Read this carefully...it was about slavery TO THE SOUTH who were the ones who MADE THE DECISION to SECEDE. Also, too, the southern states threatened to secede years earlier when they were bullying the north to agree to "the 3/5's compromise" https://constitution.laws.c...Oh, and eff Trump
The ancient Greeks believed if you destroyed your vanquished enemy's Gods that the dead Gods would assemble and cause great harm to the victors. The Confederate Flag, statues of Confederate heroes should all be permitted to be displayed.
I agree with you. Just as the South was clear it wanted to secede to keep their slaves, the North was clear it was in it to protect the union. There were people opposed to slavery on the Northern side, but in the big trends, there wasn't anyone fighting to help slaves. I mean, the emancipation proclamation wasn't issued until the war had lasted almost 3 years. I believe I've heard he was sympathetic to slaves, but that's a telling move. He could have done it immediately if it was really about slavery for the North.
There's a mindset around White Americans (a group I belong to) where we pat ourselves on the back historically, saying "at least my ancestors weren't slaveowners" or "my family has always lived in the North, so we can't be racist". I had the same gut response when my mom told me some family history she'd unearthed. It's bullshit. You're completely right. Racist assholes know no borders.
And the North thrived in no small part on textiles made from the cotton taken from slave's sweat and blood. Every white American with a family who's been in America since the early 1800s benefited from slavery somehow, even if only in the form of being able to buy cheap goods. Every white American these days has benefited from the institutional legacies of racism. There's no shame in acknowledging that. We should just try to do better and fix what we can from now on.
Sucking up to the base GOP voter. Haley will be running for something, maybe or maybe not pres but something. She has had that taste of power and thinks she is good at governing. She is wrong about that if she supports the traitors that flew that flag. It has nothing to do with heritage and everything to do with slavery, white supremacy and some KKK and Nazi assholes that need to die.
Yeah. That's what I've been thinking. Since high school we were taught that the War was between the racist South and the non-racist North. It was actually between the slaving South and the non-slaving North but just because your opposed to slavery doesn't mean there aren't racists in your midst.
This may be above your pay grade but can you explain to me why I have been compared to Goebbels by one person and blocked by another for my post? Did I say something wrong? I've been reading Wonkette since it was a part of Gawker!
I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to make the point that, while the War was about slavery it wasn't because the North was opposed to it on moral grounds. It wanted to end slavery to upset the power structure of the South because they wanted a weak central government, unlike the North. Lincoln didn't think the country would survive as a confederacy. I'm no historian or economist. I'm a nurse so pardon me if I don't get the history right. That's why I'm asking. Maybe you know better.
There was a scene in the movie Glory where white soldiers were making fun of Morgan Freeman's character because stripes on a black man was like "tits on a bull". Of course he didn't use the words "black man". I always wondered what motivated soldiers like that if it wasn't about the moral evil of slavery because apparently, he didn't care. I think what motivated them was maintaining the Union.
I was baffled too! That's why I spoke up to support you, because I agree with everything you said and I think it's a reasonable point to make (and was thinking it myself). A similar thing happened to me once here and I took it hard. I feel like white fragility is behind what they said, but hell if I understand those responses.
Well, I appreciate the support! In the past I was attacked for what I thought was a reasonable argument. One of those people and I have made amends and we follow each other. Well see.
While I have your attention what do you think about "states' rights" or whatever it's called. I hear people say, "No, the Civil War was NOT about states' rights!" but I think that needs a little unpacking. I say if someone wants to invoke states' rights then let them. They aren't doing themselves any favors. Let's just go with it for a moment. Let's assume they did think the South was fighting for their rights. Rights for what? To own people? To me it sounds like a parent who is hauled into court because he snuffed his cigarettes out on his son's back. In his defense he invokes "parents' rights".
I get your analogy. I still think it's disingenuous whitewashing that should be called out. Another analogy would be a parent's "right" to forgo medical care for their child. Maybe there's a conversation around what level of governmental oversight we should have over parents. But if a child died from medical neglect, that isn't the time to have those conversations. That's when you say that children need medical care. The North and the South probably did have legitimate disagreements outside of slavery to consider separating. But slavery was the overwhelming cause and it should be acknowledged.
Like I think objective historians should be free to look at the Civil War and talk about the state's rights issues, and anything else, without being labeled racist, because it was a complicated topic and worth studying to help avoid the mistakes of the past. But I think the average layperson shouldn't use state's rights as a shield to hide behind. Triply so if they have a lot of bigoted views. And then with the state of education these days, someone might genuinely believe it was about state's rights, not slavery, and that should be explained to them empathetically.
That sounds reasonable. Now, whenever I hear "states' rights" invoked it gives me pause but, I would rather let the person explain himself. Instead of retorting "No, it wasn't!" I'd say , "Go on..." I'd put it in the category of "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves" because that is a shitty position to defend and even if you want to defend the South for whatever reason why would anyone ever say justify their position with "states' rights"?
No NIKI, that rag you so love has never been been accepted except by idiots like you and the one tooth barely able to speak American English sister and motherfuckers and blowjob artist assholes south of the Mason-Dixon line.
Read this carefully...it was about slavery TO THE SOUTH who were the ones who MADE THE DECISION to SECEDE. Also, too, the southern states threatened to secede years earlier when they were bullying the north to agree to "the 3/5's compromise" https://constitution.laws.c...Oh, and eff Trump
The ancient Greeks believed if you destroyed your vanquished enemy's Gods that the dead Gods would assemble and cause great harm to the victors. The Confederate Flag, statues of Confederate heroes should all be permitted to be displayed.
Who knows. Maybe she does. Or pretends to.
I agree with you. Just as the South was clear it wanted to secede to keep their slaves, the North was clear it was in it to protect the union. There were people opposed to slavery on the Northern side, but in the big trends, there wasn't anyone fighting to help slaves. I mean, the emancipation proclamation wasn't issued until the war had lasted almost 3 years. I believe I've heard he was sympathetic to slaves, but that's a telling move. He could have done it immediately if it was really about slavery for the North.
There's a mindset around White Americans (a group I belong to) where we pat ourselves on the back historically, saying "at least my ancestors weren't slaveowners" or "my family has always lived in the North, so we can't be racist". I had the same gut response when my mom told me some family history she'd unearthed. It's bullshit. You're completely right. Racist assholes know no borders.
And the North thrived in no small part on textiles made from the cotton taken from slave's sweat and blood. Every white American with a family who's been in America since the early 1800s benefited from slavery somehow, even if only in the form of being able to buy cheap goods. Every white American these days has benefited from the institutional legacies of racism. There's no shame in acknowledging that. We should just try to do better and fix what we can from now on.
Changing your mercenary company name to sound MORE like a supervillain's private army isn't the best move they could have made, in my view.
Sucking up to the base GOP voter. Haley will be running for something, maybe or maybe not pres but something. She has had that taste of power and thinks she is good at governing. She is wrong about that if she supports the traitors that flew that flag. It has nothing to do with heritage and everything to do with slavery, white supremacy and some KKK and Nazi assholes that need to die.
Yeah. That's what I've been thinking. Since high school we were taught that the War was between the racist South and the non-racist North. It was actually between the slaving South and the non-slaving North but just because your opposed to slavery doesn't mean there aren't racists in your midst.
This may be above your pay grade but can you explain to me why I have been compared to Goebbels by one person and blocked by another for my post? Did I say something wrong? I've been reading Wonkette since it was a part of Gawker!
I'm not sure what you mean. I was trying to make the point that, while the War was about slavery it wasn't because the North was opposed to it on moral grounds. It wanted to end slavery to upset the power structure of the South because they wanted a weak central government, unlike the North. Lincoln didn't think the country would survive as a confederacy. I'm no historian or economist. I'm a nurse so pardon me if I don't get the history right. That's why I'm asking. Maybe you know better.
There was a scene in the movie Glory where white soldiers were making fun of Morgan Freeman's character because stripes on a black man was like "tits on a bull". Of course he didn't use the words "black man". I always wondered what motivated soldiers like that if it wasn't about the moral evil of slavery because apparently, he didn't care. I think what motivated them was maintaining the Union.
I was baffled too! That's why I spoke up to support you, because I agree with everything you said and I think it's a reasonable point to make (and was thinking it myself). A similar thing happened to me once here and I took it hard. I feel like white fragility is behind what they said, but hell if I understand those responses.
That ever mattered and still does. FIFY
Well, I appreciate the support! In the past I was attacked for what I thought was a reasonable argument. One of those people and I have made amends and we follow each other. Well see.
While I have your attention what do you think about "states' rights" or whatever it's called. I hear people say, "No, the Civil War was NOT about states' rights!" but I think that needs a little unpacking. I say if someone wants to invoke states' rights then let them. They aren't doing themselves any favors. Let's just go with it for a moment. Let's assume they did think the South was fighting for their rights. Rights for what? To own people? To me it sounds like a parent who is hauled into court because he snuffed his cigarettes out on his son's back. In his defense he invokes "parents' rights".
I get your analogy. I still think it's disingenuous whitewashing that should be called out. Another analogy would be a parent's "right" to forgo medical care for their child. Maybe there's a conversation around what level of governmental oversight we should have over parents. But if a child died from medical neglect, that isn't the time to have those conversations. That's when you say that children need medical care. The North and the South probably did have legitimate disagreements outside of slavery to consider separating. But slavery was the overwhelming cause and it should be acknowledged.
Like I think objective historians should be free to look at the Civil War and talk about the state's rights issues, and anything else, without being labeled racist, because it was a complicated topic and worth studying to help avoid the mistakes of the past. But I think the average layperson shouldn't use state's rights as a shield to hide behind. Triply so if they have a lot of bigoted views. And then with the state of education these days, someone might genuinely believe it was about state's rights, not slavery, and that should be explained to them empathetically.
good point!
That sounds reasonable. Now, whenever I hear "states' rights" invoked it gives me pause but, I would rather let the person explain himself. Instead of retorting "No, it wasn't!" I'd say , "Go on..." I'd put it in the category of "giving someone enough rope to hang themselves" because that is a shitty position to defend and even if you want to defend the South for whatever reason why would anyone ever say justify their position with "states' rights"?
I've been in Canada, minding my own business, and only became aware of Haley when she was appointed by trump.
No NIKI, that rag you so love has never been been accepted except by idiots like you and the one tooth barely able to speak American English sister and motherfuckers and blowjob artist assholes south of the Mason-Dixon line.