5 ms·

> A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and

> A public square, in the united states, has typically been an area where people can shout out their concerns or whatever they want to anyone who can listen and the government cannot stop it. Growing up in Birmingham, AL I had a couple teachers who had dog bites and remembered the hoses from when they tried to shout out whatever they wanted in public squares. It's always interesting how people have such a rosy view of history when it comes to forming a much beloved but not well thought out belief.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago
They remember the dog bites because its cases where the government acted illegally and were taken to task. Today, the governing actor of our virtual public squares are corporations - and a significant amount of people (maybe not you) seem to be ok with them taking what actions they wish.
- chimeracoder 4y ago
  > They remember the dog bites because its cases where the government acted illegally and were taken to task. Uh, no. Society has whitewashed the history of the Civil Rights Movement, but popular sentiment at the time was not with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the other freedom riders, etc. Civilians and the government sometimes acted illegally, sure, but some of those actions were absolutely legal. (Not to mention that the government often leaned on citizens to take illegal vigilante action so that "the government" wouldn't have to - the distinction was not always clear cut). And either way, it's hard to make the argument that they were "taken to task. Even after Brown v. Board, it took over a decade for many local governments (even in the North!) to be forced into compliance. And the actual individuals responsible for the illegal actions rarely faced any serious consequences. EDIT: Clarified the point of legality.
  - uncletaco 4y ago
    The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. In fact most cities and local governments reserve the right to use hoses and dogs they just don't because it would be bad optics. As the saying goes "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
    - chimeracoder 4y ago
      > The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. Sure - I understood "dog bites and hoses" here to be a synedoche for the general government and civilian response to the civil rights protests, some of which was legal and some of which was not. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your teachers' particular stories. It's easy to write off those atrocities with "that happened, but it was dealt with, and it's in the past now" - which, as you pointed out in the other comment, is a convenient lie. My main point was that these were not isolated incidents (as GP implied), and that - whether legal or not - those involved faced few consequences (if any) for their actions.
      - uncletaco 4y ago
        Understood and I agree. I always feel like it's important to stress that when those protests happened the government's response (by way of the police force) was considered well within it's right, in support of your main point. It's a quibble but an important quibble imo.
- uncletaco 4y ago
  It wasn't "illegal" for Bull Connor to use dogs and hoses. The problem was that it was legal and for most white people in the south, encouraged. Again this is another example of having a convenient lie ready made to fit a strongly held belief.
  - OrangeMonkey 4y ago
    Look man is there some reason you presuppose bad intent and ascribe to a difference of opinion as a lie? There was a time when wanting free speech was a good thing. It wasn’t that long ago.
    - uncletaco 4y ago
      Something being legal or not isn't a difference of opinion, lmao.
iratewizard 4y ago
It's better to face opposition like that than to be disappeared from the public square.
paul_f 4y ago
You are perpetuating a myth. Malcom Gladwell researched and presented this in his Podcast episode - The Foot Soldier of Birmingham. https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/the-foot-soldier-of-birmingham https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/the-foot...
- uncletaco 4y ago
  None of my teachers were Walter Gadsden and noine claimed to be the boy depicted in the statue. The fact that you took the story of a photo and extrapolated it out to mean that anyone who said they were attacked by dogs is a fraud and are perpetuating a myth says a lot about you. Also next time link a transcript to the episode than the actual episode when you want to use audio to prove you don't know what you're talking about.

OrangeMonkey 4y ago

They remember the dog bites because its cases where the government acted illegally and were taken to task. Today, the governing actor of our virtual public squares are corporations - and a significant amount of people (maybe not you) seem to be ok with them taking what actions they wish.

chimeracoder 4y ago
> They remember the dog bites because its cases where the government acted illegally and were taken to task. Uh, no. Society has whitewashed the history of the Civil Rights Movement, but popular sentiment at the time was not with Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, the other freedom riders, etc. Civilians and the government sometimes acted illegally, sure, but some of those actions were absolutely legal. (Not to mention that the government often leaned on citizens to take illegal vigilante action so that "the government" wouldn't have to - the distinction was not always clear cut). And either way, it's hard to make the argument that they were "taken to task. Even after Brown v. Board, it took over a decade for many local governments (even in the North!) to be forced into compliance. And the actual individuals responsible for the illegal actions rarely faced any serious consequences. EDIT: Clarified the point of legality.
- uncletaco 4y ago
  The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. In fact most cities and local governments reserve the right to use hoses and dogs they just don't because it would be bad optics. As the saying goes "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
  - chimeracoder 4y ago
    > The government acted legally. That was (and in a lot of cases still is) the problem. Sure - I understood "dog bites and hoses" here to be a synedoche for the general government and civilian response to the civil rights protests, some of which was legal and some of which was not. Obviously I don't know the specifics of your teachers' particular stories. It's easy to write off those atrocities with "that happened, but it was dealt with, and it's in the past now" - which, as you pointed out in the other comment, is a convenient lie. My main point was that these were not isolated incidents (as GP implied), and that - whether legal or not - those involved faced few consequences (if any) for their actions.
    - uncletaco 4y ago
      Understood and I agree. I always feel like it's important to stress that when those protests happened the government's response (by way of the police force) was considered well within it's right, in support of your main point. It's a quibble but an important quibble imo.
uncletaco 4y ago
It wasn't "illegal" for Bull Connor to use dogs and hoses. The problem was that it was legal and for most white people in the south, encouraged. Again this is another example of having a convenient lie ready made to fit a strongly held belief.
- OrangeMonkey 4y ago
  Look man is there some reason you presuppose bad intent and ascribe to a difference of opinion as a lie? There was a time when wanting free speech was a good thing. It wasn’t that long ago.
  - uncletaco 4y ago
    Something being legal or not isn't a difference of opinion, lmao.

iratewizard 4y ago

It's better to face opposition like that than to be disappeared from the public square.

paul_f 4y ago

You are perpetuating a myth. Malcom Gladwell researched and presented this in his Podcast episode - The Foot Soldier of Birmingham. https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/the-foot-soldier-of-birmingham https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/the-foot...

uncletaco 4y ago
None of my teachers were Walter Gadsden and noine claimed to be the boy depicted in the statue. The fact that you took the story of a photo and extrapolated it out to mean that anyone who said they were attacked by dogs is a fraud and are perpetuating a myth says a lot about you. Also next time link a transcript to the episode than the actual episode when you want to use audio to prove you don't know what you're talking about.