This is unfortunately a topic that cannot help but be Godwin'ed.
Godwin doesn't apply when the holocaust/Nazis is actually a relevant topic.
Whether or not soldiers in the German Army are culpable in the Holocaust is relevant to the thread, because there are parallels to whether or not soldiers in the Confederate Army were culpable in regards to slavery.
But the extent to which the average German (or any other non-soldier) knew or was complicit in the Holocaust is not relevant to the thread.
This is unfortunately a topic that cannot help but be Godwin'ed.
Godwin doesn't apply when the holocaust/Nazis is actually a relevant topic.
True.
Actually it does, and godwin doesn't mean what you think it means. It merely states as the length of an argument continues the chance of Nazis being mentioned reaches one. Because shockingly enough, the greatest most brutal war in human history, in which we had a country which was doing one of the most evil things imaginable, remembered by many alive today is useful in certain analogies. And was damn influnential to the national psyche of the west.
Actually, Godwin isn't a real thing.
You see, the longer a thread gets, the greater the chance of ANYTHING being brought up in it is.
No, it's definitely a real thing. What you're proposing is more like the Infinite Monkey theorem.
The point is more that they are the same thing.
The fact that it is on Wikipedia doesn't some how legitimize it.
It's an internet meme (born out of a usenet meme), not a "law".
I know you love to hate on Wikipedia, but the fact that it's been contextually defined for 10+ years makes it as much a Law as Murphy's Law. You may technically be correct in that it's not as much of a scientific phenomenon as Boyle's Law, but you're still being an unrepentant douche in terms of language and discussion.
But the extent to which the average German (or any other non-soldier) knew or was complicit in the Holocaust is not relevant to the thread.
The claim was still made, though.
And I believe that it is dangerous to simply let revisionist claims stand unchallenged, because it leads others to accept them as fact (since no one said otherwise.)
In my experience, a decent portion of what many ascribe as racism is actually honest ignorance about a topic, and simple acceptance of what little information one has heard as being the facts.
This is unfortunately a topic that cannot help but be Godwin'ed.
Godwin doesn't apply when the holocaust/Nazis is actually a relevant topic.
Whether or not soldiers in the German Army are culpable in the Holocaust is relevant to the thread, because there are parallels to whether or not soldiers in the Confederate Army were culpable in regards to slavery.
But the extent to which the average German (or any other non-soldier) knew or was complicit in the Holocaust is not relevant to the thread.
I'd agree to this. Sorry for my part in the derail guys.
In fact, if you were to REALLY think about it, MOST of the things that could possibly go wrong at a given time aren't. Especially when you factor in stuff like Maxwell's Demon.
But the extent to which the average German (or any other non-soldier) knew or was complicit in the Holocaust is not relevant to the thread.
The claim was still made, though.
And I believe that it is dangerous to simply let revisionist claims stand unchallenged, because it leads others to accept them as fact (since no one said otherwise.)
In my experience, a decent portion of what many ascribe as racism is actually honest ignorance about a topic, and simple acceptance of what little information one has heard as being the facts.
Then the correct thing to do would have been to create a separate thread and link to it, not to derail this thread.
No offense guys, but you are trying to rationalize whether a soldier is worth honoring based on general knowledge of the Holocaust in WW2?
Maybe we should then villanize the post U.S. Army for rounding up all the Indians from Tennessee to Nevada, killling them outright, and/or relocating them to Georgi....whoops, good ports there. Well, there's Kent...nope, we need that. Missour...hey, oil is becoming useful. Oklahoma is worthless, let's send......nope farmland and more oil. This other part of Oklahoma is a wasteland, so let's send them there.
Final Solution, Manifest Destiny, whatever you want to call it, American soldiers did the exact same thing a few decades before Hitler was running around. Only the Americans were doing for land they had already conquered by force, and just really didn't like the cut of the injuns' jibs, so they had to go.
Maybe no American soldiers or civilians from that entire era should be honored durpy durr.
Also, as an interesting anecdote, I have a friend from Estonia whose grandmother got to live the joys of WW2-era life bordering Europe and Russia. Before WW2, Estonia was annexed and absorbed into the Soviet Union. Land, farming supplies, equipment, etc. were commandeered by the Soviet government, and Estonia was granted the Soviet standard rationing of stuff so people could get by.
Once the Soviet Union had entered the war and later begun their terribly costly efforts to rupulse the Germans out of whatever Russian states that were invaded, Estonia was kinda ignored since all the materials, food, medicine, etc. were going to the standing armies. Any requests for provisions were ignored or were sent in the most minimal amount possible, which was completely inadequate for the Estonians to sustain their lives.
The capital city of Talinn finally got liberated by the Nazis, and the Nazi army brought in food, clothes, blankets, medicine, and other goods. The people of Talinn rejoiced on the level of when the Allies liberated Paris, and to the day she died, the Nazis were the knights in shining armor who saved her family, her people, her country, and Nazis were the greatest people to have ever lived. The entire existence of my friend and his family are wholly due to Nazis.
You can bet money that if there's a Nazi Memorial somewhere, there's people laying wreaths down and honoring their soldiers.
Now, granted the Estonians are about as white as humans can be, but in the context of this story, the Nazis liberated an oppressed people from a socialist regime, saved their town from famine/freezing, and and brought joy and hope to a place where there was only disease and death.
Kinda like the Allies during that same war :P
(If anyone is interested, the Soviet Union eventually remembered that people live in that cold, god-forsaken part of Europe, and promptly went back and took it over again.)
No offense guys, but you are trying to rationalize whether a soldier is worth honoring based on general knowledge of the Holocaust in WW2?
Maybe we should then villanize the post U.S. Army for rounding up all the Indians from Tennessee to Nevada, killling them outright, and/or relocating them to Georgi....whoops, good ports there. Well, there's Kent...nope, we need that. Missour...hey, oil is becoming useful. Oklahoma is worthless, let's send......nope farmland and more oil. This other part of Oklahoma is a wasteland, so let's send them there.
Final Solution, Manifest Destiny, whatever you want to call it, American soldiers did the exact same thing a few decades before Hitler was running around. Only the Americans were doing for land they had already conquered by force, and just really didn't like the cut of the injuns' jibs, so they had to go.
Maybe no American soldiers or civilians from that entire era should be honored durpy durr.
Oh my god. You and Evander are going to need your own special Thunderdome to fight out the ramifications of this post.
In fact, if you were to REALLY think about it, MOST of the things that could possibly go wrong at a given time aren't. Especially when you factor in stuff like Maxwell's Demon.
It's almost as if wry observations about life aren't accurate all the time, but can still be useful.
No offense guys, but you are trying to rationalize whether a soldier is worth honoring based on general knowledge of the Holocaust in WW2?
Maybe we should then villanize the post U.S. Army for rounding up all the Indians from Tennessee to Nevada, killling them outright, and/or relocating them to Georgi....whoops, good ports there. Well, there's Kent...nope, we need that. Missour...hey, oil is becoming useful. Oklahoma is worthless, let's send......nope farmland and more oil. This other part of Oklahoma is a wasteland, so let's send them there.
Final Solution, Manifest Destiny, whatever you want to call it, American soldiers did the exact same thing a few decades before Hitler was running around. Only the Americans were doing for land they had already conquered by force, and just really didn't like the cut of the injuns' jibs, so they had to go.
Maybe no American soldiers or civilians from that entire era should be honored durpy durr.
Oh my god. You and Evander are going to need your own special Thunderdome to fight out the ramifications of this post.
Surprisingly, and I hate to admit it sometimes, but Evander and I see things like this pretty much the same way.
I was just using this, along with my last post, to try to draw up some examples on why most people feel the need to honor soldiers, no matter what their affiliation.
heck, the Red Baron got a hero's honor from the British military, if stories I heard are accurate.
The Civil War was not as simple as Slavery vs Anti-Slavery.
The South had some legitimate reasons for wanting to break away.
Just to point out something, saying "The Civil War wasn't just about slavery" is akin to saying "tomato soup isn't just about the tomatoes" because you need crackers too. The tomatoes are a fundamental part of any discussion of tomato soup, and to say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
Political ploy to keep Americans enthralled? Over-hyping by media? Don't know, don't care. He is honoring our vets.
Seems odd to me, though, that he is the only president to lay a wreathe on an African-American civil war memorial. But appearently I can't find any articles that state otherwise.
Honoring the Conderate soldiers is the right thing to do. Yes, they were on the "wrong side" but society they lived in pushed into a certain mold. I admire the people who were strong enough to break out of that mold; it's thanks to people like that that society can change for the better. But I feel sympathy for the people who couldn't break out, too . . . How many people living today would have fought in that same army, if they had lived in that era, in that place, at that time? Our neighbors? Our coworkers? Our family members? You? Me? I would like to think I would have the courage and the insight to know the Confederacy was the "wrong side", but the fact is I will never know.
I don't respect the Confederate cause of secession or support for slavery, but I respect the soldiers' humanity and their suffering.
On a semi-related note, this is a great mini-series and just hearing the music makes me tear up.
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
Yeah I'm pretty sure I only care about this issue because doing it wrong will cause a lot of grief for Obama and distract people from issues like the economy.
But you aren't arguing that we should condemn killing people in a field of combat, you're saying we should condemn people who are killing in a field of combat solely because they were born on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line.
no, im saying that we shouldnt honor people for fighting on the side of slavery. i said nothing about condemning anyone.
i know it's hard not to strawman (and i doubt you meant to do it), but this has been my stance since my very first post.
There are numerous atrocities performed throughout the Civil War but I'll just restrict it to the one I mentioned at the start of this tangent. Sherman's March to the Sea.
"scorched earth" tactics dont really constitute an "atrocity" in my opinion unless there was rape, torture or wanton killing. if that did occur, i would be right on your side condemning those bastards.
So we shouldn't honor people for being born on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line, but we should honor people who wage total war without any regard to the laws of battle?
But you aren't arguing that we should condemn killing people in a field of combat, you're saying we should condemn people who are killing in a field of combat solely because they were born on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line.
no, im saying that we shouldnt honor people for fighting on the side of slavery. i said nothing about condemning anyone.
i know it's hard not to strawman (and i doubt you meant to do it), but this has been my stance since my very first post.
There are numerous atrocities performed throughout the Civil War but I'll just restrict it to the one I mentioned at the start of this tangent. Sherman's March to the Sea.
"scorched earth" tactics dont really constitute an "atrocity" in my opinion unless there was rape, torture or wanton killing. if that did occur, i would be right on your side condemning those bastards.
So we shouldn't honor people for being born on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line, but we should honor people who wage total war without any regard to the laws of battle?
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
So what you're saying is that the confederate army was made up of retards? Seriously, I can conceive of no way such a contentious and high profile issue wasn't universally known, even ignoring that pro-slavery arguments dominated the propaganda (the declarations).
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
So what you're saying is that the confederate army was made up of retards?
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
So what you're saying is that the confederate army was made up of retards? Seriously, I can conceive of no way such a contentious and high profile issue wasn't universally known, even ignoring that pro-slavery arguments dominated the propaganda (the declarations).
What he's saying is that it takes two sides to start a war.
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
So what you're saying is that the confederate army was made up of retards? Seriously, I can conceive of no way such a contentious and high profile issue wasn't universally known, even ignoring that pro-slavery arguments dominated the propaganda (the declarations).
What he's saying is that it takes two sides to start a war.
No, my point is that soldiers generally aren't motivated by abstract political ideologies being implemented by distant governments. And those are the people being memorialized. Not the ideologies for which they fought.
What is the view of those who disagree with Obama's laying a wreath at the Confederate memorial toward those who died in the Spanish American War? It was a purely imperial fight over rank colonialism and racism. Should we be honouring those bastards who fought and died for such beliefs on Memorial Day, because technically we are?
The Civil War was not as simple as Slavery vs Anti-Slavery.
The South had some legitimate reasons for wanting to break away.
Just to point out something, saying "The Civil War wasn't just about slavery" is akin to saying "tomato soup isn't just about the tomatoes" because you need crackers too. The tomatoes are a fundamental part of any discussion of tomato soup, and to say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
The civil war really is a lot deeper than just "Slavery", unfortunately since the north won, the south gets demonized.
Slavery was a major underlying motivation, but the war really was about states rights IN REGARDS TO slavery. The south was afraid that the north would strip them of their slaves, because the north believed it had the power to, so the south decided to break away. They were wrong in doing this for multiple reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that there was more going on than slavery, in a way that makes it significant.
In fact, if you were to REALLY think about it, MOST of the things that could possibly go wrong at a given time aren't. Especially when you factor in stuff like Maxwell's Demon.
It's almost as if wry observations about life aren't accurate all the time, but can still be useful.
Do you know what the word "law" means.
It doesn't mean a rule that only applies to the same situation once in a while.
The Civil War was not as simple as Slavery vs Anti-Slavery.
The South had some legitimate reasons for wanting to break away.
Just to point out something, saying "The Civil War wasn't just about slavery" is akin to saying "tomato soup isn't just about the tomatoes" because you need crackers too. The tomatoes are a fundamental part of any discussion of tomato soup, and to say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
The civil war really is a lot deeper than just "Slavery", unfortunately since the north won, the south gets demonized.
Slavery was a major underlying motivation, but the war really was about states rights IN REGARDS TO slavery. The south was afraid that the north would strip them of their slaves, because the north believed it had the power to, so the south decided to break away. They were wrong in doing this for multiple reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that there was more going on than slavery, in a way that makes it significant.
How does that square with the Fugitive Slave Act basically removing the Rights of Northern States?
The Civil War was not as simple as Slavery vs Anti-Slavery.
The South had some legitimate reasons for wanting to break away.
Just to point out something, saying "The Civil War wasn't just about slavery" is akin to saying "tomato soup isn't just about the tomatoes" because you need crackers too. The tomatoes are a fundamental part of any discussion of tomato soup, and to say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
The civil war really is a lot deeper than just "Slavery", unfortunately since the north won, the south gets demonized.
Slavery was a major underlying motivation, but the war really was about states rights IN REGARDS TO slavery. The south was afraid that the north would strip them of their slaves, because the north believed it had the power to, so the south decided to break away. They were wrong in doing this for multiple reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that there was more going on than slavery, in a way that makes it significant.
So the fugitive slave act and forcing the post office to not ship abolitionist literature count as states' rights?
Honoring the Conderate soldiers is the right thing to do. Yes, they were on the "wrong side" but society they lived in pushed into a certain mold. I admire the people who were strong enough to break out of that mold; it's thanks to people like that that society can change for the better. But I feel sympathy for the people who couldn't break out, too . . . How many people living today would have fought in that same army, if they had lived in that era, in that place, at that time? Our neighbors? Our coworkers? Our family members? You? Me? I would like to think I would have the courage and the insight to know the Confederacy was the "wrong side", but the fact is I will never know.
I don't respect the Confederate cause of secession or support for slavery, but I respect the soldiers' humanity and their suffering.
This, I can agree with.
Living in Maryland gives one an interesting perspective on the civil war, because this is land where brother was LITERALLY fighting brother. Slavery may have been the motivation for the secession, but the soldiers of the confederacy honestly thought that they were fighting to be free, in their own revolutionary war.
The Civil War was not as simple as Slavery vs Anti-Slavery.
The South had some legitimate reasons for wanting to break away.
Just to point out something, saying "The Civil War wasn't just about slavery" is akin to saying "tomato soup isn't just about the tomatoes" because you need crackers too. The tomatoes are a fundamental part of any discussion of tomato soup, and to say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
The civil war really is a lot deeper than just "Slavery", unfortunately since the north won, the south gets demonized.
Slavery was a major underlying motivation, but the war really was about states rights IN REGARDS TO slavery. The south was afraid that the north would strip them of their slaves, because the north believed it had the power to, so the south decided to break away. They were wrong in doing this for multiple reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that there was more going on than slavery, in a way that makes it significant.
So the fugitive slave act and forcing the post office to not ship abolitionist literature count as states' rights?
The fear (which actually turned out to be true) was that Lincoln was going to come in there and just abolish slavery outright.
They didn't want the federal government to have that power over them.
I'd argue that it was self-fulfilling, and that it was really their secession that catalyzed the abolishment of slavery. I'm not actually defending the actions of the south here, just showing that it was more than just "we want slaves", but rather, "we want to make our own decisions regarding slaves."
As for the stuff that they wanted to force on the north, are you REALLY surprised to learn that hypocrisy in politics is not a new thing?
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
So what you're saying is that the confederate army was made up of retards? Seriously, I can conceive of no way such a contentious and high profile issue wasn't universally known, even ignoring that pro-slavery arguments dominated the propaganda (the declarations).
What he's saying is that it takes two sides to start a war.
No, my point is that soldiers generally aren't motivated by abstract political ideologies being implemented by distant governments. And those are the people being memorialized. Not the ideologies for which they fought.
What is the view of those who disagree with Obama's laying a wreath at the Confederate memorial toward those who died in the Spanish American War? It was a purely imperial fight over rank colonialism and racism. Should we be honouring those bastards who fought and died for such beliefs on Memorial Day, because technically we are?
One of the primary justifications used by southern politicians was that slavery was vital to the overall survival of southern industry. Given that the bulk of slaves were owned by the rich, this can be one of the first examples of trickle-down economics (it should be noted that after accounting for members of families in which all the slaves belonged to the patriarch, slave owners made a slight majority, mainly made up of single-slave owners).
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
So what you're saying is that the confederate army was made up of retards? Seriously, I can conceive of no way such a contentious and high profile issue wasn't universally known, even ignoring that pro-slavery arguments dominated the propaganda (the declarations).
What he's saying is that it takes two sides to start a war.
No, my point is that soldiers generally aren't motivated by abstract political ideologies being implemented by distant governments. And those are the people being memorialized. Not the ideologies for which they fought.
What is the view of those who disagree with Obama's laying a wreath at the Confederate memorial toward those who died in the Spanish American War? It was a purely imperial fight over rank colonialism and racism. Should we be honouring those bastards who fought and died for such beliefs on Memorial Day, because technically we are?
One of the primary justifications used by southern politicians was that slavery was vital to the overall survival of southern industry. Given that the bulk of slaves were owned by the rich, this can be one of the first examples of trickle-down economics (it should be noted that after accounting for members of families in which all the slaves belonged to the patriarch, slave owners made a slight majority, mainly made up of single-slave owners).
Look at what happened to the industry in the south after the civil war, though. Abolition DID hurt southern industry.
Personally, I think it was worth it to not have human beings treated as property, but the fact is, what they were saying is true.
Trickle-down economics CAN work, and some communities really do depend on it. The reason not to legislate it is because you can't control it, and if things change, then the people on the bottom are left hurting.
No, my point is that soldiers generally aren't motivated by abstract political ideologies being implemented by distant governments. And those are the people being memorialized. Not the ideologies for which they fought.
What is the view of those who disagree with Obama's laying a wreath at the Confederate memorial toward those who died in the Spanish American War? It was a purely imperial fight over rank colonialism and racism. Should we be honouring those bastards who fought and died for such beliefs on Memorial Day, because technically we are?
One of the primary justifications used by southern politicians was that slavery was vital to the overall survival of southern industry. Given that the bulk of slaves were owned by the rich, this can be one of the first examples of trickle-down economics (it should be noted that after accounting for members of families in which all the slaves belonged to the patriarch, slave owners made a slight majority, mainly made up of single-slave owners).
The Civil War was not as simple as Slavery vs Anti-Slavery.
The South had some legitimate reasons for wanting to break away.
Just to point out something, saying "The Civil War wasn't just about slavery" is akin to saying "tomato soup isn't just about the tomatoes" because you need crackers too. The tomatoes are a fundamental part of any discussion of tomato soup, and to say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
The civil war really is a lot deeper than just "Slavery", unfortunately since the north won, the south gets demonized.
Slavery was a major underlying motivation, but the war really was about states rights IN REGARDS TO slavery. The south was afraid that the north would strip them of their slaves, because the north believed it had the power to, so the south decided to break away. They were wrong in doing this for multiple reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that there was more going on than slavery, in a way that makes it significant.
So the fugitive slave act and forcing the post office to not ship abolitionist literature count as states' rights?
The fear (which actually turned out to be true) was that Lincoln was going to come in there and just abolish slavery outright.
They didn't want the federal government to have that power over them.
Unless they were in power, in which case the government should do whatever it wants. Face it, that's not states' rights, that's exclusive rights.
One thing you have tought me, though, is that the Maryland history curriculum is a joke.
As for the stuff that they wanted to force on the north, are you REALLY surprised to learn that hypocrisy in politics is not a new thing?
No, but how can you justify claiming that secession was about state's rights when they didn't actually give a damn about state's rights when it conflicted with their slave holding interests?
Posts
Whether or not soldiers in the German Army are culpable in the Holocaust is relevant to the thread, because there are parallels to whether or not soldiers in the Confederate Army were culpable in regards to slavery.
But the extent to which the average German (or any other non-soldier) knew or was complicit in the Holocaust is not relevant to the thread.
I know you love to hate on Wikipedia, but the fact that it's been contextually defined for 10+ years makes it as much a Law as Murphy's Law. You may technically be correct in that it's not as much of a scientific phenomenon as Boyle's Law, but you're still being an unrepentant douche in terms of language and discussion.
The claim was still made, though.
And I believe that it is dangerous to simply let revisionist claims stand unchallenged, because it leads others to accept them as fact (since no one said otherwise.)
In my experience, a decent portion of what many ascribe as racism is actually honest ignorance about a topic, and simple acceptance of what little information one has heard as being the facts.
I'd agree to this. Sorry for my part in the derail guys.
Which is, again, NOT an actual law.
In fact, if you were to REALLY think about it, MOST of the things that could possibly go wrong at a given time aren't. Especially when you factor in stuff like Maxwell's Demon.
Then the correct thing to do would have been to create a separate thread and link to it, not to derail this thread.
Maybe we should then villanize the post U.S. Army for rounding up all the Indians from Tennessee to Nevada, killling them outright, and/or relocating them to Georgi....whoops, good ports there. Well, there's Kent...nope, we need that. Missour...hey, oil is becoming useful. Oklahoma is worthless, let's send......nope farmland and more oil. This other part of Oklahoma is a wasteland, so let's send them there.
Final Solution, Manifest Destiny, whatever you want to call it, American soldiers did the exact same thing a few decades before Hitler was running around. Only the Americans were doing for land they had already conquered by force, and just really didn't like the cut of the injuns' jibs, so they had to go.
Maybe no American soldiers or civilians from that entire era should be honored durpy durr.
Also, as an interesting anecdote, I have a friend from Estonia whose grandmother got to live the joys of WW2-era life bordering Europe and Russia. Before WW2, Estonia was annexed and absorbed into the Soviet Union. Land, farming supplies, equipment, etc. were commandeered by the Soviet government, and Estonia was granted the Soviet standard rationing of stuff so people could get by.
Once the Soviet Union had entered the war and later begun their terribly costly efforts to rupulse the Germans out of whatever Russian states that were invaded, Estonia was kinda ignored since all the materials, food, medicine, etc. were going to the standing armies. Any requests for provisions were ignored or were sent in the most minimal amount possible, which was completely inadequate for the Estonians to sustain their lives.
The capital city of Talinn finally got liberated by the Nazis, and the Nazi army brought in food, clothes, blankets, medicine, and other goods. The people of Talinn rejoiced on the level of when the Allies liberated Paris, and to the day she died, the Nazis were the knights in shining armor who saved her family, her people, her country, and Nazis were the greatest people to have ever lived. The entire existence of my friend and his family are wholly due to Nazis.
You can bet money that if there's a Nazi Memorial somewhere, there's people laying wreaths down and honoring their soldiers.
Now, granted the Estonians are about as white as humans can be, but in the context of this story, the Nazis liberated an oppressed people from a socialist regime, saved their town from famine/freezing, and and brought joy and hope to a place where there was only disease and death.
Kinda like the Allies during that same war :P
(If anyone is interested, the Soviet Union eventually remembered that people live in that cold, god-forsaken part of Europe, and promptly went back and took it over again.)
But my point stands.
Oh my god. You and Evander are going to need your own special Thunderdome to fight out the ramifications of this post.
It's almost as if wry observations about life aren't accurate all the time, but can still be useful.
Yeah you know who else believed that Godwin doesn't apply?
Hitler
Surprisingly, and I hate to admit it sometimes, but Evander and I see things like this pretty much the same way.
I was just using this, along with my last post, to try to draw up some examples on why most people feel the need to honor soldiers, no matter what their affiliation.
heck, the Red Baron got a hero's honor from the British military, if stories I heard are accurate.
I should say I can at least verify the burial.
In a tangent to this topic, Obama is apparently the first president to leave a wreathe at the African-American Civil War Memorial?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/25/obama.memorial.day/index.html
Just to point out something, saying "The Civil War wasn't just about slavery" is akin to saying "tomato soup isn't just about the tomatoes" because you need crackers too. The tomatoes are a fundamental part of any discussion of tomato soup, and to say otherwise is simply disingenuous.
Seems odd to me, though, that he is the only president to lay a wreathe on an African-American civil war memorial. But appearently I can't find any articles that state otherwise.
I don't respect the Confederate cause of secession or support for slavery, but I respect the soldiers' humanity and their suffering.
On a semi-related note, this is a great mini-series and just hearing the music makes me tear up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1QRXtEBiYI
So we shouldn't honor people for being born on the wrong side of the Mason Dixon line, but we should honor people who wage total war without any regard to the laws of battle?
Destroying factories is against the rules of war? Seriously dude, the burning of Atlanta resulted in only one casualty. That's nothing, especially compared to our track record on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Is everybody from the south this much of a bitch? Will kissing it make it better?
What's especially hilarious about this is that you're comparing this to a mainly volunteer force for the defense and advancement of slavery. And don't give me any bullshit about them not knowing. Slavery was the biggest issue of its day, with thousands of people sending a senator canes because he used one to beat up a northerner, and the declaration of the formation of the confederacy and every states' declaration of secession was a pro-slavery tract.
I'm from the South now? And yes, targeting civilians and civilian property which has no possible materiel use is indeed against the rules of war.
That continues to ignores the issue of the divide between those who fight wars and those who wage wars.
So what you're saying is that the confederate army was made up of retards? Seriously, I can conceive of no way such a contentious and high profile issue wasn't universally known, even ignoring that pro-slavery arguments dominated the propaganda (the declarations).
No.
What he's saying is that it takes two sides to start a war.
Poland knew what it was getting into, sitting there like that.
No, my point is that soldiers generally aren't motivated by abstract political ideologies being implemented by distant governments. And those are the people being memorialized. Not the ideologies for which they fought.
What is the view of those who disagree with Obama's laying a wreath at the Confederate memorial toward those who died in the Spanish American War? It was a purely imperial fight over rank colonialism and racism. Should we be honouring those bastards who fought and died for such beliefs on Memorial Day, because technically we are?
The civil war really is a lot deeper than just "Slavery", unfortunately since the north won, the south gets demonized.
Slavery was a major underlying motivation, but the war really was about states rights IN REGARDS TO slavery. The south was afraid that the north would strip them of their slaves, because the north believed it had the power to, so the south decided to break away. They were wrong in doing this for multiple reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that there was more going on than slavery, in a way that makes it significant.
Do you know what the word "law" means.
It doesn't mean a rule that only applies to the same situation once in a while.
How does that square with the Fugitive Slave Act basically removing the Rights of Northern States?
So the fugitive slave act and forcing the post office to not ship abolitionist literature count as states' rights?
This, I can agree with.
Living in Maryland gives one an interesting perspective on the civil war, because this is land where brother was LITERALLY fighting brother. Slavery may have been the motivation for the secession, but the soldiers of the confederacy honestly thought that they were fighting to be free, in their own revolutionary war.
The fear (which actually turned out to be true) was that Lincoln was going to come in there and just abolish slavery outright.
They didn't want the federal government to have that power over them.
I'd argue that it was self-fulfilling, and that it was really their secession that catalyzed the abolishment of slavery. I'm not actually defending the actions of the south here, just showing that it was more than just "we want slaves", but rather, "we want to make our own decisions regarding slaves."
As for the stuff that they wanted to force on the north, are you REALLY surprised to learn that hypocrisy in politics is not a new thing?
One of the primary justifications used by southern politicians was that slavery was vital to the overall survival of southern industry. Given that the bulk of slaves were owned by the rich, this can be one of the first examples of trickle-down economics (it should be noted that after accounting for members of families in which all the slaves belonged to the patriarch, slave owners made a slight majority, mainly made up of single-slave owners).
Look at what happened to the industry in the south after the civil war, though. Abolition DID hurt southern industry.
Personally, I think it was worth it to not have human beings treated as property, but the fact is, what they were saying is true.
Trickle-down economics CAN work, and some communities really do depend on it. The reason not to legislate it is because you can't control it, and if things change, then the people on the bottom are left hurting.
...okay.
Unless they were in power, in which case the government should do whatever it wants. Face it, that's not states' rights, that's exclusive rights.
One thing you have tought me, though, is that the Maryland history curriculum is a joke.
No, but how can you justify claiming that secession was about state's rights when they didn't actually give a damn about state's rights when it conflicted with their slave holding interests?