Traitor is such a silly word to describe huge social issues though. It's competely meaningless. A civil war is fought to decide who gets to be the government. Its outcome decides who gets called traitor or not.
You mention Germany, and obviously during WW2 German traitors were almost certainly great people. And if they had been more politically powerful early on, perhaps the Nazis would have been the traitors.
If you have a civil war and call the losers traitors over a hundred years later, your attitude to national loyalty and awareness of how winners decide labels is so laughably poor I personally am going to walk away from you.
There are clearly many issues in the South. Being 'traitors' isn't one of them.
The confederacy formed a new government and considered itself completely separate to the United States and were the initiating belligerents
If traitors doesn't apply to them (them as in, the men responsible for forming the CSA, not the citizens of the states contained within) it doesn't really apply to anyone
It's entirely irrelevant, is my point.
Just as whether the entire USA were traitors to the rightful rule of the British Crown is completely irrelevant to the issue of racism in the modern US.
Yes one could make the very real argument that the founding fathers were traitors. It is a matter of history being written by the winner but well
that literally describes all history.
But the fact is the South were traitors, history would have always remembered them as traitors because southern victory only meant secession. They started the war, they wanted the war.
But i'm sure (slash I know) they teach a very different version of history that while at the bare minimum concedes they lost, allows them to be the good guy.
Cause hey, introspection is hard.
They were also short.
That also is irrelevant to the topic of racism in the South.
And yet you brought it up.
Also are you seriously making the argument that the civil war and it's perception in the south isn't relevant to modern southern racism?
Nope.
Someone else used the word traitors. I am saying THAT is irrelevant,
We are discussing the fact that you find it irrelevant.
You're just repeating that it's irrelevant without making any sort of argument about why or how it's irrelevant.
So again, I do not think the modern South, or even specifically the individuals that fly the bars and stars are traitors. That would be a ridiculous argument to make. However, the actual secessionist were traitors and the defeated souths inability to accept they were in the wrong vis-a-vis sedition still greatly contributes to the attitudes of the modern South, both racial and social.
I missed this earlier, but no public school is going to sing praises of the confederacy in the deep south (at least, from all accounts I've seen). Lots of folk fly the Virginia Battle Flag and talk about freedom and gun ownership and all that jazz but that's not something they learn in schools. That's a cultural thing that's typically passed down from rural poor father to rural poor son the same as distrust of city-folk and government types are of any rural poor culture. You occasionally see stories about a wingnut teacher here or there but those cases
I am obviously only a single anecdote but I've had a few too many arguments about how the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. The exploitation of the white poor is horrendous of course, I don't think anyone is making the argument that people aren't essential people. I don't think my points are in opposition to yours.
I made an argument. You didn't address my argument.
I have addressed your argument multiple times. The post you quote addresses your argument. Other people have addressed your argument:
The term "traitor" is relevant to discussions of Southern racism due to the Civil War mainly being fought over the right to own human chatel.
The ideological difference by which the schism of North and South differed is racial. It is not a mere history's winners/losers. Most instances of direct federal intervention into southern affairs has been and continues to be in regards to overt racist actions against racial and social minorities.
I can understand the animosity towards the word "traitor" and certainly it is not a charitable term to the Southern States. However, it is my feeling that subsequent and continued movements and attitudes; Jim Crow, the Lost Cause, and War of Northern Aggression, created the atmosphere of political divide and the continued use of the word "traitor".
Using the example of Germany from earlier: no one refers to modern Germany as Nazis but Nazis are called Nazis when the term fits.
They were explicitly taught in High School that the civil war was entirely the fault of Lincoln marching on the South and that the South was merely defending themselves and would never have marched into the North if they didn't think it was the only way to end the war. It was the Northerners that did all the burning and raping and pillaging, not those fine upstanding southern generals.
I have to hear about this crap every time Lincoln comes up whether in a film or on Jeopardy.
Grad in 2002 from SWVA, I've said it before on these forums, NOVA likes being north and SWVA loves being "real virginia" and the south, to a over exaggerated fault. I spent school years split, but did middle/high school in SWVA. The schools absolutely taught no such thing. It talked a bit about major things/events like Sherman "burning the south", but it never painted the south in a good context. I'm not claiming what you said was false, just trying to bring focus that the area that loves its southern pride didn't bother to take this view. The years and therefore state education programs might not have lined up with my experience though, or maybe she had a good ol' boy teacher who went off the curriculum path. None of the books took this view either from what I remember, so I am pretty sure it wasnt my teachers not towing the line.
To be fair, I have also heard the civil war wasn't fought over slavery from individuals whom came from non-Southern state.
I also find it hard to believe those kinds of things would be taught in school and not simply adopted through cultural osmosis.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
They were explicitly taught in High School that the civil war was entirely the fault of Lincoln marching on the South and that the South was merely defending themselves and would never have marched into the North if they didn't think it was the only way to end the war. It was the Northerners that did all the burning and raping and pillaging, not those fine upstanding southern generals.
I have to hear about this crap every time Lincoln comes up whether in a film or on Jeopardy.
Grad in 2002 from SWVA, I've said it before on these forums, NOVA likes being north and SWVA loves being "real virginia" and the south, to a over exaggerated fault. I spent school years split, but did middle/high school in SWVA. The schools absolutely taught no such thing. It talked a bit about major things/events like Sherman "burning the south", but it never painted the south in a good context. I'm not claiming what you said was false, just trying to bring focus that the area that loves its southern pride didn't bother to take this view. The years and therefore state education programs might not have lined up with my experience though, or maybe she had a good ol' boy teacher who went off the curriculum path. None of the books took this view either from what I remember, so I am pretty sure it wasnt my teachers not towing the line.
To be fair, I have also heard the civil war wasn't fought over slavery from individuals whom came from non-Southern state.
It's true. The civil war was fought over the issue of superhero registration.
Anyway isn't it more that it's a failure to explicitly say it was fought over slavery than saying it explicitly wasn't?
+1
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
My southern public school phrased the cause of the war as "Slavery in moral, economic, and political reasons" with pretty much all possible interpretations coming back to the phrase "...mostly due to slavery in the south." Concepts like the incompatible economies of the north and south, the political fallout of the Mason-Dixon line, and the social unrest of the rural poor in the south leading to the cause of the war are all tied to the fact that these issues were rooted in slavery.
And that's pretty much textbook. A yokel teacher might talk some silliness but he would be going off script of the official documentation.
Now that's not to say some "charitable" facts aren't more focused on in history. My history classes went into great detail about the reorientation of the state legislature and cabinet positions after "carpetbagger" governors were appointed by the north during reconstruction, which is both true and interesting, but also fairly pejorative in context since the reforms were meant to perpetuate inequality. So problems exist.
But ignoring/denying slavery as the cause of the war really wasn't and isn't a thing.
They were explicitly taught in High School that the civil war was entirely the fault of Lincoln marching on the South and that the South was merely defending themselves and would never have marched into the North if they didn't think it was the only way to end the war. It was the Northerners that did all the burning and raping and pillaging, not those fine upstanding southern generals.
I have to hear about this crap every time Lincoln comes up whether in a film or on Jeopardy.
Grad in 2002 from SWVA, I've said it before on these forums, NOVA likes being north and SWVA loves being "real virginia" and the south, to a over exaggerated fault. I spent school years split, but did middle/high school in SWVA. The schools absolutely taught no such thing. It talked a bit about major things/events like Sherman "burning the south", but it never painted the south in a good context. I'm not claiming what you said was false, just trying to bring focus that the area that loves its southern pride didn't bother to take this view. The years and therefore state education programs might not have lined up with my experience though, or maybe she had a good ol' boy teacher who went off the curriculum path. None of the books took this view either from what I remember, so I am pretty sure it wasnt my teachers not towing the line.
That's actually pretty heartening, though it somewhat mystifies me how my wife always talks about Lincoln "invading Virginia and starting the civil war" every time his name gets mentioned.
Her grandmother has a similar rant about Roosevelt that comes up about once every holiday, but she's from Spokane so who knows.
They were explicitly taught in High School that the civil war was entirely the fault of Lincoln marching on the South and that the South was merely defending themselves and would never have marched into the North if they didn't think it was the only way to end the war. It was the Northerners that did all the burning and raping and pillaging, not those fine upstanding southern generals.
I have to hear about this crap every time Lincoln comes up whether in a film or on Jeopardy.
Grad in 2002 from SWVA, I've said it before on these forums, NOVA likes being north and SWVA loves being "real virginia" and the south, to a over exaggerated fault. I spent school years split, but did middle/high school in SWVA. The schools absolutely taught no such thing. It talked a bit about major things/events like Sherman "burning the south", but it never painted the south in a good context. I'm not claiming what you said was false, just trying to bring focus that the area that loves its southern pride didn't bother to take this view. The years and therefore state education programs might not have lined up with my experience though, or maybe she had a good ol' boy teacher who went off the curriculum path. None of the books took this view either from what I remember, so I am pretty sure it wasnt my teachers not towing the line.
That's actually pretty heartening, though it somewhat mystifies me how my wife always talks about Lincoln "invading Virginia and starting the civil war" every time his name gets mentioned.
Her grandmother has a similar rant about Roosevelt that comes up about once every holiday, but she's from Spokane so who knows.
So, like, Ferguson....
+14
Options
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
They were explicitly taught in High School that the civil war was entirely the fault of Lincoln marching on the South and that the South was merely defending themselves and would never have marched into the North if they didn't think it was the only way to end the war. It was the Northerners that did all the burning and raping and pillaging, not those fine upstanding southern generals.
I have to hear about this crap every time Lincoln comes up whether in a film or on Jeopardy.
Grad in 2002 from SWVA, I've said it before on these forums, NOVA likes being north and SWVA loves being "real virginia" and the south, to a over exaggerated fault. I spent school years split, but did middle/high school in SWVA. The schools absolutely taught no such thing. It talked a bit about major things/events like Sherman "burning the south", but it never painted the south in a good context. I'm not claiming what you said was false, just trying to bring focus that the area that loves its southern pride didn't bother to take this view. The years and therefore state education programs might not have lined up with my experience though, or maybe she had a good ol' boy teacher who went off the curriculum path. None of the books took this view either from what I remember, so I am pretty sure it wasnt my teachers not towing the line.
That's actually pretty heartening, though it somewhat mystifies me how my wife always talks about Lincoln "invading Virginia and starting the civil war" every time his name gets mentioned.
Her grandmother has a similar rant about Roosevelt that comes up about once every holiday, but she's from Spokane so who knows.
So, like, Ferguson....
Has this become the catch-all racism thread? Because a debate over whether racism is culturally entrenched due to historical factors seems to deserve its own thread, if it's something the mods feel D&D could handle.
I'm pretty sure the Ferguson killing was caused by a toxic police culture, and I feel like it's a stretch to say that culture is more strongly defined along north/south border lines.
The killing itself was a result of a police culture that worships cops who shoot the bad guys, and a stratified city where black people simply don't have options.
The reaction to the killing, and the incredibly loud chorus of how much Michael Brown deserved it for being so thuggish and acting all thug like a thug would do is completely racist.
They were explicitly taught in High School that the civil war was entirely the fault of Lincoln marching on the South and that the South was merely defending themselves and would never have marched into the North if they didn't think it was the only way to end the war. It was the Northerners that did all the burning and raping and pillaging, not those fine upstanding southern generals.
I have to hear about this crap every time Lincoln comes up whether in a film or on Jeopardy.
Grad in 2002 from SWVA, I've said it before on these forums, NOVA likes being north and SWVA loves being "real virginia" and the south, to a over exaggerated fault. I spent school years split, but did middle/high school in SWVA. The schools absolutely taught no such thing. It talked a bit about major things/events like Sherman "burning the south", but it never painted the south in a good context. I'm not claiming what you said was false, just trying to bring focus that the area that loves its southern pride didn't bother to take this view. The years and therefore state education programs might not have lined up with my experience though, or maybe she had a good ol' boy teacher who went off the curriculum path. None of the books took this view either from what I remember, so I am pretty sure it wasnt my teachers not towing the line.
To be fair, I have also heard the civil war wasn't fought over slavery from individuals whom came from non-Southern state.
I also find it hard to believe those kinds of things would be taught in school and not simply adopted through cultural osmosis.
I've also heard it from a very left-wing history professor who was effectively insisting the white population in the north was too racist to have actually fought against the concept of slavery.
They were explicitly taught in High School that the civil war was entirely the fault of Lincoln marching on the South and that the South was merely defending themselves and would never have marched into the North if they didn't think it was the only way to end the war. It was the Northerners that did all the burning and raping and pillaging, not those fine upstanding southern generals.
I have to hear about this crap every time Lincoln comes up whether in a film or on Jeopardy.
Grad in 2002 from SWVA, I've said it before on these forums, NOVA likes being north and SWVA loves being "real virginia" and the south, to a over exaggerated fault. I spent school years split, but did middle/high school in SWVA. The schools absolutely taught no such thing. It talked a bit about major things/events like Sherman "burning the south", but it never painted the south in a good context. I'm not claiming what you said was false, just trying to bring focus that the area that loves its southern pride didn't bother to take this view. The years and therefore state education programs might not have lined up with my experience though, or maybe she had a good ol' boy teacher who went off the curriculum path. None of the books took this view either from what I remember, so I am pretty sure it wasnt my teachers not towing the line.
To be fair, I have also heard the civil war wasn't fought over slavery from individuals whom came from non-Southern state.
I also find it hard to believe those kinds of things would be taught in school and not simply adopted through cultural osmosis.
I've also heard it from a very left-wing history professor who was effectively insisting the white population in the north was too racist to have actually fought against the concept of slavery.
Strange bedfellows and what not...
Yeah, the abolitionist movement wasn't very strong at the start of the war, and certain northern cities that had economic ties to the south were had quite a bit of secessionist sympathy.
Traitor is such a silly word to describe huge social issues though. It's competely meaningless. A civil war is fought to decide who gets to be the government. Its outcome decides who gets called traitor or not.
You mention Germany, and obviously during WW2 German traitors were almost certainly great people. And if they had been more politically powerful early on, perhaps the Nazis would have been the traitors.
If you have a civil war and call the losers traitors over a hundred years later, your attitude to national loyalty and awareness of how winners decide labels is so laughably poor I personally am going to walk away from you.
There are clearly many issues in the South. Being 'traitors' isn't one of them.
The confederacy formed a new government and considered itself completely separate to the United States and were the initiating belligerents
If traitors doesn't apply to them (them as in, the men responsible for forming the CSA, not the citizens of the states contained within) it doesn't really apply to anyone
This may be something half-remembered from high school, but I seem to recall that, due to how the Union was formed in the first place, states had (and still had, up until the Civil War) the legal right to get the fuck out of dodge at any time if they felt like it. Like, the Union wouldn't have formed in the first place if some states had felt like they were locked in permanently, so provisions had to be made to allow for that.
Like I said though, this is highschool history that I may not even be remembering correctly.
Still betting we don't see any fired cops from this bullshit.
You probably won't. Because it typically doesn't work that way. What will happen is they will take the "Offer" and be under DoJ microscope for awhile while they get policy changes, training and the like. And any cop that even sneezes wrong will be subject to suspension or other disciplinary action. This is the end result that is best for the department and for the surrounding population. Because we did want the systematic targeting to stop or be heavily mitigated... right?
Posts
I have addressed your argument multiple times. The post you quote addresses your argument. Other people have addressed your argument:
The term "traitor" is relevant to discussions of Southern racism due to the Civil War mainly being fought over the right to own human chatel.
The ideological difference by which the schism of North and South differed is racial. It is not a mere history's winners/losers. Most instances of direct federal intervention into southern affairs has been and continues to be in regards to overt racist actions against racial and social minorities.
I can understand the animosity towards the word "traitor" and certainly it is not a charitable term to the Southern States. However, it is my feeling that subsequent and continued movements and attitudes; Jim Crow, the Lost Cause, and War of Northern Aggression, created the atmosphere of political divide and the continued use of the word "traitor".
Using the example of Germany from earlier: no one refers to modern Germany as Nazis but Nazis are called Nazis when the term fits.
To be fair, I have also heard the civil war wasn't fought over slavery from individuals whom came from non-Southern state.
I also find it hard to believe those kinds of things would be taught in school and not simply adopted through cultural osmosis.
It's true. The civil war was fought over the issue of superhero registration.
Anyway isn't it more that it's a failure to explicitly say it was fought over slavery than saying it explicitly wasn't?
And that's pretty much textbook. A yokel teacher might talk some silliness but he would be going off script of the official documentation.
Now that's not to say some "charitable" facts aren't more focused on in history. My history classes went into great detail about the reorientation of the state legislature and cabinet positions after "carpetbagger" governors were appointed by the north during reconstruction, which is both true and interesting, but also fairly pejorative in context since the reforms were meant to perpetuate inequality. So problems exist.
But ignoring/denying slavery as the cause of the war really wasn't and isn't a thing.
It makes sense that cultural impressions would take a more immutable for.
That's actually pretty heartening, though it somewhat mystifies me how my wife always talks about Lincoln "invading Virginia and starting the civil war" every time his name gets mentioned.
Her grandmother has a similar rant about Roosevelt that comes up about once every holiday, but she's from Spokane so who knows.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
She has no problem with Teddy, but she's often said the one thing she wants to do before she dies is spit on FDR's grave.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
So, like, Ferguson....
I got a bunch of reasons your wife might want to reflect on that: http://livingnewdeal.org/us/wv/
Oh right, because socialism.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Has this become the catch-all racism thread? Because a debate over whether racism is culturally entrenched due to historical factors seems to deserve its own thread, if it's something the mods feel D&D could handle.
I'm pretty sure the Ferguson killing was caused by a toxic police culture, and I feel like it's a stretch to say that culture is more strongly defined along north/south border lines.
The reaction to the killing, and the incredibly loud chorus of how much Michael Brown deserved it for being so thuggish and acting all thug like a thug would do is completely racist.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
I've also heard it from a very left-wing history professor who was effectively insisting the white population in the north was too racist to have actually fought against the concept of slavery.
Strange bedfellows and what not...
Yeah, the abolitionist movement wasn't very strong at the start of the war, and certain northern cities that had economic ties to the south were had quite a bit of secessionist sympathy.
This may be something half-remembered from high school, but I seem to recall that, due to how the Union was formed in the first place, states had (and still had, up until the Civil War) the legal right to get the fuck out of dodge at any time if they felt like it. Like, the Union wouldn't have formed in the first place if some states had felt like they were locked in permanently, so provisions had to be made to allow for that.
Like I said though, this is highschool history that I may not even be remembering correctly.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I moved before high school, to a smaller town (pop. ~60,000), where I learned USA USA USA! world history and pro-Confederate-revisionist U.S. history.
I just don't care in the slightest.
I do care about Ferguson and modern racism, though.
Please tell me this means you spent a year on Lake Placid and such, rather than what it suggests.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
The Justice Department has determined the Ferguson PD is hella racist.
Nothing about actually fixing it though. At least not yet.
At this point, they get The Offer. Enter into a consent decree with DoJ, or face civil suits.
Eh, it's more like "Breaking: Justice Department finishes paperwork declaring the sky is, indeed, blue".
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ferguson-police-racist-bias-justice-report-20150304-story.html
But maybe we will start seeing that police department fixed up. Maybe.
Still betting we don't see any fired cops from this bullshit.
http://www.vox.com/2015/3/4/8148915/ferguson-police-racism-doj-report
You probably won't. Because it typically doesn't work that way. What will happen is they will take the "Offer" and be under DoJ microscope for awhile while they get policy changes, training and the like. And any cop that even sneezes wrong will be subject to suspension or other disciplinary action. This is the end result that is best for the department and for the surrounding population. Because we did want the systematic targeting to stop or be heavily mitigated... right?
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
What, you don't have have a cis-WASP-male only email group in your office?
How else would you find out what happens when a blonde, a fag, the pope, and Obama are all on a life raft?
Depends.
Some of the black cops can be just as bad as the white ones(or worst). Just to show they belong in the club.
The DOJ could probably pick a random sampling of suburban PDs nationwide and find similar behavior.
Its damning to put it lightly.
A calm discussion about how fucked Ferguson is?