Among the actual victories this year for Non-Jerkhole Americans was one we'd been waiting a long time for: we finally -- FINALLY -- wounded the myth of the benevolent Confederacy. And it only took the murder of nine African-Americans, in their church, for people to start coming to their fucking senses, hooray!
They took the confederate flag off the general Lee and that's where my anger about it being removed ends, its hilarious all it takes these days to open peoples eyes is a horrible tragedy and an interesting social media account. I don't know why they took dukes of hazards off the air but people who are truly racist are finally coming out of the wood work so that's a plus
At some point during the Triassic I graduated from a "south" high school (in suburban Buffalo) that for damn sure didn't resort to any traitor iconography back then and never will.
Let's see...2015 minus 1865 is...wait for it...150. So, if it only took 150 years for this to (start) happen(ing), then we can expect some reasonable gun control laws in about 134 years!
(Starting from Columbine...I'm sure people could argue for University of Texas 1966, but that was Texas; and, well, Texas.)
Let's see, the Civil War was about individual States insisting on having the right to enslave and abuse a significant percentage of their population, while the federal government was saying "Well, let's think about this a minute." Isn't that exactly what is happening today with abortion rights?
A high school team name near my hometown is so sensitively named the Rebels...they began debating changing the name cuz, you know, uppity blacks, and I mean the outcry was staggeringly racist. I think they actually won and it will remain the Rebels, just ensuring that all them black folks who grow up there know their place.
Sorry, but a LOT of the denialism came from historians who viewed slavery (indeed, any moral issue) as an "epiphenomenon," meaning the REAL cause was, drum roll, economic. I think any student who ever got marked down for saying slavery was the root cause of the Civil War should be able to sue to get their grade raised, and any historian whose career was built on pushing slavery as unimportant should be fired for academic fraud. I worked with a few of them.
It can be argued that it was economic, in that they wanted to maintain their slave-based economy. And it can be argued that it was states rights, in that they wanted the right to decide that slaves weren't actually people and could be owned as property. And it was about the means of entry into the Union, because they were worried some new states might not be slave states which would put them at a disadvantage. And it was about preserving their lifestyle, that is to say the lifestyle of having black people do whatever you want them to do or you get to whip them. Which means that hell yeah it was all about slavery. Slavery permeated every aspect of the Civil War. They seceded over slavery.
Texas even seceded twice over it. It's why they left Mexico too.
Now, there was one bit that maybe wasn't about slavery. The Union did not initially fight the South in order to end slavery. They fought them to keep them in the Republic. (Oh yeah, *that's* what Republican means! Funny. I wonder how many modern Republicans remember that.) Eventually they realized that ending slavery was going to be a part of that, and certainly a lot of major abolitionists were very involved right from the get-go. I honestly don't know why anyone wants to glamorize the Civil War. It's an important part of our history, but . . . it's not one any of us should be proud of.
My high school was Henry Sibley High School, named for the first governor of Minnesota. He'd made his fortune basically cheating the pants off of the local natives back when the main business was fur trading, and then as governor helped get them removed from a lot of places. So naturally our mascot was an Indian warrior. We even had a Sioux feather bonnet, which we had our majorette wear in the marching band, with her 60s-era tassled leather miniskirt and vest. Yeah. In the 90s, when I was in the band, the native woman who repaired the beadwork decided she'd had enough of it and refused to return the headdress. Eventually she did (after removing the actual eagle feathers in it, and replacing them with goose -- honestly, she was being damn generous, considering), but it was the moment that the school board finally started to think that *maybe* this was a slightly offensive thing.....
They never did manage to get anyone to agree on changing the name from "Warriors", because the heritage of a football team that loses so badly they arrange an exhibition match with a really crappy team for homecoming so at least they don't get trounced too badly, but at least they dropped the Indian head logo, and today they have a medieval knight as the logo. I had been pushing for a Viking motif, personally. ;-)
No, because the North didn't fight to maintain the barbaric institution of slavery. Now the North may not have been motivated to put end to slavery from the get go, but unlike the confederate states, they didn't fight to keep it around, and because of the fact the union won, the South was forced to abandon the practice, eventually thanks to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, the South was forced to actually treat black people as equals under the law, and couldn't get away with segregating blacks to protect white supremacy. That wouldn't have been likely to happen, had the Confederacy won, or at the very least it would have taken much longer.
They took the confederate flag off the general Lee and that's where my anger about it being removed ends, its hilarious all it takes these days to open peoples eyes is a horrible tragedy and an interesting social media account. I don't know why they took dukes of hazards off the air but people who are truly racist are finally coming out of the wood work so that's a plus
I don't need to drive old dixie down but after a long winter in Maine I sure will drive down to old dixie.
At some point during the Triassic I graduated from a "south" high school (in suburban Buffalo) that for damn sure didn't resort to any traitor iconography back then and never will.
Seriously? HTF sells Nazi replica flags? And more to the point, why are they still in business?
Let's see...2015 minus 1865 is...wait for it...150. So, if it only took 150 years for this to (start) happen(ing), then we can expect some reasonable gun control laws in about 134 years!
(Starting from Columbine...I'm sure people could argue for University of Texas 1966, but that was Texas; and, well, Texas.)
Migrate slowly north, and add layers for warmth. It worked for me...
Food's better. Can't deny it. though most try.
Let's see, the Civil War was about individual States insisting on having the right to enslave and abuse a significant percentage of their population, while the federal government was saying "Well, let's think about this a minute." Isn't that exactly what is happening today with abortion rights?
So, how are things in Spain?
Francisco Franco is still dead. Along with most of his enemies. As cures go, I'm too sure that one can be recommended.
A high school team name near my hometown is so sensitively named the Rebels...they began debating changing the name cuz, you know, uppity blacks, and I mean the outcry was staggeringly racist. I think they actually won and it will remain the Rebels, just ensuring that all them black folks who grow up there know their place.
Sorry, but a LOT of the denialism came from historians who viewed slavery (indeed, any moral issue) as an "epiphenomenon," meaning the REAL cause was, drum roll, economic. I think any student who ever got marked down for saying slavery was the root cause of the Civil War should be able to sue to get their grade raised, and any historian whose career was built on pushing slavery as unimportant should be fired for academic fraud. I worked with a few of them.
Get off my lawn, you Mesozoic whippersnapper.
It can be argued that it was economic, in that they wanted to maintain their slave-based economy. And it can be argued that it was states rights, in that they wanted the right to decide that slaves weren't actually people and could be owned as property. And it was about the means of entry into the Union, because they were worried some new states might not be slave states which would put them at a disadvantage. And it was about preserving their lifestyle, that is to say the lifestyle of having black people do whatever you want them to do or you get to whip them. Which means that hell yeah it was all about slavery. Slavery permeated every aspect of the Civil War. They seceded over slavery.
Texas even seceded twice over it. It's why they left Mexico too.
Now, there was one bit that maybe wasn't about slavery. The Union did not initially fight the South in order to end slavery. They fought them to keep them in the Republic. (Oh yeah, *that's* what Republican means! Funny. I wonder how many modern Republicans remember that.) Eventually they realized that ending slavery was going to be a part of that, and certainly a lot of major abolitionists were very involved right from the get-go. I honestly don't know why anyone wants to glamorize the Civil War. It's an important part of our history, but . . . it's not one any of us should be proud of.
Wow, that's bad.
My high school was Henry Sibley High School, named for the first governor of Minnesota. He'd made his fortune basically cheating the pants off of the local natives back when the main business was fur trading, and then as governor helped get them removed from a lot of places. So naturally our mascot was an Indian warrior. We even had a Sioux feather bonnet, which we had our majorette wear in the marching band, with her 60s-era tassled leather miniskirt and vest. Yeah. In the 90s, when I was in the band, the native woman who repaired the beadwork decided she'd had enough of it and refused to return the headdress. Eventually she did (after removing the actual eagle feathers in it, and replacing them with goose -- honestly, she was being damn generous, considering), but it was the moment that the school board finally started to think that *maybe* this was a slightly offensive thing.....
They never did manage to get anyone to agree on changing the name from "Warriors", because the heritage of a football team that loses so badly they arrange an exhibition match with a really crappy team for homecoming so at least they don't get trounced too badly, but at least they dropped the Indian head logo, and today they have a medieval knight as the logo. I had been pushing for a Viking motif, personally. ;-)
No, because the North didn't fight to maintain the barbaric institution of slavery. Now the North may not have been motivated to put end to slavery from the get go, but unlike the confederate states, they didn't fight to keep it around, and because of the fact the union won, the South was forced to abandon the practice, eventually thanks to the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment, the South was forced to actually treat black people as equals under the law, and couldn't get away with segregating blacks to protect white supremacy. That wouldn't have been likely to happen, had the Confederacy won, or at the very least it would have taken much longer.