|
blarzgh posted:validity is probably determined by the winner of the conflict, but to say they had no other objectives is exactly the sort of black and white (pun intended) view of history that I think is bad. Its sort of an acknowledgement that, "Choosing the Right Beliefs" is more important to society than "Understanding History." What were the other core objectives of the confederacy that overshadow protecting slavery and enshrining enslaving black people as a universal right?
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Not flying the flag is a good thing but the statues and stuff should stay, just change the plaque to "loving remember these assholes, because it wasn' that long ago" We need to add Historical Context Plaques to all confederate monuments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:What were the other core objectives of the confederacy that overshadow protecting slavery and enshrining enslaving black people as a universal right? Make $$$$ Drink Julep Edit- YES http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2015/06/24/lawmakers-call-for-confederate-change-at-u-s-capitol/ "We have to have a cleansing" `-John Lewis Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 18:04 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:validity is probably determined by the winner of the conflict, but to say they had no other objectives is exactly the sort of black and white (pun intended) view of history that I think is bad. Its sort of an acknowledgement that, "Choosing the Right Beliefs" is more important to society than "Understanding History." One unfortunate fact about history is that we have a lot of it, so people will not, by sheer limitation of information transfer, know much of it. Unless they are historians. But it is useful to have a cliff notes of some important recent history, and I think perhaps if you have to pick, which you sort of do, what will be remembered outside of the history books, then "the confederate were dickbag slavers who fought to protect that" is better than "the confederates were noble defenders of liberty (for white people) protecting their lands from the evil big gubmint"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:What were the other core objectives of the confederacy that overshadow protecting slavery and enshrining enslaving black people as a universal right? killing yankees, one of the better objectives
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Was it low tariffs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:killing yankees, one of the better objectives Sorry, but the Yankees are the greatest.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
Just affixing a plaque to a statue doesn't do poo poo about the heroic pose of the statue. Monuments to Confederates should be toppled and new ones raised that communicate their messages artistically. This will probably mean a lot of James Longstreet statues, which is fine.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:07
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Blarzgh, is the issue that state-sponsored uses of the Confederate flag will be ceased or is there a genuine concern that the flag will be totally redacted from history? I don't think it helps the debate to say this, but I honestly couldn't care less about the Confederate Flag. I'd probably care more if they came for this:  because its racist against Mexicans; that flag is much more representative of what I consider to be my State's history.I'm really more concerned that we're losing the freedom to have dissenting views, in this age of internet outrage and twitter lynchings. Its distressing to me that someone can lose their job over a twitter comment, and that the largest retailers in the country will immediately cow-tow to only the perception of public pressure. Hey, no problem right? We're only eliminating Racism. You don't like Racism, do you? In my mind, its not about what we're stamping out. "Well don't have such wrong opinions, and we won't string you up for it!" is, in my view, a dangerous way of advancing the pricipals of 'tolerance' and 'fairness' and 'equality' that our society supposedly espouses.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't think it helps the debate to say this, but I honestly couldn't care less about the Confederate Flag. I'd probably care more if they came for this: http://lardcave.net/text/the_racist_tree.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Just affixing a plaque to a statue doesn't do poo poo about the heroic pose of the statue. Monuments to Confederates should be toppled and new ones raised that communicate their messages artistically. Isn't that sort of missing the point? It might help convey the idea that the original confederates were assholes but it also helps erase the fact that since the american civil war, there have consistently been people who thought they were the best thing since sliced bread, and who have worked hard and long to whitewash their actions. Keep the statues, let it be seen that these people were, and are, venerated for defending slavery. Slavery itself is illegal, so the confederates have lost, but the people who idolize the confederacy are still here, and their error shouldn't be buried. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Hey, no problem right? We're only eliminating Racism. You don't like Racism, do you? In my mind, its not about what we're stamping out. "Well don't have such wrong opinions, and we won't string you up for it!" is, in my view, a dangerous way of advancing the pricipals of 'tolerance' and 'fairness' and 'equality' that our society supposedly espouses. Unless we romanticize white supremacists who fought and killed for the right to make into law that black people inferior to white people, we literally will be on a slippery slope toward thought crime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't think it helps the debate to say this, but I honestly couldn't care less about the Confederate Flag. I'd probably care more if they came for this: What do you think is more harmful, "twitter lynchings" or the long history of murder of black people by white mobs through lynching that the confederate flag represents?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Isn't that sort of missing the point? If veneration of the statues is a problem then getting rid of the statues fixes the problem.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't think it helps the debate to say this, but I honestly couldn't care less about the Confederate Flag. I'd probably care more if they came for this: But that isn't limiting anyone's freedom to have dissenting views. You can have all the dissenting views you want, and we can call you an rear end in a top hat for it and be outraged about it and refuse to partake in the business you work at. Don't want to lose your job? Don't make dumbass twitter comments. I don't post my patient's information on facebook, and I don't make racist or sexist jokes on social media, and if someone calls me out on it, I apologize and don't be a dickbag about it like most people I have see on social media do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
See, I guess I don't see it as losing the freedom to have dissenting views so much as I see it as exercising the freedom to change our views and the outward-facing of our governments. A lot of that is because the flags that we are debating came into real prominence in state expressions - at least in South Carolina - in the 1960s, and that kind of comes with a clearly conveyed rhetorical purpose. Now, some of that has to do with the centinneal of the war, but it's also inextricable from the tensions created by increasing agitation by minority Americans to fulfill the same ideals you're worried about. There's also a question of what's going to constitute "our history" as demographics shift - you say you're worried about taking away the history of your state because a flag may be seen as racist against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, but if a state is its people then what happens when your state is majority Mexican-American?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
The thing about the Confederate war aims is that they aren't a mystery open to widely varying interpretations due to lack of hard evidence, the assemblies that voted for secession wrote down and told everyone about them in their official secession proclamations. http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/ SPOILER ALERT: They would not shut the hell up about  OUR SLAVES (Between the statements issued by Texas, Mississippi, Virginia, Georgia and South Carolina they bring up the word "slave" or its variants no fewer than 83 loving times.) "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove." - A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:What were the other core objectives of the confederacy that overshadow protecting slavery and enshrining enslaving black people as a universal right? See, this is the bullshit that bothers me. You're more interested in proving what not-a-racist you are than you are in having a discussion. Its not your fault, its whats popular now - 15 years ago, people could discuss the nuance and theory and historiography without fear of being labeled 'evil' or 'racist' or whatever. I really think its bad to try and stamp out all dissent with shame, even if that dissent is really bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:If veneration of the statues is a problem then getting rid of the statues fixes the problem. Venerating the statues is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. The problem is people whitewashing the atrocity of the past. The evidence of that should stand. God knows there's enough British atrocity that has been forgotten and slipped out of public knowledge, because we have no monuments to it, nobody is forced to remember that we supported apartheid, or genocide, or subjugated half the known world to feed our own island a steady diet of luxuries. I wish we had statues to all the things we once did and held glorious. People should remember what abhorrent fucks we were, because forgetting it isn't making us any better.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Hey, no problem right? We're only eliminating Racism. You don't like Racism, do you? In my mind, its not about what we're stamping out. "Well don't have such wrong opinions, and we won't string you up for it!" is, in my view, a dangerous way of advancing the pricipals of 'tolerance' and 'fairness' and 'equality' that our society supposedly espouses. This is so dumb. "Sure right now it's removing a symbol of slavery and treason, but what if later it's kicking in your door and murdering you for reading Das Kapital?!" blarzgh posted:See, this is the bullshit that bothers me. You're more interested in proving what not-a-racist you are than you are in having a discussion. Its not your fault, its whats popular now - 15 years ago, people could discuss the nuance and theory and historiography without fear of being labeled 'evil' or 'racist' or whatever. I really think its bad to try and stamp out all dissent with shame, even if that dissent is really bad. No duder, you said it was an oversimplification to boil the core cause of the CSA down to slavery, you now have to explain what the other, non slavery, causes were that were central to the CSA. This isn't a hard thing, this is what a discussion is. No one's trying to stamp you out, we're engaging with what you're saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:See, this is the bullshit that bothers me. You're more interested in proving what not-a-racist you are than you are in having a discussion. Its not your fault, its whats popular now - 15 years ago, people could discuss the nuance and theory and historiography without fear of being labeled 'evil' or 'racist' or whatever. I really think its bad to try and stamp out all dissent with shame, even if that dissent is really bad. You're trying to pretend that getting rid of these would be some sort of insidious advance by big brother or something, when it's really just people waking up and realizing what a hateful, lovely, thing the flag stands for and taking steps to remove it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:See, this is the bullshit that bothers me. You're more interested in proving what not-a-racist you are than you are in having a discussion. Its not your fault, its whats popular now - 15 years ago, people could discuss the nuance and theory and historiography without fear of being labeled 'evil' or 'racist' or whatever. I really think its bad to try and stamp out all dissent with shame, even if that dissent is really bad. I can rephrase the question if you want: what were the core objectives of the Confederacy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
I'd prefer it if the only statues of Nathan Bedford Forrest were copies of a tasteful bronze showing him snarling as he prepares to burn a crucified Union soldier alive, or leading a Klan terrorist attack, but since most people wouldn't go for that, toppling them all and putting up Longstreet statues is acceptable.
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:See, this is the bullshit that bothers me. You're more interested in proving what not-a-racist you are than you are in having a discussion. Its not your fault, its whats popular now - 15 years ago, people could discuss the nuance and theory and historiography without fear of being labeled 'evil' or 'racist' or whatever. I really think its bad to try and stamp out all dissent with shame, even if that dissent is really bad. Isn't a lot of this because of the last 15 years of widespread digitalization and therefore broader access to primary sources leading to the popular revisionist narrative of secession falling out of favor if not being discredited beyond the usual reaches of historical scholarship?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
I always laugh about that drat flag because eventually they did come and take it at the Alamo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:I can rephrase the question if you want: what were the core objectives of the Confederacy? Here, I'll even provide him a clue! "Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." - Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens a few weeks before Fort Sumter was fired on by Confederate forces.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:I always laugh about that drat flag because eventually they did come and take it at the Alamo. entirely wrong battle and wrong outcome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:entirely wrong battle and wrong outcome Yes, I know about Gonzales, TX. But most sources put that particular cannon most likely ending up at the Alamo, where it was seized by the Mexican Army. https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/qvg01
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
Also the whole Spartia/Persia origins. Statistically most people smugly telling a more advanced and progressive army 'come and take it' tended to wind up dead and taken.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Venerating the statues is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem. The problem is people whitewashing the atrocity of the past. The evidence of that should stand. we literally have a gigantic museum in the capital called "the imperial war museum" and our galleries and other museums are filled to the brim with poo poo we stole and still refuse to give back England didn't forget the horrible poo poo it did, it just never acknowleged it was horrible to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
The Confederate Constitution looked suspiciously like the US Constitution, outside a few gems such as: Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4: "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 3: "The Confederate States may acquire new territory . . . In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and the territorial government." What was their purpose? Guess it's just impossible to know for sure! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:My opinion is that its bad to treat people and history like legos, where you can just throw out the pieces you don't like; that death of the loyal dissent and tolerance of ideas(even awful ones) is really bad for us. But this isn't happening and there is no rational reason to think that it will happen. No one is censoring google searches for "confederate flag." There is a huge difference between "governments and businesses are choosing not to display this symbol" and "this symbol is being purged from history."
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
blackguy32 posted:But that isn't limiting anyone's freedom to have dissenting views. You can have all the dissenting views you want, and we can call you an rear end in a top hat for it and be outraged about it and refuse to partake in the business you work at. Why shouldn't we tolerate people we disagree with? Why should we engage in financial coercion to force people to pretend to agree with us? What happens when the twitter comments that you want to make are unpopular? The Warszawa posted:See, I guess I don't see it as losing the freedom to have dissenting views so much as I see it as exercising the freedom to change our views and the outward-facing of our governments. For me, the issue of flag censorship is just a starting point to analyze and debate the New Flesh of the age of internet outrage. The Warszawa posted:There's also a question of what's going to constitute "our history" as demographics shift - you say you're worried about taking away the history of your state because a flag may be seen as racist against Mexicans and Mexican-Americans, but if a state is its people then what happens when your state is majority Mexican-American? We should engender tolerance for the minority and their views and culture and history, absolutely. poo poo, the math says I'll be one in 25 years. Can you imagine the outrage if me and a bunch of my white friends petitioned to have a statue of Chief Sitting Bull torn down, because it represented rebellion and murder or, would it not be ok, because Sitting Bull and his tribe saw themselves as OwlFancier posted:"noble defenders of liberty ... protecting their lands from the evil big gubmint" History changes and moves - beliefs are fluid throughout time. Villianizing people, and stamping out dissent is bad, no matter how right you are. It affects me that we don't believe that anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
OP, besides slavery, what were the other goals of the Confederacy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why shouldn't we tolerate people we disagree with? Why should we engage in financial coercion to force people to pretend to agree with us? What happens when the twitter comments that you want to make are unpopular? This is the stupidest thing you've written yet
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why shouldn't we tolerate people we disagree with? Why should we engage in financial coercion to force people to pretend to agree with us? What happens when the twitter comments that you want to make are unpopular? The difference is that Chief Sitting Bull was actually protecting his lands from invasion, while the Confederates launched a rebellion for their right to hold human beings as property.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why shouldn't we tolerate people we disagree with? Why should we engage in financial coercion to force people to pretend to agree with us? What happens when the twitter comments that you want to make are unpopular? I think that the removing Confederate flag from state houses is a really bad jumping off point for this discussion, not in the least because it wasn't driven by internet outrage at all but by a radicalized individual committing an act of terrorism explicitly because of the ideals that flag was arguably raised on the statehouse grounds to represent. Not to mention that no one is prohibited from flying such a flag - what it seems you're concerned about is that people who see someone flying that flag might take that action to communicate beliefs held by the flier. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Jun 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:40
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why shouldn't we tolerate people we disagree with? Why should we engage in financial coercion to force people to pretend to agree with us? What happens when the twitter comments that you want to make are unpopular? I would usually analyze why my twitter comments are unpopular. Then again, I don't have a facebook and I don't post on Twitter often. I don't post anything that I would want my employer seeing. Also, you can tolerate people you disagree with if you want, but I usually draw the line at hateful comments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:flag censorship Again, WHAT censorship? The state voting to not fly the flag isn't censorship. Stores deciding they don't want to sell something of their own volition isn't censorship. People giving you poo poo for making a bad argument on the internet aren't censoring you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 19:10 |
|
|
blarzgh posted:Why shouldn't we tolerate people we disagree with? Why should we engage in financial coercion to force people to pretend to agree with us? What happens when the twitter comments that you want to make are unpopular? Pretty sure if I wanted to tweet that black people are objectively inferior to white people and I should own them as property I would be pretty correctly ostracised for that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2015 18:42
|
|