 |
| |
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
"unlike most of you who've never left home"
Who's that?
That stronger foe was right to do what it did. It was a just cause on the North's part. There is no value (except valor) in fighting for something that is evil, such as slavery. Why be nostalgic about it? I come from Sheridan's small home town, but nobody celebrates the time in his life when he was a merciless Indian-killer.
Further, no matter how much some Southerners say that's it's not about race, most others perceive that it is. When somebody raises a Confederate battle flag, he is perceived to be making a statement about race. After a while, the "it's not about race" mantra really rings flat.
Why would some Southerners even want to push the issue of these symbols, when if they were really concerned about race, they would do everything reasonably in their power to make blacks feel at home? And why do some others not speak up about this bullshit and call a spade a spade?
Last edited by DanS on 01-01-2003 at 06:28
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:24
|
|
The Southern Strategy is pandering to the racists, using code words (or not) for keeping the n*gg*rs down (like Reagan talking about strapping bucks pulling up to the store in their cadilacs and buying t-bone steaks with their food stamps). It also includes disenfranching Blacks, either by anti-felon voting laws, removing polls from Black areas, giving Black districts faulty voting machines, placing police outside polls, challenging Black voters right to vote, etc.
Obviously, there'd be a Southern Strategy no matter what, as there is a strategy for every part of the country. But what we know of today as the Southern Strategy is pandering to white supremacy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
Snowfire - quote:
Knowing your political slant... which would you prefer? |
If you knew my political slant, you'd know I prefer neither. 
quote:
That SCOTUS hand down a decision that you agreed with the results of, but used statist principles to defend it (and as a precedent for further application by lower courts)? |
Huh?
quote:
Or a decision that you disagree with based firmly on Libertarian principles? |
Which decision by the SCOTUS?
quote:
Hopefully, you'd answer the second. But why bring this up? |
I would answer if I knew what you were talking about, I never mentioned a specific court decision and neither did you.
quote:
America was never founded on oppressing Indians. |
Tell that to all the Indians who lived in what would become America in 1776.
quote:
It ended up being a bloody side note where we didn't live up to our ideals. |
So, would you equate American heritage with racism as some are trying to do with Southern heritage? Southernors who believe in whatever heritage they consider theirs could argue slavery was a bloody sidenote where some of their southern brethren didn't live up to their ideals.
quote:
However, the CSA was founded on slavery- ignore the question for a moment of whether it was the main thing, blah, blah, blah, but it's right in the CSA constitution and multiple statesmen announced that as a main reason for secession, to stop that crazy Lincoln who wants to free the slaves. |
Slavery was part of the US Constitution too, and there wouldn't have been a Constitution without slavery.
quote:
every time Southern heritage comes up, out come the stars & bars, so the two seem to have merged into one. |
Would that be the flag Confederates waved as they entered battle. There were several reasons why a southernor might have fought against the north, to classify their heritage based on the desire of some people to maintain slavery is illogical and unfair. There is a black man right now walking across the south carrying that flag because he considers it his heritage as well. Is he a racist?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
DanS - quote:
Yes, killing 250,000 southern soldiers (or whatever the number) was justified and the 350,000 on the North's side was an acceptable price. |
There's the difference between you and me, I don't have the moral authority to force other people to die for what I want unless they deserve death for actions they took against others. Even if we accepted that a slaveowner deserved death (whoa, there goes Washington, Jefferson and quite a few of the Founders), relatively few Civil War deaths were slaveowners.
quote:
Your reaper's calculus is a little off. Slavery in Sudan is widespread, but I don't think it's anywhere near the magnitude of 1/3rd or more of the inhabitants, like it was in much of the South. |
You didn't answer my question. If a million Americans had to die to end slavery in the Sudan, would you force your fellow Americans to make that sacrifice? It's a hypothetical to challenge your stated principle, not a prediction of how many people would have to die to end slavery in the Sudan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
DanS -
There's the difference between you and me, I don't have the moral authority to force other people to die for what I want unless they deserve death for actions they took against others. Even if we accepted that a slaveowner deserved death (whoa, there goes Washington, Jefferson and quite a few of the Founders), relatively few Civil War deaths were slaveowners.
|
Believe it or not one out of three southern white families owned a slave.
If "southern heritage" means unabashed reverence for the "lost cause" of a Confederatye nation or hero worship of the major confederate leaders then I would agree that "southern heritage" is all about race. J F Epperson has a terrific website about the causes of the Civil War. The site displays transcriptions of many of the speeches given by the major proponents of secession. These speeches make it very clear that the major drive behind secession was the desire to preserve slavery. The link is: http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/causes.html
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
I am not going to address the label "Southern Heritage" or the efforts to define the label as racism. Once upon a time one could excuse folks for thinking that the war was about slavery, such was the propaganda flood from the victorious North.
Now however people who hold such opinions can only be considered stupid or damn liars.
Now, as to Gettysburg, Longstreet must be blamed for pouting when he could not convince Lee to adopt his defensive options. Longstreet arriving on the scene at the end of the first day felt conditions were perfect for a strategic withdrawal into a position that threaten Washington. By choosing good ground and waiting for Washington pressure to force Meade to attach, Longstreet felt it would be certain that a Federal disaster would ensue.
When rebuffed by Lee, he failed to take Lee's instructions and use his full military talent to carry them out in the best tradition of the Army of Northern Virginia. Indeed, instead, he insisted on ordering Hood to launch his attack on the second day by the letter of Lee's words when he certainly had the lattitude as a Corps commander to make reasonably prudent adjustments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
North Korean women too. |
God, what are we going to do about the North Koreans? I mean, can't the Chinese control their lackeys? You know, if the Germans acted that way the world would expect us to give them a good ass whipping.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ted Striker
|
 |
United States of America
Jan 1970
time: 21:24
|
|
Well Doc I hope that they help us clean up this mess.
It's good to hear from the news that supposedly the Chinese have pretty much tired of North Korea and want to put them back in line. How that happens is anyone's guess. I hope the South Koreans aren't too pissed at us though, I mean if a nuke goes off they are the ones who are gonna get it.
Last edited by Ted Striker on 01-01-2003 at 10:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The Southern Strategy is pandering to the racists, using code words (or not) for keeping the n*gg*rs down (like Reagan talking about strapping bucks pulling up to the store in their cadilacs and buying t-bone steaks with their food stamps). It also includes disenfranching Blacks, either by anti-felon voting laws, removing polls from Black areas, giving Black districts faulty voting machines, placing police outside polls, challenging Black voters right to vote, etc.
Obviously, there'd be a Southern Strategy no matter what, as there is a strategy for every part of the country. But what we know of today as the Southern Strategy is pandering to white supremacy. |
Thats just total bull. Both parties have baggage. Jesse Jackson's ilk and the liberal Hollywood set are damaging to the Democrats. Racist extremist groups are damaging to the Republican.
By saying that the Republicans are all about racism you are practicing demogaughery.
Well, I can't spell it but you get my drift.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
 |
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
Berzerker: Sigh. I asked which you would prefer, and never made any statement that his referred to a specific decision. It was strictly hypothetical. Still, if you want a concrete, let's say the two (totally imaginary) decisions were the following:
A) Let's reverse California and the Feds position for a moment. Imagine the Federal Government tried to impose the legality of marijuana on the states. Utah or some place criminalizes it anyway. SCOTUS says that because it's the Federal Government's job to set what is a crime and what's not all over the country, the law should be struck down. This is a statist principle to defend something a Libertarian like you would support (fewer drug laws). If used as a precedent for other decisions, however, it could imply the Federal Government imposing whatever whim it wants on states and localities via creative crime laws.
B) A person dies leaving no will and no relatives. The local government tries to impound his land and estate. His friends sue, saying that they should have it, or it be auctioned off, but not simply have the government take it. SCOTUS found this infringed on the person's right to own property and do what they like with it- since the person knew (or should have known) that the government would get the property without a will, the government was clearly enforcing that person's individual right to choose what to do with their money. I don't think you're a huge fan of gigantic publicly owned lands, but the justification here is on strict Libertarian principles, if a weird interpretation of them (I had to stretch a bit to come up with a good example).
So in short: intentions matter. Perhaps a better, if more blunt example, would be a bill passing all power in the USA to a dictator who has promised to govern the country on Libertarian principles, with the exception of an absolute dictator whose power passes on hereditarily. No matter how many wonderful reforms you agree with he passes, I hope you'd disagree with the terrible precedent of an absolute dictator- being that his son could, within his rights as king, turn around all of daddy's reforms.
So what's this have to do with anything? The USA was not founded on harrassing Indians. It wasn't the intent of the Revolutionary War. Did the USA do it? Yes. Was there a line in the Declaration of Indepedence saying "King George didn't give us enough oppurtunities to kill Indians, and that's why we're revolting?" No, that would be silly, considering that the English encouraged the colonists to fight the Indians 30 years ago in the French & Indian war.
It's as simple as that. And yes, slavery is in the Constitution, so you can make an argument that it's part of American heritage, but that wasn't the point I was bringing up.
I am not going to address the label "Southern Heritage" or the efforts to define the label as racism. Once upon a time one could excuse folks for thinking that the war was about slavery, such was the propaganda flood from the victorious North.
Now however people who hold such opinions can only be considered stupid or damn liars.
Mmm-hmm. Or perhaps people who read the newspaper. As pointed out by multiple other people, whenever the term Southern heritage comes up these days, it's almost always about fighting the damn Civil War again. And those silly northern propaganda-spinners have convinced a lot of us that this issue called "slavery" had a little something to do with that conflict.
So tell me, what is Southern heritage about? Down-home hospitality and sending a lot of people to West Point? Seriously, I want to see what you have to say. Because if it is, then frankly, why make such a big deal about it? It's standard, stupid cultural things that every little region of the world has and is even more irrelevant now than before.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dr Strangelove
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ted Striker
Well Doc I hope that they help us clean up this mess.
It's good to hear from the news that supposedly the Chinese have pretty much tired of North Korea and want to put them back in line. How that happens is anyone's guess. I hope the South Koreans aren't too pissed at us though, I mean if a nuke goes off they are the ones who are gonna get it. |
Oddly there seems to be a fairly large number of South Koreans who would be willing to nuckle under to North Korea. I mean, who would willingly submit themselves to the rule of Kim Il Jung? Would it be worth the effort to let the South Koreans put themselves under the control of this clown?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
SnowFire,
As I said I am not going to enter into a debate over what definition Southern Heritage may be or may not be in play at the present time.
When the Constitution was created one of the most important if not the most important issue ws the dividing line between the various states and the central Federal government.
Any claim that the North had a moral imperative in the War of Northern Agression is plain silly. It just so happened that the economy of the south depended more on slavery than the north's. If the inverse had been true you can bet the North would have adamently opposed abolition just as the south did. Northern people were no more moral than southerners. That is hogwash.
Another way to look at it. Suppose the nation's capital had been in South. Would that have changed things. You bet it would have.
The real issue in the war was not so much different than the War of the Revolution. The southern states decided that the yoke of Federal rule was too heavy and sought independence. You can't condemn the South without condemning the colonies as a whole in the war for independence against England.
Southern Heritage to me is an appreciation of our culture and the williness of its people to fight for independence --- freedom.
One half million Americans did not die over the institution of slavery (which was doomed not so much of moral factors but by economic ones). They died over the issue of the scope of Federal control of these United States.
The South was conquered and their has never been another serious question about the real issue. Strong central government won. And individual freedom, local government freedom, and state government freedom has been in bondage to the front men of monied interests, the politicans of Washington ever since.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SnowFire
|
|
New York City, NY
Jan 1970
time: 00:24
|
|
As I said I am not going to enter into a debate over what definition Southern Heritage may be or may not be in play at the present time.
Reasonable. The problem is that your word has been stolen, and I'm not sure it's worth it to fight back to save it from being tained with racism and slavery. You say that you pride Southern heritage on its willingness to fight to be free. That's a noble thing, but I still can't see the Civil War as anything other than ignoble from the Southern side. You can call it American heritage, if you want, thanks to the original revolution.
If the inverse had been true you can bet the North would have adamently opposed abolition just as the south did. Northern people were no more moral than southerners. That is hogwash.
I completely agree. I think you'll find few people who discuss the inherent superiority of Northerers, being that the USA is a gigantic mongrel nation anyway. If the North had fought for slavery and the South had fought against it, I'd be completely reversed in my positions. By which I mean that if people tried to pull some kind of "Northern heritage" BS in my alternate universe, I'd be as scornful of it as I am of Southern Heritage right now (again, assuming the same references to the Civil War).
The southern states decided that the yoke of Federal rule was too heavy and sought independence. You can't condemn the South without condemning the colonies as a whole in the war for independence against England.
Sure I can, just as I can applaud the French rebels early in their revolution, dislike the terrorist rebels in Columbia, and be middling on the communist rebels in Russia (and their various factions) as well as the Palestinan ones in Israeli-controlled sections. Deciding that the central government's yoke is too heavy is often a good thing in many situations, but you have to consider what the rebels want to do with that freedom. In some places of Africa, they want to be able to slaughter ethnic minority groups in their region, hardly a noble goal to use their self-determination. I view the Southern revolt in much the same way. They wanted freedom on a state level to oppress people on an individual level. If that's not a reason for federal government involvement, I don't know what is. Was there nasty baggage afterwards? Sure there was. Price to be paid sometimes.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-01-2003 05:44
|