It illustrates that Sherman agreed with the prevailing wisdom of the time regarding the "Indian Problem."
Granted, he was a pretty big dick. Pulling quotes and examining them in modern context can make virtually any historical figure look that way, though.
If Sherman gets a pass for his genocidal views toward the Indians I don't see how we can vilify slaveowners. They justified that with their own 'prevailing wisdom', as well.
Both are morally abhorrent. Both are inexcusable.
Well, I'm not vilifying slave owners, and I'm sure not saying Sherman doesn't deserve to be judged by history. I'm frankly a little disturbed by the calls for post facto genocide in here, even if I'm fairly sure it's hyperbole.
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
That gives plenty of reason for the Indians to hate him. That doesn't give reason for the Southerners to hate him. Hell, they would have supported the extermination of those damn Indians.
The argument was that Sherman was evil, which the quote pretty much illustrates.
Sherman had a habit of saying things and not following through with them.
Well, I'm not vilifying slave owners, and I'm sure not saying Sherman doesn't deserve to be judged by history. I'm frankly a little disturbed by the calls for post facto genocide in here, even if I'm fairly sure it's hyperbole.
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
Yeah, some of the stuff being said is a little creepy.
It does pose the question, though, on how much chronological distance we need before we allow these things to be considered as products of their era. Most people wouldn't consider leaders like Julius Caesar, Saladin, or other ancient rulers known for their leadership to be morally abhorrent, although living conditions in their day - for women, minorities, slaves, whatever - would be considered completely inexcusable today. How much time has to go by before we put on our historian's caps and say it was all a product of the times?
EDIT: Couscous - while Sherman may not have executed genocidal acts against the Indians personally, the Army itself was in no way shy about doing so, as I'm sure you're well aware. He's espousing a genocidal view, and those actions were eventually carried out - brutally. It's not like he was bullshitting around the water cooler, and even if he was, it's still an utterly disgusting view.
It illustrates that Sherman agreed with the prevailing wisdom of the time regarding the "Indian Problem."
Granted, he was a pretty big dick. Pulling quotes and examining them in modern context can make virtually any historical figure look that way, though.
If Sherman gets a pass for his genocidal views toward the Indians I don't see how we can vilify slaveowners. They justified that with their own 'prevailing wisdom', as well.
Both are morally abhorrent. Both are inexcusable.
Well, I'm not vilifying slave owners, and I'm sure not saying Sherman doesn't deserve to be judged by history. I'm frankly a little disturbed by the calls for post facto genocide in here, even if I'm fairly sure it's hyperbole.
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
But what about people who fly the Gay Confederate flag?
It illustrates that Sherman agreed with the prevailing wisdom of the time regarding the "Indian Problem."
Granted, he was a pretty big dick. Pulling quotes and examining them in modern context can make virtually any historical figure look that way, though.
If Sherman gets a pass for his genocidal views toward the Indians I don't see how we can vilify slaveowners. They justified that with their own 'prevailing wisdom', as well.
Both are morally abhorrent. Both are inexcusable.
Well, I'm not vilifying slave owners, and I'm sure not saying Sherman doesn't deserve to be judged by history. I'm frankly a little disturbed by the calls for post facto genocide in here, even if I'm fairly sure it's hyperbole.
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
But what about people who fly the Gay Confederate flag?
They're either gay racists or gay idiots. Or both.
A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
Seems like a compromise that isn't the worst thing in the world. But is the senator a racist? I'll let you decide.
Well, I'm not vilifying slave owners, and I'm sure not saying Sherman doesn't deserve to be judged by history. I'm frankly a little disturbed by the calls for post facto genocide in here, even if I'm fairly sure it's hyperbole.
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
Yeah, some of the stuff being said is a little creepy.
It does pose the question, though, on how much chronological distance we need before we allow these things to be considered as products of their era. Most people wouldn't consider leaders like Julius Caesar, Saladin, or other ancient rulers known for their leadership to be morally abhorrent, although living conditions in their day - for women, minorities, slaves, whatever - would be considered completely inexcusable today. How much time has to go by before we put on our historian's caps and say it was all a product of the times?
EDIT: Couscous - while Sherman may not have executed genocidal acts against the Indians personally, the Army itself was in no way shy about doing so, as I'm sure you're well aware. He's espousing a genocidal view, and those actions were eventually carried out - brutally. It's not like he was bullshitting around the water cooler, and even if he was, it's still an utterly disgusting view.
You don't get a pass if more than half the country knew better. For example, Nero doesn't get a pass because most Romans knew that fiddling while the city and all its people burn is bad. Likewise, most Americans knew how abhorrent slavery was.
A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
Seems like a compromise that isn't the worst thing in the world. But is the senator a racist? I'll let you decide.
Robert Ford is completely insane. Not just because of this, but in general.
Jealous Deva on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Well, I'm not vilifying slave owners, and I'm sure not saying Sherman doesn't deserve to be judged by history. I'm frankly a little disturbed by the calls for post facto genocide in here, even if I'm fairly sure it's hyperbole.
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
Yeah, some of the stuff being said is a little creepy.
It does pose the question, though, on how much chronological distance we need before we allow these things to be considered as products of their era. Most people wouldn't consider leaders like Julius Caesar, Saladin, or other ancient rulers known for their leadership to be morally abhorrent, although living conditions in their day - for women, minorities, slaves, whatever - would be considered completely inexcusable today. How much time has to go by before we put on our historian's caps and say it was all a product of the times?
EDIT: Couscous - while Sherman may not have executed genocidal acts against the Indians personally, the Army itself was in no way shy about doing so, as I'm sure you're well aware. He's espousing a genocidal view, and those actions were eventually carried out - brutally. It's not like he was bullshitting around the water cooler, and even if he was, it's still an utterly disgusting view.
You don't get a pass if more than half the country knew better. For example, Nero doesn't get a pass because most Romans knew that fiddling while the city and all its people burn is bad. Likewise, most Americans knew how abhorrent slavery was.
Also, when did "rich" become a race?
Actually, Nero opened his palaces to the poor, paid for a bunch of the city's construction, and wasn't so bad on the whole Great Fire front.
So you would embrace genocide as a solution to a wholly distasteful practice. Makes perfect sense.
I don't think you know what the word means. Unless you mean "Cultural Genocide" or something.
I would have dismantled their whole fucking culture, starting with the rich assholes.
As it stands, Southern culture is still alive. And that's been an absolute pain in the ass.
--
The Nero thing was more along the lines of him doing what he can and then saying fuck I can't do anything else may as well enjoy this once in a lifetime sight.
I think you may need to look at your original assertion and figure out where your wording was just a tad vague.
Well considering we're going all "Oh noes he broke some China" it's a bit silly to assume I would go about killing every white person in the entire world.
Because that's what would be required to genocide the South.
You don't get a pass if more than half the country knew better. For example, Nero doesn't get a pass because most Romans knew that fiddling while the city and all its people burn is bad. Likewise, most Americans knew how abhorrent slavery was.
Also, when did "rich" become a race?
I was talking about the genocide of the Native Americans, myself.
And, while I considered your point when I was typing that, it's kind of problematic. The emancipation of blacks is one thing - it was a highly contentious issue that eventually led to all-out war.
This wasn't the case with the Native Americans. During the Indian Wars pretty much nobody thought there was anything wrong with destroying Native Americans other than those NA groups themselves. If you were lucky you might run into some lunatics who would abduct your children, ship them off to boarding schools on the east coast, and beat them if they caught them speaking Native languages in order to wipe every vestige of 'Indian-ness' off the face of the earth. This cultural genocide was the 'merciful', best-case scenario; most people were content to do it the Custer way, which involved some of the most disgusting atrocities of modern history.
As I said, pretty much nobody had a problem with this at the time - outside of a few scattered idealists, maybe - but we still judge those responsible harshly for it today. And we should. But why don't we judge ancient people the same way? Simply because we don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions?
That gives plenty of reason for the Indians to hate him. That doesn't give reason for the Southerners to hate him. Hell, they would have supported the extermination of those damn Indians.
The argument was that Sherman was evil, which the quote pretty much illustrates.
Sherman had a habit of saying things and not following through with them.
The quote in question also comes from when Sherman learned of the Fetterman Massacre (the worst defeat in the Indian Wars until Little Big Horn). His attitudes towards Native Americans were unnecessarily harsh (basically if they left the reservation and made war all bets were off) but that quote wasn't a dispassionate statement of his position.
But Sherman's vilification has little to nothing to do with his conduct after the Civil War.
A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
Seems like a compromise that isn't the worst thing in the world. But is the senator a racist? I'll let you decide.
He's retarded. Confederate Memorial Day? There's a freaking Confederate Memorial Day now?
What part of they were traitors who fought to keep slavery U.S. doesn't understand? I seriously don't know any other country that would honor a treasonous faction that tried to secede from the rest of the country like this. The Finnish Civil War certainly is as far from being a thing of pride as possible. And nobody tried to keep their right to perform a horrible crime against humanity on that one.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
Well, the swastika was already a religious symbol before the Nazi's hijacked it. If they'd invented it then i think that we'd see even a swastika on its own,not part of a flag, as representing naziism.
The battle flag was already a military symbol before the Confederate government adopted it.
Because the fact that it was the military symbol of the Confederate Army before the Confederate goverment adopted it doesn't really change things here. It's still been an official symbol of an goverment that tried to uphold slavery, just it's military wing first.
But hey, if you want to, we can keep calling it the symbol of the military that tried to uphold slavery. Doesn't really sound any better to my ears, though.
A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
Seems like a compromise that isn't the worst thing in the world. But is the senator a racist? I'll let you decide.
Robert Ford is completely insane. Not just because of this, but in general.
Yeah, he's either a complete opportunist, completely insane, or a mix of the two.
Qingu will be in here any minute to tell us that we should have just left the South secede.
why not? what right does a nation have to prevent a segment of its populace from secession?
my 2cents on the confederate pride issue: when you have people who've never been from the south flying the confederate flag, I think you start to understand its not so much about confederate pride as hate
why not? what right does a nation have to prevent a segment of its populace from secession?
Human rights and national defense.
If the south was allowed to just trot along on its merry way we would have doomed millions of people to their horrible policies and they likely would have tried to attack us eventually anyways due to nature of their culture. Except they would have waited until they had more tricks up their sleeves.
What I want to know is why all these assholes in northern Michigan have confederate flags stuck to their trucks. I had a friend who dated a guy at the University of Michigan who had a full sized confederate flag in his bedroom. He was from a suburb of Detroit if I recall.
It makes no damn sense unless you view it as a symbol of, if not white supremacy, white pride. I feel that interest in the confederate flag, lately at least, comes from a backlash against the admittance of wrongdoing against colored people and the vilifying of previously romanticized figures and times in white history.
Speaking as a black guy, I'll just say that I always interpret displaying the Confederate flag as a big "fuck you" to black people. No matter what you think it means, that's what most black people see it as. It's a symbol of white people fighting to keep treating black people as sub-human. So yes, if I see a white person displaying the flag, I automatically think they're probably racist.
Jokerman, the Confederate Flag is definitely comparable to the Nazi flag; they both symbolize oppression and crimes against humanity.
A black state senator is pushing a bill that would require South Carolina cities and counties to give their workers a paid day off for Confederate Memorial Day or lose millions in state funds.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
Seems like a compromise that isn't the worst thing in the world. But is the senator a racist? I'll let you decide.
He's retarded. Confederate Memorial Day? There's a freaking Confederate Memorial Day now?
What part of they were traitors who fought to keep slavery U.S. doesn't understand? I seriously don't know any other country that would honor a treasonous faction that tried to secede from the rest of the country like this. The Finnish Civil War certainly is as far from being a thing of pride as possible. And nobody tried to keep their right to perform a horrible crime against humanity on that one.
Which brings us back to the whole comparison of the battle flag to the swastika, rather than the Nazi flag.
But it's not the same thing as swastika in religious sense. The Battle Flag, no matter what flag it featured in, was still an official symbol of the goverment. The Nazi Flag had several official variants as well, that doesn't mean that any of them are any less offensive or don't exemplify the goverment and it's stances equally.
So a swastika on its own can have a separate meaning as a religious symbol, but the battle flag must be considered as part of the Stainless or Bloodstained banners, a symbol of the government rather than the military?
Well, the swastika was already a religious symbol before the Nazi's hijacked it. If they'd invented it then i think that we'd see even a swastika on its own,not part of a flag, as representing naziism.
The battle flag was already a military symbol before the Confederate government adopted it.
Because the fact that it was the military symbol of the Confederate Army before the Confederate goverment adopted it doesn't really change things here. It's still been an official symbol of an goverment that tried to uphold slavery, just it's military wing first.
But hey, if you want to, we can keep calling it the symbol of the military that tried to uphold slavery. Doesn't really sound any better to my ears, though.
Yes, because that was the only reason that anyone served under that flag and therefore the only reason that someone might fly the flag. Do you also believe that Vans is secretly run by Japanese fascist skateboarders and willfully supports the slaughter of countless Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos (among others), since they make shoes with the official symbol of the Imperial army on it?
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
Actually, I called the Confederates traitors. The terrorists were the slaveowners and the people who supported their efforts to keep slaves in check.
Dunadan: read the rest of the definitions. One of them says:
Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat.
Oh hey, that sounds like what they were doing to slaves.
your definition means muggers are terrorists, bullies are terrorists, people who intimidate other people are terrorists, mothers who discipline their children are terrorists. do you see why this is a problem? or do you need me to write a damn essay about it before you admit that you just want to apply a republican buzz word to a specific group that you don't like.
or maybe everyones a terrorist.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
saying that the white people oppressing black slaves were terrorists is a misuse of the term. wite people didn't use terror as a means of oppresion, they used outright force.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
i hear the KKK were burning crosses before the civil war.... they used time machines....
Read a history book. Slavery continued to exist after the Civil War. Or you can just make more bullshit jokes to show that you don't really know what you're talking about. Your choice.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
The KKK (don't know about crossburning) didn't exist until after the war was over. It was formed with the intention of oppressing freed slaves and had nothing to do with maintaining the slave system.
Slavery was undoubtedly evil, but I don't know if I would use 'terrorism' as a means to describe its perpetuation. It would be more accurate to say that the ruling authorities in slave areas were simply inhumanly brutal. Cruelty and disregard for human rights does not equal terrorism, which (I thought) was the use of violence to achieve some political/religious/whatever/ goal - usually by a non-state actor.
Actually, the idea behind the KKK was to terrorize blacks so that they would willingly return to being slaves. It also served to intimidate former slaves (though, in all actuality, they still were slaves) from running off from their plantations or trying to flee to territories which were complying with Lincoln's orders to free the slaves. Slavery didn't just magically end after the Civil War like a lot of people think. I'm not saying you hold this view, but many do seem to think that the war ended and then all the slave owners were like, "well shit... Off ya go n***ers, you're free to roam wild plains now." A lot of people also don't seem to realize that there were free blacks in the South that also owned slaves. Not many by any means, but there were some. There were also white slaves. And guess what? Not all slaves were unwittingly snatched up from Africa by white men. Most were sold to the Europeans (primarily the Dutch) by rivaling African tribes.
The thing with terror and terrorism is that the term is so vague and really only used for hyperbole. There is no clear definition and it varies depending on literal uses to military and defense related classification. Likewise, I would argue that inflicting severe forms of physical and mental punishment that are "simply brutal" are exactly inflicting terror and, ergo, a form of terrorism. However, I personally wouldn't call slave owners terrorists because I think the term is bullshit. You don't really need to adhere "terrorist" to "slave owner" to get the point across that they're not exactly wonderful people. I also wouldn't classify Hamas as terrorists. They're a nationally unrecognized paramilitary government party of a nationally unrecognized state. Definitely a bit of a mouthful, but much more accurate than saying "terrorist!" Which I liken to shouting "evil-doer!" It's stupid, childish, obfuscates the facts, and turns the discussion into some rhetoric-fest. Nonetheless, if one were to call slave owners terrorists, I would concede that to being an accurate application of word.
Well, I'm not vilifying slave owners, and I'm sure not saying Sherman doesn't deserve to be judged by history. I'm frankly a little disturbed by the calls for post facto genocide in here, even if I'm fairly sure it's hyperbole.
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
My favorite thing to tell those flying the flag: "You lost. Get the fuck over it."
Yes, because that was the only reason that anyone served under that flag and therefore the only reason that someone might fly the flag. Do you also believe that Vans is secretly run by Japanese fascist skateboarders and willfully supports the slaughter of countless Chinese, Koreans and Filipinos (among others), since they make shoes with the official symbol of the Imperial army on it?
The Imperial Army was 78 years old before it was abolished, and WWII was not the only war where it fought. So no, I don't believe that. Of course, should you take the shoes to any of those countries with full knowledge of what that flag means there and flaunt them around with "look at me, I'm celebrating Japanese pride", you are certainly an asshole. But simply putting up the flag doesn't mean that you support Korean genocide, since that wasn't the only thing the Army did. Every flag has some dark things behind it, it tends to come with being an long lasting country.
The Confederate Army, on the other hand, lasted for four years, and the only war or cause it fought for was in the Civil War, acting as the military wing of the Confederate goverment. The primary cause of Confederate States was to uphold slavery, and the Confederate army fought to uphold slavery. So yeah, if you fought at the side of the Confederates, you fought to keep slavery. And if you fly the flag, you are either racist or ignorant of the history. Try to understand this. The Flag was never officially used by any other entity then the Confederate States or military forces of Confederate States. You can't use the swastika argument here. The only people that used it officially were people who chose to defend their "right" to keep slaves. It's not the only reason why someone might fly the flag, but that doesn't make it any less offensive or stupid. The old excuse of Southern Pride doesn't really work when the flag doesn't symbolize anything that you should be proud of.
Not all who served under the Nazi Flag were fans of genocide, or even aware of what they did, so putting up the flag in the name of German Pride or the cool economic advances of the Nazi Party is okay to you, I guess.
As it stands, Southern culture is still alive. And that's been an absolute pain in the ass.
What are we talking about now? Trucker hats and NASCAR or literature, music and the like? They're not the same thing.[/QUOTE]
The literature and music are pretty awesome. Plus I love the food. Can't get enough of barbecue.
Just don't like the social atmosphere. It seems that everything positive is harder to implement in the South. And the freaking Bible Belt. My view is a bit skewed though since it comes mostly from TV and internet. The big cities probably aren't all that different from the North, and rural areas suck everywhere.
DarkCrawler on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Just don't like the social atmosphere. It seems that everything positive is harder to implement in the South. And the freaking Bible Belt. My view is a bit skewed though since it comes mostly from TV and internet. The big cities probably aren't all that different from the North, and rural areas suck everywhere.
Well there is a reason the South has more rural areas than the North, and that reason is closely related to -- you guessed it -- slavery!
As it stands, Southern culture is still alive. And that's been an absolute pain in the ass.
What are we talking about now? Trucker hats and NASCAR or literature, music and the like? They're not the same thing.
The literature and music are pretty awesome. Plus I love the food. Can't get enough of barbecue.
Just don't like the social atmosphere. It seems that everything positive is harder to implement in the South. And the freaking Bible Belt. My view is a bit skewed though since it comes mostly from TV and internet. The big cities probably aren't all that different from the North, and rural areas suck everywhere.[/QUOTE]
OK, that's clear. No, you've got it exactly right. A lot of things fucking suck down here, and that's one of them. I absolutely love all the praying we do at the public school I'm sitting in as I type. It's great.
MagnumCT on
0
Options
HachfaceNot the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking ofDammit, Shepard!Registered Userregular
Actually, I called the Confederates traitors. The terrorists were the slaveowners and the people who supported their efforts to keep slaves in check.
Dunadan: read the rest of the definitions. One of them says:
Terrorism is the deliberate creation and exploitation of fear through violence or its threat.
Oh hey, that sounds like what they were doing to slaves.
your definition means muggers are terrorists, bullies are terrorists, people who intimidate other people are terrorists, mothers who discipline their children are terrorists. do you see why this is a problem? or do you need me to write a damn essay about it before you admit that you just want to apply a republican buzz word to a specific group that you don't like.
or maybe everyones a terrorist.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
saying that the white people oppressing black slaves were terrorists is a misuse of the term. wite people didn't use terror as a means of oppresion, they used outright force.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
i hear the KKK were burning crosses before the civil war.... they used time machines....
Read a history book. Slavery continued to exist after the Civil War. Or you can just make more bullshit jokes to show that you don't really know what you're talking about. Your choice.
Pretty much. It's why the term is a crapshoot and primarily reserved for hyperbole.
And, honestly, to say that white slave owners just used force and not fear to control and oppress blacks is so absolutely disingenuous that it blows my mind. What do you think the KKK and cross burning were?
The KKK (don't know about crossburning) didn't exist until after the war was over. It was formed with the intention of oppressing freed slaves and had nothing to do with maintaining the slave system.
Slavery was undoubtedly evil, but I don't know if I would use 'terrorism' as a means to describe its perpetuation. It would be more accurate to say that the ruling authorities in slave areas were simply inhumanly brutal. Cruelty and disregard for human rights does not equal terrorism, which (I thought) was the use of violence to achieve some political/religious/whatever/ goal - usually by a non-state actor.
Actually, the idea behind the KKK was to terrorize blacks so that they would willingly return to being slaves. It also served to intimidate former slaves (though, in all actuality, they still were slaves) from running off from their plantations or trying to flee to territories which were complying with Lincoln's orders to free the slaves. Slavery didn't just magically end after the Civil War like a lot of people think. I'm not saying you hold this view, but many do seem to think that the war ended and then all the slave owners were like, "well shit... Off ya go n***ers, you're free to roam wild plains now." A lot of people also don't seem to realize that there were free blacks in the South that also owned slaves. Not many by any means, but there were some. There were also white slaves. And guess what? Not all slaves were unwittingly snatched up from Africa by white men. Most were sold to the Europeans (primarily the Dutch) by rivaling African tribes.
wow, you don't get it do you. cross burning wasn't introduced until 1915..... you are fucking wrong and need to check your facts. the original clan was only active for about 2 years and was mostly just a bunch of disorganized groups doing random acts of violence.
So is white pride wrong but black pride okay ooorr?
What does this question have to do with anything?
I think he wants to take a big "abloo-bloo double standard!" shit on the discussion. Anyway, it's a stupid line of discussion. It's not like there's a shortage of white people that are proud of their ethnic backgrounds or recognition of the accomplishments of white people. And no one has to call it "white pride". Unless they're racists, because then "white pride" almost always means "white superiority pride".
Posts
Really, the point here is that people who still fly the Confederate flag are either racists, idiots or ok with being seen as one of those two.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Sherman had a habit of saying things and not following through with them.
It does pose the question, though, on how much chronological distance we need before we allow these things to be considered as products of their era. Most people wouldn't consider leaders like Julius Caesar, Saladin, or other ancient rulers known for their leadership to be morally abhorrent, although living conditions in their day - for women, minorities, slaves, whatever - would be considered completely inexcusable today. How much time has to go by before we put on our historian's caps and say it was all a product of the times?
EDIT: Couscous - while Sherman may not have executed genocidal acts against the Indians personally, the Army itself was in no way shy about doing so, as I'm sure you're well aware. He's espousing a genocidal view, and those actions were eventually carried out - brutally. It's not like he was bullshitting around the water cooler, and even if he was, it's still an utterly disgusting view.
But what about people who fly the Gay Confederate flag?
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Democratic Sen. Robert Ford's bill won initial approval from a Senate subcommittee Tuesday. It would force county and municipal governments to follow the schedule of holidays used by the state, which gives workers 12 paid days off, including May 10 to honor Confederate war dead. Mississippi and Alabama also recognize Confederate Memorial Day.
Years ago, Ford said, he pushed a bill to make both that day and Martin Luther King Jr. Day paid holidays. He considered it an effort to help people understand the history of both the civil rights movement and the Confederacy in a state where the Orders of Secession are engraved in marble in the Statehouse lobby, portraits of Confederate generals look down on legislators in their chambers and the Confederate flag flies outside.
Seems like a compromise that isn't the worst thing in the world. But is the senator a racist? I'll let you decide.
You don't get a pass if more than half the country knew better. For example, Nero doesn't get a pass because most Romans knew that fiddling while the city and all its people burn is bad. Likewise, most Americans knew how abhorrent slavery was.
Also, when did "rich" become a race?
Robert Ford is completely insane. Not just because of this, but in general.
I don't think you know what the word means. Unless you mean "Cultural Genocide" or something.
I would have dismantled their whole fucking culture, starting with the rich assholes.
As it stands, Southern culture is still alive. And that's been an absolute pain in the ass.
--
The Nero thing was more along the lines of him doing what he can and then saying fuck I can't do anything else may as well enjoy this once in a lifetime sight.
I think you may need to look at your original assertion and figure out where your wording was just a tad vague.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
It's too risky to ask to ask a man who can say no and isn't at your mercy.
Well considering we're going all "Oh noes he broke some China" it's a bit silly to assume I would go about killing every white person in the entire world.
Because that's what would be required to genocide the South.
The gay confederate flag is completely a joke.
it must be
I was talking about the genocide of the Native Americans, myself.
And, while I considered your point when I was typing that, it's kind of problematic. The emancipation of blacks is one thing - it was a highly contentious issue that eventually led to all-out war.
This wasn't the case with the Native Americans. During the Indian Wars pretty much nobody thought there was anything wrong with destroying Native Americans other than those NA groups themselves. If you were lucky you might run into some lunatics who would abduct your children, ship them off to boarding schools on the east coast, and beat them if they caught them speaking Native languages in order to wipe every vestige of 'Indian-ness' off the face of the earth. This cultural genocide was the 'merciful', best-case scenario; most people were content to do it the Custer way, which involved some of the most disgusting atrocities of modern history.
As I said, pretty much nobody had a problem with this at the time - outside of a few scattered idealists, maybe - but we still judge those responsible harshly for it today. And we should. But why don't we judge ancient people the same way? Simply because we don't have to deal with the consequences of their actions?
It should be noted, however, that the African Confederate Flag is not a joke.
Though it is, of course, an inversion of meaning as protest.
The quote in question also comes from when Sherman learned of the Fetterman Massacre (the worst defeat in the Indian Wars until Little Big Horn). His attitudes towards Native Americans were unnecessarily harsh (basically if they left the reservation and made war all bets were off) but that quote wasn't a dispassionate statement of his position.
But Sherman's vilification has little to nothing to do with his conduct after the Civil War.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
He's retarded. Confederate Memorial Day? There's a freaking Confederate Memorial Day now?
What part of they were traitors who fought to keep slavery U.S. doesn't understand? I seriously don't know any other country that would honor a treasonous faction that tried to secede from the rest of the country like this. The Finnish Civil War certainly is as far from being a thing of pride as possible. And nobody tried to keep their right to perform a horrible crime against humanity on that one.
So what you are saying is that this guy didn't design it, and it was used by some other people before the Confederacy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Porcher_Miles
Because the fact that it was the military symbol of the Confederate Army before the Confederate goverment adopted it doesn't really change things here. It's still been an official symbol of an goverment that tried to uphold slavery, just it's military wing first.
But hey, if you want to, we can keep calling it the symbol of the military that tried to uphold slavery. Doesn't really sound any better to my ears, though.
why not? what right does a nation have to prevent a segment of its populace from secession?
my 2cents on the confederate pride issue: when you have people who've never been from the south flying the confederate flag, I think you start to understand its not so much about confederate pride as hate
Human rights and national defense.
If the south was allowed to just trot along on its merry way we would have doomed millions of people to their horrible policies and they likely would have tried to attack us eventually anyways due to nature of their culture. Except they would have waited until they had more tricks up their sleeves.
XBL : lJesse Custerl | MWO: Jesse Custer | Best vid ever. | 2nd best vid ever.
The United States has enough tribal bullshit as it is.
Not so much when the seceding portion of the nation seizes a shitload of federal property and attacks a military base, however.
duly noted. it was the grey area lot of discourse I was interested in discussing. perhaps another thread on secession and self determination?
:^: this is what i meant to say in my first post
also this
- John Stuart Mill
Read a history book. Slavery continued to exist after the Civil War. Or you can just make more bullshit jokes to show that you don't really know what you're talking about. Your choice.
Actually, the idea behind the KKK was to terrorize blacks so that they would willingly return to being slaves. It also served to intimidate former slaves (though, in all actuality, they still were slaves) from running off from their plantations or trying to flee to territories which were complying with Lincoln's orders to free the slaves. Slavery didn't just magically end after the Civil War like a lot of people think. I'm not saying you hold this view, but many do seem to think that the war ended and then all the slave owners were like, "well shit... Off ya go n***ers, you're free to roam wild plains now." A lot of people also don't seem to realize that there were free blacks in the South that also owned slaves. Not many by any means, but there were some. There were also white slaves. And guess what? Not all slaves were unwittingly snatched up from Africa by white men. Most were sold to the Europeans (primarily the Dutch) by rivaling African tribes.
The thing with terror and terrorism is that the term is so vague and really only used for hyperbole. There is no clear definition and it varies depending on literal uses to military and defense related classification. Likewise, I would argue that inflicting severe forms of physical and mental punishment that are "simply brutal" are exactly inflicting terror and, ergo, a form of terrorism. However, I personally wouldn't call slave owners terrorists because I think the term is bullshit. You don't really need to adhere "terrorist" to "slave owner" to get the point across that they're not exactly wonderful people. I also wouldn't classify Hamas as terrorists. They're a nationally unrecognized paramilitary government party of a nationally unrecognized state. Definitely a bit of a mouthful, but much more accurate than saying "terrorist!" Which I liken to shouting "evil-doer!" It's stupid, childish, obfuscates the facts, and turns the discussion into some rhetoric-fest. Nonetheless, if one were to call slave owners terrorists, I would concede that to being an accurate application of word.
My favorite thing to tell those flying the flag: "You lost. Get the fuck over it."
Steam ID - BewilderedRonin
The Imperial Army was 78 years old before it was abolished, and WWII was not the only war where it fought. So no, I don't believe that. Of course, should you take the shoes to any of those countries with full knowledge of what that flag means there and flaunt them around with "look at me, I'm celebrating Japanese pride", you are certainly an asshole. But simply putting up the flag doesn't mean that you support Korean genocide, since that wasn't the only thing the Army did. Every flag has some dark things behind it, it tends to come with being an long lasting country.
The Confederate Army, on the other hand, lasted for four years, and the only war or cause it fought for was in the Civil War, acting as the military wing of the Confederate goverment. The primary cause of Confederate States was to uphold slavery, and the Confederate army fought to uphold slavery. So yeah, if you fought at the side of the Confederates, you fought to keep slavery. And if you fly the flag, you are either racist or ignorant of the history. Try to understand this. The Flag was never officially used by any other entity then the Confederate States or military forces of Confederate States. You can't use the swastika argument here. The only people that used it officially were people who chose to defend their "right" to keep slaves. It's not the only reason why someone might fly the flag, but that doesn't make it any less offensive or stupid. The old excuse of Southern Pride doesn't really work when the flag doesn't symbolize anything that you should be proud of.
Not all who served under the Nazi Flag were fans of genocide, or even aware of what they did, so putting up the flag in the name of German Pride or the cool economic advances of the Nazi Party is okay to you, I guess.
What are we talking about now? Trucker hats and NASCAR or literature, music and the like? They're not the same thing.[/QUOTE]
The literature and music are pretty awesome. Plus I love the food. Can't get enough of barbecue.
Just don't like the social atmosphere. It seems that everything positive is harder to implement in the South. And the freaking Bible Belt. My view is a bit skewed though since it comes mostly from TV and internet. The big cities probably aren't all that different from the North, and rural areas suck everywhere.
Well there is a reason the South has more rural areas than the North, and that reason is closely related to -- you guessed it -- slavery!
GM: Rusty Chains (DH Ongoing)
The literature and music are pretty awesome. Plus I love the food. Can't get enough of barbecue.
Just don't like the social atmosphere. It seems that everything positive is harder to implement in the South. And the freaking Bible Belt. My view is a bit skewed though since it comes mostly from TV and internet. The big cities probably aren't all that different from the North, and rural areas suck everywhere.[/QUOTE]
OK, that's clear. No, you've got it exactly right. A lot of things fucking suck down here, and that's one of them. I absolutely love all the praying we do at the public school I'm sitting in as I type. It's great.
What does this question have to do with anything?
wow, you don't get it do you. cross burning wasn't introduced until 1915..... you are fucking wrong and need to check your facts. the original clan was only active for about 2 years and was mostly just a bunch of disorganized groups doing random acts of violence.
I think he wants to take a big "abloo-bloo double standard!" shit on the discussion. Anyway, it's a stupid line of discussion. It's not like there's a shortage of white people that are proud of their ethnic backgrounds or recognition of the accomplishments of white people. And no one has to call it "white pride". Unless they're racists, because then "white pride" almost always means "white superiority pride".