|
these loving maga chuds https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...rs-standing-by/
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
Forgotten Weapons did a video covering the FP-45 Liberator insurgency weapon, and later did a video where they fired a reproduction. It's a bit painful. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CjndIiZyJo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgOfbG3mi_0
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
zoux posted:I dunno what the big deal is, this about state rights not rac- I hope they're keeping that somewhere and not just junking it, because it strikes me as dead-rear end indisputable evidence that they considered sovereignty over a territory and white supremacy within that territory to be effectively the same thing, and established the former for the purposes of the latter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:10
|
|
]
|
swamp waste posted:I hope they're keeping that somewhere and not just junking it, because it strikes me as dead-rear end indisputable evidence that they considered sovereignty over a territory and white supremacy within that territory to be effectively the same thing, and established the former for the purposes of the latter. (i don't know what people thought about the civil war right after it, which is an interesting question) HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
Read the articles of secession for the various states. Tablet posting or I'd dig some up but it's a bunch of iterations on "we want to keep slaves".
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:17
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Read the articles of secession for the various states. Tablet posting or I'd dig some up but it's a bunch of iterations on "we want to keep slaves".
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
Given that they thought it was actually super good to go to war over it and that they hadn't done anything wrong, and that slavery was in fact better than not slavery, they probably had the same opinion then as the weirdos do now. Only less hidden.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Read the articles of secession for the various states. Tablet posting or I'd dig some up but it's a bunch of iterations on "we want to keep slaves". There's a whole lot of things like "slavery is the greatest material interest in the world" and similar terms. It's not subtle in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Didn't enough Lost Causers exist in the aftermath of the war to turn on Longstreet almost immediately after the war?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:31
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
PittTheElder posted:Didn't enough Lost Causers exist in the aftermath of the war to turn on Longstreet almost immediately after the war? Yes, and if I recall correctly this was given some ink in Fall of the House of Dixie due to it being related to the southern reliance on slavery as much as a social institution as a commercial one and tying religion and status into it so that by the war it was as much an honorable and pious and socially correct pursuit as cleanliness and sunday prayers. It gave those fighting a belief that they were fighting for a heavenly ordained way of life without even having to say slavery (perhaps they used the word heritage instead), which meant that when they were a defeated people they started wanting to find out who among them sinned against the literal mandate of heaven.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 05:53
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:Oh no, i definitely know that, what i'm referring to is that in the early 20th century people started sucking the confederacy's cock as a symbol of the white supremacy they wanted to install at that time. Birth of A Nation and such. Like how the popular use of the St. Andrews Cross confederate flag started in the 1950s. People think it's about the history but it isn't, it was an invented tradition. Yeah, like how Nathan Bedford Forrest & his wife were literally disinterred from the cemetery where they'd been buried to be relocated under the statue in Memphis decades later. Apparently that sculpture was supposed to face South (to catch the light better), but people thought it might suggest he was retreating. So their priorities are very, very clear when they were putting all this crap up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 09:58
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Seriously, the decision making processes going on within the Japanese government are fascinating. I keep hoping that maybe there's still records of all this stuff that historians will get to access one day, but something tells me the same contemporaneous actors would have destroyed them all. How long did it take the Navy to admit to the Army that Midway had happened?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 12:54
|
|
|
e: lovely post removed; please disregard
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 12:59
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:Oh no, i definitely know that, what i'm referring to is that in the early 20th century people started sucking the confederacy's cock as a symbol of the white supremacy they wanted to install at that time. Birth of A Nation and such. Like how the popular use of the St. Andrews Cross confederate flag started in the 1950s. People think it's about the history but it isn't, it was an invented tradition. Oh, yeah, you're totally right about that. The whole way the war is memorialized in the south was pretty much invented in the late 1890s/early 20th C as a way go give legitimacy to Jim Crow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 13:17
|
|
|
IMO people who claim to celebrate the history of the confederacy non-racistly should be glad that monument's being taken down because it makes all of them look racist as hell
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:10
|
|
|
I don't think the monuments should be swept under the rug and ignored like that isn't an ugly part of our history, but I don't think they should be displayed publicly either. Are they being trashed or just relocated to The Museum of Assholes or something?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
swamp waste posted:I hope they're keeping that somewhere and not just junking it, because it strikes me as dead-rear end indisputable evidence that they considered sovereignty over a territory and white supremacy within that territory to be effectively the same thing, and established the former for the purposes of the latter. The article I read said they monuments are going to end up in a museum or other facility. "The removals are "about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile — and most importantly — choose a better future," Landrieu said in a statement released by his office. "We can remember these divisive chapters in our history in a museum or other facility where they can be put in context — and that's where these statues belong." I saw this post this morning on twitter from former Times-Picayune photographer. 
zoux fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
Im completely fine with the monuments being swept under the rug. Its not like the very real impacts it has had and does have on people are going to fade anytime soon so saying its going to cause people to forget or hide it does not make sense to me. Also I hope they don't store the statues. Its a terrible idea for multiple reasons. Telsa Cola fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:IMO people who claim to celebrate the history of the confederacy non-racistly should be glad that monument's being taken down because it makes all of them look racist as hell I've got a father in law who's a big time history geek. You should have seen his eyes light up when he found up the guy his daughter was dating was getting a PhD in history. He was raised in the south, had family that fought in the confederate army, the whole nine yards. He's loved state history his whole life and the two of us semi-frequently make road trips to go visit ACW and Revolutionary War battlefields. He also has a pretty sterling record of being on the right side of the civil rights debate including a lot of poo poo done as a student in the 60s and a career that involved a lot of work in government specifically targeted at un-fuckin the remnants of Jim Crow. That said, ACW history geek that he was, he was always a bit wishy washy on the flag and could appreciate the argument about historical legacies. Until, walking around Antietam about the same time one of the southern states pulled the confederate flag off their capital building, we got into that conversation again and I pointed out that the far right fringe in Germany adopted it because the law out there banns the swastika. That killed off any lingering sentiment about southern heritage he may have had with a quiet "huh, really?" I've since heard heard him argue pretty strongly against that particular symbol in other contexts. So yeah, at least in my anecdotal experience the legit history geeks will about face when presented with just how obviously that stuff's been coopted by poo poo heads. Oh, and here's a picture of a bunch of Germans with a confederate flag at a Pegida rally in Dresden: 
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Im completely fine with the monuments being swept under the rug. Its not like the very real impacts it has had and does have on people are going to fade anytime soon so saying its going to cause people to forget or hide it does not make sense to me. Nah, it should be properly contextualized, but hiding the atrocities of history is how you get people denying holocausts and defending native genocides. I want to use the term whitewashing but that has a different connotation these days. What's the term for making your country's history seem not as bad? Candidate for Governor of Virginia. He grew up in Minnesota! https://twitter.com/CoreyStewartVA/status/856699414907367424 https://twitter.com/CoreyStewartVA/status/856872376490971146 https://twitter.com/CoreyStewartVA/status/856851372922343428 zoux fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Apr 25, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:23
|
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:Im completely fine with the monuments being swept under the rug. Its not like the very real impacts it has had and does have on people are going to fade anytime soon so saying its going to cause people to forget or hide it does not make sense to me. no
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
the only people who should be allowed to fly the confederate flag are teenage dirtbags with wispy mustaches who will sell you weed regardless of skin color and have a cousin who can get you other stuff if you want
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
HEY GAIL posted:those words date from the 1930s--the teens to the 30s in the US were hellishly racist, and i'm fuzzy on this but i think that's when you see people start invoking the myth of the lost cause to promote white supremacy, not immediately after the civil war Right after the war the entire sociopolitical structure of the south was so wrecked they basically didn't have time or energy to mount a coherent campaign about anything. The early Reconstruction era was basically a series of events designed to marginalize the old southern ruling class, and that was what really gave rise to the early KKK and the various southern nationalist organizations. That's where the Lost Cause kinda got started, but it didn't get properly codified until many years later when Davis and everyone's favorite Jubal Early started really establishing the mythos. Everyone sort of lost interest in all of this in era just after Reconstruction ended, mainly because white supremacy was largely restored thanks to Jim Crow and the south didn't need its heroic knights to defend its women so badly anymore. By the early 20th century white supremacy was basically the de facto standard pretty much everywhere; voter disenfranchisement kind of culminated with Wilson's election. When the blacks started to get uppity in response to all of this, it prompted a massive nationwide renewal of the Confederate Mythos. Since so many prominent Union veterans and Republican politicians from the era had died or otherwise disappeared, people were a lot more free to revise the history to suit this agenda, and stuff like "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With the Wind", along with the ridiculously popular second KKK, was the result.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
zoux posted:Nah, it should be properly contextualized, but hiding the atrocities of history is how you get people denying holocausts and defending native genocides. He at least seems to be eating poo poo pretty badly on twitter for it (my favorite response being "is there anything even 3/5 as bad?") but if the last election taught me anything, it's that good people being mad at bad people on twitter is less influential than you'd hope so good luck with your racist new governor, virginia
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:good luck with your racist new governor, virginia he's polling at like 7% within the republican candidates alone (and VA leans dem now anyway) so I think we get to avoid this guy, thanks
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Not even an American, but I think that it was a great shame that Davis and Lee did not hang for treason.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:46
|
|
|
zoux posted:Nah, it should be properly contextualized, but hiding the atrocities of history is how you get people denying holocausts and defending native genocides. Reassuringly, he's being abandoned by his former supporters for this stuff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Not even an American, but I think that it was a great shame that Davis and Lee did not hang for treason. Did the average Northerner support peaceful reconciliation or did they want punishment? Well, good.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Jamwad Hilder posted:he's polling at like 7% within the republican candidates alone (and VA leans dem now anyway) so I think we get to avoid this guy, thanks Well I'm glad that the world isn't quite as lovely as I assumed it was then, phew
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
The confederacy resulted in the officer's oath getting more convoluted and harder to memorize, since former US CSA officers managed to weasel their way through saying that hey hadn't broken their oath. For that alone I demand retribution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:54
|
|
|
Ainsley McTree posted:my favorite response being "is there anything even 3/5 as bad?" Not picking on you, but the whole reason behind the 3/5 compromise is grossly misunderstood.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
zoux posted:Did the average Northerner support peaceful reconciliation or did they want punishment? "it varied" Public opinion ran from "let them secede anyway" to "burn it all down, again" and everything in between. Lincoln's very moderate stance had a big effect on the public in general having relatively moderate opinions, but they still put the Radical Republicans into power immediately after the war which was basically tantamount to mass punishment. There wasn't much appetite for prosecutions and executions and whatnot even from the Radicals; they all recognized that hanging or shooting a bunch of people would only provide martyrs and make long term reconciliation a whole lot harder.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Not picking on you, but the whole reason behind the 3/5 compromise is grossly misunderstood. Can you explain this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
hogmartin posted:Not picking on you, but the whole reason behind the 3/5 compromise is grossly misunderstood. Among other things it didn't treat slaves as being 3/5ths of a person, it treated slave owners as being more than a person since the slaves enhanced the value of his vote.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Can you explain this? Southerners would have preferred to have counted slaves as 'full' people because this enhances their political power over the whole of the US, the 3/5 was not really about how much political power the slaves had, which was 0, it was about limiting the power of slave-owners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
One of the most useful things we could teach kids about the creation myth of America is that it wasn't a group of patriotic heroes standing as one and calling for the same thing in one voice. The constitution was a highly contentious process built on a lot of troubling compromises with slave states and the veneration of these guys as Perfect Sainted Minds is real bad. Every time I hear someone say "the Founders intended" I want to ask them "which ones?"
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Hunt11 posted:Can you explain this? In broad terms: each state gets a number of seats in the House of Representatives based on the state's population. Slave states wanted each of their slaves to count as a full person, not because they had any particular respect for their humanity, but because that way they could have more power over free states while still treating the slaves as basically livestock. Free states didn't want slaves to count at all towards the population, not because they didn't think they counted as people, but because it would be a way for slave states to cheat and hold seats in perpetuity. The 3/5 compromise, where all non-free persons counted as 3/5 for representation, was a middle ground that kicked the slavery can down the road but at least got all of the states on board at the Constitutional Convention. The annoying thing is that people see "slaves counted as 3/5 of a person" and get outraged and don't understand that counting them as full persons would have gotten undue representation for the slave states - the slaves were property, didn't pay taxes, and couldn't vote - and counting them as no persons would have IMO been morally supportable. You shouldn't get to say that these people are property and not people and then turn around and say that they count as residents for your allotment of representatives.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:One of the most useful things we could teach kids about the creation myth of America is that it wasn't a group of patriotic heroes standing as one and calling for the same thing in one voice. The constitution was a highly contentious process built on a lot of troubling compromises with slave states and the veneration of these guys as Perfect Sainted Minds is real bad. Every time I hear someone say "the Founders intended" I want to ask them "which ones?" One thing I'm trying to figure out re: originalism- if we need to interpret the Constitution as the founders intended, does that mean that a theoretical amendment repealing and reinstating a section of it, in the exact same language, will actually change the law? *takes huge bongrip*
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Literally buying votes by bringing in more slaves.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:55 |
|
|
hogmartin posted:In broad terms: each state gets a number of seats in the House of Representatives based on the state's population. Slave states wanted each of their slaves to count as a full person, not because they had any particular respect for their humanity, but because that way they could have more power over free states while still treating the slaves as basically livestock. Free states didn't want slaves to count at all towards the population, not because they didn't think they counted as people, but because it would be a way for slave states to cheat and hold seats in perpetuity. The 3/5 compromise, where all non-free persons counted as 3/5 for representation, was a middle ground that kicked the slavery can down the road but at least got all of the states on board at the Constitutional Convention. I thought that was the excepted way to read the situation involving the compromise. The idea of the South counting slaves for any votes at all I always found deeply offensive.
|
|
#
?
Apr 25, 2017 16:53
|
|