Yup, the southern states were traitors for following America's example of breaking ties with those you no longer want governing you...wait.
No reasonable person would say the instigators of the American Revolution were not traitors to the British Empire, of course they were. The difference?? They won. When you lose, your traitor problem sticks with you. And the "no longer want governing you" part needs to be followed by a "because" and then a reason. As far as I'm concerned, the ideal historical situation would have been to get all the slaves out and let the South become the failed fascist state it surely would have. Of course, even after we freed the slaves, we abandoned them to another 100 years of Southern whites subjecting them to Jim Crow and the most horrific reign of domestic terrorism this country has ever seen. No voting rights, share-cropping, lynchings, bodies buried in swamps by local police departments. There isn't enough time to go through it all here. But start with the documentary "4 Little Girls" for starters, then watch "Mississippi Burning" to get a real good feel of the South until the federal government finally swooped in in the '60s.
This partially leads into the point I'm making. The north was never truely interested in equality, they had slaves too, and as you said, an amendment was even proposed to make freeing them impossible. Lincoln himself stated that he believed blacks were inferior to whites. Freeing the slaves was justification after the fact. They were never even considered equal citizens for how long after the war? If we are going to condemn the south for seceeding, we should apply the same standard and condemn the country as a whole for seceeding from Britain. If owning slaves is condemnable (it is) why are known prominent slave owners like Washington and Jefferson nearly deified? Its a hypocrisy of values, where the winners are praised BECAUSE they are winners, rather than any actual moral superiority.
I'm not defending the act of owning slaves, I'm saying that we need to be consistent in our ethical codes. THERE WERE NO HEROES IN THE CIVIL WAR. BOTH SIDES HAD BLOOD AND OPPRESSION ON THEIR HANDS.
I'm not defending the act of owning slaves, I'm saying that we need to be consistent in our ethical codes. THERE WERE NO HEROES IN THE CIVIL WAR. BOTH SIDES HAD BLOOD AND OPPRESSION ON THEIR HANDS.
That's the argument that Trump's just been using, but it doesn't sound convincing to me. Yes there were terrible things done by both sides, but does that make both sides morally equal? I don't think so any more than the 2 sides were equal in Charlottesville.
On one side of the civil war there was a clearly expressed desire to end slavery in support of the following declaration "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". That was not simply a desire, it had been encoded in law, although I agree that the waters had been muddied somewhat by various legal amendments aimed at protecting slavery in the south to a greater or lesser extent in order to try and prevent secession. On the other side of the civil war there was a clearly expressed desire to maintain slavery by people who believed that the American Declaration of Independence should not have been altered from its original wording of "all free men are created equal".
Washington freed all his slaves when his wife died. Jefferson throughout his entire life was a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot". They were products of their time. Change comes slowly and there are often idiots who want to fight progress and backslide to make America like it was before.
Robert E. Lee and the Confederates were rebels fighting to break up the Union and continue slavery. That is different. Change was gradual and we've still got issues today. Yes you could say the US were rebels to England. When they rebelled they weren't rebelling yo continue slavery.
The Civil War was not fought over abolition, this is true. It WAS fought over the South being unwilling to accept new States into the Union that were not slave states. Look into "Bleeding Kansas" for a distillation.
And yes, Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves was not altruistic, but part of the grander strategy to win the war by destroying the South's slave dependant economy. Much like Sherman's March, it was about making it impossible for the South to continue waging the war from a logistics perspective. They were freed nonetheless.
Also, white nationalists are planning to convene in Lexington where city leader are planning on moving another statue from its current location to an area in a park set aside for war-related memorials. The white nationalists quoted in the article highlight the insanity on their side, equating moving a statue with "an attack on white heritage, culture, and identity". Once again, I was unaware that my heritage was intricately linked to some POS statue in Lexington, a city in which I have never set foot.
Washington and Jefferson lived nearly a century before the Civil War but were still able to frame the Constitution in a way that would allow blacks to be free someday. The Confederacy framed their Constitution to make blacks property in perpetuity.
Honestly, blacks were inferior to whites. Not genetically inferior but socially and politically inferior. The Civil Rights movement was about leveling the field to give every person the same inalienable rights. And that was another century after the Civil War. It's sad that it takes so long to affect social change but I hope we can get there someday.
Also, white nationalists are planning to convene in Lexington where city leader are planning on moving another statue from its current location to an area in a park set aside for war-related memorials. The white nationalists quoted in the article highlight the insanity on their side, equating moving a statue with "an attack on white heritage, culture, and identity". Once again, I was unaware that my heritage was intricately linked to some POS statue in Lexington, a city in which I have never set foot.
As someone noted Twitter, it is these white supremacists themselves who are guaranteeing these statues are going to come down. By choosing them as a rallying point, they have linked their repugnant ideology with the statues in the minds of most of the public. Most people are going to say "if THOSE people support the statues, maybe they should come down".
Baltimore took down all 4 of their statues last night in the intelligent way. Without notice or fanfare, with all the work starting after midnight. Smart thinking.
The Civil Rights movement was about leveling the field to give every person the same inalienable rights.
The left by and large don't believe in equal rights anymore, sadly. Your rights are determined by your skin color, gender, and ideology, and god forbid you be too pale to meet their standards. You'll be at the bottom of the list for just about everything. As much as we like to paint neo nazis as a significant political force in this country, how many showed up? Like 500? Of Which how many are real nazis? The promoters of discriminatory ideology appear to be far more successful when they are arguing for the reverse of their identity caste system.
What rights and what lists are those?? Name them. Ever had your neighborhood polling station closed because the area is 90% black, making it harder to vote and get to work on time?? Were you denied the right to marry who you wanted or denied visitation rights to a dying significant other in the hospital up until a few years ago?? What TANGIBLE rights of white men have been trampled on that go beyond people saying mean things about them online??
Arabic Muslims were given front of the line treatment (no arabic christians allowed) under Obama's admin, Google which was for Clinton discriminates racially and by gender according to the internal Google memo, Occupy made white men go to the back at their assemblies, many other left wing activist groups do much the same like the DGR terrorists, left leaning campuses hold No White Days and and teach classes on The Problem Of Whiteness and left leaning magazines tell all whites they are inherently racist and to be silent of issues of race and need I go on.
The left by and large don't believe in equal rights anymore, sadly. Your rights are determined by your skin color, gender, and ideology, and god forbid you be too pale to meet their standards. You'll be at the bottom of the list for just about everything. As much as we like to paint neo nazis as a significant political force in this country, how many showed up? Like 500? Of Which how many are real nazis? The promoters of discriminatory ideology appear to be far more successful when they are arguing for the reverse of their identity caste system.
Yeah but the right hate puppies. See it's easy to make sweeping claims and millions of people without any factual basis. Doesn't make it true however.
Your Arabic/Obama Administration thesis was shot down by another poster pretty hard. The Google memo is the OPINION of a single engineer. Occupy Wall Street does not have a set of "rights" you are granted, it's not the government. Left-leaning magazines can write anything they want. NOTHING you described, aside from the very suspect Arabic/Obama Administration theory, are anything approaching the realm of "rights". You are describing things you and others take as personal affronts to your identity. That isn't remotely the same thing. The main theme running through this anti-PC thinking is that social culture not being how they want it to be is a violation of free speech and fundamental rights. It isn't. You can be pissed about these things til the cows come home, and no one will stop you. But you aren't being oppressed.
@Grond0 I'm not saying they are equal, but neither were morally sound. So often I see one side sainted and the other demonized and it makes my skin crawl. If we can justify and excuse actions for one side simply because it won in the end, what deplorable actions can we justify in the future, simply because of sheer military might?
@smeagolheart Jefferson was a hypocrite. He enjoyed the convenience of owning slaves while giving nothing but lip service to equality.
Do we need to demonize every confederate soldier because of the political boundary they lived on? I don't believe every soldier fought just so they could own slaves any more than I believe every northern soldier fought just to give a "lesser" people freedom. Many of the rank and file soldiers were fighting only to protect their homes and families.
Unlike hating puppies I can and did and will continue to provide examples from a broad range of left wing groups because the stuff never ends. Once it reached the Democratic President and infects the DNC how much more mainstream can you get in the acceptance of racial caste systems though. I mean, even if we want to get a bit broader, the very concept of White Privilege is essentially a product of this very same racial caste system ideology. What it is used to signify is your lack of standing in the issues that they want to discuss. Not because of your arguments, because of your race. Once you have White Privilege, all manner of social punishment can be inflicted upon you, all manner of things can be said, because hey, it's just leveling out your Privilege. The Privilege of the highest suicide rates and lowering life expectancy and being at the back of the line for jobs.
How was it shot down? I'm more than happy to review it. Let's see how hard the benefit of the doubt can be given and we'll compare it to how much benefit of the doubt we give to Trump for anything.
Without any mistake, it was mentioned as a candidate list for top jobs selected by race and religion where people were removed for being the wrong religion. That's discrimination. How am I wrong?
I should also mention, since its important, that none of the positions mentioned were things like "Adviser on Islamic Relations to the President", where it may matter. Top Adminitration Jobs, Boards, Agencies, Policy Commitees, Sub Cabinet, Administration were the ones specifically mentioned. Quite a lot to need specific Arab Muslim background to do the job methinks, which of course, there is no actual proof of in the first place.
@Grond0 I'm not saying they are equal, but neither were morally sound. So often I see one side sainted and the other demonized and it makes my skin crawl. If we can justify and excuse actions for one side simply because it won in the end, what deplorable actions can we justify in the future, simply because of sheer military might?
@ThacoBell I'm not arguing about the behavior of individuals, suggesting there was no hypocrisy involved or wishing to excuse particular actions on the grounds that the end justifies the means. I am arguing though that there is a very clear distinction between the philosophies of the sides. One of them promoted slavery and the other didn't and I don't believe that the morality of that is affected by which side won at all. There are many issues where I find it difficult to come to a clear view about what's best - but the acceptability of slavery is not one of those.
No offense to hippies, but white nationalists are for the media now what hippies were during the late 1960s--a very slim minority who got a lot of media attention (albeit for very different reasons). Case in point: I mentioned Democracy Now earlier, and since the events last weekend the topic "Russia" has almost completely disappeared from their website--you have to search to find any articles relating to anything connected to Russia.
On a personal level, how much evidence of racism does someone need to portray before you can accurately label them a racist? If you pass me on the street and I am wearing khakis with a white polo shirt are you going to assume that I am a alt-righter or are you going to think that my choice of clothing meets my employer's dress code for work? Neither neighbor to the sides of my house are black, the neighbor across the back yard fence is not black, and the neighbor across the street is not black. Did I choose a neighborhood with a low population of black residents or did I choose a house that kept the kids in the same school district and fit into the budget I had when I bought the house?
Similarly, when does an object in a public space merely denote history and when does it honor a person whom we ought not be honoring? I think this got answered already--generally statues of people are designed to honor them, but what if a statue is merely of an important historical figure? There are museums and festivals held commemorating events relating to such notorious historical figures as Jesse James, bank robber and murderer. What about statues of other military leaders who are famous only for directing a campaign in which a lot of people, including civilians, died? What about the Harry S Truman Presidential library, dedicated to the legacy of the only person in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons in war? Where, exactly, do we draw the line when we decide whom we should commemorate?
Yes, I know. I am the only person who asks questions like these.
The left by and large don't believe in equal rights anymore, sadly. Your rights are determined by your skin color, gender, and ideology, and god forbid you be too pale to meet their standards. You'll be at the bottom of the list for just about everything. As much as we like to paint neo nazis as a significant political force in this country, how many showed up? Like 500? Of Which how many are real nazis? The promoters of discriminatory ideology appear to be far more successful when they are arguing for the reverse of their identity caste system.
Yeah but the right hate puppies. See it's easy to make sweeping claims and millions of people without any factual basis. Doesn't make it true however.
Well I don't hate puppies. As long as they're not on welfare. (Kidding!)
Arabic Muslims were given front of the line treatment (no arabic christians allowed) under Obama's admin, Google which was for Clinton discriminates racially and by gender according to the internal Google memo, Occupy made white men go to the back at their assemblies, many other left wing activist groups do much the same like the DGR terrorists, left leaning campuses hold No White Days and and teach classes on The Problem Of Whiteness and left leaning magazines tell all whites they are inherently racist and to be silent of issues of race and need I go on.
Pretty much everything here has been discredited on this forum already except maybe the Occupy Wall Street moving white speakers to the back, which is not equivalent to being pulled over by a police officer due to the colour of your skin. And the last point about, Left Wing Media sites writing something that offends you, yet the Right Wing media does the exact same thing so I can't phantom how that equates to oppression or a lack of rights...
I am done talking in circles. If you can not respond to the facts that have already been provided such as the break down of the course The Problem Of Whiteness, or the reasoning behind why Students requested a change in the Day of Absence in a single College or how ONE email does not equate the only list that positions are being fulfilled, then well that's on you.
If you also cannot distinguish between what is an actual right, and what is a convenience, that is your lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
You are allowed to have an opinion, but an opinion is not facts. It isn't right or wrong, but it can be misguided if you choose what you want to listen to, and base your beliefs solely on that instead of listening to every side of the situation getting to the root of the problems and grievances they may have.
The US culturally has a big anti-authoritarian streak, so lots of nasty folks like Jesse James end up being heavily glorified. Not unexpectedly, military valour is only widely respected in very extreme cases. Rambo = heroic, but guy maimed by IED not so much sadly. You don't need to watch much US media to see unpleasant sub-cultures glorified, be they drug dealers, murderers, etc. Heck, actual pedos in 'the arts' still find work, or have their work lauded.
I'm honestly amazed the US is as stable as it is, but its always had an official enemy, be it British, Mexican, Japanese (there was a long standing semi-hostile rivalry), Russian, Korean, Chinese, or, uh, Islam, which isn't even a country. The US imho has dwelt long in semi-paranoia, trading bogeymen as needed. This paranoia seems to be a unifying force, only its been so overfed that its grown into a full fledged demographic able to win the Presidency, and its finally starting to make things openly ugly.
Regarding violent leftists, at whst point is violent protest okay? Well, when your enemies are Nazis would satisfy MANY people's standard. Neo-nazis are not harmless, and they often are advocating some form of violence and oppression, so its very, very hard to sympathize with that cause. Ffs, you'd be a bonafide Nazi sympathizer!
Great. Richard Spencer's looking to host an event at Michigan State University. Say goodbye to East Lansing.
I suppose that same idiot federal judge will allow this to happen too. Why can't these people have their meetings in barns like the good ol' days?
Alot of colleges and event centers are slamming the door on Spencer and those like him. There are people who are going to say he has a right to speak at these colleges. Does he?? Does literally ANYONE who says ANYTHING have a right to speak at any college they choose. There is a difference between the speech itself and a platform to make that speech. I don't see how anyone is owed that platform. If Richard Spencer wants to talk in East Lansing, why doesn't he get a soapbox and do it on a street corner?? Again, this is about providing a platform for a white supremacist at a University that has thousands of minority students. Is THIS what their parents are footing the bill for??
Great. Richard Spencer's looking to host an event at Michigan State University. Say goodbye to East Lansing.
I suppose that same idiot federal judge will allow this to happen too. Why can't these people have their meetings in barns like the good ol' days?
Alot of colleges and event centers are slamming the door on Spencer and those like him. There are people who are going to say he has a right to speak at these colleges. Does he?? Does literally ANYONE who says ANYTHING have a right to speak at any college they choose. There is a difference between the speech itself and a platform to make that speech. I don't see how anyone is owed that platform. If Richard Spencer wants to talk in East Lansing, why doesn't he get a soapbox and do it on a street corner?? Again, this is about providing a platform for a white supremacist at a University that has thousands of minority students. Is THIS what their parents are footing the bill for??
If he stood on a soapbox on the street corner and made his speech, somebody would likely beat the shit out of him...
Great. Richard Spencer's looking to host an event at Michigan State University. Say goodbye to East Lansing.
I suppose that same idiot federal judge will allow this to happen too. Why can't these people have their meetings in barns like the good ol' days?
Alot of colleges and event centers are slamming the door on Spencer and those like him. There are people who are going to say he has a right to speak at these colleges. Does he?? Does literally ANYONE who says ANYTHING have a right to speak at any college they choose. There is a difference between the speech itself and a platform to make that speech. I don't see how anyone is owed that platform. If Richard Spencer wants to talk in East Lansing, why doesn't he get a soapbox and do it on a street corner?? Again, this is about providing a platform for a white supremacist at a University that has thousands of minority students. Is THIS what their parents are footing the bill for??
If he stood on a soapbox on the street corner and made his speech, somebody would likely beat the shit out of him...
Well, they have, but we've already been down that conversation's road months ago....
@jjstraka34 If it isn't obvious, I've jumped off the Trump train.
What this tells me is that this wknd was likely a bit of a catalyst. At least a certain portion of Trump's voters were thinking "I cannot vote for Hillary, we'll throw some dynamite into the system". But they are now saying "what in the ever-loving hell is this freak show??" If he is losing @Balrog99, he is losing many more, and his polling may dip into the very low 30s.
Your Arabic/Obama Administration thesis was shot down by another poster pretty hard.
The post you're referring to is mine. We had a back and forth over the matter across four comments a few pages ago. I'll stand by the statements I made there, but there is something more worth reiterating than that old argument: This thread is not here for people to "win" or "lose" debates.
If you found my argument persuasive, fine. But I do not want my posts used to put down other forumites, and I do not want to be treated like the "winner" of a debate.
@jjstraka34 If it isn't obvious, I've jumped off the Trump train.
What this tells me is that this wknd was likely a bit of a catalyst. At least a certain portion of Trump's voters were thinking "I cannot vote for Hillary, we'll throw some dynamite into the system". But they are now saying "what in the ever-loving hell is this freak show??" If he is losing @Balrog99, he is losing many more, and his polling may dip into the very low 30s.
To be clear, I was never a big fan of Trump so I was kind of clinging to the stairs on the back of the caboose. I'm resigning myself to the fact that nobody really represents me in either party...
Comments
I'm not defending the act of owning slaves, I'm saying that we need to be consistent in our ethical codes. THERE WERE NO HEROES IN THE CIVIL WAR. BOTH SIDES HAD BLOOD AND OPPRESSION ON THEIR HANDS.
On one side of the civil war there was a clearly expressed desire to end slavery in support of the following declaration "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal". That was not simply a desire, it had been encoded in law, although I agree that the waters had been muddied somewhat by various legal amendments aimed at protecting slavery in the south to a greater or lesser extent in order to try and prevent secession. On the other side of the civil war there was a clearly expressed desire to maintain slavery by people who believed that the American Declaration of Independence should not have been altered from its original wording of "all free men are created equal".
Robert E. Lee and the Confederates were rebels fighting to break up the Union and continue slavery. That is different. Change was gradual and we've still got issues today. Yes you could say the US were rebels to England. When they rebelled they weren't rebelling yo continue slavery.
And yes, Lincoln's emancipation of the slaves was not altruistic, but part of the grander strategy to win the war by destroying the South's slave dependant economy. Much like Sherman's March, it was about making it impossible for the South to continue waging the war from a logistics perspective. They were freed nonetheless.
Meanwhile, in Chicago, Bishop James Dukes of the Liberation Christian Center wants a statue of George Washington removed from Washington Park, as well as to have the name of the park itself changed. He doesn't necessarily want the statue destroyed, only moved out of that predominantly black neighborhood; also, he doesn't mind if the name remains "Washington" but redirect it to point to someone else like former Chicago mayor Harold Washington.
Also, white nationalists are planning to convene in Lexington where city leader are planning on moving another statue from its current location to an area in a park set aside for war-related memorials. The white nationalists quoted in the article highlight the insanity on their side, equating moving a statue with "an attack on white heritage, culture, and identity". Once again, I was unaware that my heritage was intricately linked to some POS statue in Lexington, a city in which I have never set foot.
Democracy Now managed to interview the young woman who put the strap around the statue in Durham, the one the crowd used to pull down a statue.
Honestly, blacks were inferior to whites. Not genetically inferior but socially and politically inferior. The Civil Rights movement was about leveling the field to give every person the same inalienable rights. And that was another century after the Civil War. It's sad that it takes so long to affect social change but I hope we can get there someday.
Baltimore took down all 4 of their statues last night in the intelligent way. Without notice or fanfare, with all the work starting after midnight. Smart thinking.
@smeagolheart Jefferson was a hypocrite. He enjoyed the convenience of owning slaves while giving nothing but lip service to equality.
Do we need to demonize every confederate soldier because of the political boundary they lived on? I don't believe every soldier fought just so they could own slaves any more than I believe every northern soldier fought just to give a "lesser" people freedom. Many of the rank and file soldiers were fighting only to protect their homes and families.
Without any mistake, it was mentioned as a candidate list for top jobs selected by race and religion where people were removed for being the wrong religion. That's discrimination. How am I wrong?
On a personal level, how much evidence of racism does someone need to portray before you can accurately label them a racist? If you pass me on the street and I am wearing khakis with a white polo shirt are you going to assume that I am a alt-righter or are you going to think that my choice of clothing meets my employer's dress code for work? Neither neighbor to the sides of my house are black, the neighbor across the back yard fence is not black, and the neighbor across the street is not black. Did I choose a neighborhood with a low population of black residents or did I choose a house that kept the kids in the same school district and fit into the budget I had when I bought the house?
Similarly, when does an object in a public space merely denote history and when does it honor a person whom we ought not be honoring? I think this got answered already--generally statues of people are designed to honor them, but what if a statue is merely of an important historical figure? There are museums and festivals held commemorating events relating to such notorious historical figures as Jesse James, bank robber and murderer. What about statues of other military leaders who are famous only for directing a campaign in which a lot of people, including civilians, died? What about the Harry S Truman Presidential library, dedicated to the legacy of the only person in the history of the world to use nuclear weapons in war? Where, exactly, do we draw the line when we decide whom we should commemorate?
Yes, I know. I am the only person who asks questions like these.
I do prefer cats though...
I am done talking in circles. If you can not respond to the facts that have already been provided such as the break down of the course The Problem Of Whiteness, or the reasoning behind why Students requested a change in the Day of Absence in a single College or how ONE email does not equate the only list that positions are being fulfilled, then well that's on you.
If you also cannot distinguish between what is an actual right, and what is a convenience, that is your lack of understanding of the topic at hand.
You are allowed to have an opinion, but an opinion is not facts. It isn't right or wrong, but it can be misguided if you choose what you want to listen to, and base your beliefs solely on that instead of listening to every side of the situation getting to the root of the problems and grievances they may have.
I'm honestly amazed the US is as stable as it is, but its always had an official enemy, be it British, Mexican, Japanese (there was a long standing semi-hostile rivalry), Russian, Korean, Chinese, or, uh, Islam, which isn't even a country. The US imho has dwelt long in semi-paranoia, trading bogeymen as needed. This paranoia seems to be a unifying force, only its been so overfed that its grown into a full fledged demographic able to win the Presidency, and its finally starting to make things openly ugly.
Regarding violent leftists, at whst point is violent protest okay? Well, when your enemies are Nazis would satisfy MANY people's standard. Neo-nazis are not harmless, and they often are advocating some form of violence and oppression, so its very, very hard to sympathize with that cause. Ffs, you'd be a bonafide Nazi sympathizer!
I suppose that same idiot federal judge will allow this to happen too. Why can't these people have their meetings in barns like the good ol' days?
If it isn't obvious, I've jumped off the Trump train.
If you found my argument persuasive, fine. But I do not want my posts used to put down other forumites, and I do not want to be treated like the "winner" of a debate.