jumps out in the survey at that link, is the % of blacks who responded that they thought race relations would always be a problem.

In 1963, when things were horrible for blacks, only 23% thought that there would always be a problem. Then, in 2013, that number almost doubled to 49%! The link below is why, in my opinion that number was so low 50 years ago.

http://www.thekingcenter.org/about-dr-king

Though things were bad for blacks in 1963, they were getting much better and there was a powerful civil rights movement that was overwhelming the long lived racism and racist policies. There were numerous leaders taking a courageous stand and the charismatic icon, Martin Luther King, with his powerful and positive message gave blacks tremendous hope(I have dream, baby.

The media was on board with the positive message. 

When things are getting better and you compare it to how bad things were just a short hile ago and your leaders are positive...........the sky's the limit. 

In 201`3, their leaders and the media, instead of being positive on race relations, spent much of their time  stirring up unhappiness and blaming entities, like the police, specifically, white cops who mostly risk their lives making black neighborhoods safer but were made out to be the enemy of blacks. Economically, black unemployment (11.9%) was even worse compared to whites compared to 1963..............and with failed governmental policies........just welfare and food stamps. 

Impressions of the world in the US for the black family were negative as described to them by their party and the liberal media. It is a fact that the biggest risk to losing a democratic black voter is to give them a high paying job.

Blaming white cops and racists and people in the other party who "don't have their back" like you and your party do,  is an effective way to deflect the blame for their plight.

Conflicts between blacks and white cops and between races made great headline news also. When you are being bombarded with this stuff..............it trashes your hope. Things actually were getting worse according to what you see and here on tv. Certainly it was much better than 1963 but the hope for additional improvements was crushed.

The guy who ran on "hope and change" did just the opposite. 

This is the backdrop to the statues thing.  

So, do you think if Martin Luther King was still here, he would be devoting a great deal of energy to removing statutes of historic southern heros that had slaves?

Do you think that in any of these cases, it improved race relations? If so, I would like to hear why you think that. I contend that it did the complete opposite............it worsened race relations, in some cases a great deal.

For sure, some of the people that revere these war or political hero's that have statutes are racists. Most are not for sure. Does taking their statute away cause them to become less racist or if they were not racist but wanted that political hero to be honored because of the key role they played in history, does taking their statute away cause them to be happier? or  make them upset about the racial element being used as the reason?

Almost everybody that wanted the statute's to stay will have negative feelings about it. You can force civil and equal rights using the laws. However, to nurture relationships between races in order to try to make them better, what you do is create scenarios featuring positive encounters. 

Completely disrespecting a person's historic symbol and removing it against their objection because you have decided that if offends you, when it can't hurt you (a statute of Robert E., Lee is not going to take a black mans job away or put on a white sheet and come to a black persons house..........or cause anybody else to do that). 

These are completely counterproductive actions. It causes confrontations and distrust and adds additional hatred to feelings of those that had hate already.

Same thing with the protests at football games. Has this made race relations better.........or worse? You just don't get people to open up to a message that you have by disrespecting a symbol that they hold in high regard/deeply in their hearts and you don't get to tell them what that symbol should mean to them and that it has to line up with your own belief system, which gets priority over their belief system(racism is not an acceptable belief system of course and thats not what I'm referring to). 

This is just part of the atmosphere.  Defeat the opposition/enemy and try to WIN as many battles as possible. The victories are sweet, not because of what you got but because it defeated your enemy. 

Blocking things that they are for.  Trying to push for agenda that they are against.  The objective is never to get them to cooperate on  something positive or constructive that makes things better for both sides.

Things are defined today based on what the opposition's plans are. 

Positions on many issues are defined by whatever party that you belong to. 

Back in the 50's and 60's, people had not yet realized just how profitable race issues could be.

boy have jesse, Sharpton and crew proved your point here Tim

Sharpton et.al. are good examples,  but there are large segments of the media and the democrat party that are right up there.

It's nice how history has proven that MLK had such a positive uplifting message.  (Which he did)

I'm old enough to remember that people were referring to him as a trouble maker while he lived.  They also referred to him as a communist.  And while he did win over some white folks he and his followers also received the beatings, fire hoses and attack dogs in spite of their peaceful protests.  I guess those police forces weren't so "persuaded" by his message.

I wish we had someone like MLK around today.  I wonder what he would think/say about the likes of Sharpton?  I wonder how he'd feel about things like affirmative action.

I wonder how he'd feel about the majority of civil rights leaders of today.  I suspect... not very well.