|
Back then the cops simply weren't equipped to handle a mob like that. I would guess that in this day and age the reaction from the police would have been a bit different.
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Not America, but didn't UK recently had a whole bunch of riots across the country?
|
|
#
?
Jul 30, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Can anyone recommend a book that gives a good overview of the Haitian Revolution, it sounds really interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Can anyone recommend a book that gives a good overview of the Haitian Revolution, it sounds really interesting. Before that he wrote a fictional trilogy of books set during the revolution, which were supposedly really good but I haven't checked out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
Swan Oat posted:Can anyone recommend a book that gives a good overview of the Haitian Revolution, it sounds really interesting. Someone recommended The Black Jacobins by C.L.R. James to me a while ago and I actually just ordered it from Amazon earlier this week. Hasn't arrived yet, but I've only heard good things. It was written in the 1930s and seems to have stood the test of time. I'm sure there's some goon that's read it and can give their opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:08
|
|
|
Thanks I added both to my Amazon wish list so I may buy them later 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 08:23
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I read Madison Smartt Bell's biography of Toussaint Louverture, which I thought was good despite all the times I had to consult the map on the inside cover. It goes a lot into all the constant plotting and evolving political climate. It also clarifies some earlier myths, humors a few rumors and explains the likelihood of their validity. Bell's also working on a biography Jean-Jacques Dessalines. I started to read All Soul's Rising but had to stop because of how terrible it was. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 31, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
I just finished Battle Cry of Freedom so I became familiar with the death of the Whig party and the birth of the Republican party, and I've also read enough D&D to be familiar with the Southern Strategy, so I'd like to get some perspective on party ideology in the intervening years. That is, FDR was a great president, but he was a pre-Southern Strategy Democrat. Same with JFK. Same with Woodrow Wilson. What gives? Book recommendations are also welcome.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Then you probably already know that FDR's New Deal Coalition included proto-segregationists and that's one of the reasons the New Deal didn't do that much to help black people. Economic populism had a very troubled past in general when it came to racial issues prior to the Southern Strategy. Immigrants and African Americans were easy scapegoats to rally the anger of poor whites. And you still see hints of it today from both the left and the right. And LBJ as a senator was openly opposed to most civil rights measures until he became VPOTUS. Good thing he changed his mind.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:
Based on his background (he took 9 months off in college to teach poor Mexican children) I don't think the VP position changed his mind, it just let him reveal his true positions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:Then you probably already know that FDR's New Deal Coalition included proto-segregationists and that's one of the reasons the New Deal didn't do that much to help black people. Economic populism had a very troubled past in general when it came to racial issues prior to the Southern Strategy. Immigrants and African Americans were easy scapegoats to rally the anger of poor whites. And you still see hints of it today from both the left and the right. Okay so I'm probably oversimplifying this, but given that Woodrow Wilson had a pretty terrible record on racial issues, what I'm getting is that the Republican-Democrat dynamic established in the 1860s persisted and really did not switch until after 1964 (or thereabouts), but the US still got "good" Democrat presidents that passed "progressive" legislation provided that such laws were unhelpful enough towards black people to pass muster with the Southern Democrats?
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay so I'm probably oversimplifying this, but given that Woodrow Wilson had a pretty terrible record on racial issues, what I'm getting is that the Republican-Democrat dynamic established in the 1860s persisted and really did not switch until after 1964 (or thereabouts), but the US still got "good" Democrat presidents that passed "progressive" legislation provided that such laws were unhelpful enough towards black people to pass muster with the Southern Democrats? Yes, except for two points for clarification: - There were not many Democratic Presidents between 1864 and FDR (mostly because they were seen as the Party of the South); there's only really Andrew Johnson (dude that succeeded Lincoln), Grover Cleveland, and Woodrow Wilson. None of these guys were really that good wrt race. - There were Republican presidents that were supportive of progressive policies (mostly Theodore Roosevelt and Taft), though they were rare. (Another example is Grant that was very supportive of minority rights and trying to extinguish the KKK)
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:Okay so I'm probably oversimplifying this, but given that Woodrow Wilson had a pretty terrible record on racial issues, what I'm getting is that the Republican-Democrat dynamic established in the 1860s persisted and really did not switch until after 1964 (or thereabouts), but the US still got "good" Democrat presidents that passed "progressive" legislation provided that such laws were unhelpful enough towards black people to pass muster with the Southern Democrats? The problem was that the legislation was tainted by its creation of a racial "untouchable" underclass who were denied a social safety net. That way, after being socially and economically and politically disenfranchised they starved or died of disease or went homeless and moved out into ghettos, solving the problem for white Southerners of seeing the products of their callousness daily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
computer parts posted:- There were not many Democratic Presidents between 1864 and FDR (mostly because they were seen as the Party of the South); there's only really Andrew Johnson (dude that succeeded Lincoln), Grover Cleveland, and Woodrow Wilson. None of these guys were really that good wrt race. Huh, you're right, that's what was tripping me up in the first place. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 17:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Yes, except for two points for clarification: Basically there was a progressive faction of Democrats from the North and South within the Democratic party in the urban areas and some industry heavy rural areas. The Democrats managed to tap into socialist and populist sentiment (the party of Jackson and Jefferson had a long streak of sticking up for the [white] working man) so there's a growing divide coming out of the Gilded Age in the party between progressive forces that increasingly view civil rights as a social good and white supremacy. At times they could break bread on labor advances (usually at the expense of blacks). Republicans similarly are broken along lines after the Civil War where burgeoning (Capital friendly) Progressive sentiment is represented by Teddy Roosevelt which can be regarded as the liberal faction, and then the FYGM business groups which were bootstraps, crush labor and were the petri-dish for what would become the modern conservative movement. Both factions were nominally for promoting civil rights but colored labor for the FYGM crowd was pretty much just a tool to disrupt unions by playing with racial tensions or exploiting cheap immigrant labor. If you're curious why bi-partisanship was higher during the period it's because there were multiple informal party factions working together. The great re-alignment of the Southern Strategy eliminated this balancing act within the two parties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 12, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Not sure if you're more interested in the specific racial beliefs or policies of those Democratic presidents or the broader political race-related alignments. But I'm pretty sure this thread already covered to some detail just how racist Woodrow Wilson was. But just for the heck of it, his racism extended beyond channeling the nation's racism for his own political gain and were strongly-held personal beliefs as well. Wilson had the worst civil rights record of any president after Reconstruction. His racism was unusually awful even for his time. Wikipedia posted:Several historians have described a number of Wilson's policies as racist;[254][255] [256] some also describe Wilson personally as a racist.[257] In his book, History of the American People, Wilson depicted white European immigrants with empathy while African American immigrants and their children were regarded as unsuitable for citizenship and unable to assimilate positively into American society.[258] Wilson believed that slavery was wrong on economic labor grounds, rather than for moral reasons.[258] Wilson idealized the slavery system in the South, having viewed masters as patient with "indolent" slaves, whom Wilson believed were like "shiftless children". Wilson held contempt for the belief that African Americans could be free and self-governing.[258] In terms of Reconstruction, Wilson held the common neo-Confederate view that the South was demoralized by Northern carpetbaggers and that Congressional imposition of black equality justified extreme measures to reassert white supremacist national and state governments.[259] Wilson viewed blacks as related to the animal world, having illustrated an elderly black man with monkey features.[260] Even though people with minimal knowledge of American history already know Wilson was racist as poo poo, his administration continues to be largely whitewashed in American grade-school history classrooms. His civil rights record takes a backseat to his foreign policy, and he's generally portrayed very sympathetically. (Not that his foreign policy hasn't been whitewashed too. For example, I didn't even know about the US's occupation of Haiti which began under Woodrow until I started looking up the Haitian Revolution.) Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Didn't he really not get along with the military and get the US into more wars than any other president? He got about as much judgement as any president in the class I took on the history of the US military.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Add to that a healthy dose of "I am doing God's work on Earth" and you've got the winning combo!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
Yeah Wilson was kind of a walking (I guess later a shuffling and then wheeled) example of white supremacy masquerading as benevolence. Oh, you poor untermenschen, the superior white race in our comparatively infinite wisdom will gladly deign to control your lives. Surely you're not fit for self-determination!
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
I've always viewed Wilson as a pretty textbook example of a Victorian paternalistic liberal, the sort of guy who wanted to take up the White Man's Burden out of a genuine feeling that it was for the benefit of others. His foreign policy was likewise an outgrowth of those same attitudes, the idea that the world would be best served by civilised nations coming together and talking through their problems with a belief that the US should be doing its best to help the rest of the world avoid wars and promote good governance. This attitude mixed with the racialism (and cultural if not outright biological racism) of the time meant that cultures that weren't in the 'civilised' tier obviously couldn't rule themselves properly and the only way to help them was to change their culture. I'm not going to defend the policies it led to and any discussion of him requires an examination of how his racism affected the policies he pursued and decisions he made but I don't think it's fair to just say, 'Dude was a racist, gently caress him. Worst president since Franklin,' or similar. Also as something of a strong internationalist I feel a lot of sympathy for his League of Nations and think the isolationist tendencies in the US are deeply disruptive to global politics, especially since they tend to coincide with protecting the US' 'sphere of influence' in the American continent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:I've always viewed Wilson as a pretty textbook example of a Victorian paternalistic liberal, the sort of guy who wanted to take up the White Man's Burden out of a genuine feeling that it was for the benefit of others. His foreign policy was likewise an outgrowth of those same attitudes, the idea that the world would be best served by civilised nations coming together and talking through their problems with a belief that the US should be doing its best to help the rest of the world avoid wars and promote good governance. I think it can be summed up as Wilson being progressive at heart in terms of international politics and a smaller world tending towards peace, but the man's genuine belief in the inferiority of non-white races meant he never even acknowledged non-whites as equal agents in that globalist vision. They were just children to him, charges to be guided towards enlightened servitude or whatever his plan was. It's kind of hosed up, but separable from the concept of diplomatic resolution replacing warfare.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I think it can be summed up as Wilson being progressive at heart in terms of international politics and a smaller world tending towards peace, but the man's genuine belief in the inferiority of non-white races meant he never even acknowledged non-whites as equal agents in that globalist vision. They were just children to him, charges to be guided towards enlightened servitude or whatever his plan was. It's kind of hosed up, but separable from the concept of diplomatic resolution replacing warfare. It's also a good idea to look at the attitudes of the time. "Non-white people are inferior and we should teach them to suck less" is a far cry better than "non-white people are literally animals here for us to use as such." I'm not going to exactly defend that sort of opinion as it's deplorable still but shifts in that sort of attitude take time. As we're still seeing today there is a poo poo load of cultural inertia that needs to be overcome. There is also some economic inertia as well as non-whites were a source of cheap labor that a lot of very wealthy whites didn't want to have to start paying. It doesn't justify it really but this is politics we're talking about. Politicians do whatever it takes to get elected and have influence. If that means deliberately relegating an entire race to second-class status then they'll do it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Context considered, Wilson still doesn't come off well. During his presidency, things gotten worse for black people; which couldn't be said for many other post-reconstruction presidents. Wilson dramatically escalated the nation's institutionalized racism in ways his predecessors didn't. He segregated federal offices that were integrated for decades. He emboldened the nation's racists and race riots increased during his years and racial violence occurred in places that have never seen them before. Many well-intentioned progressives from a half century prior would squirm at Wilson's chauvinism
Echo Chamber fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:32
|
|
|
That's all very illuminating and makes me want to read up more on Wilson. My only exposure to him so far has been through WWI and his post war campaign for the ratification of the Treaty of Versailles. There was a shadow of his terrible racial policies across those, but this is the first time I've read specifics
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Wilson is very representative of the complicated nature of politics at the time of the Progressive Age compared to the simpler ideological pure differences of now. Pro-labor (but behind the Alien and Sedition acts which specifically targeted socialists and anarchists and immigrants) and for civic and public service reform while simultaneously segregating federal service in ways never seen before. He is a very important figure, but he really shouldnt be reduced to just "of his time" . If he is granted of being of his time it is the time during the era when psuedo-science racism made headway with a certain sort of paternalistic white elite. Wilson as an educated WASP northerner feeling sympathetic with the Southern cause is definitely something of an outlier for the time. He wasnt a dixiecrat and really by no means had to cyncially pursue that as a viewpoint for office, people forget that he was one of the rare straight up intellectuals to somehow stumble into the white house. His revisionism popularized a lot of toxic viewpoints on reconstruction which took a generation at least to start to wind back and it doesnt help that casual public American education kind of still props him up,
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:it doesnt help that casual public American education kind of still props him up, I don't know about that; his major policy of note is the League of Nations but that was a notable flop in the United States, and then you actually start digging and you find out he was also a virulent racist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't know about that; his major policy of note is the League of Nations but that was a notable flop in the United States, and then you actually start digging and you find out he was also a virulent racist. Well thats what I mean, his foot note is usually "guy who tried to do UN 1.0 but people  " but he is much more pivotol and controversal for other reasons as well.But yeah; he really was pretty racist for even his time which is pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Wilson is very representative of the complicated nature of politics at the time of the Progressive Age compared to the simpler ideological pure differences of now. Pro-labor (but behind the Alien and Sedition acts which specifically targeted socialists and anarchists and immigrants) and for civic and public service reform while simultaneously segregating federal service in ways never seen before. He is a very important figure, but he really shouldnt be reduced to just "of his time" . If he is granted of being of his time it is the time during the era when psuedo-science racism made headway with a certain sort of paternalistic white elite. Wilson wasn't a northerner, he was a Scotch-Irish protestant from Virginia. His father originally lived in Ohio but was a strong Confederate sympathizer and supporter of slavery and moved to Virginia. icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
As with everything, I think you have to consider the time period. The KKK was experiencing a revival at that same time and Birth of a Nation, which controversial, was still a huge hit. Americans wanted racist policies and Wilson is just a reflection of that. To put it in context, 15% of eligible Americans were members of the KKK at its peak in the 1920's. 18% of Americans currently smoke cigarettes. Obviously cigarettes are more embracing of minorities, but still that'd be the equivalent of 3 out of 4 smokers today being due paying members of a white supremacist organization.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 14:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Wilson wasn't a northerner, he was a Scotch-Irish protestant from Virginia. His father originally lived in Ohio but was a strong Confederate sympathizer and supporter of slavery and moved to Virginia. You're right, that's a pretty dumb thing for me to get wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
I absolutely despise the idea that we can't judge people who lived in the past by our "modern standards", that we have to fully keep in mind their contexts at all times because that context made them somehow a different organism or something. Human beings have always been the same human beings. People who lived in the past were fully and completely capable of having opinions that were not the prevailing norms. For instance, 100 years ago there were plenty of anti-racist voices.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:You're right, that's a pretty dumb thing for me to get wrong. It's all right, I get tons of poo poo wrong. :v
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I absolutely despise the idea that we can't judge people who lived in the past by our "modern standards", that we have to fully keep in mind their contexts at all times because that context made them somehow a different organism or something. Human beings have always been the same human beings. People who lived in the past were fully and completely capable of having opinions that were not the prevailing norms. For instance, 100 years ago there were plenty of anti-racist voices. But many of those anti-racists were homophobic, etc etc. It's hard enough to find people that aren't morally reprehensible today, let alone in an era when "let's uplift the darkies" was a mainstream line of thought. e: I forget the case but there's a Supreme Court case where one of the opinions is speaking in favor of minority rights (either Hispanic or African American) but they then explicitly clarify that it "doesn't apply to those drat Chinamen". computer parts fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Aug 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I absolutely despise the idea that we can't judge people who lived in the past by our "modern standards", that we have to fully keep in mind their contexts at all times because that context made them somehow a different organism or something. Human beings have always been the same human beings. People who lived in the past were fully and completely capable of having opinions that were not the prevailing norms. For instance, 100 years ago there were plenty of anti-racist voices. But then no one is good or decent. Even our progressive ancestors had opinions that are obscene by modern standards. Viewing the past without a historical context is like viewing money without a historical context. Then you're just one of those people who thinks gas was cheaper in the 50's.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
cheerfullydrab posted:I absolutely despise the idea that we can't judge people who lived in the past by our "modern standards", that we have to fully keep in mind their contexts at all times because that context made them somehow a different organism or something. Human beings have always been the same human beings. People who lived in the past were fully and completely capable of having opinions that were not the prevailing norms. For instance, 100 years ago there were plenty of anti-racist voices. The same humans in vastly different circumstances Not applying historical relativism makes your opinions of the past useless.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
I love the idea that we should look down on 8th century peasants for not supporting trans* rights.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
You probably should compare opinions of the times to the period themselves, there were anti-racists in the past but even Lincoln would be considered today. However, he was probably considerably less racist than the average American of the 1860s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:You probably should compare opinions of the times to the period themselves, there were anti-racists in the past but even Lincoln would be considered today. However, he was probably considerably less racist than the average American of the 1860s. One of the cooler parts of Battle Cry of Freedom, for me, was watching the evolution of Lincoln's opinion towards slavery. I always kind of wondered where/how that "if I could preserve the Union without removing slavery, I would" quote came about that always gets trotted out by people wanting to tear down Lincoln, but now I have context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:"if I could preserve the Union without removing slavery, I would" quote It's ridiculous to remove that quote from context, the whole paragraph is about how he'd save the Union any way possible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:It's ridiculous to remove that quote from context, the whole paragraph is about how he'd save the Union any way possible. It gets dragged out fairly often by libertarians of the vaguely white supremacist strain to tear him down and prove he was an evil statist and also racist unlike themselves, because he's sort of the embodiment of successful American liberalism as regards both state power and social justice. They really do not like the guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 16, 2014 08:14
|
|