Given that some are espousing opinions whereby the soldiers of a conflict should be respected/not-respected based upon being on the wrong side of a conflict or the conflict fighting for terrible things, comparisons to how German soldiers were treated following WW2 are rather appropriate to the thread's discussion.
Clumping everyone together as "should be honoured" is the politically correct thing to do given the options. If you want to call out some particular soldiers for their war crimes that's all well and good, but most soldiers do not have the luxury of discussing with a group of intellectuals the validity of the merits of war or the cause at hand.
You're choosing to honour the concept of nationalism and fighting for your country. Some hippies may not agree with this but as president of a country "at war" Obama could hardly have considered any other option.
So how does this work the other way around? Northern soldiers who didn't actually believe slavery was bad? Do they deserve a wreath?
I think memorial day (and the European variants of it for the 1st and 2nd world wars) should be about all soldiers who died. Confederate soldiers fought to make their part of the country break away from the rest, but that does not make their deaths a lesser tragedy than the death of a guy from the north.
To address the Nazi soldiers thing: this has everything to do with Germany refusing to come to terms with that black page of their history. It would do them well to stand still by the countless boys who were drafted/talked into the army and killed on the field. They were humans, not devils from another dimension with no feelings, dreams and fears.
You really think most Confederate soldiers knew what they were fighting for? I guarantee a whole shitload of it was politician fearmongering about how the "government" was "going to take away state's rights" and it was their "duty as a person to defend their home". And you think the Union soldiers were white knights of peace? Give me a break. I'm sure a majority of them joined due to draft/ a sense of fear for their home, the same as the Confederates
Saying people shouldn't be honored because they were born south of the Mason-Dixon is both reductionary and ignorant
Hell, it probably wasn't even that.
It was probably more like, "Press gang shows up at your door, asks if there's any males in the house older than 14, welcome to the Confederate Army".
we shouldn't just say "oh well you fought for the wrong side, your a horrible person and deserve no respect".
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of approach.
Really? Even knowing how soldiers are used and misused by politicians?
If you're supporting an evil cause, then you share some amount of blame for it. Having noble intentions or whatever doesn't make it okay.
If you're willingly and knowingly supporting an evil cause, you share some amount of blame for it. If you're coerced, or drafted, or lied to into supporting an evil cause, then the blame falls on those who forced/fooled you into supporting the cause.
Obviously you didn't read the whole thing, since I explicitly said I didn't want people Godwinning the thread.
Because you don't have an answer and it's a question you don't want to face? Because I see precisely zero differences between the two.
Do note that I have not actually taken a position on this issue, so your insinuations are baseless.
It's fairly obvious what your position is even only given what little effort you've put into your own thread.
If we are misrepresenting your position then do us a favor and actually participate in the thread you made. You're not the moderator of a debate; offer your opinion.
i have a feeling that the above concept (restated if necessary) is likely true for all wars.
the civil war was fought over a particularly vile issue: slavery (and states' rights and shit like that too, but the most important issue was slavery). slavery is pretty much the worst possible thing i can think of, next to genocide.
now, if we honor the soldiers who were, in effect, fighting on the side of slavery, regardless of how innocent or ignorant they personally were, then why don't we simply honor all soldiers, regardless of what cause they fight for? what would have happened if they won? what kind of world would we live in?
i don't think every soldier is a victim. i don't think every soldier should be honored or memorialized. there are some soldiers who deserve to be forgotten and possibly even despised. does the confederate soldier deserve to be despised? i don't know. maybe, maybe not.
but he certainly doesn't deserve to be honored.
Talk to some veterans. Soldiers, on the whole, don't fight for a cause. They fight for their friends, their family, and, most of all, the other soldier next to him. If he was from New York instead of Virginia he'd probably have been wearing blue instead of grey.
then he would have been honored.
Also, please enlighten me how atrocities made for the right side of a fight deserves to be honored while the valour on the wrong side deserves to be forgotten?
because we all agree it's the wrong side. and i don't mean wrong, like "losing side." i mean wrong side like morally fucking bankrupt.
if they won, there might still be legally owned slaves on this continent today. i dont think the government or society's role is to honor "valor". i think its role is to teach and ensure that people are happy, responsible and good (or moral, if you prefer).
we shouldn't just say "oh well you fought for the wrong side, your a horrible person and deserve no respect".
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of approach.
Really? Even knowing how soldiers are used and misused by politicians?
If you're supporting an evil cause, then you share some amount of blame for it. Having noble intentions or whatever doesn't make it okay.
Man, what was it like not paying taxes for the past 7 years HamHamJ
Paying taxes is involuntary. From what I've read, the Confederate Army was mostly volunteer (about 20% drafted).
Which brings us back to Rent's point that most Confederate soldiers who signed up were told they were defending their homes against an oppressive federal government, not that they were protecting some rich plantation owners' profit margin from getting raped by the loss of their slave labour force.
Richy on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
we shouldn't just say "oh well you fought for the wrong side, your a horrible person and deserve no respect".
Personally I wouldn't have a problem with this kind of approach.
Really? Even knowing how soldiers are used and misused by politicians?
If you're supporting an evil cause, then you share some amount of blame for it. Having noble intentions or whatever doesn't make it okay.
Man, what was it like not paying taxes for the past 7 years HamHamJ
Paying taxes is involuntary. From what I've read, the Confederate Army was mostly volunteer (about 20% drafted).
Doesn't matter. He supported an evil cause
Also, Richy: What about supporting a cause which is considered evil but with the attempt to improve the situation (why I joined the Army and are willing to go to Iraq; attempting to make positive change there)
the way i see it, there is no legitimate method of making a distinction between the soldier on the ground and the commander or administration that directs that soldier.
the only soldiers that i think are worthy of distinction are those that actually disobey orders to obey their conscience (and likely end up with dishonorable discharge, court martial, imprisonment, etc., etc.) this is the only time i can really consider a soldier a person and not a weapon.
were there confederate soldiers who defected to the north because they disagreed with slavery? if so, i would have no problems honoring them. the others? not so much.
This arguement is ludicrous
You really think most Confederate soldiers knew what they were fighting for? I guarantee a whole shitload of it was politician fearmongering about how the "government" was "going to take away state's rights" and it was their "duty as a person to defend their home". And you think the Union soldiers were white knights of peace? Give me a break. I'm sure a majority of them joined due to draft/ a sense of fear for their home, the same as the Confederates
Saying people shouldn't be honored because they were born south of the Mason-Dixon is both reductionary and ignorant
what you are saying, in effect, is that all soldiers are victims. that is total fucking bullshit.
i went to military school. my brother is in the special forces. soldiers arent morons and they arent just "defending" their country or whatever.
you can patronize them all you want, but each soldier on the field knows exactly what he's fighting for.
So honest question, how does this differ from doing the same for say the Nazis? Is there a certain cut off when we go 'alright, that is just too fucked up a cause'? I mean it's not like the average german soldier at the time fought because they god damn hated those filthy jews, or were even aware of the camps.
Read the fucking OP
And in all honesty it's not that different, a comparative minority of German soldiers in WWII were responsible for the atrocities that occurred
I did, it didn't answer my question.
the way i see it, there is no legitimate method of making a distinction between the soldier on the ground and the commander or administration that directs that soldier.
the only soldiers that i think are worthy of distinction are those that actually disobey orders to obey their conscience (and likely end up with dishonorable discharge, court martial, imprisonment, etc., etc.) this is the only time i can really consider a soldier a person and not a weapon.
were there confederate soldiers who defected to the north because they disagreed with slavery? if so, i would have no problems honoring them. the others? not so much.
Soldiers who disobey orders in combat are told they will be shot, this is the case even today.
override367 on
0
Options
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
i have a feeling that the above concept (restated if necessary) is likely true for all wars.
the civil war was fought over a particularly vile issue: slavery (and states' rights and shit like that too, but the most important issue was slavery). slavery is pretty much the worst possible thing i can think of, next to genocide.
now, if we honor the soldiers who were, in effect, fighting on the side of slavery, regardless of how innocent or ignorant they personally were, then why don't we simply honor all soldiers, regardless of what cause they fight for? what would have happened if they won? what kind of world would we live in?
i don't think every soldier is a victim. i don't think every soldier should be honored or memorialized. there are some soldiers who deserve to be forgotten and possibly even despised. does the confederate soldier deserve to be despised? i don't know. maybe, maybe not.
but he certainly doesn't deserve to be honored.
Talk to some veterans. Soldiers, on the whole, don't fight for a cause. They fight for their friends, their family, and, most of all, the other soldier next to him. If he was from New York instead of Virginia he'd probably have been wearing blue instead of grey.
then he would have been honored.
So people's worth is determined primarily by what vagina they get yanked out of and not what they themselves have control over. Oh fortune, so like a moon...
Also, please enlighten me how atrocities made for the right side of a fight deserves to be honored while the valour on the wrong side deserves to be forgotten?
because we all agree it's the wrong side. and i don't mean wrong, like "losing side." i mean wrong side like morally fucking bankrupt.
if they won, there might still be legally owned slaves on this continent today. i dont think the government or society's role is to honor "valor". i think its role is to teach and ensure that people are happy, responsible and good (or moral, if you prefer).
Yet you do believe it is the government's and society's role to honor atrocities. Provided those committing the atrocities were on the right side of the fight, of course.
Soldiers who disobey orders in combat are told they will be shot, this is the case even today.
why would you wait until actual combat to disobey? no one disobeys on the field. you simply refuse to enter combat.
"Shoot into that building, the enemy is in there"
"But it's filled with school children!"
"SHOOT INTO THAT BUILDING"
Anyway I don't know if he's telling me the truth, but my best friend is a marine, he tells me it was made quite clear that they'd be shot if they disobeyed an order in the field. This strikes me as appalling.
Granted I understand how the whole concept of chain of command overrides any concept of free will, your officers are the ones who are supposed to know the big picture, not you. It just strikes me as bizarre and slightly surreal that an officer can shoot one or more of his guys, I mean they have guns too.
you can patronize them all you want, but each soldier on the field knows exactly what he's fighting for.
Abstract social/political theories enacted by distant governments!
Seriously. You think the governments tell soldiers exactly what it is they're doing? No, they dress it up and feed it to them. They don't get told the truth, they're sold a story. What were soldiers fighting for in Iraq? I couldn't even tell you, and neither could the government considering how often they changed their story.
So people's worth is determined primarily by what vagina they get yanked out of and not what they themselves have control over. Oh fortune, so like a moon...
pulling a trigger does not equal control? seriously? no personal responsibility for fucking killing people in the field of combat? none for joining the army? none for waking up on the day of combat, picking up your weapon, loading it, taking aim, shooting someone in the head?
moniker is this really, truly your stance? seriously?
Yet you do believe it is the government's and society's role to honor atrocities. Provided those committing the atrocities were on the right side of the fight, of course.
im not actually sure what atrocities you're talking about. are you talking about misconduct? torture? i dont think any of these things should be honored. if you know about some civil war soldier who was torturing and raping or whatever, line him up. i'd have been the first on line to request his imprisonment or death or whatever punishment is appropriate.
you can patronize them all you want, but each soldier on the field knows exactly what he's fighting for.
Abstract social/political theories enacted by distant governments!
Seriously. You think the governments tell soldiers exactly what it is they're doing? No, they dress it up and feed it to them. They don't get told the truth, they're sold a story. What were soldiers fighting for in Iraq? I couldn't even tell you, and neither could the government considering how often they changed their story.
Well my friend tells me he was fighting in Iraq to... apparently disarm Iraqis who now had essentially no police force or military to protect them, as his job was to go house to house and confiscate weapons. This didn't sit right with him but it's not the kind of thing you question.
link suggest that 83% of the non-slave population in the slave states could read.
yes, you are patronizing the soldiers and it's kind of ridiculous.
Ketherial on
0
Options
SarksusATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Is this the appropriate time to cite the Milgram experiment and further explain that it's more unusual for someone to disobey an authority figure than obey one regardless of what they're being told to do?
I'm not super studied up on the south during the civil war, but I'd presume that they weren't told the whole truth. I mean it's not like they could google it.
Anyway I don't know if he's telling me the truth, but my best friend is a marine, he tells me it was made quite clear that they'd be shot if they disobeyed an order in the field. This strikes me as appalling.
Granted I understand how the whole concept of chain of command overrides any concept of free will, your officers are the ones who are supposed to know the big picture, not you. It just strikes me as bizarre and slightly surreal that an officer can shoot one or more of his guys, I mean they have guns too.
youre correct about disobeying in the field. but no one does that. im sure you can find the numbers somewhere.
Also, Richy: What about supporting a cause which is considered evil but with the attempt to improve the situation (why I joined the Army and are willing to go to Iraq; attempting to make positive change there)
Then the situation is not black and white but has some shades of moral grey?
Given that some are espousing opinions whereby the soldiers of a conflict should be respected/not-respected based upon being on the wrong side of a conflict or the conflict fighting for terrible things, comparisons to how German soldiers were treated following WW2 are rather appropriate to the thread's discussion.
Clumping everyone together as "should be honoured" is the politically correct thing to do given the options. If you want to call out some particular soldiers for their war crimes that's all well and good, but most soldiers do not have the luxury of discussing with a group of intellectuals the validity of the merits of war or the cause at hand.
That's called drawing a distinction between soldiers and criminals.
You're choosing to honour the concept of nationalism and fighting for your country. Some hippies may not agree with this but as president of a country "at war" Obama could hardly have considered any other option.
I don't believe that honoring the dead on days like Memorial Day and Veteran's Day is a celebration of nationalism. Most of the men and women who've bled and died did so for reasons more tangible and more precious than some abstract ideal of nation. Honoring them and their sacrifice is honoring something noble in the human condition, the ability and choice to give one's life for those tangible, precious reasons.
Now, plenty of people hijack that into a celebration of flag waving and "Rah, Rah, Go Us!" but they're missing the point entirely.
link suggest that 83% of the non-slave population in the slave states could read.
yes, you are patronizing the soldiers and it's kind of ridiculous.
Read to what extent? Do you honestly think some farm boy in SC who grew up staring at a mule's ass all day (or a tenement kid in boston who grew up working in a cotton mill all day) actually sat around reading and had any idea about political theory or human rights or any of that?
Hell, from your own link:
Remember that literacy, in the sense that these statistics reflect, most likely refers to the people's ability to comprehend written words, not necessarily write grammatically correct sentences with proper spelling.
The people who fought in the Civil War were mostly scared teenagers who had no idea about the real reasons they were fighting against each other and did what they were told to do because if they didn't they'd either get thrown in jail or flat-out shot. This is true for both sides. Just like, you know, damn near every single war in history.
Anyway I don't know if he's telling me the truth, but my best friend is a marine, he tells me it was made quite clear that they'd be shot if they disobeyed an order in the field. This strikes me as appalling.
Granted I understand how the whole concept of chain of command overrides any concept of free will, your officers are the ones who are supposed to know the big picture, not you. It just strikes me as bizarre and slightly surreal that an officer can shoot one or more of his guys, I mean they have guns too.
youre correct about disobeying in the field. but no one does that. im sure you can find the numbers somewhere.
I mean the thing to me that's weird is, if someone is planning on disobeying an order they find reprehensible (like murdering a bunch of children), their best bet is to shoot their CO or they get shot themselves.
The Civil War was not as simple as Slavery vs Anti-Slavery.
The South had some legitimate reasons for wanting to break away.
I think hell just froze over, because I am agreeing with Obs.
Slavery played a role, but the war was also about states rights, and the southern states feeling like they were contributing more to the nation than the smaller northern states, but that the northern states had an undue amount of control over the entire nation.
In some ways, it was Lincoln who made it more about Slavery than anything else when he took away the South's slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation as a sort of punish to them for ever trying to break away.
Posts
Clumping everyone together as "should be honoured" is the politically correct thing to do given the options. If you want to call out some particular soldiers for their war crimes that's all well and good, but most soldiers do not have the luxury of discussing with a group of intellectuals the validity of the merits of war or the cause at hand.
You're choosing to honour the concept of nationalism and fighting for your country. Some hippies may not agree with this but as president of a country "at war" Obama could hardly have considered any other option.
I think memorial day (and the European variants of it for the 1st and 2nd world wars) should be about all soldiers who died. Confederate soldiers fought to make their part of the country break away from the rest, but that does not make their deaths a lesser tragedy than the death of a guy from the north.
To address the Nazi soldiers thing: this has everything to do with Germany refusing to come to terms with that black page of their history. It would do them well to stand still by the countless boys who were drafted/talked into the army and killed on the field. They were humans, not devils from another dimension with no feelings, dreams and fears.
It was probably more like, "Press gang shows up at your door, asks if there's any males in the house older than 14, welcome to the Confederate Army".
If you're supporting an evil cause, then you share some amount of blame for it. Having noble intentions or whatever doesn't make it okay.
Man, what was it like not paying taxes for the past 7 years HamHamJ
Paying taxes is involuntary. From what I've read, the Confederate Army was mostly volunteer (about 20% drafted).
It's fairly obvious what your position is even only given what little effort you've put into your own thread.
If we are misrepresenting your position then do us a favor and actually participate in the thread you made. You're not the moderator of a debate; offer your opinion.
Thank you, Thoreau. I didn't realize they had WiFi in prison.
then he would have been honored.
because we all agree it's the wrong side. and i don't mean wrong, like "losing side." i mean wrong side like morally fucking bankrupt.
if they won, there might still be legally owned slaves on this continent today. i dont think the government or society's role is to honor "valor". i think its role is to teach and ensure that people are happy, responsible and good (or moral, if you prefer).
Also, Richy: What about supporting a cause which is considered evil but with the attempt to improve the situation (why I joined the Army and are willing to go to Iraq; attempting to make positive change there)
what you are saying, in effect, is that all soldiers are victims. that is total fucking bullshit.
i went to military school. my brother is in the special forces. soldiers arent morons and they arent just "defending" their country or whatever.
you can patronize them all you want, but each soldier on the field knows exactly what he's fighting for.
Soldiers who disobey orders in combat are told they will be shot, this is the case even today.
Fuck you you fucking piece of fucking shit
You don't know shit about me you ass
So people's worth is determined primarily by what vagina they get yanked out of and not what they themselves have control over. Oh fortune, so like a moon...
Yet you do believe it is the government's and society's role to honor atrocities. Provided those committing the atrocities were on the right side of the fight, of course.
You do realize most of these people probably couldn't even read
Also, nobody is patronizing the military, we're being realistic about the historical situation we're dealing with here.
why would you wait until actual combat to disobey? no one disobeys on the field. you simply refuse to enter combat.
Abstract social/political theories enacted by distant governments!
Was this even possible before the Vietnam war?
I guess if you didn't mind getting lynched/ran out of town/jailed if you were lucky.
Yes, it would just entail a short drop with a quick stop.
"Shoot into that building, the enemy is in there"
"But it's filled with school children!"
"SHOOT INTO THAT BUILDING"
Anyway I don't know if he's telling me the truth, but my best friend is a marine, he tells me it was made quite clear that they'd be shot if they disobeyed an order in the field. This strikes me as appalling.
Granted I understand how the whole concept of chain of command overrides any concept of free will, your officers are the ones who are supposed to know the big picture, not you. It just strikes me as bizarre and slightly surreal that an officer can shoot one or more of his guys, I mean they have guns too.
You're aware that Rent is in the Army, right?
Hahaha, whoops.
At least today, though, assuming that the majority of troops are fully aware of what they're fighting for feels just a little too optimistic.
Seriously. You think the governments tell soldiers exactly what it is they're doing? No, they dress it up and feed it to them. They don't get told the truth, they're sold a story. What were soldiers fighting for in Iraq? I couldn't even tell you, and neither could the government considering how often they changed their story.
pulling a trigger does not equal control? seriously? no personal responsibility for fucking killing people in the field of combat? none for joining the army? none for waking up on the day of combat, picking up your weapon, loading it, taking aim, shooting someone in the head?
moniker is this really, truly your stance? seriously?
im not actually sure what atrocities you're talking about. are you talking about misconduct? torture? i dont think any of these things should be honored. if you know about some civil war soldier who was torturing and raping or whatever, line him up. i'd have been the first on line to request his imprisonment or death or whatever punishment is appropriate.
Well my friend tells me he was fighting in Iraq to... apparently disarm Iraqis who now had essentially no police force or military to protect them, as his job was to go house to house and confiscate weapons. This didn't sit right with him but it's not the kind of thing you question.
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/american_civil_war_retired/41000/280778
link suggest that 83% of the non-slave population in the slave states could read.
yes, you are patronizing the soldiers and it's kind of ridiculous.
youre correct about disobeying in the field. but no one does that. im sure you can find the numbers somewhere.
That's called drawing a distinction between soldiers and criminals.
I don't believe that honoring the dead on days like Memorial Day and Veteran's Day is a celebration of nationalism. Most of the men and women who've bled and died did so for reasons more tangible and more precious than some abstract ideal of nation. Honoring them and their sacrifice is honoring something noble in the human condition, the ability and choice to give one's life for those tangible, precious reasons.
Now, plenty of people hijack that into a celebration of flag waving and "Rah, Rah, Go Us!" but they're missing the point entirely.
Hell, from your own link:
The people who fought in the Civil War were mostly scared teenagers who had no idea about the real reasons they were fighting against each other and did what they were told to do because if they didn't they'd either get thrown in jail or flat-out shot. This is true for both sides. Just like, you know, damn near every single war in history.
I mean the thing to me that's weird is, if someone is planning on disobeying an order they find reprehensible (like murdering a bunch of children), their best bet is to shoot their CO or they get shot themselves.
I think hell just froze over, because I am agreeing with Obs.
Slavery played a role, but the war was also about states rights, and the southern states feeling like they were contributing more to the nation than the smaller northern states, but that the northern states had an undue amount of control over the entire nation.
In some ways, it was Lincoln who made it more about Slavery than anything else when he took away the South's slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation as a sort of punish to them for ever trying to break away.