The Confederacy, unlike the US, was created SPECIFICALLY to maintain slavery.
Thats about as accurate as saying America exists to turn th Altantic into cold bewed tea.
Your reluctance to truth being literally spelled out in front of you is impressive. You have either constructed mental barriers in your mind so sturdy that nothing can get past them or you honestly just don't understand what people are telling you.
The same thing is happening right now with the battle flag. It is a symbol of slavery and white supremacy.
No. First because one the Confederacy is dead. Second it places a direct moral judgement on the use of the symbology ignoring the truth that it can be used for multiple purpose as a heritage symbol.
You act as if since the Confederacy is dead, the ideals upon which it was founded (the white man is superior to the black man) have completely evaporated and now it is just a nebulous "heritage." Again, let's talk about what that heritage is. To do so, I will once again quote Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution. African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.
...
As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made “one star to differ from another star in glory.” The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders “is become the chief of the corner” the real “corner-stone” in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.
Reading the first part of section 9 in the Confederate Constitution makes me think buying and extracting of all the slaves in the South would have been cheaper than the Civil War if slavery was a big enough issue to have launched it.
Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.
Trying to deal with the Confederacy, and the Revisionism surrounding it, trying to paint it as anything OTHER THAN EVIL is in now way excusing, or "absolving" other evils at any time.
Let us change this sentence to point out how ludicrous it is:
Those who want the iconography are saying that Nazi Germany is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.
Those who want the iconography are saying that the Stalinist USSR is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.
Those who want the iconography are saying that the Khmer Rouge is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.
Do you see how stupid that sounds.
Focusing upon one evil that happens to be directly in front of you, and for which something can be done about right now is neither dismissing, nor "absolving" other evils, AT ANY TIME.
It is simply pointing out that people who have been promoting a false narrative regarding the Confederacy are wrong, and probably racist as well, since they are trying to defend a group that was racist to its very core and foundation.
...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…
As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.
Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans.
...in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states....
I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown, and if we are worthy of our lineage we will in that event redeem our rights even if it be through the process of revolution.
We do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring, and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation.
Among us the poor white laborer is respected as an equal. His family is treated with kindness, consideration and respect. He does not belong to the menial class. The negro is in no sense of the term his equal. He feels and knows this. He belongs to the only true aristocracy, the race of white men. He black no masters boots, and bows the knee to no one save God alone. He receives higher wages for his labor than does the laborer of any other portion of the world, and he raises up his children with the knowledge, that they belong to no inferior cast, but that the highest members of the society in which he lives, will, if their conduct is good, respect and treat them as equals.
If the policy of the Republicans is carried out, according to the programme indicated by the leaders of the party, and the South submits, degradation and ruin must overwhelm alike all classes of citizens in the Southern States. The slave-holder and non-slave-holder must ultimately share the same fate—all be degraded to a position of equality with free negroes, stand side by side with them at the polls, and fraternize in all the social relations of life; or else there will be an eternal war of races, desolating the land with blood, and utterly wasting and destroying all the resources of the country.
There is also no shortage of material to point out that the South was just DYING/LOOKING for a reason to split from the north, and/or to spread the Institution of Slavery as far as they possibly could (wanting to take Mexico, Cuba, and South America, lands in which to produce an agrarian economy built upon slavery).
You may read about that in the article from the Atlantic I posted.
Defending the Confederacy is no different than defending any other evil - the Confederacy is not the only one, nor does focusing upon it negate the existence of other evils, nor diminish them.
It is trying to excuse a mass murderer by pointing out how well he/she treated his/her family, and for how many charities he/she volunteered.
When one's FOUNDATION is essentially evil, it makes no difference what else is done, unless those other acts took responsibility for that evil, and worked to diminish it.
The South, so far, has done none of that.
While the ills you are attempting to lay at the feet of the USA are things which were contrary to the spirit of its Foundation[/i] (The 5/9th clause was a compromise with the South, primarily, to name just one, and it was undone by the Civil War, where the Institution of Slavery was ended, and the attempt to right that wrong begun - which is still taking place, yet which some are resisting - namely you at this point).
The point is that the USA was NOT FOUNDED to support the institution of Slavery.
It's FOUNDATION was/is:
Began with:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Which led DIRECTLY to:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. . . .
You are trying to establish an absolutist standard for ALL BEHAVIOR, which you are not applying to the Confederacy.
The USA was not perfect, But at least it was not founded with the express purpose of BLACK Slavery, predicated upon the belief that African/Negros (as they referred to them were created by God as "lesser animals" forever unequal to "the white man".
Yes, the USA did many things that were deplorable.
But thanks to its FOUNDATIONS - the principles upon which it was built, it managed to overcome the varied acts of evil committed by its members, to become something that is inherently not evil, however flawed - as has been demonstrated by the correction of past wrongs against a specific demographic of our population, previously denied rights.
That sort of thing would never have occurred in the Confederacy, as it was made illegal (in their Constitution) to either made Slavery Illegal (anywhere in their borders), or to even amend the Constitution of the Confederacy to allow slavery to be abolished.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: I am just stunned by Orlanth's lack of reasoning ability in this regard (Greg Stafford would be appalled to see his creation so associated with this).
To be unable to separate intention from effect, or behavior is astonishing.
It is like watching Freshmen Philosophy Students encounter a Trolley Problem for their first time.
Those who want the iconography are saying that the Confederacy is a token evil, and by banning its memory they are absolving all the other evils for the time, even flying them proudly. This is unhealthy at best, deluded at worst.
Trying to deal with the Confederacy, and the Revisionism surrounding it, trying to paint it as anything OTHER THAN EVIL is in now way excusing, or "absolving" other evils at any time.
Let us change this sentence to point out how ludicrous it is:
Do you see how stupid that sounds.
However by the 1930's most western societies had moved on, there were moral distinctions between them and the Nazis. In the 1850's the moral difference was negligible.
It is simply pointing out that people who have been promoting a false narrative regarding the Confederacy are wrong, and probably racist as well, since they are trying to defend a group that was racist to its very core and foundation.
Defending the Confederacy is no different than defending any other evil - the Confederacy is not the only one, nor does focusing upon it negate the existence of other evils, nor diminish them.
It is trying to excuse a mass murderer by pointing out how well he/she treated his/her family, and for how many charities he/she volunteered.
No its like having a murderer at a convention of murderers and singling him out amongst a consensus of murderers for how evil he is. Though he had not the most blood on his hands by a large margin.,
I am just stunned by Orlanth's lack of reasoning ability in this regard (Greg Stafford would be appalled to see his creation so associated with this).
You are conditioned, and are unused to a contrary opinion and are shocked by it.
Americans in general are spoonfed that the USA is a force of unremitting good, and part of this syrup is to paint the Confederacy as a source of unremitting evil.
It has strong bond with the wild west 50's movies of people boldly rigtheously heading out and taking the land, how this was wholesome.
Calamity Jane (1953) comically asks the lead character how many N-words (same word as blacks but in context meaning Native Americans) she shot today.
The entire culture of the west is steeped in casual extermination at the time, and followed by a media spin on casual extermination that lasted over a century.
The media of it is still acceptable.
As it happens I wouldn't want Calamity Jane and How the West Was Won banned any more than the Confederate flag. Because its unhealthy not to manage a detachment from history, and highly unhealthy to look for iconography to be offended at and removed. This is what you are doing here, and you should be aware of the consequences.
This form of revisionism is highly militant and spreading, its also contemporary, historically selective and viral.
One racist murderer with a Confederate flag is a trigger, not the actual Confederacy, and this is just a bandwagon is cultural appeasement, for a selective edit of history. Its very similar to the #RhodesMustFall movement which is stretching beyond its native South Africa and trying to have memorials removed in the UK. While Rhodes did some pretty despicable things we are not happy to have our history whitewashed thank you.
It invokes memory of totalitarianism to remove opposed symbology, not of healing.or purification. This entire episode is not positive, itwould have been healthier to leave the iconography alone. If anything rooting out Confederate history will do nothing to unite the nation, its already as united as it will likely get, but will fuel the search for the next icon of history for revision, as agitators are getting a taste for it now.
To be unable to separate intention from effect, or behavior is astonishing.
Slavery bad, genocide good?
I think through that, I hoped you could also.
The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.
The Confederacy was created with the specific intention of preserving chattel slavery of black people, against the majority democratic wishes of the US population as a whole, and in disregard of the general moral position of the developed world which since the late 18th century had reconsidered the institution, turned against it and and outlawed it as wrong.
Relapse wrote: Reading the first part of section 9 in the Confederate Constitution makes me think buying and extracting of all the slaves in the South would have been cheaper than the Civil War if slavery was a big enough issue to have launched it.
Even if the CSA would have allowed that (and it wouldn't have), it would have only postponed war. With two competing governments, and many territories yet to become States, conflict would be inevitable.
Americans in general are spoonfed that the USA is a force of unremitting good, and part of this syrup is to paint the Confederacy as a source of unremitting evil.
Actually, we aren't, but thanks for your opinion. It has been noted and discarded.
The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.
The Confederacy wasn't around long enough to do so. You're reaching.
The Confederacy was also not around long enough to be known for anything other than slavery according to other comments.
You cant have it both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: The Confederacy was created with the specific intention of preserving chattel slavery of black people, against the majority democratic wishes of the US population as a whole, and in disregard of the general moral position of the developed world which since the late 18th century had reconsidered the institution, turned against it and and outlawed it as wrong.
Slavery in some states of the Union formally outlived the Confederacy. Wrong or not, it was still there.
The Confederacy was created so the bloc of southern states had representation at a level they felt was lacking as a minority of the United States. Slavery was one of many issues which were different, not the only issue.
The Confederacy was also not around long enough to be known for anything other than slavery according to other comments.
You cant have it both ways.
I only need to have it one way: the CSA came into being in order to protect the institution of black slavery. What it might have done in the future is irrelevant, as it lost the US Civil War.
The Confederacy was created so the bloc of southern states had representation at a level they felt was lacking as a minority of the United States. Slavery was one of many issues which were different, not the only issue.
The Confederacy was also not around long enough to be known for anything other than slavery according to other comments.
You cant have it both ways.
I only need to have it one way: the CSA came into being in order to protect the institution of black slavery. What it might have done in the future is irrelevant, as it lost the US Civil War.
So the fact that genocide cannot be leveled at the Confederacy's door, but can at its detractors remains valid then.
The Confederacy was created so the bloc of southern states had representation at a level they felt was lacking as a minority of the United States. Slavery was one of many issues which were different, not the only issue.
What other issues were involved?
Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.
Self determination regarding the right to own human beings.
Your "you've been conditioned to love America" stance is hilarious. You're talking to people from many different countries, openly arguing revisionist, mythos based narratives that run contrary to contemporary historical analysis accepted by the vast majority of professional historians the world over, and you call us conditioned.
Las wrote: Self determination regarding the right to own human beings.
Your "you've been conditioned to love America" stance is hilarious. You're talking to people from many different countries, openly arguing revisionist, mythos based narratives that run contrary to contemporary historical analysis accepted by the vast majority of professional historians the world over, and you call us conditioned.
Not in the slightest. I do not deny Confederate slavery, I however disagree with the claim that is all it stood for, or that the Confederacy was a unique evil demanding individual censure in the 19th century.
You are conditioned because you only see the two dimensional slavery and non slavery, do not see that slavery actually existed in the Union, and that similar practices just an abhorent were commonplace. It is a convenient propaganda label which should be seen with a fresh light over a century and half later. Most of all the propaganda element is all that the current climate is allowing to remain of a historical chapter and heritage symbol which has a far more widespread usage.
You have yet to explain why the Confederate battle flag is a slavery symbol, its a martial symbol of a nation state. The symbol of the men who fight rather than the policy makers, often who are completely different types of people. You are also yet to explain why is is an evil symbol, depicting de facto slavery yet it was ok for Obama to use it.
Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.
The only self determination they wanted was the right to own slaves.
Thats a bit two dimensional, and a good reason to look deeper into the history than to make a throw away inclusion. Self determination is ultimately about self determination, the catalyst is just a single issue.
Slavery bad, genocide good?
I think through that, I hoped you could also.
The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.
Shall we compare the numbers?
Jews 6-9 million.
transatlantic slavery 9 million could be as high as 15 million.
giving a range of deaths due to the slave trade of anywhere between 22 million and 55 million.
so the confederacy was practicing genocide and they are just as evil as the nazi's. Not more, not less, equal to the evil of the nazi's. But probably more as their reign of terror lasted 200 years. Then another 100 years of racism still going on today. No the southern states aren't responsible for every death, but as they were willing participants of the slave trade they are equally responsible for every death, a practice they felt should continue for all time.
So if the confederacy wasn't practicing genocide, isn't it odd they killed more people as the nazi's?
You have yet to explain why the Confederate battle flag is a slavery symbol, its a martial symbol of a nation state. The symbol of the men who fight rather than the policy makers, often who are completely different types of people. You are also yet to explain why is is an evil symbol, depicting de facto slavery yet it was ok for Obama to use it.
It was raised over all the southern capitals where it remains today as a protest against de segregation. Flying it today still says the same message, It's a symbol of the Klan and used as a symbol to say keep those blacks away from us good white folk. Why do you keep pretending otherwise?
politicians just want votes, watch this election, any state they're standing in they try to talk like them and pretend to be with them. But I'd bet you don't see anymore confederate buttons, except maybe some republicans and it will cost them the election.
Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.
The only self determination they wanted was the right to own slaves.
Thats a bit two dimensional, and a good reason to look deeper into the history than to make a throw away inclusion. Self determination is ultimately about self determination, the catalyst is just a single issue.
I'm sorry but how many times in this thread have people posted the actual declarations of secession? You are arguing against not only the opinions of contemporary historians but also the very people who committed the acts being examined.
On whether the Confederacy was practicing Genocide or not:
Technically, Genocide isn't about how many people die - Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide as "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group"
I'm not saying whether that was the case with the confederacy or not - I don't know enough to make a judgement, but I think it's important to understand that Genocide depends on intent, rather than scale.
So the fact that genocide cannot be leveled at the Confederacy's door, but can at its detractors remains valid then.
Sure, if you ignore the fact that the states that would go on to make up the CSA were the primary proponents of that genocide. Seriously, you're going to accuse people of ignoring history, and then offer up that sort of context devoid argument?
Self-determination, which in their eyes they did not adequately receive.
Sure, they wanted the right to own slaves, and further create more pro-slavery states as they came into being. People bandy about the "self-determination" argument all the time, but the only real beef the nascent CSA had with the US was the issue of slavery.
"WWII wasn't caused by German aggression, it was cause because of the Allied guarantee of Polish sovereignty!"
Anyway, you've heard the evidence straight from the horse's mouth. I'm not gonna sit here trying to convince you of something when the heads of the Confederate government couldn't even do that. I recomend that you read up on the events and inform yourself better. Go read McPhearson's Battle Cry of Freedom or something and stop subscribing to 50 year old, defunct historical narratives.
Americans in general are spoonfed that the USA is a force of unremitting good, and part of this syrup is to paint the Confederacy as a source of unremitting evil.
Actually, we aren't, but thanks for your opinion. It has been noted and discarded.
I would say that he's not too far off the mark there, but with a major caveat..... We're largely taught through out the K-12 schooling that America is Awesome and is so great, etc. etc. It honestly wasn't until I hit college level history courses that we get a "America is a great nation amongst many, but here are some of the problems it's had"
I got a History degree from France. True, it was Art History, but a great deal of actual history was involved in it.
They certainly had no motivation to teach me that America was this "Great Nation."
But what they DID TEACH was a great deal about the Enlightenment, who worked to promote those ideals, where, and when, and who worked against them.
I doubt I got an education there that portrayed The USA (NOT "America" which is two continents, comprising some 100 odd countries - if one includes the Island states/nations) as being some magical saint of a country.
But we did focus an awful lot on where the ball had been dropped, and the point is pretty much correct.
The Vast majority of the genocide carried out against the Natives came from the Southern States, which would later become the Confederacy, and post-Civil War, would see an exodus of bitter colonists flee to the West and South America (bringing with them their racism, and hatred of non-whites).
This is not to say that NO ONE from the North had issues.
But the Theological differences between the North and South are largely responsible for this distinction.
The North saw more of the more Enlightenment strains of Protestantism, while the South was deeply involved with the more Calvinistic strains of the Reformation (which gave birth to US Evangelicals during this time - who represent the vast majority of racist religious theology to this very day).
The Enlightenment Protestants (mostly through the English and Scottish Churches - Episcopalian and Presbyterian) of the North had a much deeper influence of Enlightenment Philosophers. The Mercantile Classes of England and Scotland tended to be very sympathetic to the French Enlightenment, due to its pressure to grant the same rights to the regular population as enjoyed by the Aristocracy and Nobility in Europe (which France had destroyed during its Revolution - an episode of not applying the Standards of the Enlightenment to itself - they lost sight of Reason).
Anyway, this is largely wasted on Orlanth, who is so invested in a false-equivalence that he is unable to sort out the distinctions involved.
So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
hell, the southern strategy was an important part of Nixon winning.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.
Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?
Slavery bad, genocide good?
I think through that, I hoped you could also.
The Confederacy practiced no genocide, yet somehow they were worse than those who did.
This can only be by selective judgement.
Shall we compare the numbers?
Jews 6-9 million.
transatlantic slavery 9 million could be as high as 15 million.
giving a range of deaths due to the slave trade of anywhere between 22 million and 55 million.
so the confederacy was practicing genocide and they are just as evil as the nazi's.
Ok lets deal with the above farse of an answer.
The United States as a nation permitted the Atlantic slave trade, while admittedly to southern ports of the USA. The US Government persistently protested Royal Navy interdiction of slave ships.
However let us leave this aside as this was prior to the timeline of the Confederacy.
The Confederate constitution forbade the importation of slaves except from the US slave owners. It is frankly assinine to blame the confederacy for the deaths of the Atlantic Salve Trade when they themselves made statute moves to end that trade from day one.
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
The Vast majority of the genocide carried out against the Natives came from the Southern States, which would later become the Confederacy, and post-Civil War, would see an exodus of bitter colonists flee to the West and South America (bringing with them their racism, and hatred of non-whites).
Who was in charge? Who had the power mandate to stop? Who controlled the US army which was instrumental of many of the exterminations?
Former Confederates?
Come on be real. Where is the evidence that the genocide was from southern states Americans. There were however documentary evidence of embittered Confederates who headed west, and aided the tribes, I make no prior doctrinal point on this as it was an alliance of convenience
Anyway, this is largely wasted on Orlanth, who is so invested in a false-equivalence that he is unable to sort out the distinctions involved.
MB
Disagreement is not an excuse to troll.
Comparing slavery to Native American genocide is not a false-equivalence.
Also I am more than able to sort out religious distinctions, even pointed them out in an earlier thread on topic.
It is telling that you can't present an argument without taking a swipe at the person. Again I have a thick skin and won't formally complain though.
You are arguing against not only the opinions of contemporary historians but also the very people who committed the acts being examined.
You are wrong. End of.
You miss out the pertinent factor that the Sourthern States were regional blocs and not moral entities. You can argue all daty that Jefferson Davis said this or that. The fact remained that when the Southern states seceded the people of those state largely rallied to the banners.
Even the most head-up bottom revisionist should have the wit to realise that when a state goes to war and its people follow they do so not out of personal opinion but tribal identity. We everyone, or effectively everyone in Florida a slave owner, or even pro-slavery. Probably not, moral opinions are not regionally polarised. There were slave owners in northern states also, and has been mentioned before most of those fought for the Union.
I have repeated stated, correctly, and this point has not been challenged, only ignored. That slavery was only a catalyst to an independence movement. There is proof of this, proof in the FACT that when the southern states rallied their banners the people followed, and likewise for the north. There only places where there was much discourse was along the geographical division line, and in places like the Virginias brother might fight brother.
Exceptions of course exist, and many ring down through history, but the American Civil War was a tribal war of states, de facto, slavery was the fuse rthat lit the keg, but the fighting was by people groups.
To turn around a century and a half later and wave a hand and say all tin the South were pro-slavery, all in the north were anti is just revisionism pure and simple. The heritage argument for Confederate iconography is strong because it is ultimately true, it matters less what one racist statesman said now than who signed up and marched under the Confederate banner, and how many did not return. This is a history of the common man. You want evidence of this I suppose, look to the flag. The flag remembered is the Battle flag, not the national flag, a lot of people will not be able to name the Confederacy's only president, but most Americans have heard of Robert E Lee, and his end was honoured and his name still is. Lee ended the war at
Appomattox and the politicians while wishing to continue could not. This says something about the realities of the Confederacy, it might have started with the rhetoric , but it was actually truthfully all about the soldiers. Revisionism poisons history, and it is unsurprising that the poison is still there. All the poison is doing is enforcing societal guilt, it is unsurprising if people cannot move on properly.
If you removed the poison and realised this truth, the hard logically undeniable but oft denied fact that the Confederacy was a tribal institution, the war was a tribal war and the iconography is tribal iconography you wouldn't have the generational guilt trip that results in moral intransigence in some, and the more healthy memory espoused by others would persist and be clearly the stronger.
We know that second dynamic is there, but even now no one has yet explained why if the Confederate iconography was de facto slavery imagery rather than regional imagery. Why did Obama and Clinton's supporters use it in election campaigns.
Should I be surprised that a lot of the return comments are increasing acrid and personal. Yet the core arguments I posted have not as yet been challenged.
Revisionism poisons, but I am not the revisionist. The logic I posted works for then as now. If you disagree try challenging it.
You keep trying to show that the USA was as bad as the Confederacy in terms of slavery, but it wasn't.
The trans-Atlantic slave trade was banned in 1808. The northern states above the Ohio River and Mason-Dixon line, had all banned slavery by the 1820s and all remaining slaves had been freed or died by the 1840s.
You claimed earlier that the North had slave holding states after the end of the war. This is a minor technicality based on the fact that Kentucky for example was essentially a southern, slave-holding state that was got into the Federal side by a wide usew of military and political shenanigans including the suspension of Habeus Corpus.
The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves (theoretically) in the Confederacy in 1863. The 13th Amendment to end slavery throughout the USA was enacted in early 1865 and ratified in December and applied essentially to the few states like Kentucky that had ended up on the northern side..
To claim from the above that the USA was a slave holding state like the Confederacy is a travesty.
I would say that he's not too far off the mark there, but with a major caveat..... We're largely taught through out the K-12 schooling that America is Awesome and is so great, etc. etc. It honestly wasn't until I hit college level history courses that we get a "America is a great nation amongst many, but here are some of the problems it's had"
I didn't have that experience in public school. Out of curiosity, when did you graduate?
To claim from the above that the USA was a slave holding state like the Confederacy is a travesty.
It was literally true though.
Actually my main point, and it was made often enough, was NOT to judge the United States, but also NOT to judge the Confederacy either.
This was the 19th century, nation states held different moral profiles to what they do today. The Confederacy was a part of its time, and what
other nation states was similar, yet the Confederacy is being singled out as an evil, yet others not.
This type of revisionist history is nothing new or unique to the Confederacy, but its based on modern preconceptions and opinions rather than history.
Normally its the UK who gets this stick over colonialism, with finger pointing by other colonial nations, often with far worse reputations themselves.
The myth that Confederates are unique candle holders for slavery is an act to absolve others, in the same way the 'British Imperialism' is mentioned to overlook Imperialism by others which was contemporary.
That there was some history of slavery in the Union, however slender is relevant to pointing out that the Confederate is largely spun into a perpetual bogeyman of myth, which is unhistorical and more importantly unfair on people living in the southern states today.
To claim from the above that the USA was a slave holding state like the Confederacy is a travesty.
It was literally true though.
Actually my main point, and it was made often enough, was NOT to judge the United States, but also NOT to judge the Confederacy either.
This was the 19th century, nation states held different moral profiles to what they do today. The Confederacy was a part of its time, and what
other nation states was similar, yet the Confederacy is being singled out as an evil, yet others not.
This type of revisionist history is nothing new or unique to the Confederacy, but its based on modern preconceptions and opinions rather than history.
Normally its the UK who gets this stick over colonialism, with finger pointing by other colonial nations, often with far worse reputations themselves.
Why does it matter if someone else did something awful too?
Orlanth wrote: The Confederacy was a part of its time, and what other nation states was similar, yet the Confederacy is being singled out as an evil, yet others not.
I don't think anyone has singled out the CSA as being evil. That's your flowery addition.
This type of revisionist history is nothing new or unique to the Confederacy, but its based on modern preconceptions and opinions rather than history.
Your position is the revisionist one. There are many, many historical documents which make clear that the CSA came into being due to the slavery issue.
"It was literally true" is a very weak argument in this case.
The core of the matter is that one or two culturally southern 'border' states were roped on to the Federal side for strategic reasons, and had the lifetime of their slavery extended by a few months due to administrative reasons until the 13th Amendment became law.
Not all slave states seceded, of course. Maryland never seriously considered it, and when Lee invaded in 1862 found the populace far less welcoming than he expected. While there was martial law, it's telling that far more Marylanders fought for the North than the south, slavery aside. Missouri basically tore itself apart through the war, but again supported the North more through enlistments. Delware was a slave state, but did not secede (it also did not vote to ratify the 13th amendment).
What's really odd is that at least two chunks of confederate territory, with few plantations, both attempted to counter secede. West Virginia did successfully, and became a free state a few years later. East Tennessee was occupied by the confederacy, and did not succeed in seceding. Interestingly enough, these were two territories with few slaves, which adds substantial credence to the idea that the secession was driven by slave owners.
I would say that he's not too far off the mark there, but with a major caveat..... We're largely taught through out the K-12 schooling that America is Awesome and is so great, etc. etc. It honestly wasn't until I hit college level history courses that we get a "America is a great nation amongst many, but here are some of the problems it's had"
I didn't have that experience in public school. Out of curiosity, when did you graduate?
2004.
It was actually kind of ridiculous, looking back on it now. I took AP European history, as well as AP US History when I was in school, and the two teachers for those classes couldn't be any more different.
Seriously, in the half day we spent on WW1, the AP Euro teacher described the US as "white knights" riding in in the nick of time to save Europe from barbarism and utter destruction.
The AP US teacher I had basically said, "well, the curriculum says I'm supposed to teach this.... now let me show you how it really worked" (and he didn't particularly care for the AP Euro teacher, making rather sarcastic remarks about her and her teaching style)
@ dogma
"I don't think anyone has singled out the CSA as being evil. That's your flowery addition."
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point...this entire thread is about the confederate iconography being singled out and removed from public buildings....
In the week after nine people were shot dead at Emanuel AME Church in South Carolina, six churches with predominately black congregations in five Southern states have burned. Three of the fires are being investigated as arson.
The FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives are working with local authorities to find those who set them.
“They’re being investigated to determine who is responsible and what motives are behind them,” FBI spokesman Paul Bresson told BuzzFeed News. “I’m not sure there is any reason to link them together at this point.”
The church fires come days after police say Dylann Roof, 21, shot and killed nine people during a prayer service on June 17 at Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, including the church’s pastor. Roof has been charged with nine counts of homicide and possession of a firearm.
[Church shooting suspect Dylann Roof captured amid hate crime investigation]
Since the shooting, lawmakers and civil rights leaders have been focused on the backlash as people have been calling for the country to stop waving the Confederate flag. Now authorities are looking into the recent church fires at predominately black churches, which the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group that tracks hate crimes, reports “may not be a coincidence.”
[Charleston’s Emanuel AME Church: A legacy of heroes and martyrs]
The first fire came late June 21 when, police said, someone set fire to some hay bales just outside the College Hill Seventh Day Adventist in Knoxville, Tenn. The church sustained minor damage. Its van was also burned.
“Horror, I was like, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s going on?’” Pastor Cleveland Hobdy III told WATE-TV. Police told local news stations the fire is being investigated as arson but not as a hate crime.
Early June 23, God’s Power Church of Christ in Macon, Ga., was on fire. When firefighters arrived, the front doors were wired shut and they had to enter through a side door, the local newspaper the Telegraph reported.
“‘What’s the church doing on fire?’ That was my response to it,” Associate Pastor Jeanette Dudley told WMAZ-TV. “I just couldn’t believe it, and once I got here, I did. I cried. I cried for a little bit.”
The fire was ruled an arson, though police are not calling it a hate crime. “We are not seeing anything at this time that’s pointing us in that direction,” Sgt. Ben Gleaton told the Telegraph.
[A black church in North Carolina was deliberately set ablaze, officials say]
Early June 24, someone called 911 to report that Charlotte’s Briar Creek Road Baptist Church had been set ablaze.
“The Baptist church on Briar Creek Road right before Central, it’s on fire,” the caller told dispatchers. “It’s really big.”
It took more than 75 firefighters over an hour to get the fire under control and, by then, it had caused more than $250,000 worth of damage and demolished the church’s main building, The Washington Post reported. Charlotte Fire Department Senior Investigator David Williams later told the Associated Press that a probe determined the fire “was intentionally set.”
Members of the church’s congregation held a Sunday service there to show resolve, according to the Charlotte Observer.
“I am standing on your shoulders,” the Rev. Rhonda Kinsey, the church’s pastor, told church-goers. “I am leaning on you. Part of our heart was consumed. Thank God, he is a heart-fixer.”
The Glover Grove Baptist Church in Warrenville, S.C., is shown on June 26. (Todd Bennett/Augusta Chronicle via AP)
On June 26, the Glover Grove Baptist Church in Warrenville, S.C., burned down. Police said no cause for the fire has been determined.
“Everything is gone — books, robes, all my pictures, all my degrees,” the Rev. Bobby Jean Jones told the Aiken Standard. “All the history is gone.”
“It’s all for the good, because God is in control and not me,” he added. “That’s why I’m calm, because I know who is in control, to tell you the truth. I’ve been knowing the Lord for a long time, and I know how he works. He will turn bad to good in a minute.”
Two other churches caught fire last week as well — Fruitland Presbyterian Church in Gibson County, Tenn., and the Greater Miracle Temple Apostolic Holiness Church in Tallahassee. Authorities believe the fires were caused by lightning and electrical wires, respectively, though they are still investigating.
“We want to be sure, 100 percent sure, that this was an accidental fire, not on purpose,” Gibson County Fire Chief Bryan Cathey told WBBJ-TV.
No church-goers were injured in the fires.
Indeed, burning churches is nothing new. Such crimes go back to the Civil War era. But perhaps the most infamous case was in 1963 when four white supremacists bombed 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Ala. — an act the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. called “one of the most vicious and tragic crimes ever perpetrated against humanity.”
The bombing killed four girls and injured others.
“From slavery and the days of Jim Crow through the civil rights movement and beyond, white supremacists have targeted the Black church because of its importance as a pillar of the Black community, the center for leadership and institution building, education, social and political development and organizing to fight oppression,” columnist David A. Love wrote for the Atlanta BlackStar. “Strike at the Black church, and you strike at the heart of Black American life.”
Amid last week’s fires, the Atlantic’s Emma Green wrote about the country’s dark history, noting that such incidents are “often association with racial violence: a highly visible attack on a core institution of the black community, often done at night, and often motivated by hate.”
Though the recent cases are not being investigated as hate crimes, motives remain unclear.
“But no matter why they happened,” Green wrote, “these fires are a troubling reminder of the vulnerability of our sacred institutions in the days following one of the most violent attacks on a church in recent memory.”
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point...this entire thread is about the confederate iconography being singled out and removed from public buildings....
Yes it is.
But that doesn't mean the iconography, or what it represents, is being singled out as evil.
Kilkrazy wrote: "It was literally true" is a very weak argument in this case.
The core of the matter is that one or two culturally southern 'border' states were roped on to the Federal side for strategic reasons, and had the lifetime of their slavery extended by a few months due to administrative reasons until the 13th Amendment became law.
There is an expression used in the Sciences and History:
"Technically True, but Factually False."
This means that while you can find an exception to a rule that create a case where the rule does not generalize to 100% of cases, it remains true that the rule generalizes to enough cases to be considered to be nearly absolute (p<.05 tends to be that cutoff, as a matter of general policy, but it can be other, larger, values as well).
What we find in this thread (and others like it), it people trying to establish norms by exception.
They are trying to claim that a case where a norm was the rule is equivalent to a case where a behavior or policy was not a norm, but an exception.
This is like trying to claim that Georgia has An Arctic Climate because it snows there from time-to-time (Like it does in the Arctic all the time).
Absolutist thinking like this tends to be prevalent among certain psychologies, which are unable to tolerate ambiguity.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: @ dogma
"I don't think anyone has singled out the CSA as being evil. That's your flowery addition."
I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point...this entire thread is about the confederate iconography being singled out and removed from public buildings....
Which is kind of the point.
The Flag of a Traitorous, Racist regime has no place flying alongside the flag against which it is a symbol of rebellion and sedition.
That the Flag THEN became associated with racism and violence against Blacks is just another reason to take it down.
But the primary one is that it represents a group that turned Traitor for the very worst of reasons.
And the attempts to compare it to the US Flag are simply farcical bluster in what seems to be an attempt to ignore the basic ideologies involved.
As I already said, it is an attempt to portray an exception as the norm (in the case of the USA), and a norm as an exception (in the case of the CSA).
Do you really think the chinese immigrants, or the native americans were not treated badly under the stars and stripes? Or the blacks of the civil rights movement? Or the Japanese put in "could be possible traitor" camps?
Every flag on earth has had it's bad share of history. Why can I buy all of those in places that buying the Confederate Battle flag would give me grief?
Amazon sure ain't banning material with Swastikas.
The General Lee from Dukes is worse than Mein Kampf?
AegisGrimm wrote: Do you really think the chinese immigrants, or the native americans were not treated badly under the stars and stripes? Or the blacks of the civil rights movement? Or the Japanese put in "could be possible traitor" camps?
Every flag on earth has had it's bad share of history. Why can I buy all of those in places that buying the Confederate Battle flag would give me grief?
Because The "Stars and Stripes" happens to be the official national flag of the US, and the confederate battle flag was exactly what the name implies: a battle flag.
Also... When was the last time you went in to Walmart and found a French, Italian, English, United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Tanzinia, Zimbabwe, Russia, Austrian ,etc. flag for sale?
Amazon sure ain't banning material with Swastikas.
The General Lee from Dukes is worse than Mein Kampf?
The amazon situation (damn your editing ) is a weird one. My neighbor works at Amazon, and I've seen their company policy page (well in the past) and both confirm that the "official stance" is not to sell items glorifying Nazi Germany (ie, the swastika) and yet, just in the last week or two, I've seen some things that I wish I could unsee on Amazon.
My best guess is that these are all 3rd party sellers, and Amazon's policy only affects items that it directly sells, or they haven't had reports of those items sent up to them for removal.
TBH, I actually like the General Lee, because the car itself represents not much more than the Hazzard boys and their shenanigans. And I certainly cannot put it into the same category as Mein Kampf. Though I would say that Mein Kampf does have a place in academia. But personally, even though I may have to turn to Mein Kampf for research papers at some point, I don't relish the idea of having it in my possession, nor do I "look forward" to reading it
And I certainly cannot put it into the same category as Mein Kampf. Though I would say that Mein Kampf does have a place in academia. But personally, even though I may have to turn to Mein Kampf for research papers at some point, I don't relish the idea of having it in my possession, nor do I "look forward" to reading it
That's my stance as well. The Dixie Cross, like anything else is perfectly fine as a teaching tool, because bad things have to be remembered. For casual reasons, ehhh, I don;t like to tread on free speech, even if it's stuff I don't like.
Hell my father just spent the weekend portraying a Confederate at a Civil War reenactment, and a black lady tried to corner him in a nasty way. He said it was quite amusing.
Woman: (Points nastily) "Is that a Confederate flag you are flying?"
Dad: "Why yes, it is. My unit is portraying a South Carolina unit for this weekend's event".
Woman: "So are you a Confederate?"
Dad: "I am for this weekend".
Woman: (Gets intense suddenly) "No, I meant- are you a Confederate?!"
Dad: "No ma'am, for that I would have to be nearly 180 years old."
Woman: (Opens and shuts her mouth a couple times, and then gives a weird look and walks away".
It's hilarious, like people seem to think you can have something about the Civil War with no Confederate imagery............seems it'd be kinda boring watching a bunch of Federals drill, eat, and play cards.
Seems kinda odd... I know when I was living in Clarksville, at the one big Clarksville festival, my buddy and our two families were walking around the different booths, and a gentleman tried to recruit us to join their confederate re-enactment unit.
Aegis, if you don't mind me asking... Do most re-enactment groups have a "set" unit that they portray (as it would seem the group that tried recruiting me may have) or does your father show up to an event, draw a colored straw (or some form of random "coin toss" sort of thing) to find out what side he'll be on that weekend?
A good part of reinacting is teaching. Most (good) units are trying to represent a specific unit down to the gear they used and even the drills they used. There are actually even different ways to handle your rifles during drill that are specific to the North or South's methods. Believe it or not, right down to differing methids of stacking rifles in a tripod by interlocking their bayonets. (I have reinacted for over ten years now.)
Some units pride themselves on being so accurate, they even have their uniforms made the same way as the originals, right down to the stitch patterns and buttons, and sanding the commercial markings off of modern-made rifles.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Seems kinda odd... I know when I was living in Clarksville, at the one big Clarksville festival, my buddy and our two families were walking around the different booths, and a gentleman tried to recruit us to join their confederate re-enactment unit.
Aegis, if you don't mind me asking... Do most re-enactment groups have a "set" unit that they portray (as it would seem the group that tried recruiting me may have) or does your father show up to an event, draw a colored straw (or some form of random "coin toss" sort of thing) to find out what side he'll be on that weekend?
I would assume that since both sides need to be trained how to use weapons and what sort of drills etc to make along with the issue of uniform sizes and things like horse riding and so on that you usually play the same side most years. Unless you have multiple uniforms.
I think usually you join a club and that club has groups depending on your interests and uniform etc.
AegisGrimm wrote: Walmart? How about all the places that have blacklisted the Dixie Cross, like Amazon, where you can buy Mein Kampf?
I think the big difference here is the dixie cross is still flying over capital buildings to protest civil rights. The other is a book by a dead dictator.
the dixie cross is the symbol of choice for 6 burnt churches and 9 dead people this week. The other is dead.
AegisGrimm wrote: Walmart? How about all the places that have blacklisted the Dixie Cross, like Amazon, where you can buy Mein Kampf?
I think the big difference here is the dixie cross is still flying over capital buildings to protest civil rights. The other is a book by a dead dictator.
the dixie cross is the symbol of choice for 6 burnt churches and 9 dead people this week. The other is dead.
AegisGrimm wrote: Walmart? How about all the places that have blacklisted the Dixie Cross, like Amazon, where you can buy Mein Kampf?
I think the big difference here is the dixie cross is still flying over capital buildings to protest civil rights. The other is a book by a dead dictator.
the dixie cross is the symbol of choice for 6 burnt churches and 9 dead people this week. The other is dead.
In Germany, the Confederate flag is not void of political context. European skinheads and neo-Nazi groups have adopted the Confederate flag and variations of it because of its historical context as a symbol of racism and white supremacy.
AegisGrimm wrote: Walmart? How about all the places that have blacklisted the Dixie Cross, like Amazon, where you can buy Mein Kampf?
I think the big difference here is the dixie cross is still flying over capital buildings to protest civil rights. The other is a book by a dead dictator.
the dixie cross is the symbol of choice for 6 burnt churches and 9 dead people this week. The other is dead.
In Germany, the Confederate flag is not void of political context. European skinheads and neo-Nazi groups have adopted the Confederate flag and variations of it because of its historical context as a symbol of racism and white supremacy.
AegisGrimm wrote: Walmart? How about all the places that have blacklisted the Dixie Cross, like Amazon, where you can buy Mein Kampf?
I think the big difference here is the dixie cross is still flying over capital buildings to protest civil rights. The other is a book by a dead dictator.
the dixie cross is the symbol of choice for 6 burnt churches and 9 dead people this week. The other is dead.
In Germany, the Confederate flag is not void of political context. European skinheads and neo-Nazi groups have adopted the Confederate flag and variations of it because of its historical context as a symbol of racism and white supremacy.
I was referring to Mein Kampf being of significance to Neo-Nazis.
What is it's significance to them? Do any of them actually read it? or own it? Are they trying to run it up a flag pole on government grounds, then claim it tells the story of a painter, that united Germany against the European aggressors? or that it stands for German pride & heritage?
Doesn't it bother any decent southerner, that they are flying a flag associated with Nazi's, the Klan, and Democrats. Forget southern pride, they're obviously flying it because they're proud Democrats. I wonder which of the 3 southerners find most distasteful?
AegisGrimm wrote: Walmart? How about all the places that have blacklisted the Dixie Cross, like Amazon, where you can buy Mein Kampf?
I think the big difference here is the dixie cross is still flying over capital buildings to protest civil rights. The other is a book by a dead dictator.
the dixie cross is the symbol of choice for 6 burnt churches and 9 dead people this week. The other is dead.
In Germany, the Confederate flag is not void of political context. European skinheads and neo-Nazi groups have adopted the Confederate flag and variations of it because of its historical context as a symbol of racism and white supremacy.
I was referring to Mein Kampf being of significance to Neo-Nazis.
What is it's significance to them? Do any of them actually read it? or own it? Are they trying to run it up a flag pole on government grounds, then claim it tells the story of a painter, that united Germany against the European aggressors? or that it stands for German pride & heritage?
Doesn't it bother any decent southerner, that they are flying a flag associated with Nazi's, the Klan, and Democrats. Forget southern pride, they're obviously flying it because they're proud Democrats. I wonder which of the 3 southerners find most distasteful?
All the people I've known to fly it are neither Nazi's or Klansmen. As to Democrat's, I've known one or two, but most would identify as independent.
I've met a few Neo-Nazis and they seem to like Mein Kampf all right, and all of them owned it.
AegisGrimm wrote: Do you really think the chinese immigrants, or the native americans were not treated badly under the stars and stripes? Or the blacks of the civil rights movement? Or the Japanese put in "could be possible traitor" camps?
Every flag on earth has had it's bad share of history. Why can I buy all of those in places that buying the Confederate Battle flag would give me grief?
Amazon sure ain't banning material with Swastikas.
The General Lee from Dukes is worse than Mein Kampf?
No one said that the General Lee from the Dukes is "worse" than Mein Kampf.
That is again leaping to a conclusion based upon evidence that is not present (no one has made that comparison).
Two Categorical Evils are not necessarily comparable evils. One CAN be worse than the other, even those both remain categorical evils.
And, again.
The United States was not founded upon the explicitly stated ideologies of Genocide or exploitation of minorities.
In fact, the ideology upon which it was founded was the exact opposite of that.
People CAN hold an ideology that stands in direct contradiction with their behavior. The trick is: What do they, as a nation, do about their behavior once the contradiction is revealed.
No such contradiction existed for the Confederacy. Its people lived in exact harmony with their stated goals (the preservation and expansion of Black Slavery).
Yet the USA did have such contradictions, and the USA, as a rule, has tended to overcome and correct those contradictions, passing laws, or Supreme Court cases, which overturn the behavior that is in contradiction to the basic principles upon which it was founded.
That isn't a hard principle to understand.
It remains THE KEY DISTINCTION in our Criminal and Civil Law: Motive (otherwise know, as I keep saying, as "Intent/Intentions").
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.
Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?
I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
Dreadwinter wrote: I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
I don't see the problem. After all, they were only celebrating their heritage and you should respect that. It's not their fault you were offended.
Dreadwinter wrote: I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
I don't see the problem. After all, they were only celebrating their heritage and you should respect that. It's not their fault you were offended.
Or they were a bunch of dumb kids, which is what it sounds like to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also, racism isn't confined to the southern United States.
This should already be readily apparent by the recent riots over equality in several northern states.
Dreadwinter wrote: I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
I don't see the problem. After all, they were only celebrating their heritage and you should respect that. It's not their fault you were offended.
Or they were a bunch of dumb kids, which is what it sounds like to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also, racism isn't confined to the southern United States.
This should already be readily apparent by the recent riots over equality in several northern states.
I forget, which side was Illinois on in the ACW?
Sees racist act, calls place it happened The South to prove The South is still 'ugly' with racism.
There was a poll as recently as April asking people if they saw the "battle flag" as offensive 60 percent said no.
8 percent said they didn't care
And 32 percent said yes.
I can't say if I see it as offensive, and maybe as a foreigner it's not my place to do so.
While maybe it shouldn't be displayed on government buildings, the Dukes of hazard toy ban and stuff like that just feels knee jerk.
And I certainly think John Oliver shouldn't have taken a stand he may be a citizen now but really, if I moved there and hope willing I may I've not been effected by those issues so I shouldn't say.
Now I do support a organization that keeps ACW battlefields preserved as well as historical items and documents. And some members are concerned that calls may be made to destroy or remove them from public viewing and well I think it could happen just so they can get the essential government funding.
Do you mean Baltimore? Maryland was a slave State.
Yes, I meant Baltimore. It may have been a slave state, but it was not a confederate state. It straddled the line, and was not affected by the Emancipation Proclamation. Majority of it's enlisted soldiers fought for the Union.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.
Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.
Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?
I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
Some guy couldn't get WalMart to make his confederate battleflag cake so he instead had them do up another battleflag cake:
A WalMart Associate wrote:An associate in a local store did not know what the design meant and made a mistake," a store spokesman told ABC News. "The cake should not have been made and we apologize.
Some guy couldn't get WalMart to make his confederate battleflag cake so he instead had them do up another battleflag cake:
A WalMart Associate wrote:An associate in a local store did not know what the design meant and made a mistake," a store spokesman told ABC News. "The cake should not have been made and we apologize.
So the moral here is in america the confederate flag is a more recognizable symbol of racism, than the isis flag?
or that the public education system in america is so horrid that most kids have no idea about isis, nor could they find iraq on a map?
maybe the associate thought he was making the flag CNN thought was the isis flag, but was really something else entirely
Missouri is definitely not West. Missouri appears to be a freak state. It wants to be southern but didn't pay the dues to join the Lost Cause States.
On the other hand, we should be compassionate. Like Mexico it is so far from God, so close to Illinois.
I guess since Frazzled deigned to spend time in St. Louis for a few years, we can grace it with the term Southern Lite. Strangely, when there, mom (from NO) thought St. Louis was the most racist place she'd ever lived in.
MrDwhitey wrote: So apparently the KKK are planning a rally in South Carolina to protest the taking down of the flag.
That's a fun fact and all, but the KKK is a pretty small and fringe organizaiton at this point.
So people keep claiming, but the rally should prove it one way or the other. Let's see how many klan members and those who support the klan show up at the rally.
MrDwhitey wrote: So apparently the KKK are planning a rally in South Carolina to protest the taking down of the flag.
That's a fun fact and all, but the KKK is a pretty small and fringe organizaiton at this point.
So people keep claiming, but the rally should prove it one way or the other. Let's see how many klan members and those who support the klan show up at the rally.
Biggest group I remember was for the murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom where about 30 showed up.
MrDwhitey wrote: So apparently the KKK are planning a rally in South Carolina to protest the taking down of the flag.
That's a fun fact and all, but the KKK is a pretty small and fringe organizaiton at this point.
So people keep claiming, but the rally should prove it one way or the other. Let's see how many klan members and those who support the klan show up at the rally.
I'd say at most 50. There may be nmore in SC, but they would need a map, and reading is not their strong suit.
That case is pretty textbook in the fuckery that is our media and their coverage.
What was wrong with the coverage? You knew about it.
The guilty were arrested, indicted, then convicted, judge got disbarred, they got convicted again.
what more coverage did it need?
Or are you trying to compare it to the protests about the racism in the police departments?
You know where the guilty are not arrested, not indicted, not convicted and get nation wide coverage defending the murderer, and the police go on strike to defend the guilty
or are you upset because there wasn't nationwide media coverage defending the murderers of channon & chris?
What was wrong with the coverage? You knew about it.
Because I have family that lives pretty close to there, and a sister in law that went to UT at the time. I wouldn't have otherwise.
Or are you trying to compare it to the protests about the racism in the police departments?
They're not related at all.
You know where the guilty are not arrested, not indicted, not convicted and get nation wide coverage defending the murderer, and the police go on strike to defend the guilty
So glad you're the arbiter of guilt for the US.
or are you upset because there wasn't nationwide media coverage defending the murderers of channon & chris?
The story was largely ignored nationwide. Today, and with the roles reversed, Holder would be involved and the "good Revs" would be high up on their horse.
What was wrong with the coverage? You knew about it.
Because I have family that lives pretty close to there, and a sister in law that went to UT at the time. I wouldn't have otherwise.
Or are you trying to compare it to the protests about the racism in the police departments?
They're not related at all.
You know where the guilty are not arrested, not indicted, not convicted and get nation wide coverage defending the murderer, and the police go on strike to defend the guilty
So glad you're the arbiter of guilt for the US.
or are you upset because there wasn't nationwide media coverage defending the murderers of channon & chris?
The story was largely ignored nationwide. Today, and with the roles reversed, Holder would be involved and the "good Revs" would be high up on their horse.
That's the fuckery I'm talking about.
Yep, I'm the arbiter of guilt, and you're the speaker & puppet master for the "good revs" it seems.
If you want the media to cover every murder in the US, you'd probably need 3 or more news channels running 24/7 at the rate you guys are killing each other.
What was wrong with the coverage? You knew about it.
Because I have family that lives pretty close to there, and a sister in law that went to UT at the time. I wouldn't have otherwise.
Or are you trying to compare it to the protests about the racism in the police departments?
They're not related at all.
You know where the guilty are not arrested, not indicted, not convicted and get nation wide coverage defending the murderer, and the police go on strike to defend the guilty
So glad you're the arbiter of guilt for the US.
or are you upset because there wasn't nationwide media coverage defending the murderers of channon & chris?
The story was largely ignored nationwide. Today, and with the roles reversed, Holder would be involved and the "good Revs" would be high up on their horse.
That's the fuckery I'm talking about.
Yep, I'm the arbiter of guilt, and you're the speaker & puppet master for the "good revs" it seems.
If you want the media to cover every murder in the US, you'd probably need 3 or more news channels running 24/7 at the rate you guys are killing each other.
I'd say there's a number of stories more important than a cop shooting an attacking thug and getting gak for it.
Not to mention the riots, burnt down gas stations, a guy losing his job out of safety concerns, and everything else that came along with it.
What was wrong with the coverage? You knew about it.
Because I have family that lives pretty close to there, and a sister in law that went to UT at the time. I wouldn't have otherwise.
Or are you trying to compare it to the protests about the racism in the police departments?
They're not related at all.
You know where the guilty are not arrested, not indicted, not convicted and get nation wide coverage defending the murderer, and the police go on strike to defend the guilty
So glad you're the arbiter of guilt for the US.
or are you upset because there wasn't nationwide media coverage defending the murderers of channon & chris?
The story was largely ignored nationwide. Today, and with the roles reversed, Holder would be involved and the "good Revs" would be high up on their horse.
That's the fuckery I'm talking about.
Yep, I'm the arbiter of guilt, and you're the speaker & puppet master for the "good revs" it seems.
If you want the media to cover every murder in the US, you'd probably need 3 or more news channels running 24/7 at the rate you guys are killing each other.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
What was wrong with the coverage? You knew about it.
Because I have family that lives pretty close to there, and a sister in law that went to UT at the time. I wouldn't have otherwise.
Or are you trying to compare it to the protests about the racism in the police departments?
They're not related at all.
You know where the guilty are not arrested, not indicted, not convicted and get nation wide coverage defending the murderer, and the police go on strike to defend the guilty
So glad you're the arbiter of guilt for the US.
or are you upset because there wasn't nationwide media coverage defending the murderers of channon & chris?
The story was largely ignored nationwide. Today, and with the roles reversed, Holder would be involved and the "good Revs" would be high up on their horse.
That's the fuckery I'm talking about.
Yep, I'm the arbiter of guilt, and you're the speaker & puppet master for the "good revs" it seems.
If you want the media to cover every murder in the US, you'd probably need 3 or more news channels running 24/7 at the rate you guys are killing each other.
Woah, woah, woah there brother we don't kill each other. Guns kill each other.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Ding ding ding.
Casey Anthony's sorry ass was national news for a loooooong time.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Isn't that the entire natural history of the south you're quoting? seems like par for the course for them.
You only think that because the news doesn't cover all the murders that happen daily in the states. As this happened in the states, and you have had people also eating people in the states. It does seem natural for you guys.
And no Fraz, I'm not going to indulge you with pics, but if you're mom is from NO, how can you really be a texan eh? Let's see your birth certificate!
And no Fraz, I'm not going to indulge you with pics, but if you're mom is from NO, how can you really be a texan eh? Let's see your birth certificate!
Every now and then, a mutation occurs that makes a child Texan no matter where in the world the child is born. Frazzled is numbers 1 through 12 of these mutations ever.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Isn't that the entire natural history of the south you're quoting? seems like par for the course for them.
You only think that because the news doesn't cover all the murders that happen daily in the states. As this happened in the states, and you have had people also eating people in the states. It does seem natural for you guys.
And no Fraz, I'm not going to indulge you with pics, but if you're mom is from NO, how can you really be a texan eh? Let's see your birth certificate!
I'm quite aware the news doesn't cover all the murders in the US, the local news doesn't even report on all the murders in Memphis, TN. The difference is shooting up a liquor store in north memphis isn't news. Kidnap, rape, torture, and the murder of a young couple is, no matter their race or color. Just because they were whites murdered by blacks doesn't mean it should be shushed up and swept under the rug.
Yes, I meant Baltimore. It may have been a slave state, but it was not a confederate state. It straddled the line, and was not affected by the Emancipation Proclamation. Majority of it's enlisted soldiers fought for the Union.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Ding ding ding.
Casey Anthony's sorry ass was national news for a loooooong time.
This barely registered a blip.
Well, Casey Anthony's story was both 1) a mystery, and 2) about a white woman doing terrible things. Most of the time, long running news stories involve either unanswered questions, or pretty spectacular novelty.
It appears that in this case, arrests were quick, there was no special interest angle, and hardly anybody felt that there was a genuine controversy in the case itself.
The generic answer to the class of questions built around "why did the media spend so much time on Trayvon Martin/Feguson/Baltimore/etc, and they didn't cover this story?" is almost always: controversial stories make for good ratings. People take sides, they watch, they want to know more. Open and shut cases, in which nobody really disagrees on the good or the bad of it, just aren't that interesting.
Yes, I meant Baltimore. It may have been a slave state, but it was not a confederate state. It straddled the line, and was not affected by the Emancipation Proclamation. Majority of it's enlisted soldiers fought for the Union.
The news doesn't cover black crime in the same sensationalist light. Hell, even the DC snipers quickly fell out of the media once there were identified. And even though the sniper openly cited racism as a motive, it was never mentioned in the media.
The white girls mobbed while crowds chanted "feth up the whiteys" was deemed as non hate related.
The US media pisses itself when asked to report fairly.
Sinful Hero wrote: I'm quite aware the news doesn't cover all the murders in the US, the local news doesn't even report on all the murders in Memphis, TN. The difference is shooting up a liquor store in north memphis isn't news. Kidnap, rape, torture, and the murder of a young couple is, no matter their race or color. Just because they were whites murdered by blacks doesn't mean it should be shushed up and swept under the rug.
Except it wasn't hushed up, and it wasn't swept under a rug.
It was reported, openly.
The perpetrators were arrested, tried, and convicted, openly.
It was not a major news story, and there could be reasons for that. It could be that all major national news outlets conspired to underreport the story out of slavish obedience to some PC principles. It could be that while tragic and horrible, it's not that interesting a story beyond a, "oh my god, that's awful." No manhunt, no real question about who did it, no real racial or other motives that anybody remotely partial felt existed, no underlying questions about if young attrative couples are systematically oppressed by black gangs.
It's just a random, horrible crime. They happen, they get some coverage, and then the new cycle moves on.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Isn't that the entire natural history of the south you're quoting? seems like par for the course for them.
You only think that because the news doesn't cover all the murders that happen daily in the states. As this happened in the states, and you have had people also eating people in the states. It does seem natural for you guys.
And no Fraz, I'm not going to indulge you with pics, but if you're mom is from NO, how can you really be a texan eh? Let's see your birth certificate!
I'm quite aware the news doesn't cover all the murders in the US, the local news doesn't even report on all the murders in Memphis, TN. The difference is shooting up a liquor store in north memphis isn't news. Kidnap, rape, torture, and the murder of a young couple is, no matter their race or color. Just because they were whites murdered by blacks doesn't mean it should be shushed up and swept under the rug.
LOL, swept under the rug? they were convicted twice. you can google it and read it every day, maybe they'll make a movie about it. Shushed up? LOL
Justice normally doesn't get much news time, Injustice tends to get more as the issue is never resolved and keeps being brought back up. As murderers are never caught or they are set free. Why does your case need more national coverage? Just to spread the narrative that all blacks are thugs?
The news doesn't cover black crime in the same sensationalist light. Hell, even the DC snipers quickly fell out of the media once there were identified. And even though the sniper openly cited racism as a motive, it was never mentioned in the media.
The white girls mobbed while crowds chanted "feth up the whiteys" was deemed as non hate related.
The US media pisses itself when asked to report fairly.
Well, have you ever heard the old saw about "Man bites dog?" Basically, while dogs bit people far more often, it's more interesting, and likely more reported, story when a man bites a dog. So you hear about things that are uncommon far more often than common things.
A pretty quick glance at prison populations, court dockets, and stereotypes show that "black person does something violent" is a dog bites man situation. While undeniably more common, there's also some subtle racial perceptions that basically cause us to accept that five black men would kidnap, rape, and kill a white couple. It fits the world view we know. While a powerful example, it's still dog biting man.
A pretty white girl killing her own kids? That's rare and interesting!
Sinful Hero wrote: I'm quite aware the news doesn't cover all the murders in the US, the local news doesn't even report on all the murders in Memphis, TN. The difference is shooting up a liquor store in north memphis isn't news. Kidnap, rape, torture, and the murder of a young couple is, no matter their race or color. Just because they were whites murdered by blacks doesn't mean it should be shushed up and swept under the rug.
Except it wasn't hushed up, and it wasn't swept under a rug.
It was reported, openly.
The perpetrators were arrested, tried, and convicted, openly.
It was not a major news story, and there could be reasons for that. It could be that all major national news outlets conspired to underreport the story out of slavish obedience to some PC principles. It could be that while tragic and horrible, it's not that interesting a story beyond a, "oh my god, that's awful." No manhunt, no real question about who did it, no real racial or other motives that anybody remotely partial felt existed, no underlying questions about if young attrative couples are systematically oppressed by black gangs.
It's just a random, horrible crime. They happen, they get some coverage, and then the new cycle moves on.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Ding ding ding.
Casey Anthony's sorry ass was national news for a loooooong time.
This barely registered a blip.
Well, Casey Anthony's story was both 1) a mystery, and 2) about a white woman doing terrible things. Most of the time, long running news stories involve either unanswered questions, or pretty spectacular novelty.
It appears that in this case, arrests were quick, there was no special interest angle, and hardly anybody felt that there was a genuine controversy in the case itself.
The generic answer to the class of questions built around "why did the media spend so much time on Trayvon Martin/Feguson/Baltimore/etc, and they didn't cover this story?" is almost always: controversial stories make for good ratings. People take sides, they watch, they want to know more. Open and shut cases, in which nobody really disagrees on the good or the bad of it, just aren't that interesting.
The news doesn't cover black crime in the same sensationalist light. Hell, even the DC snipers quickly fell out of the media once there were identified. And even though the sniper openly cited racism as a motive, it was never mentioned in the media.
The white girls mobbed while crowds chanted "feth up the whiteys" was deemed as non hate related.
The US media pisses itself when asked to report fairly.
No kidding, isn't it amazing how fox news is trying to paint the kid who shot up the church as liberal.
The news actually has some interesting biases when it comes to reporting crime. They tend to overreport white serial killers, even though whites are no more likely to be serial killers. They overreport any crime with a young, white, female victim. They tend to grossly underreport black on black violence, and black victims in general.
It's easy to look around after the last few years and marvel at how much coverage police shooting victims get, but that's a really contemporary phenomenon.
If you watched TV news even a decade ago, you'd have blink and you'l miss 'em reports of suspects killed by police, while ever cop killed in the line got a prominent local story. That's fine, but I think that's one reason we few police deaths as common, and police shootings rare, when actually police shoot and kill many times more suspects than suspects kill police.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Isn't that the entire natural history of the south you're quoting? seems like par for the course for them.
You only think that because the news doesn't cover all the murders that happen daily in the states. As this happened in the states, and you have had people also eating people in the states. It does seem natural for you guys.
And no Fraz, I'm not going to indulge you with pics, but if you're mom is from NO, how can you really be a texan eh? Let's see your birth certificate!
I'm quite aware the news doesn't cover all the murders in the US, the local news doesn't even report on all the murders in Memphis, TN. The difference is shooting up a liquor store in north memphis isn't news. Kidnap, rape, torture, and the murder of a young couple is, no matter their race or color. Just because they were whites murdered by blacks doesn't mean it should be shushed up and swept under the rug.
LOL, swept under the rug? they were convicted twice. you can google it and read it every day, maybe they'll make a movie about it. Shushed up? LOL
Justice normally doesn't get much news time, Injustice tends to get more as the issue is never resolved and keeps being brought back up. As murderers are never caught or they are set free. Why does your case need more national coverage? Just to spread the narrative that all blacks are thugs?
Or to spread the narrative that not all blacks kidnap, torture, rape, and murder young couples. There's that too. It's not exactly a good thing for it to be defined as "typical black behavior".
My point about it being "swept under the rug" was that most major news outlets gave little to no coverage of the story. Local outlets were the major sources of information, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Well, have you ever heard the old saw about "Man bites dog?" Basically, while dogs bit people far more often, it's more interesting, and likely more reported, story when a man bites a dog. So you hear about things that are uncommon far more often than common things.
I think the difference here is that a very compelling argument could have been made for a hate crime and none was. Contrarily, Holder investigated Zimmerman for a hate crime when there wasn't any real reason to beyond pressure from the mob.
We don't get a whole lot of Black on white hate crimes, do we?
Well, have you ever heard the old saw about "Man bites dog?" Basically, while dogs bit people far more often, it's more interesting, and likely more reported, story when a man bites a dog. So you hear about things that are uncommon far more often than common things.
I think the difference here is that a very compelling argument could have been made for a hate crime and none was. Contrarily, Holder investigated Zimmerman for a hate crime when there wasn't any real reason to beyond pressure from the mob.
We don't get a whole lot of Black on white hate crimes, do we?
Nope, they're just the more moral people. They don't target whites just because they're white.
Speaking of news coverage and hate crimes, isn't it odd how 6 black churches can be burnt down and no one is saying it's a hate crime?
Well, have you ever heard the old saw about "Man bites dog?" Basically, while dogs bit people far more often, it's more interesting, and likely more reported, story when a man bites a dog. So you hear about things that are uncommon far more often than common things.
I think the difference here is that a very compelling argument could have been made for a hate crime and none was. Contrarily, Holder investigated Zimmerman for a hate crime when there wasn't any real reason to beyond pressure from the mob.
We don't get a whole lot of Black on white hate crimes, do we?
Nope, they're just the more moral people. They don't target whites just because they're white.
Speaking of news coverage and hate crimes, isn't it odd how 6 black churches can be burnt down and no one is saying it's a hate crime?
I was under the impression they were being investigated as hate crimes?
We seem to have gotten far afield with the Knoxville murders- feel free to PM me if you want to continue that line of discussion sirlynchmob.
That's just three. All mention that they're being investigated and make a point to state that they do not believe they're hate crimes "at this time," which would led anyone with the literary power of inference to understand that they HAD looked into them as potential hate crimes.
Well, have you ever heard the old saw about "Man bites dog?" Basically, while dogs bit people far more often, it's more interesting, and likely more reported, story when a man bites a dog. So you hear about things that are uncommon far more often than common things.
I think the difference here is that a very compelling argument could have been made for a hate crime and none was. Contrarily, Holder investigated Zimmerman for a hate crime when there wasn't any real reason to beyond pressure from the mob.
We don't get a whole lot of Black on white hate crimes, do we?
Well, I don't much care for Hate Crimes, because that's basically thoughtcrime, and not something I'm down with.
Pragmatically, the reason to investigate a hate crime for Zimmerman is that it would have been an easier charge to make stick. With the Tennessee case, there was no real question that the murder charges would stick.
More generally, I think that the question of racial profiling probably played at least a tangential role in the Zimmerman case. I don't know too many white people that aren't made more nervous by unknown black youths than white, so its reasonable to assume that Zimmerman became more involved than he would if the race were different. Not a hate crime, but worth checking out.
The crime in Tennessee began with a carjacking, which suggests a different motive. I don't have a lot of material here, outside of the Wikipedia article, but is there any evidence that they crime was racially motivated?
Also, to tie back into an earlier point: A hate crime by a white person is an act of terror, it's also an act of white supremacy. It's about sending a message that certain races are less than. A hate crime against a white person just doesn't carry that heft. A black person may hate me because I'm white, but they can't work to exclude white people from society.
Pragmatically, the reason to investigate a hate crime for Zimmerman is that it would have been an easier charge to make stick. With the Tennessee case, there was no real question that the murder charges would stick.
I believe they also carry enhanced sentences as of the mid 90s, don't they?
More generally, I think that the question of racial profiling probably played at least a tangential role in the Zimmerman case. I don't know too many white people that aren't made more nervous by unknown black youths than white, so its reasonable to assume that Zimmerman became more involved than he would if the race were different. Not a hate crime, but worth checking out.
Without digging into the notion of Zimmerman's "whiteness," I'm fairly certain the 911 call from Zimmerman shows him hesitating when he's trying to determine what Martin looks like. From what I recall, there was nothing compelling to believe Zimmerman knew the person's race at first.
The crime in Tennessee began with a carjacking, which suggests a different motive. I don't have a lot of material here, outside of the Wikipedia article, but is there any evidence that they crime was racially motivated?
A lot of people believe the escalation and barbarism of the crime, as well as the amount of time the two were held, indicates that it may have started as a car jacking that ended up being a hate crime. It's entirely possible they were just horrible, horrible feths.
I'd also point out that the Knoxville Sherrif and Prosecutor both made affirmative statements that they did not see a racial motive in the case. This, in a county that's 88% white? I find it hard to believe that elected officials in such a strongly white environment would be worried about appearances and hiding a racial motive.
Polonius wrote: I'd also point out that the Knoxville Sherrif and Prosecutor both made affirmative statements that they did not see a racial motive in the case. This, in a county that's 88% white? I find it hard to believe that elected officials in such a strongly white environment would be worried about appearances and hiding a racial motive.
Oh, I don't disagree.
But, since we're using the Martin case comparatively, those affirmations by the PD in Florida didn't prevent Holder from opening a case.
What was wrong with the coverage? You knew about it.
Because I have family that lives pretty close to there, and a sister in law that went to UT at the time. I wouldn't have otherwise.
Or are you trying to compare it to the protests about the racism in the police departments?
They're not related at all.
You know where the guilty are not arrested, not indicted, not convicted and get nation wide coverage defending the murderer, and the police go on strike to defend the guilty
So glad you're the arbiter of guilt for the US.
or are you upset because there wasn't nationwide media coverage defending the murderers of channon & chris?
The story was largely ignored nationwide. Today, and with the roles reversed, Holder would be involved and the "good Revs" would be high up on their horse.
That's the fuckery I'm talking about.
Yep, I'm the arbiter of guilt, and you're the speaker & puppet master for the "good revs" it seems.
If you want the media to cover every murder in the US, you'd probably need 3 or more news channels running 24/7 at the rate you guys are killing each other.
Woah, woah, woah there brother we don't kill each other. Guns kill each other.
inorite? Guns are like fething beta fish. There's a reason I keep most of mine in the safe and only carry one at a time.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Ding ding ding.
Casey Anthony's sorry ass was national news for a loooooong time.
Kilkrazy wrote: This all seems to have gone a long way off the topic of the Confederate flag.
Should the thread be closed?
I promise to behave if you leave it open til after the klan rally to save the flag.
The request was made on June 23, Gaines said, just one day after South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley (R) announced that she would call on state lawmakers to take up the issue of removing the flag after a racially motivated attack on a black church that left nine people dead. The Klan group said it expects about 200 people to attend.
Two things. 1) CSA lost, who WANTS to fly the rebel flag? It's like Virginia State property flying a Union Jack and claiming "heritage." True, but also silly.
2) Ultimately, when you fly the flag, you endorse all of it's meanings, intentional or otherwise. One of those meanings is hateful. It is not appropriate for state property.
As for your own use - do what you want. First Amendment protects you. I don't see why people freak out about not having on state property.
Fun fact - the Confederate symbol pictured above is not even the CSA flag.
Kilkrazy wrote: This all seems to have gone a long way off the topic of the Confederate flag.
Should the thread be closed?
I promise to behave if you leave it open til after the klan rally to save the flag.
How many are you really expecting?
I expect a large turnout for it, I think the klan is much larger than people give it credit for. But frazz and others seem to believe it will only be a few. So I find myself wondering today, do I have less faith in humanity than frazz does? have I lost all faith in humanity? maybe, or do posters on here just have more faith in southerners to do the right thing?
@sirlynchmob
It's neither. The Klan is mostly a joke these days. It's very splintered and fractured. I wouldn't expect them to even agree to what time they need to show up.
The Aryan Brotherhood is a much more relevant white supremacist group.
Dreadwinter wrote: I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
I don't see the problem. After all, they were only celebrating their heritage and you should respect that. It's not their fault you were offended.
Or they were a bunch of dumb kids, which is what it sounds like to me.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And also, racism isn't confined to the southern United States.
This should already be readily apparent by the recent riots over equality in several northern states.
I forget, which side was Illinois on in the ACW?
Sees racist act, calls place it happened The South to prove The South is still 'ugly' with racism.
I want to point out that not only did I not imply that my state is a southern state, I point out that it is not int he first line of my post. So I mean, nice job guys.
What I was pointing out is that racism is ugly not just in the south, but in regions close to it.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.
Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?
I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
So, YOU replied to "In what ways is The South still ugly?" And though you state not the True South, you sure as heck seemed to equate it to the South that is still 'ugly'. Hence my reply.
That Slaveryexisted, or that racism exists elsewhere is irrelevant to the issue of whether the South is predominantly racist in their attitudes (especially concerning their attempts to white-wash - literally - The Civil War, and the symbols of the Confederacy).
Almost all racism in the USA is inspired by what the South Represented, REGARDLESS of where that racism occurs (see Sarah Palin's defense of the Confederate Flag as an example. She is ALASKAN, yet appropriates symbols of the Confederacy for a "Heritage" she has no part of).
So, dealing with the Symbols of racism, and removing them from the public sphere, and forcing them into the private sphere will be the FIRST STEP in divorcing an explicitly racist narrative from the country on a Federal level.
This will not stop racists from being racists, but it WILL deny them a shield behind which to hide, and make their attitudes more visible to the mainstream population.
So, YOU replied to "In what ways is The South still ugly?" And though you state not the True South, you sure as heck seemed to equate it to the South that is still 'ugly'. Hence my reply.
Actually he specifically differentiated Southern Illinois from the "True South", how you managed to miss that is beyond me.
hotsauceman1 wrote: So, there are people who don't believe that the south was an incredibly racist place and was well into the 20th century.
You say that like somehow they managed not to continue that tradition to the current day. It may not be the heydays of fire hoses and lynchings anymore but it's still pretty ugly.
Just out of curiosity, in what ways is it still pretty ugly?
I do not even live in the true south, I live in Southern Illinois, about 50 minutes from the Kentucky border. While sitting in my car Sunday night waiting for my ride to pick me up(Alternator died while going through McDonalds) a group of people were moving through the drive through. They started honking and a series of cars began to honk along side of them. Then came the chanting of "What does Union County stand for? Ain't no [Racial Slur] allowed in Union County!" This is a 100% exact quote from them and there were 5-10 people shouting this out loud in downtown at the busiest place in town. These were young people, much younger than me, 17-18 years old.
On the flip side, one of the people shouting and chanting helped me with my car. This was before the shouting and chanting though, but he seemed like a nice guy until he started chanting.
So, YOU replied to "In what ways is The South still ugly?" And though you state not the True South, you sure as heck seemed to equate it to the South that is still 'ugly'. Hence my reply.
I did not equate it to the South. I made sure to go out of my way to say it was not the south even though it is referred to as Southern Illinois. I already explained everything else, you are really trying to push this.
I don't know how it is in Canada, but kidnapping a couple of a different race, raping and torturing them over several days, and then murdering them is a little unnatural here in the States.
Ding ding ding.
Casey Anthony's sorry ass was national news for a loooooong time.
This barely registered a blip.
They where adults and white... no one cares.
So does no one care because national networks aren't reporting it 24/7, or are the national networks not reporting it because nobody cares?
People need to realize that the national networks are not some benevolent servants of the national conscience with a mission do disperse all knowledge that should be had by all regarding popular events affecting our country. Their only purpose is to make money, and to make money they need advertisers, and to get advertisers they need good ratings. How do they get ratings? Figure out what pisses people off this week and then report the kind of stories that piss people off. Cops shooting blacks currently gets people worked up, so that is what gets reported. Not because the news think it's some national tragedy, they didn't give a crap about it until recently, but because it gets people worked up and keeps them turning on the TV. That whole concept is the only reason FoxNews exists, because they figured out that nobody is pushing stories about evil liberals and their attacks on conservatives and that 50% of the political spectrum isn't getting what they want to hear from the other news channels. MSNBC figured out that FoxNews had a solid business model, aka spin news to tell stories that appeal to political ideologies, and are doing the same for liberals.
If people suddely decided that they cared about dachshunds gaking on the sidewalks and that our government should do something about it we would have news trucks parked on the side of the streets with cameras having live shots everytime a dachshund lays down a log. Frazzled would be interviewed on crossfire as the leading authority on the fact that their breeding allowed them maximum efficiency for converting food to lethal logs and the associated gas emissions, and other people would argue that german shepards have much bigger fecal products and that the media is just covering up for them because of the collective guild over the participation of the breeds in guarding the nazi death camps.
tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
It's always been a bit scary, realizing how mobs can be worked up. Mass shootings are bad, but far worse things are killing people off.
Relapse wrote: It's always been a bit scary, realizing how mobs can be worked up. Mass shootings are bad, but far worse things are killing people off.
With journalism the maxim "If it bleeds it leads" is a definite factor. Also with 24 hour media events like mass shootings, terrorists attacks, etc. are just ratings fodder.
STONE MOUNTAIN, Ga. (Reuters) - Fourth of July holidaymakers ignored a call to boycott Georgia's Stone Mountain Park, known as the "Confederate Rushmore," over its display of the contentious Confederate flag.
Hundreds of people had staked out spots at the 3,200-acre (1,295-hectare) privately run park by noon on Saturday for nighttime laser and fireworks shows. They shrugged off heavy rain on the park's busiest day of the year as well as the boycott call.
Democratic state Representative LaDawn Blackett Jones this week urged people to stay away from the park 10 miles (16 km) east of Atlanta because it flies three flags of the pro-slavery Confederacy alongside the U.S. and Georgia state flags.
Bobbie Smith of Fitzgerald, Georgia, who was camping at Stone Mountain with her family, called the boycott call "just stupid."
“This whole park is a Confederate memorial. If you don’t have the flag here, where on Earth would you put it?” she said.
The Confederate flag from the 1861-65 U.S. Civil War has become a lightning rod for outrage after the shooting of nine black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, last month. The white suspect, Dylann Roof, had posed for photos with the Confederate battle flag.
Politicians in several Southern states have called for removal of the flag and other Confederate memorials from public spaces. A raft of major retailers have said they would pull items with the Confederate flag on them.
Ray Simpkins, of Kennesaw, Georgia, who brought his children to see the laser show, said the flag remains a reminder of the Confederacy's advocacy of slavery.
"Although I don’t love it, I think there’s a place for it here,” said Simpkins, who is black. “But it shouldn’t fly next to the U.S. flag."
The park is on state land and run by the Stone Mountain Memorial Association. Spokesman John Bankhead said, “People on both sides of the issue say it (the flag) belongs in a museum. Here in Georgia, the Stone Mountain Park serves as that.”
The park is known as the "Confederate Mount Rushmore" for its 90-foot-tall (27-meter-tall) relief sculpture of three Confederate figures - President Jefferson Davis and Generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. The park describes it as the largest high relief sculpture in the world.
The mountain is also infamous as the founding spot of a 20th century version of the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist group.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
Kilkrazy wrote: A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
To fully complete your analogy;
- we need people to call for outright bans on air travel
- we need people to start providing a specific need for air travel
- we need people to be licensed to travel by an aircraft
- we need calls to remove aircraft from private ownership
- we need to start outlawing aircraft based on cosmetic appearances
- if a pilot intentionally downs an aircraft (as happened recently) we need to say that the aircraft is at fault
Aircraft crashes require a team of experts to put together months of technical data based on analyzing the black box, computer simulations, examining the stresses put on components that have been damaged by the impact and scattered for miles (as well as suffering further damage from their sudden arrest as they hit the ground), and many other very technical assessments. All things that are lacking in the investigation of mass shootings. Your comparison is wholly disingenuous.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.
You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.
You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.
Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.
You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.
Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.
You're welcome to believe that's what he was suggesting.
It's not the truth, but you don't have to stop believin'. Just hold onto that feeling of "it's the anti-gun side painting that glorious organization the NRA in a bad light!".
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.
You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.
Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.
You're welcome to believe that's what he was suggesting.
It's not the truth, but you don't have to stop believin'. Just hold onto that feeling of "it's the anti-gun side painting that glorious organization the NRA in a bad light!".
You're the one who brought up the NRA. They aren't the only group on the pro-gun side. It's the difference between suggesting that people with proper training be allowed to carry firearms and that that could potentially increase security against mass shootings, and the anti-gun side asking "So you think everyone should have a gun? And that would make people safer?"
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
Unfortunately, this is not true.
At least in the USA, where mass Shootings have been increasing in Frequency:
And this data does not even include incidents in which fewer than 8 people are killed (such as the recent Charlestown Incident, would not make the data points).
The time BETWEEN shootings/incidents is decreasing, NOT the incident's frequency, themselves.
d-usa wrote: tl;dr: media reports whatever makes them money and the prevalence of reporting, or the lack of, should never be used as a gauge of wether a topic is legitimate or not.
By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
A bit like major air crashes, the major difference being that after a major air crash teams of the best technical experts in the world spend months trying to figure out how to prevent it happening again, while after a mass shooting there is a massive wave of lolwut for "assault weapons", "clips" and the call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer.
I don't think there is really very often much of a "call to arm yet more people more widely, because it's safer" after a mass shooting. Anti-gun people almost always claim that there is, but I think that comes more from the anti-gun crowd not actually listening to anything the people in the pro-gun crowd is actually saying.
You might want to tell that to the NRA then, because LaPierre suggested things like "arming teachers" or "armed volunteers"(read: citizens) at schools after Newtown.
Yes, allowing people such as teacher's that option, with proper training. That's not the same as requiring them to be armed, which is what the anti-gun side often seems to characterize it as.
Despite the fact that ALL simulations show (simulations were every member, student and teacher, was considered armed, and portrayed by a trained soldier) that even if you arm everyone, the shooter still has a better chance to kill everyone that any defender has of stopping them.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: By way of an example to this point - mass shootings. An event which is statistically insignificant, and which has been declining for years garners disproportionate media attention.
Unfortunately, this is not true.
At least in the USA, where mass Shootings have been increasing in Frequency:
And this data does not even include incidents in which fewer than 8 people are killed (such as the recent Charlestown Incident, would not make the data points).
The time BETWEEN shootings/incidents is decreasing, NOT the incident's frequency, themselves.
Criminologist Grant Duwe has researched mass killings in the U.S. and found some surprising statistics.
“Mass murder rates and mass public shootings have been on the decline,” Duwe told Here & Now. “But what we did see was an especially bad year for mass public shootings [in 2012]…. The number of victims who were killed and wounded was greater than in any previous year in U.S. history.”
Duwe found that 0.2 percent of all homicides that occur in the United States are mass murders, and of those mass murders, 10 percent are mass public killings, such as those in Aurora, Newtown and the Washington Navy Yard.
In the wake of Monday’s Navy Yard shooting, there has been much lamentation that mass shootings are on the rise in America. “If you have been thinking that we live in an era that is more marked by this type of mass bloodshed than any era before,” remarked Rachel Maddow, “I am sad to tell you you are right. It did not used to be this way, but more and more, this is part of how we live.”
The problem with this claim is that it isn’t true – or to be more charitable, it’s “true” in such a limited way as to be meaningless.
Maddow is defining “this type of mass bloodshed” as mass shootings in which 12 or more victims were killed. There have been 12 such shootings in the United States since 1949, and half of them have taken place in the last six years, which on its face sounds, as Maddow suggests, like a very ominous trend.
But anyone familiar with statistics should be made immediately suspicious by what statisticians refer to as the “cut point” for Maddow’s analysis. Why did she choose 12 victims? The answer is because it created the appearance of a statistically significant trend, where no such trend exists.
Suppose Maddow had defined “this type” of mass shooting as one in which at least 14 victims died. Using that definition, it turns out that the rate of this type of mass shooting in America was nearly twice as high in the 25 years between 1966 and 1991 as it has been in the 22 years since (there were four such shootings in the former period, and two in the latter).
Or we could use the FBI’s definition of a mass shooting: one in which at least four people, not including the perpetrator, are killed. This is a vastly larger category than the one Maddow employs: there were about 600 such incidents in the United States between 1980 and 2010. As James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University points out, the rate of such mass shootings does not appear to be rising.
Speaking of statistics, here are a few others that ought to be relevant to policy makers:
*Homicide rates in the United States are lower now than they have been at almost any time in the last century, having fallen by more than 50% since 1991.
*Mass shootings, even using the very broad definition employed by the FBI, make up a tiny fraction of homicides – usually less than one percent.
*No one knows why homicide rates doubled between 1960 and 1980, or why they’ve declined just as sharply in the years since. Many theories have been suggested, including the aging of the population, high rates of incarceration, legalized abortion, and even declines in the percentage of lead in the environment (the latter, improbable-sounding, hypothesis has some surprisingly strong statistical support). But criminology is very far from an exact science, and these various theories remain little more than educated guesses.
Given all this, it’s very difficult to say what, if anything, can be done about either gun violence in general, or mass shootings in particular. It seems unlikely that the kind of weak gun control measures that are politically conceivable in America today, such as limits on certain sorts of weapons, and tighter background checks, will make much if any difference in regard to social problems that we, at bottom, do not really understand.
That is a frustrating and somewhat depressing conclusion, especially since even today’s far lower homicide rate is still vastly higher than that in almost all other wealthy industrialized nations. But it is better to admit to not knowing what to do than to do something for the sake of pretending otherwise
Tragically, America experienced two more shootings this week in Las Vegas and at a school in Oregon. Yet, unlike the CNN headline - "This is becoming the norm -" mass shootings, including the ones at school, aren't on the rise. In fact, America is less violent than it's ever been in nearly 20 years.
As CNSNews reported earlier, gun-related homicides dropped 39% between 1993-2011; Pew noted a 49% drop between 1993-2010. In the first six months of 2013, violent crime murders declined 6.9%, rapes declined 10.6%, and aggravated assaults decreased by 6.6%, according to the FBI. In all, we're holding steady on a 25-year trend where violent crime is declining.
James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northwestern University, has been tracking mass shootings with four or more fatalities since 1976. It wasn't surprising to see that mass shootings aren't on the rise. In fact, the rate of such incidents has pretty much remained flat since the 1970s. There hasn't been a rise in the number of school shooting victims either, according to a new report conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the National Center for Education Statistics:
Since the Sandy Hook incident, preliminary counts from media reports indicate that there were 17 school-associated violent deaths between December 15, 2012, and November 14, 2013; of these deaths, 11 were homicides and 6 were suicides. Six of the victims were identified as being between the ages of 5 and 18.
...
Between July 1, 2010 and June 30, 2011, there were 31 school-associated violent deaths in elementary and secondary schools in the United States
Of the 31 student, staff, and nonstudent school- associated violent deaths occurring between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, there were 25 homicide and 6 suicides. Data for school-associated violent deaths for the 2010-11 school year are preliminary until interviews with law enforcement personnel have been completed.
...
The percentage of youth homicides occurring at school remained at less than 2 percent of the total number of youth homicides over all available survey years, even though the absolute number of homicides of school-age youth at school varied to some degree across the years. Between the 1992-93 and 2010-11 school years, from 1 to 10 school-age youth committed suicide at school each year, with no consistent pattern of increase or decrease in the number of suicides. The percentage of youth suicides occurring at school remained at less than 1 percent of the total number of youth suicides over all available survey years.
While tragic, these aren't levels that suggest epidemic levels of violence at our schools; they're not shooting galleries either. In fact, if you look at the chart, there's a downward trend.
Regardless of the statistics and the fact, the rabid anti-gun left will continue to peddle unadulterated drivel about gun violence. Case in point, Bloomberg's Everytown for Gun Safety's made a map tracking school shootings since Newtown and found 74 incidents since Newtown. There are a few problems. First, some shootings included were gang-related, off campus, suicides, and on college campuses. In all, there are 35 suspect incidents on that map (via Reason):
(Of the 74 incidents listed by Everytown, 35 occurred [sic] on or near a college campus.**) The map also includes nonfatal shootings, including accidental discharges and at least four events in which no one was injured at all. And some of its items qualify as "school shootings" only under a rather broad understanding of the phrase. While this killing, for example, did take place in an elementary school parking lot, it happened at night, long after the students and teachers had gone home. The victim was 19.
This much is clear: If you're wondering where kids are likely to die, the answer plainly isn't a classroom.
America is actually less violent that it was twenty years ago; gun-related homicides are down; school and mass shootings are either on the decline or have remained flat in terms of frequency. In fact, since 2012, experts have noted mass shootings aren't on the rise.
Public Mass Shootings in the United States:
Selected Implications for Federal Public
Health and Safety Policy
. . .
Most scholarly and expert sources suggest that mass shootings are rare violent crimes. One study
has described them as “very low-frequency and high intensity event[s].”
That isn't a graphic of Murders and Deaths (as you are trying to claim - explained below).
Each point represents a mass shooting.
The points are getting closer together in time.
That means they are becoming more frequent.
A drop in Violent Crimes (or Gun-related homicides) does not mean that a particular TYPE of crime did not increase.
Which is what the CNS News link you cite, shows (never mind that it is not a credible source).
The Second link (from "Congressional Research Services") has been neutered by the GOP from even addressing that aspect of the data, with only being able to vaguely reference their frequency.
AGAIN - Just because something is Low Frequency when compared to other crimes, does not mean that it has not been increasing in frequency, which the link I gave shows that they are. MASSIVELY increasing in frequency.
Again, pay attention to the chart I linked to.
It contains two axes: Time, and number killed (again, it is missing around 200 data points, of shootings with fewer than eight people are killed).
This means we can calculate the frequency by taking any interval and dividing the number of data points by the time.
Such as:
Looking at 2007 to 2011, we see that there were Seven Mass Shootings during that period.
Let us compare that to the period of 1980 - 1985.
Hmmm Four shootings in that period.
The Data only goes up to 2013 in this graphic, and there have been an additional nine shootings since then.
That is an increase in the Frequency of the events, even if their frequency is lower that that of overall homicides by any cause, or by just knives.
It still is an example of a crime where an immediate and easy solution exists.
It is akin to the Automobile industry in the 1960s resisting the installation of safety-belts, or airbags in the 1980s because:
"Other things are more dangerous."
This is trying to cite another wrong as an excuse for not doing something about a wrong that has an easy fix, but which a group has a vested interest in opposing.
BeAfraid wrote: That isn't a graphic of Murders and Deaths (as you are trying to claim - explained below).
Each point represents a mass shooting.
The points are getting closer together in time.
That means they are becoming more frequent.
A drop in Violent Crimes (or Gun-related homicides) does not mean that a particular TYPE of crime did not increase.
Which is what the CNS News link you cite, shows (never mind that it is not a credible source).
The Second link (from "Congressional Research Services") has been neutered by the GOP from even addressing that aspect of the data, with only being able to vaguely reference their frequency.
AGAIN - Just because something is Low Frequency when compared to other crimes, does not mean that it has not been increasing in frequency, which the link I gave shows that they are. MASSIVELY increasing in frequency.
Again, pay attention to the chart I linked to.
It contains two axes: Time, and number killed (again, it is missing around 200 data points, of shootings with fewer than eight people are killed).
This means we can calculate the frequency by taking any interval and dividing the number of data points by the time.
Such as:
Looking at 2007 to 2011, we see that there were uSeven Mass Shootings during that period.
Let us compare that to the period of 1980 - 1985.
Hmmm Four shootings in that period.
The Data only goes up to 2013 in this graphic, and there have been an additional nine shootings since then.
That is an increase in the Frequency of the events, even if their frequency is lower that that of overall homicides by any cause, or by just knives.
It still is an example of a crime where an immediate and easy solution exists.
It is akin to the Automobile industry in the 1960s resisting the installation of safety-belts, or airbags in the 1980s because:
"Other things are more dangerous."
This is trying to cite another wrong as an excuse for not doing something about a wrong that has an easy fix, but which a group has a vested interest in opposing.
We also have to remember society has been through stress levels not seen since the Great Depression. Considering Fascism got started, communism spread rapidly, and we had a who slew of criminal activities in the US during that time, societally we've been getting off light so far.
Despite the fact that ALL simulations show (simulations were every member, student and teacher, was considered armed, and portrayed by a trained soldier) that even if you arm everyone, the shooter still has a better chance to kill everyone that any defender has of stopping them.
This is just delusional thinking.
What simulations have been done like the one you describe? Do you have any links?
Even if it is the case that the shooter, as the aggressor, has a better chance of killing everyone, at the very least an armed person has a chance of defending themselves that is better than that of an unarmed person.
BeAfraid wrote: That isn't a graphic of Murders and Deaths (as you are trying to claim - explained below).
I should have phrased that better - what I meant to say was that your graph shows when incidents occurred (by year, not number), and correlated this with the deaths. That does not show frequency
Now we're getting somewhere. So looking at the graph is there a good reason as to why the years listed are not in any consistent interval?
You want to talk about credible sources, yet your link cites CNN as its primary source of information, and your cited uses a criteria of 8 fatalities whereas most favour a definition of 4 fatalities (which may show a different story to what you are trying to claim)
Despite the fact that ALL simulations show (simulations were every member, student and teacher, was considered armed, and portrayed by a trained soldier) that even if you arm everyone, the shooter still has a better chance to kill everyone that any defender has of stopping them.
This is just delusional thinking.
What simulations have been done like the one you describe? Do you have any links?
Even if it is the case that the shooter, as the aggressor, has a better chance of killing everyone, at the very least an armed person has a chance of defending themselves that is better than that of an unarmed person.
That's interesting for me too because any simulation that I have seen (specifically force on force) where there is someone armed to see off a threat then the casualties drop significantly. There is precedent for armed citizens stopping someone intent on causing harm
- New York Mills AT&T where the attacker had a list of employees he wanted to kill
- Clackmas Town Center
- Golden Market
- New Life Church
- Parker Middle School
- Pearl High School
- Winnemucca
- Appalacian School of Law
It's only natural, faced with atrocities like those that took place in Aurora or Sandy Hook or Isla Vista, to sink into a "What the hell is wrong with the world?" attitude. And based on the conversations that often follow these tragedies, it would be easy to think that life in the United States is as dangerous as ever, that the country is an increasingly violent, brutal place. Luckily, the statistics tell a different story.
James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University and frequent commentator on criminal justice issues, has kept a close eye on the numbers, tracking mass-shooting incidents with four or more fatalities between 1976 and 2012 — the most recent year for which FBI data are available. Data he provided Science of Us produced the following graph:
Links at the article. Author contends that a perception of increased mass shootings is due to media coverage. A contention that is supported when media outlets like CNN don't fact check anti gun propaganda before reporting it as fact and then have to issue retractions.
CNN has drastically revised a claim it made, which was based on a graphical map from a pro-gun control group, which purportedly showed that 74 school shootings have occurred in the U.S. since the Sandy Hook massacre in Dec. 2012.
The news outlet circulated the graphical map, which came from the group Everytown for Gun Safety, after a shooting that occurred Tuesday at a high school in Oregon which left two dead, including the 15 year-old gunman.
...
Instead, CNN said, “some of the other incidents on Everytown’s list included personal arguments, accidents and alleged gang activities and drug deals.” (RELATED: School Shooting Claims Debunked)
Instead, CNN said, “some of the other incidents on Everytown’s list included personal arguments, accidents and alleged gang activities and drug deals.” (RELATED: School Shooting Claims Debunked)
• Incidents related to criminal activity (such as drug dealing or robbery), or personal altercations: 39 instances
• Incidents unconnected to members of school community and/or that took place outside school hours: 16 instances
• Suicides: 6 instances
• Accidental discharges: 3 instances
. . .
Mark Safarik, president of Forensic Behavioral Services Inc. and a former member of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit, agreed that when the average person thinks of a school shooting, they think of a mass murder like Sandy Hook.
"There is an ocean of difference between Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine and a depressed student who (commits suicide) at school, or an accidental discharge," Safarik said. "To call them all school shootings may be true in a technical sense but is quite disingenuous on an emotional level, which is where they are trying to capture for their audience."
. . .
In addition, Fox said the statistic is misleading for another reason -- it focuses on short-term patterns, rather than long-term trends. Despite the media focus, Fox said, it’s worth noting that the number of school-related homicides has remained relatively flat for two decades, he said.
Mass public shootings - incidents per year from 1976 thru 2011Fact: Over a 35 year period, the number of mass public shooting rose during the violence escalation decades of the 1970s and 1980, then leveled off, despite a growing population and greater availability for firearms (more people, more guns).
Special Note: The FBI created a study of what they labeled “active shooter” events from 2000-2013, but they merged both ASEs and MPSs. Combined, this data shows and increase whereas other studies that separate the two do not. But it must be noted that their study starts in the year 2000, which had an abnormally low number of public shootings (only one)
He also has some impressive credentials; held research or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University and Rice University. He has a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.
Well, we could always just ignore the rest of the confederate states and just see what Virginia had to say about this:
What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. ... If things are allowed to go on as they are, it is certain that slavery is to be abolished. By the time the north shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that? It is not a supposable case ... war will break out everywhere like hidden fire from the earth, and it is probable that the white race, being superior in every respect, may push the other back. ... we will be overpowered and our men will be compelled to wander like vagabonds all over the earth; and as for our women, the horrors of their state we cannot contemplate in imagination. That is the fate which abolition will bring upon the white race. ... We will be completely exterminated, and the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa... Suppose they elevate Charles Sumner to the presidency? Suppose they elevate Frederick Douglass, your escaped slave, to the presidency? What would be your position in such an event? I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.
So a battle flag that represented the Army of Northern Virginia that was made 6-7 months after the start of the Civil war stands for slavery... right.
Good job at not being able to distinguish between a flag that represented the confederacy and one that represented the Army of Northern Virginia
Well, you certainly do a poor job of distinguishing between the St.Andrews cross flag as a battle flag of the main army of the confederated states, same flag as a symbol to show heritage and affiliation with the fallen of the southern states during the ACW, and same flag in its modern connotation as a sign of resistance against cultural domination by "the north", its liberalism & racial egalitarianism - in other words: the defence of racial segregation and anti-modern, anti-scientific, and anti-humanitarian values.
It does not matter what the flag used to be. If the flag was only a historical artifact or symbol, then there would be no shout out. In that case, it would also not fly on top buildings of public life, other than historical sites, such as museums dedicated to ACW. We simply would not have this discussion. (although the public display on top of building would still be debatable IMHO...)
Since that is not the case, and it is still used relatively widely in the south states in everyday life, it needs to be said: You should not want to be seen with flags representing donkey-cave ideas. And they certainly should not fly on top of public buildings where they offend large parts of the local population.
Just because you grew up with it and always thought it was normal and now you feel bad because you do not want to be the baddie? Well, sorry, Hans!
And if you really want to run around with such a flag, do not whine if you are being attacked for supporting what that flag stands for in general culture, just because YOU think it is super beautiful and is only a pagan symbol for the sun, and you happen to be a pagan hippy and do not want to be associated with the people that invented it, and what they stood for, or only the good sides, like getting rid of unemployment and building nice autobahns!
The simulation failed to save any of the victims (save for one who ran away), and at best only one gunman was taken out (which turned out to be a rare event).
There were simulations by the military on mass shootings after Columbine, which showed the same results (that an armed population wouldn't help at all, and would just be a nightmare for Law Enforcement if they showed up - innocent people ALWAYS got killed by Law Enforcement in the simulations).
I am still looking for any links to those, given how long it has been since they were done (and difficulties surrounding searching for them).
The "Easy Fix" is to limit access to firearms by the population.
This has worked in EVERY country where it has been implemented.
Critics like to site what they claim are increases in violent crimes in these countries (which are specious claims, but IRRELEVANT), but they neglect to point out that there is not even a percentage of the deaths related to firearms in these countries as there is in the USA.
Of course, Gun-Nuts like to freak out at this point and claim this is just a prelude to taking away all of their guns, or it is an abrigement of their Second Amendment Rights (which would both be wholly false claims, nothing but insane ravings).
And their arguments against this simple fix amount to claims like we shouldn't have stop-signs because criminals do not obey the law (a tautology that is meaningless. That is simply citing the definition of a criminal, as if the definition carries with it an injunction against laws to define the norms of a society). Or that there are other things that cause more deaths (which is nothing more than shouting "SQUIRREL!!!" And trying to distract from the fact that we are talking about THIS ISSUE, and NOT another).
The USA was not founded on a Principle that encoded the Genocide into its laws.
Yet the Confederacy DID Encode Slavery into its laws as THE FOUNDING PRINCIPLE.
Good job at not being able to distinguish two completely different moral claims.
MB
So a battle flag that represented the Army of Northern Virginia that was made 6-7 months after the start of the Civil war stands for slavery... right.
Good job at not being able to distinguish between a flag that represented the confederacy and one that represented the Army of Northern Virginia
Virginia's Flag represented Slavery just as much as any other.
Before I go any further, why is it that the Conservative today is unable to respond with anything more complex than:
• I know you are, but what am I?
Or
• I,m rubber, you're Goue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
??? That is a mystery. But, to continue. . . .
And you apparently lack the ability to distinguish or understand what a Founding Principle is, or why it is even relevant to the issue. Otherwise, you might not resort to bringing yet another racist symbol into the discussion,
ALL CONFEDERATE FLAGS represent Traitorous Murderers who fought to preserve the institution of Slavery.
That was what the South was FOUNDED UPON.
One needn't make distinctions of any kind more nuanced than this.
Yet the USA was NOT founded upon a principle of Genocide, nor did its flag stand for that principle, as did the Confederates.
The South was not founded on that. The CSA was founded on that. Just like the North and West, the South was founded on GREED. A way better reason (Jamestown).
"Never underestimate the other guy's GREED!" -some Cuban guy.
"Yet the USA was NOT founded upon a principle of Genocide, nor did its flag stand for that principle, as did the Confederates. " Qanah Parker would like to have a word with you, well before he scalps you.
Quanah Parker wasn't a Founder of the USA, nor was he educated in a manner that included the teachings of The Enlightenment (Teachings largely rejected by The South - which is an idiomatic expression for the CSA, since we seem to be interested in splitting hairs).
There's also evidence that the reason the South used slavery in greater numbers, and for longer, than the North had little to do with morals, but with geography. The Tidal Plains of the south made for great plantations, which could use mass slave labor. The north had forests and hills, which lead to smaller, yeoman farmers that relied more on free labor.
Further, the south had malaria, which many slaves had some immunity to, while the North had smallpox, something which killed slaves in greater numbers. Conversley, indentured servants from Europe could handle the disease of the North more than the malaria of the south.
BeAfraid wrote: Quanah Parker wasn't a Founder of the USA, nor was he educated in a manner that included the teachings of The Enlightenment (Teachings largely rejected by The South - which is an idiomatic expression for the CSA, since we seem to be interested in splitting hairs).
MB
But he would still cut out your eyes for saying the US flag didn't represent genocide. Scalp you and skin you alive too. Or to be more precise, the women would do it. Thats wimminz work. Don't bother Quanah when there's a game on the tele. Considering its representatives wiped out everything he ever knew, he'd be right. So don't get high and mighty there.
Quanah Parker, proving our "bad guys" were even better bad guys than your bad guys because... Texas!
Further, the south had malaria, which many slaves had some immunity to, while the North had smallpox, something which killed slaves in greater numbers. Conversley, indentured servants from Europe could handle the disease of the North more than the malaria of the south.
The one key difference here, is that with the "northern slaves", as you hear so many historically ignorant people screaming about when they say "Whites were slaves too!!!!!1!!!" There was a term limit to the arrangement. The indentured servants had a contract that, after a period of years they would then be released from that service, set up with things necessary to survive, such as land to build on if in a more rural environment, paid a sum of money and they would be free.
Personally, from a slightly moral standpoint, if the South had had this basic system in place, things would be a lot different from how they actually were.
Further, the south had malaria, which many slaves had some immunity to, while the North had smallpox, something which killed slaves in greater numbers. Conversley, indentured servants from Europe could handle the disease of the North more than the malaria of the south.
The one key difference here, is that with the "northern slaves", as you hear so many historically ignorant people screaming about when they say "Whites were slaves too!!!!!1!!!" There was a term limit to the arrangement. The indentured servants had a contract that, after a period of years they would then be released from that service, set up with things necessary to survive, such as land to build on if in a more rural environment, paid a sum of money and they would be free.
Personally, from a slightly moral standpoint, if the South had had this basic system in place, things would be a lot different from how they actually were.
I think you're missing the point. Early on, both northern and southern colonies used both slaves and indentured servants. Over time, it became clear that slavery was more economical in the south, while indentured servitude was more economical in the north. This was due partially to disease (slaves died more in the north, indentureds died more in the south, in both cases leaving the master out the initial investment) and also due partially to the economy. The North had less (but not no) demand for slave labor on the scale of southern cash crop plantations, while the North was more attractive to indentured servants who wanted to homestead on their own.
I don't think anyone is holding up the North as some beacon of tolerance and piety. Most serious conversations I've had on the subject gladly admit that the North had its fair share of sins along with the South. What I find frustrating is recently I can't get any of the people defending the south to even admit the secession was about slavery. Whataboutism abounds.
I've never had a conversation with a Yankee or Left Coaster who in any way accepted that their regions weren't pure but the South was somehow this racist hellhole. Just look at the commentary in the NYT or WAPO-especially the discussion sections. Its used as a chance to bash the South.
Frankly thats why the South should get rid of a lot of this, so Ohio TransAm drivers (Biden looking in your direction) don't have room to talk.
Frazzled wrote: I've never had a conversation with a Yankee or Left Coaster who in any way accepted that their regions weren't pure but the South was somehow this racist hellhole.
Frazzled wrote: I've never had a conversation with a Yankee or Left Coaster who in any way accepted that their regions weren't pure but the South was somehow this racist hellhole.
The simulation failed to save any of the victims (save for one who ran away), and at best only one gunman was taken out (which turned out to be a rare event).
There were simulations by the military on mass shootings after Columbine, which showed the same results (that an armed population wouldn't help at all, and would just be a nightmare for Law Enforcement if they showed up - innocent people ALWAYS got killed by Law Enforcement in the simulations).
I am still looking for any links to those, given how long it has been since they were done (and difficulties surrounding searching for them).
The "Easy Fix" is to limit access to firearms by the population.
This has worked in EVERY country where it has been implemented.
Critics like to site what they claim are increases in violent crimes in these countries (which are specious claims, but IRRELEVANT), but they neglect to point out that there is not even a percentage of the deaths related to firearms in these countries as there is in the USA.
Of course, Gun-Nuts like to freak out at this point and claim this is just a prelude to taking away all of their guns, or it is an abrigement of their Second Amendment Rights (which would both be wholly false claims, nothing but insane ravings).
Strange talk from a man who brags about having shot a couple of people. You say one thing and claim to practice another.
Frazzled wrote: not certain what that has to do with the Confederate Flag
The "benefit of the doubt" in me thinks that he mistakenly posted that bit in the wrong thread....
@ Polonius, I see what you are saying, and I agree with you. I was merely speculating that if the South had gone with indentured servitude with the Africans, instead of the chattel system we had, things may have gone a bit differently, because indentured servitude isn't a "race" thing any more than chattel slavery is (remember the Romans basically had a chattel system, but it was much more broad in nature)
Yeah, gun control is a real reflex for liberals. I'm a liberal, and while I agree that our lax gun control laws certainly lead to more deaths, I also know that this isn't a fight worth having. We're in the midst of watching the right wing strangle itself with it's obsessions with gay marriage and family values in an environment where fewer people agree, and the left wants to keep going to the stupid well of gun control.
A few years back, I proposed a grand compromise: A single constitutional amendment that made two things clear: 1) private ownership of rifles and shotgns would be unrestricted, while the right to own automatic weapons or handguns would be a regulated right requiring a license, and 2) The right to at-will abortions, through the second trimester, would be unrestricted, and available at any time if deemed medically necessary.
Let's trade these two issues, and actually have some dialogue. New York can't stop you from having a handgun, and alabama can't stop you from having an abortion. Done.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: @ Polonius, I see what you are saying, and I agree with you. I was merely speculating that if the South had gone with indentured servitude with the Africans, instead of the chattel system we had, things may have gone a bit differently, because indentured servitude isn't a "race" thing any more than chattel slavery is (remember the Romans basically had a chattel system, but it was much more broad in nature)
that's a good point, and one I hadn't really considered. In the very early days, there were white Slaves (and black plantation slave ownders), but by 1700 the racial character of chattel slavery was pretty solidly established.
Reading the wikipedia article on colonial slavery, it does appear that Africans were seen as subordinate even prior to organized slavery, and that slavery in the south was brought over from the sugar islands of Jamaica and Barbados. Tobacco farming required a large workforce, and so the wealthy planters that migrated brought their own chattel with them.
It seems that the rationale, throughout much of europe and America, was that African slavery was justified, due to racial/religious differences.
Yeah, gun control is a real reflex for liberals. I'm a liberal, and while I agree that our lax gun control laws certainly lead to more deaths, I also know that this isn't a fight worth having. We're in the midst of watching the right wing strangle itself with it's obsessions with gay marriage and family values in an environment where fewer people agree, and the left wants to keep going to the stupid well of gun control.
It was interesting to see this cry for gun control from BeAfraid, since he went on at great length in another thread, bragging about shooting people in the street.
BeAfraid wrote: Quanah Parker wasn't a Founder of the USA, nor was he educated in a manner that included the teachings of The Enlightenment (Teachings largely rejected by The South - which is an idiomatic expression for the CSA, since we seem to be interested in splitting hairs).
MB
But he would still cut out your eyes for saying the US flag didn't represent genocide. Scalp you and skin you alive too. Or to be more precise, the women would do it. Thats wimminz work. Don't bother Quanah when there's a game on the tele. Considering its representatives wiped out everything he ever knew, he'd be right. So don't get high and mighty there.
Quanah Parker, proving our "bad guys" were even better bad guys than your bad guys because... Texas!
What he would do means absolutely nothing in terms of the founding principles of the USA.
This is like claiming that Theodore Kaczynski is the representative of all of Mathematics and the Principles upon which Math is based.
It is attempting to define by the exception rather than the rule.
The behavior of ANY NUMBER of people means nothing when discussing the Foundational Principles of the USA. Only the encoded Principles themselves are relevant to that issue.
The simulation failed to save any of the victims (save for one who ran away), and at best only one gunman was taken out (which turned out to be a rare event).
There were simulations by the military on mass shootings after Columbine, which showed the same results (that an armed population wouldn't help at all, and would just be a nightmare for Law Enforcement if they showed up - innocent people ALWAYS got killed by Law Enforcement in the simulations).
I am still looking for any links to those, given how long it has been since they were done (and difficulties surrounding searching for them).
The "Easy Fix" is to limit access to firearms by the population.
This has worked in EVERY country where it has been implemented.
Critics like to site what they claim are increases in violent crimes in these countries (which are specious claims, but IRRELEVANT), but they neglect to point out that there is not even a percentage of the deaths related to firearms in these countries as there is in the USA.
Of course, Gun-Nuts like to freak out at this point and claim this is just a prelude to taking away all of their guns, or it is an abrigement of their Second Amendment Rights (which would both be wholly false claims, nothing but insane ravings).
Strange talk from a man who brags about having shot a couple of people. You say one thing and claim to practice another.
Have you ever thought that there might just be a connection between the two?
No! That would be too easy, and might lead to an ambiguity that was too hard to accept!
If you were actually in a position where you had to fire a weapon and take human life, for you to now advocate for laws which would have restricted your ability to have that weapon seems a bit odd.
"Yes, thank goodness I had this gun! Now we need to change the laws so I won't have it ever again, and so that future victims of what I went through have the option of self defense taken from them."
Does it still exist? Wasn't it eventually recognized as not being aligned with our Founding Principles, and didn't we fight a War to establish that very fact?
Okay, first off, it was 3/5, not 2/3. It was a compromise, which right away hints that this wasn't exactly a core principle. Basically, the question was, when allocating representatives based on population, should slaves count? The slave states felt that they should, the north said no, and in a classic bit of compromise, they decided that for purposes of the House/Electoral college (and taxes), free people were counted, untaxed indians were not, and "all other persons" would count for 3/5.
Polonius wrote: Okay, first off, it was 3/5, not 2/3. It was a compromise, which right away hints that this wasn't exactly a core principle. Basically, the question was, when allocating representatives based on population, should slaves count? The slave states felt that they should, the north said no, and in a classic bit of compromise, they decided that for purposes of the House/Electoral college (and taxes), free people were counted, untaxed indians were not, and "all other persons" would count for 3/5.
The 14th amendment did override this.
Some people seem to have difficulty understanding what is meant as a "Core Principle" (or "Foundational" Principles - i.e. those principles which form the most basic foundation, not to be altered or transformed by later changes, which themselves inform all decisions about what should be added to, removed from, or built atop them).
But, as I have observed elsewhere, there is a distinct portion of the dakka membership for whom ambiguity and nuance does not come easily.
MB
Automatically Appended Next Post: And, I know it was 3/5th of a person. My first response was meant to be mocking (yet I forgot to include the fact to illustrate that) of the use of "2/3", which is why I referred to it as a "thing" (rather than the '3/5th clause").
I think it's illuminating that the founders saw a unified nation as more important that abolition of slavery though.
Don't forget a working postal system.
The US system had some good-much better than every other country. But it had serious faults. Over time and much blood, some of those faults have been corrected. Some would argue others have been opened (defacto extinguishment of federalism, elimination of all rights but the Bill of Rights).
The Civil War was necessary only to alter the law.
It did not alter the basic principle that:
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
When the founders had to move from basic principles to actual governing, the ideals had to give way to the reality of economics.
This did not mean that the ideals were wrong, or invalid, or simply did not exist.
It means that their implementation was imperfect, and that some of that implementation required going to war against people who CLEARLY DID NOT HOLD THOSE SAME VALUES - as we see recorded in the documents of the Confederacy where they make it VERY CLEAR that all men are NOT "created equal" but that some are obviously (to them, at least) better than others.
As for castigating. . . When ignorance goes beyond merely a lack of education, and into a willful dismissal of facts, and distortion of reality through the egregious manipulation of language, and the definitions of meaning, then, as Karl Popper said when discussing the Tolerance of the Intolerable, we have no duty any longer to restrain ourselves to Tolerance, and Intolerance of the Intolerable is demanded.
BeAfraid wrote: The Civil War was necessary only to alter the law.
Except the ACW was not fought over the law AT ALL. It was fought to keep the Union whole.
It did not alter the basic principle that:
"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Except it was a lie. And by the way thats the Declaration of Independence, the best breakup letter ever. But it wasn't the Constitution.
When the founders had to move from basic principles to actual governing, the ideals had to give way to the reality of economics.
No. Millions were excluded in the Constitution itself.
This did not mean that the ideals were wrong, or invalid, or simply did not exist.
They were invalid and did not exist.
As for castigating. . . When ignorance goes beyond merely a lack of education, and into a willful dismissal of facts, and distortion of reality through the egregious manipulation of language, and the definitions of meaning, then, as Karl Popper said when discussing the Tolerance of the Intolerable, we have no duty any longer to restrain ourselves to Tolerance, and Intolerance of the Intolerable is demanded.
MB
Bring it. Your ignorance has been clear for some time.
Substitute the picture of a fat bear with mange in a Hawaiian shirt and you'd be dead accurate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BeAfraid wrote: I am writing him off as a Troll at this point.
He is welcome to the ignorance he so proudly displays.
MB
Aka, you can't argue because you just realized the Constitution has things in it that some find...unnatural, and that to many the US flag was indeed one of oppression and genocide. Kind of sucks when the shoe is in on the other foot doesn't it boy!
Thats history. Those who are smart learn from it and do better than the previous generation. Through that we have ended slavery, pushed for women's suffrage and equal rights, kicked Jim Crow and Da Nazis in the crotch. Now for the nuking of Canada for the warcrime that is Justin Bieber and we're golden. Thats why you wave Old Glory. We're not perfect (unlike Texas) but we are badass.
I think it's illuminating that the founders saw a unified nation as more important that abolition of slavery though.
I agree and somewhat disagree. Many of them regarded slavery as "evil" and an affront to to the core principles of the nation ("All men are created equal" and all that), but they also recognized that there was no easy solution to ending it. Also, they thought that the white man was inherently superior to the black man, so that didn't help either.
I think it's pretty telling that every state above the Mason-Dixon Line had adopted some kind of anti-slavery law by 1804 (with the earliest being the Republic of Vermont, which banned adult slavery in 1777). Granted, it was mostly done by way of general emancipation instead of sudden emancipation, but it was better than founding your entire country around it (like the CSA).
I think it's pretty telling that every state above the Mason-Dixon Line had adopted some kind of anti-slavery law by 1804 (with the earliest being the Republic of Vermont, which banned adult slavery in 1777). Granted, it was mostly done by way of general emancipation instead of sudden emancipation, but it was better than founding your entire country around it (like the CSA).
I think it's illuminating that the founders saw a unified nation as more important that abolition of slavery though.
I agree and somewhat disagree. Many of them regarded slavery as "evil" and an affront to to the core principles of the nation ("All men are created equal" and all that), but they also recognized that there was no easy solution to ending it. Also, they thought that the white man was inherently superior to the black man, so that didn't help either.
I think it's pretty telling that every state above the Mason-Dixon Line had adopted some kind of anti-slavery law by 1804 (with the earliest being the Republic of Vermont, which banned adult slavery in 1777). Granted, it was mostly done by way of general emancipation instead of sudden emancipation, but it was better than founding your entire country around it (like the CSA).
Sure, plenty of founders had problems with it. But when the chips were down, uniting into one country was better than splitting into two (or more). The slave states (meaning states where slavery was key to the economy) would not have even declared independence if they thought they would lose their slaves. Independence, followed by forming a federal government, were bigger priorities than abolition.
I mean, you can find it telling that the states without a lot of slaves to begin with eventually banned them, while those that had lots to begin with became more entrenched in keeping them. One of my assumptions in sociology is that people are no better or worse, morally or ethically, when you cross time and space. Meaning, the south was no more evil or wrong than the north, it just made more sense to keep up a pretty awful practice. After a few generations, peopel start believing that stuff, but it's not because they are morally flawed, they are simply raised in a moral framework that conditions them to see that their system is immoral.
Acting as if Southerners of the time were immoral monsters, while the Northerners were enlightened saviors, is both incorrect and inflammatory.
I think it's illuminating that the founders saw a unified nation as more important that abolition of slavery though.
I agree and somewhat disagree. Many of them regarded slavery as "evil" and an affront to to the core principles of the nation ("All men are created equal" and all that), but they also recognized that there was no easy solution to ending it. Also, they thought that the white man was inherently superior to the black man, so that didn't help either.
I think it's pretty telling that every state above the Mason-Dixon Line had adopted some kind of anti-slavery law by 1804 (with the earliest being the Republic of Vermont, which banned adult slavery in 1777). Granted, it was mostly done by way of general emancipation instead of sudden emancipation, but it was better than founding your entire country around it (like the CSA).
Sure, plenty of founders had problems with it. But when the chips were down, uniting into one country was better than splitting into two (or more). The slave states (meaning states where slavery was key to the economy) would not have even declared independence if they thought they would lose their slaves. Independence, followed by forming a federal government, were bigger priorities than abolition.
I mean, you can find it telling that the states without a lot of slaves to begin with eventually banned them, while those that had lots to begin with became more entrenched in keeping them. One of my assumptions in sociology is that people are no better or worse, morally or ethically, when you cross time and space. Meaning, the south was no more evil or wrong than the north, it just made more sense to keep up a pretty awful practice. After a few generations, peopel start believing that stuff, but it's not because they are morally flawed, they are simply raised in a moral framework that conditions them to see that their system is immoral.
Acting as if Southerners of the time were immoral monsters, while the Northerners were enlightened saviors, is both incorrect and inflammatory.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
ARTICLE I, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 3
The three-fifths rule for counting slaves is often misunderstood. When the Constitutional Convention debated the issue of how to count population for the purposes of representation, the Southern delegates to the Convention would have been pleased if nonvoting slaves had been counted as full persons. That way, the Southern states would have had a greater representation in the House of Representatives. In contrast, some Northern delegates resisted counting slaves at all. Why, asked Elbridge Gerry, "shd. the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle & horses of the North?" Among other things, counting slaves provided an incentive to import still more slaves.
Nor was the three-fifths rule new at the Convention. It was derived from a mechanism adopted in 1783 to apportion requisitions (the national government's only revenue source under the Articles of Confederation) among the states. That rule was intended to provide rough equality between the North and the South, and when the idea first appeared at the Convention, no one suggested that another fraction would be more appropriate. Indeed, the rule was included in a June 11 motion, made by James Wilson of Pennsylvania and seconded by Charles Pinckney of South Carolina, suggesting that a compromise had already occurred behind the scenes.
By itself, however, the three-fifths compromise for representation was not enough. Facing deadlock at the Convention, Gouverneur Morris (representing Pennsylvania) moved on July 12 to add a "proviso that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation" (later limited to direct taxation), the purpose of which, wrote James Madison, was to "lessen the eagerness on one side, & the opposition on the other, to the share of Representation claimed by the [Southern] States on account of the Negroes." Morris subsequently said he meant his motion only "as a bridge to assist us over a certain gulph," but tying apportionment to both taxation and representation turned out to be crucial. Slaves were to be counted as less than whites for representation, which was not in the interests of the South. Slaves were, however, also to be counted as less than whites for measuring a state's apportioned direct-tax liability, and that was a benefit to the South. A fuller account of how the Framers dealt with the issue of slavery can be ascertained by considering the other clauses of the Constitution that deal with slavery. (See Article I, Section 9, Clause 1; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article V.)
Furthermore, the compromise protected the integrity of the census, as Madison explained in The Federalist No. 54: "The States should feel as little bias as possible to swell or to reduce the amount of their numbers....By extending the rule to both [taxation and representation], the States will have opposite interests which will control and balance each other and produce the requisite impartiality."
The three-fifths rule does not directly affect litigation today, but it affects how scholars interpret the apportionment requirement for direct taxes. It has been argued, for example, that the direct-tax clauses should be ignored because they are tainted by slavery, or because, with slavery ended, there is no longer reason to honor any part of the compromise. In light of the entire history that led to the Revolution and the Constitution, however, it would go too far to assume that in a world without slavery, the Founders would have been indifferent to the dangers of national taxation.
Furthermore, understood in context, the apportionment rule was not proslavery. Even though slaves were property under the laws of the Southern states, the Constitution itself acknowledged that they were persons. In addition, by tying both representation and direct taxation to apportionment, the Framers removed any sectional benefit, and thus any proslavery taint, from the special counting rule.
Further supports the idea that "...when the chips were down, uniting into one country was better than splitting into two ...".
BeAfraid wrote: I am writing him off as a Troll at this point.
He is welcome to the ignorance he so proudly displays.
MB
Were you going to respond to the mass shootings discussion, or did you concede the point that they are not on the rise?
Edit- After actually going back and trying to find the relevance mass shootings have to the confederate flag, it's off topic.
By his own brag about gunning multiple people down, he's part of the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CptJake wrote: If you were actually in a position where you had to fire a weapon and take human life, for you to now advocate for laws which would have restricted your ability to have that weapon seems a bit odd.
"Yes, thank goodness I had this gun! Now we need to change the laws so I won't have it ever again, and so that future victims of what I went through have the option of self defense taken from them."
That's why it's hilarious to see him preach about gun control. He wasn't even defending himself, according to his story, but getting into the middle of someone else's business.
out of them. 
