|
The Grimace posted:Why do people insist that the American Civil War wasn't about slavery? My whole life, I've been taught that it was the catalyst to starting the war. The reason being that without slaves, the south wasn't confident it could maintain profitable farming, spawning the whole "states' rights" debate. Are they idiots, or am I the idiot? Well some people are ignorant about the whole thing, but a lot of times people are just correcting the notion that the Civil War was just "north fights south to end the concept of slavery". Like anything else it was a very complicated situation involving money and power and politics and also the social mores regarding slavery, and other issues not related it to slavery at all. So every time someone comes in with the generic "slavery" answer there are always a few that try to correct that narrow reason for the war. I'm not a Confederate apologist or anything like that but I think that sometimes "the reason was slavery" answer rubs people the wrong way as it suggests that us loving and compassionate Northerners swooped in to scoop up our precious black people in our loving arms for the sole reason that we want to give them freedom, when it involves so much more that that. But then again if I'm not a historian, and I've never heard any explanation for the war that doesn't mention slavery over and over. I'm rambling, but what I mean is that there are some non-racist reasons for considering slavery as a grossly over simplified cut-and-dry cause for the Civil War. But those reasons are probably drowned out by hicks saying that blacks appreciated the food and shelter and the north suxxxx etc etc.
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 09:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
Here's how it goes: Why was the Confederacy formed? The states in question believed that having Lincoln int he White House meant imminent abolition of slavery (despite the Confederate states at the time having had decent control of both houses of Congress for the past couple of decades). Why was the Civil War fought? The Confederacy started attacking Federal outposts, like Fort Sumter. Remember that there was no war for 2 months after the confederacy formed. What does this mean? The Civil War was about slavery, since the only reason the Confederacy really existed was to maintain slavery, it was honestly all they were fighting for. States rights and other such reasons are bullshit - the Confederacy in actuality limited state rights severely! Remember the Civil War was not fought in an attempt to abolish slavery by the North, it was fought in an attempt to preserve slavery by the South, which is a pretty big difference.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 09:42
|
|
|
Ridiculously specific question: Take a look at this page. Look at the skeletal framework thing barely visible behind the "Grapple Buggy" sign. That's a collapsible wall, sturdy enough to hang a TV on. I was there when they tore the thing down (that's actually me on the right, in the red shirt) and it compacted down to an extremely small size. It was totally awesome. I need one, and I can't figure out what they're called. Tried e-mailing Mommy's Best Games and they had no idea. I know it wasn't related to PAX. Anyone know where I can get one of those things?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 10:28
|
|
|
The Grimace posted:Why do people insist that the American Civil War wasn't about slavery? My whole life, I've been taught that it was the catalyst to starting the war. The reason being that without slaves, the south wasn't confident it could maintain profitable farming, spawning the whole "states' rights" debate. Are they idiots, or am I the idiot? I think it's overreaction by groups that want people to realize that there were other elements either; it wasn't some altruistic holy war to free men who were unjustly enslaved. I mean, look at how the North treated black people and how the US continued to treat black people after the war. Slavery was a huge part, and like most wars, there were very deep economic roots in the whole kit and caboodle. Also, states' rights were a fundamental issue related to slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 10:53
|
|
|
Pressure posted:How do sites like StubHub operate? StubHub is perfectly legal and safe for you to use. I've gotten good deals on tickets below face value and they always came on time (or downloaded instantly) and always worked at the gate. As for the legality of what they do to begin with, welcome to corporate America. Stubhub's hardly the first or only big-time ticket broker.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 14:01
|
|
|
The Grimace posted:Why do people insist that the American Civil War wasn't about slavery? My whole life, I've been taught that it was the catalyst to starting the war. The reason being that without slaves, the south wasn't confident it could maintain profitable farming, spawning the whole "states' rights" debate. Are they idiots, or am I the idiot? I used to drink the kool-aid and say it was about states rights, read and shared cherry-picked quotes indicated it wasn't about slavery, blah blah. When you get down to brass tacks, the very secession documents drafted by the state governments cite slavery as the primary reason. Now, other things are relevant - states' rights to allow slavery, perhaps, and not wanting federal interference in such - but the fundamental reason was Southern fear that the north was going to outlaw slavery. It was a valid fear, seeing how slave importation was banned the moment Congress was constitutionally permitted to ban it. Part of the problem is that emancipation, for much of the war, was simply a military tactic. It wasn't fundamental to the Union effort until very late; if it were, slaves in non-rebel states would have been freed, and Lincoln wouldn't have included the caveat in his Proclamation about the rebel states keeping their slaves if they returned to the fold within a certain number days. So the moral ambiguity on the north's side, combined with revisionist lost-cause and states-rights sentiments on the south's side, combine to create a confusing mix. My main complaint these days is now, everyone conflates secessionism with racism because of the CSA. Secessionism had a long history in U.S. politics before the CSA's loss cemented its non-viability. Golbez fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Jul 7, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 15:13
|
|
|
The Grimace posted:Why do people insist that the American Civil War wasn't about slavery? My whole life, I've been taught that it was the catalyst to starting the war. The reason being that without slaves, the south wasn't confident it could maintain profitable farming, spawning the whole "states' rights" debate. Are they idiots, or am I the idiot? This is a great question. Other people have provided the answer: if someone today claims that the war wasn't about slavery, it's because nobody wants to be caught defending slavery. However, cause isn't just one thing, and it is possible to claim that the proximate causes of the war were non-slavery issues. The confederate states seceded after the election of Lincoln because they felt left out and marginalized by the political process: Lincoln was elected by the weight of the Northern states population, and had little or no support in the south. Southern states felt their ways were imperiled because northern states could just impose their political will, and southern states didn't have enough voters to counteract this. They felt that not just slavery was in danger, but their agrarian economic system was being buried in importance by the north's increasingly productive manufacturing system. The union states went to war literally not because of slavery, but to preserve the union after the southern states seceded. Lincoln famously said "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Only after the war started going poorly for the union states did Lincoln tie their fortunes with slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:29
|
|
man
|
As a not-American, I would love to see an ask/tell thread about the American civil war. It's usually covered in a couple of lessons in Aussie schools as "It was complicated but essentially in the USA the North fought the South. The North won and most of the slaves were freed". I would like to know more, but a "school me on the civil war" thread seems like it would be a clusterfuck.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:53
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:As a not-American, I would love to see an ask/tell thread about the American civil war. It's usually covered in a couple of lessons in Aussie schools as "It was complicated but essentially in the USA the North fought the South. The North won and most of the slaves were freed". I would like to know more, but a "school me on the civil war" thread seems like it would be a clusterfuck. This post reminds me, does anyone have a link to that old A/T thread about what non-US students learned in school?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 16:56
|
|
|
ZorbaTHut posted:Ridiculously specific question:
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:11
|
|
|
Is Kate Middleton now a princess? When a male heir like William assumes the throne he becomes King, and his wife becomes queen right? However if a female heir, like Elizabeth, assumes the throne she becomes Queen, but her husband does not become King, correct? (or does he become a prince? some other title? no title?) What happens to the spouse of a prince or princess?
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:13
|
|
|
Pweller posted:Is Kate Middleton now a princess? She is a princess, being married to a prince; however, her title is Duchess of Cambridge. Wills is a prince, but he was not prince 'of' anything, since I believe that is only for the children of the monarch. Upon his marriage, he was made Duke of Cambridge, and she became Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, or, in full, according to Wikipedia: Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. A male becoming monarch, his wife becomes queen. She is not, however, queen regnant, she is not a monarch in herself. She is a queen consort. In the case of a woman becoming monarch, the queen regnant, her husband is a prince. Albert was styled Prince Consort, but I don't think applies to QE2's husband, who was made Duke of Edinburgh. The spouse of a prince is a princess, and shares whatever titles he has; Diana was Princess of Wales, Catherine is Duchess of Cambridge, etc. The spouse of a princess does not become a prince; in fact, I'm not sure they get any upgrade. Moral of the story: Wives get an upgrade in rank, husbands don't get as much of an upgrade, or sometimes none at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:24
|
|
|
Pweller posted:Is Kate Middleton now a princess? She's the Duchess of Cornwall, amongst other lesser titles. She's properly styled Her Royal Highness by virtue of being married to Prince William, but I'm not sure if that makes her a Princess. Any children they might have would be Princes and Princesses, though. When William becomes king, she will become Queen Catherine, more specifically Queen Consort. By comparison, Elizabeth is Queen Regnant, and Philip is Prince Consort. You don't have Kings Consort, at least not in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:27
|
|
|
stubblyhead posted:She's the Duchess of Cornwall, amongst other lesser titles. She's properly styled Her Royal Highness by virtue of being married to Prince William, but I'm not sure if that makes her a Princess. Any children they might have would be Princes and Princesses, though. When William becomes king, she will become Queen Catherine, more specifically Queen Consort. By comparison, Elizabeth is Queen Regnant, and Philip is Prince Consort. You don't have Kings Consort, at least not in the UK. Camilla is Duchess of Cornwall, the compromise given to her to avoid her being considered anywhere near Diana's peer.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:28
|
|
|
Golbez posted:Camilla is Duchess of Cornwall, the compromise given to her to avoid her being considered anywhere near Diana's peer. You are absolutely correct, my mistake. I looked a little further into Philip's styles, and it looks like he was made His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh shortly before marrying Elizabeth, but he wasn't given the style of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, until 1957, five years after Elizabeth took the throne. I think that was mostly a formality though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
Is anyone here actually opposed to the notion that all this royalty business always has been and is still complete bullshit? Speaking as a citizen of the Commonwealth. It's all very interesting as a construction of society and culture, but that's as much weight as I'm willing to give it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 18:17
|
|
TO UNDERAGE GYMNASTS
|
Dudebro posted:Is anyone here actually opposed to the notion that all this royalty business always has been and is still complete bullshit? Speaking as a citizen of the Commonwealth. It's all very interesting as a construction of society and culture, but that's as much weight as I'm willing to give it. It made a lot of sense way back. Like early feudal society way back. Not any more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 18:25
|
|
|
Pragmatic rationality beats idealistic republicanism every time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 18:49
|
|
|
Okay. Yeah it did make sense back in the day, but we've been past that point for such a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 18:52
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Is anyone here actually opposed to the notion that all this royalty business always has been and is still complete bullshit? Speaking as a citizen of the Commonwealth. It's all very interesting as a construction of society and culture, but that's as much weight as I'm willing to give it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 19:23
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to use the 3D rendering program 3D coat? I am doing a project that I eventually (meaning tomorrow or Monday) want to 3D print at my Uni... though I am having issues with the 3D coat program. My other 3D rendering experience is with Solidworks, which is not really ideal for my project because it's a free form (Solidworks is more for engineering perfect parts). Basically it is a cast of my face that I made with alginate... then made a plaster form from it... then 3D scanned the plaster face... my issue is making a normal looking back of the head. When I made the alginate/plaster cast of my face I obviously couldn't cast the back of my head, so essentially I have the front of the face, and not the back. I need the back to look pretty normal for 3D printing but I am not proficient in this program... http://imgur.com/aWbuk Series of plaster faces; the one on the left is the final, the one that has been 3D scanned, the one that I need help with. (These models are flat on the table; there is no back of the head.) Middle one is after the alginate mask had begun to deteriorate after a while. Left is the mask put on top of the alginate to help the mask keep the form of my face. Not quite sure how to upload the 3D file...
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 20:49
|
|
|
ZorbaTHut posted:Ridiculously specific question: You already have one good answer, but I thought I would add that I searched "Exhibition Wall Systems" and saw some similar items with that wireframe look and collapsible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2011 21:49
|
|
|
AlphaDog posted:As a not-American, I would love to see an ask/tell thread about the American civil war. It's usually covered in a couple of lessons in Aussie schools as "It was complicated but essentially in the USA the North fought the South. The North won and most of the slaves were freed". I would like to know more, but a "school me on the civil war" thread seems like it would be a clusterfuck. I would seriously check out the Ken Burns "Civil War" documentary series. It's on DVD and can be found anywhere. I realize that as a non-American, it may not be that interesting to you, but it is truly a fascinating part of world history. I mean, it's sumarized like this way: the south had slave labor. In their production of raw materials, they were the china of the day. Unfortunately, the north really didn't like the unfair competition this free labor provided. They actually really didn't care gently caress all about the slaves. Fortunately, a huge chunk of the American populace did care about slavery, and the two causes meshed nicely. The southern aristocracy, with their history of dickishness decided to get totally in a twist when Obama, er, Lincoln was elected. The rest is history, blah blah blah. The southern aristocracy essentially sent their entire lower class to fight a war of absolutely zero merit, for the most detestable reasons, and they have spent 150 years since jerking each other off talking about southern pride, and the confederacy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 01:08
|
|
|
I'll second the Ken Burns recommendation. It's just plain awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 02:22
|
|
|
I saw this video the other day (I think on YouTube) of a Japanese cartoon of fast techoish music video that was a bunch scenes of different colored realities with random crazy stuff going on in them. The only one I remember is a sushi chef just standing there bored. At the end, characters from the different scenes start breaking into each other and the colors start combining so that eventually there is mass chaos going on and the sushi chef is busily serving people from like 3 different realities. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? The video title was in Japanese which I definitely do not speak.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 03:10
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:As a fellow colonial, I could give less than a gently caress about the royal family. On the other hand, while I'm not opposed to republicanism, I have yet to be convinced that it would do anything at all to materially change things. That said, NZ's a tiny-rear end place, and the situation would probably be pretty different for Australia or Canada. I don't see how it would make a noticable difference to life in Australia either. I mean, I'd rather not live in a colony with a foreign monarch any more, but being a republic isn't going to make things magically better. It would probably actually make things worse as people used the change to shoehorn stupid laws in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
Al Cu Ad Solte posted:About ten years ago, my dad gave me a CD with a bunch of music on it. I remember the CD having a number of really awesome electronic tracks by an artist called something like "Big Box." Has anyone heard of this guy? I've been trying to track the music down for a decade now with zero luck. Yes! I think so, anyway. Back in the day when the band I think you were talking about was active (early 90's), they were played often on Chicago's "Energy" 88.7 FM. I have no idea how to find them, but I remember the name as "Box Car," and "Big Box," or maybe "Black Box." If you do find something, let me know...I remember liking them too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 06:45
|
|
|
Why isn't the word "myriad" followed by "of"? It always just seemed off to me. Usually, with words that talk about quantity, you have "of". Like a lot of, a ton of, a bunch of, etc...
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:13
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Why isn't the word "myriad" followed by "of"? It always just seemed off to me. Usually, with words that talk about quantity, you have "of". Like a lot of, a ton of, a bunch of, etc... Because it's being used in adjective form.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:15
|
|
|
It can be followed by of, it just isn't necessary depending on how it's used.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:17
|
|
|
Dudebro posted:Why isn't the word "myriad" followed by "of"? It always just seemed off to me. Usually, with words that talk about quantity, you have "of". Like a lot of, a ton of, a bunch of, etc... http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/myriad quote:Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it. EDIT: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/myriad quote:Usage Note: Throughout most of its history in English myriad was used as a noun, as in a myriad of men. In the 19th century it began to be used in poetry as an adjective, as in myriad men. Both usages in English are acceptable, as in Samuel Taylor Coleridge's "Myriad myriads of lives." This poetic, adjectival use became so well entrenched generally that many people came to consider it as the only correct use. In fact, both uses in English are parallel with those of the original ancient Greek. The Greek word mrias, from which myriad derives, could be used as either a noun or an adjective, but the noun mrias was used in general prose and in mathematics while the adjective mrias was used only in poetry. blame a stoner poet and the fanbois at the time who followed him. spog fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jul 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
I was going to add that I understand the grammatical argument. It just sounds off to me. Oh, I see that it can be a noun, but I hear it more in the adjective form. I refuse to use it in its adjective form  From everything I've heard in the past year of that word being used, people seem to avoid the noun form or it's just used way less frequently.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
Because using the adjectival form sounds fancier. See: aforementioned stoner poet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:24
|
|
|
I've never heard 'Myriad' without it being followed by 'of'. Sounds completely wrong to me. Australia here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
For those of you who've ordered cables from monoprice, did they smell like a strange version of a magazine cologne ad? I just opened mine today and drat did it stink.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:37
|
|
|
I've gotten a pack of DVD-Rs that smelled disturbingly of peppermint.  Edit: Completely unrelated, could I make meatloaf in cupcake tins? Is that a thing that's possible? Gravity Pike fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Jul 8, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
Gravity Pike posted:I've gotten a pack of DVD-Rs that smelled disturbingly of peppermint. http://stickygooeycreamychewy.com/2011/01/20/meatloaf-cupcakes-recipe/
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
I'm going to download my first digital copy of a movie, and the WB site gives me the option of "iTunes format" or "Windows Media format." Will either of these play nicely on an Android device?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
Golbez posted:in full, according to Wikipedia: Her Royal Highness Princess William Arthur Philip Louis, Duchess of Cambridge, Countess of Strathearn, Baroness Carrickfergus. Why does she lose her own name and get awarded several boys names?
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 16:53 |
|
|
TremendousMajestic posted:Yes! I think so, anyway. Back in the day when the band I think you were talking about was active (early 90's), they were played often on Chicago's "Energy" 88.7 FM. I have no idea how to find them, but I remember the name as "Box Car," and "Big Box," or maybe "Black Box." If you do find something, let me know...I remember liking them too. Dunno if this helps at all, but Black Box was indeed a popular electronic band in the early 90's, probably most known for their single Everybody Everybody.
|
|
#
?
Jul 8, 2011 09:46
|
|