Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Platuan4th wrote:I'm not. I can track my lineage, no Native American in there.

Same, even though my forefathers were on these shores long before the revolution.

@ Ahtman.

For the most part,my Father and his Family have had little contact with me since He and my Mother divorced when I was seven.
Most of what I know of him comes from information from my Mothers side of the family and a few meetings with him from time to time.

I have a friend in a similar situation minus a generation. The gap caused by divorce in that case is so deep that, although my friend badly needs the educational funds confirmation of his status would entail, he cannot access them.

Manchu wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:I'm not. I can track my lineage, no Native American in there.

Same, even though my forefathers were on these shores long before the revolution.

So were mine on my father's side. My mother's side, however, immigrated(legally) when her parents were young.

Manchu wrote:I have a friend in a similar situation minus a generation. The gap caused by divorce in that case is so deep that, although my friend badly needs the educational funds confirmation of his status would entail, he cannot access them.

I would imagine that had I pursued it I could have had access to certain "Educational allowances",but various "animosities" would have made it a bit difficult at the time.
Now,I suppose I'm a bit to old to consider such things.

It's good that he distanced himself/renounced his ways, but his previous actions (especially the slaughter of POWs) are too prominent in history, and this should not be done.

FITZZ wrote:

Manchu wrote:I have a friend in a similar situation minus a generation. The gap caused by divorce in that case is so deep that, although my friend badly needs the educational funds confirmation of his status would entail, he cannot access them.

I would imagine that had I pursued it I could have had access to certain "Educational allowances",but various "animosities" would have made it a bit difficult at the time.
Now,I suppose I'm a bit to old to consider such things.

What would happen, in either case, if it was verified but not enough blood to be considered for those things? Different tribes have different minimum requirements, then you also have to have a recognized tribe by the government as well. Sometimes even a CDIB isn't enough.

gregor_xenos wrote:4. It is "the War of Northern Aggression." there was nothing "Civil" about it. The south wanted to break off and the north wouldnt have it.

As a fellow southerner... no, ti's not. It was a civil war. Just because war itself is uncivil doesn't mean that the war was not a civil war, as war itself is not defined by civility.

Civil doesn't (just) mean polite. The Civil side of the law should be more than enough to dispel that notion. A war between citizens of the same state (not State) is a Civil War. I guess technically ours is The American Civil War since there have been others.

Having resided in the South for the better part of my life I must admit to being some what puzzled as to the " Hair splitting" that goes on in what to call "That war".
IMO..it was a Civil War..why attempt to "pretty it up"?

Melissia wrote:

gregor_xenos wrote:4. It is "the War of Northern Aggression." there was nothing "Civil" about it. The south wanted to break off and the north wouldnt have it.

As a fellow southerner... no, ti's not. It was a civil war. Just because war itself is uncivil doesn't mean that the war was not a civil war, as war itself is not defined by civility.

I'd call someone crazy for so much as suggesting there is such a thing as a 'civil' war.

Soldier A: Hi Bob. How are the kids?
Soldier B: Oh, fine. Hey, I'm really sorry about this but I have to shoot you?
Soldier A: Really?
Soldier B: Yeah. You know. Orders.
Soldier A: Orders are orders I guess. Should I just stand here or, what?
Soldier B: There's fine. *Aims*

micahaphone wrote:It's good that he distanced himself/renounced his ways, but his previous actions (especially the slaughter of POWs) are too prominent in history, and this should not be done.

Absolutely. Good for him if he went on to renounce his actions, but he conducted a massacre of surrendered Union troops, then formed a guerilla campaign to keep killing people once the war had ended. Whether he was sorry later on doesn't matter, you don't commemorate people who committed multiple atrocities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

gregor_xenos wrote:4. It is "the War of Northern Aggression." there was nothing "Civil" about it. The south wanted to break off and the north wouldnt have it.

This is one of the most bizarre things... the South started the war by attacking a fort controlled by the North, then years later people claim the North was the aggressor. It is incredible. "Oh sure, but all we were doing was attacking your soldiers, if you'd been happy to put up with that there never would have been a war. It's only when you responded that the war started."

I mean, I get the people try to look at history from their countries POV, but there's a point where you just being silly.

How long until WWII is labelled the War of Allied Aggression?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

LordofHats wrote:I'd call someone crazy for so much as suggesting there is such a thing as a 'civil' war.

Unless of course the word civil, like many words in English, can mean different things.

As well meaning mannered or polite, it can be used to relate to anything that occurs within a single state. 'Civil unrest' doesn't mean a riot with a dress code and regularly scheduled breaks for tea and crumpets, it means the unrest is located entirely within the state.

Sebster wrote:Unless of course the word civil, like many words in English, can mean different things.

As well meaning mannered or polite, it can be used to relate to anything that occurs within a single state. 'Civil unrest' doesn't mean a riot with a dress code and regularly scheduled breaks for tea and crumpets, it means the unrest is located entirely within the state.

I was using the word sarcastically. There is no such thing as a 'polite' war.

I thought that would be obvious

It's the internet. Never make that assumption.

sebster wrote:As well meaning mannered or polite, it can be used to relate to anything that occurs within a single state. 'Civil unrest' doesn't mean a riot with a dress code and regularly scheduled breaks for tea and crumpets, it means the unrest is located entirely within the state.

I want to be part of that riot.

Melissia wrote:

sebster wrote:As well meaning mannered or polite, it can be used to relate to anything that occurs within a single state. 'Civil unrest' doesn't mean a riot with a dress code and regularly scheduled breaks for tea and crumpets, it means the unrest is located entirely within the state.

I want to be part of that riot.

Throw some bricks...have a bit of tea,turn a car over and set it ablaze..stop and discuss poetry,sounds grand.

ChrisWWII wrote:It's the internet. Never make that assumption.

I suppose my little exchange between Bob and the unnamed Soldier A wasn't that funny but come on. Surely the intent is clear

Frazzled wrote:
I care.

You, who almost constantly complain when other people comment on the goings-on in places in which they cannot vote, care about the license plates in Mississippi?

Frazzled wrote:
Godwin alert!!!
Hitler and the Nazis fought for their beliefs too, which were not especially dissimilar. Do you have a problem with them being honored?

No, I have a problem with people trying to do violent things in his name, but if someone wants to honor the Nazis I don't really care.

If we're going to go all Godwin now, then I'll take this a different direction: Is it acceptable for Atheists to be upset about the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Lincoln was also the president of the United states and one that was assassinated after successfully re-uniting the country, and was also NOT a member of the KKK. Rather different from a racist who got nervous once his racist group of racists started showing their true feelings through violence.

See how you're comparisons are intrinsically different? You emphasize the fact that Lincoln was a President, and that he re-united the country, but ignore that he would be considered incredibly racist by modern standards (and even by some abolitionists). Now the only thing you can say about the general is that he was a member of the KKK, and you don't even favorably point out that he wasn't fond of the violent turn the group took.

To say it specifically my point is that many people see "KKK" and then stop paying attention to anything else, which is intellectual irresponsible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:
Absolutely. Good for him if he went on to renounce his actions, but he conducted a massacre of surrendered Union troops, then formed a guerilla campaign to keep killing people once the war had ended. Whether he was sorry later on doesn't matter, you don't commemorate people who committed multiple atrocities.

That discounts just about every Civil War general, including the one on the $50 bill (Grant), and the guy who had a WWII tank named after him (Sherman).

LordofHats wrote:I was using the word sarcastically. There is no such thing as a 'polite' war.

I thought that would be obvious

Cool. I knew you were telling a joke, but wasn't sure if the joke was 'isn't it silly that it's called civil' or 'isn't it silly if we pretend civil is used in it's other meaning'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:To say it specifically my point is that many people see "KKK" and then stop paying attention to anything else, which is intellectual irresponsible.

Troops under his command massacred Union soldiers. Ignoring that is intellectually irresesponsible.

sebster wrote:
Troops under his command massacred Union soldiers. Ignoring that is intellectually irresesponsible.

We named a tank after a guy that razed an American city (among other things), and another guy that features on our currency tended to hang prisoners without trial, placed the others in concentration camps, and participated in the razing of another city.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
Troops under his command massacred Union soldiers. Ignoring that is intellectually irresesponsible.

We named a tank after a guy that razed an American city (among other things), and another guy that features on our currency tended to hang prisoners without trial, placed the others in concentration camps, and participated in the razing of another city.

Actually that was our good buddies the Brits (If you're referring to the Sherman). The United States only picked up the habit of naming its tanks after Civil War generals until WWII was nearly over from them. The Pershing I think was the first tank the US actually did name after a general (the Jackson? I can't remember which came out first), the Lee, Grant, and Sherman all got their names from the British.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:
Troops under his command massacred Union soldiers. Ignoring that is intellectually irresesponsible.

We named a tank after a guy that razed an American city (among other things), and another guy that features on our currency tended to hang prisoners without trial, placed the others in concentration camps, and participated in the razing of another city.

You are coming off as if you are saying context isn't important and that you're also creating some moral equivalency between all these acts. None of these actions happened in a vacuum. I agee that sometimes people hear or see and word and stop their thinking process, but I don't feel that is the case here. Isn't just saying 'well other people did bad stuff to so why care" abdicating critical thinking just as much as stopping at the word "KKK"?

dogma wrote:That discounts just about every Civil War general, including the one on the $50 bill (Grant), and the guy who had a WWII tank named after him (Sherman).

We named a tank after a guy that razed an American city (among other things), and another guy that features on our currency tended to hang prisoners without trial, placed the others in concentration camps, and participated in the razing of another city.

There's a fair case to be made that the way the North perpetrated the war in the South was not acceptable by modern standards. The case may be made that Sherman and Grant shouldn't be lionised either, and I might even agree with you on that. We certainly shouldn't whitewash what they did.

But we're comparing those men to a guy who led at most 6,000 men, had his troops slaughter surrendered black troops, and then went on the found the KKK. He's almost entirely forgettable to history, and the only real reason he's memorable at all is for his racist actions.

Drawing a false equivalency is simply wrong-headed.

dogma wrote:You emphasize the fact that Lincoln was a President, and that he re-united the country, but ignore that he would be considered incredibly racist by modern standards (and even by some abolitionists). Now the only thing you can say about the general is that he was a member of the KKK, and you don't even favorably point out that he wasn't fond of the violent turn the group took.

His being a president means he is historically important enough regardless of if his beliefs at the time are comparable to ours now (in truth he did not deal with the topic, his public life was focused on keeping the union together and he was murdered before he had to deal with the topic of race), and add to the fact that he was not a member of the KKK and it catapults him well above the other guy.

A civil war general and racist leader of a violently racist group of racists does not have the historical importance. And yes, that is what he will be remembered as. He actively took part in an actively, violently racist group, that was violent for some time before he left it. Not budging on this, don't care if you disagree.

sebster wrote:How long until WWII is labelled the War of Allied Aggression?

Never I'd say. As by the time that war ended we realized that if we let the defeated side keep flying their flags and other related symbols, and have full amnesty for those arguably guilty of high treason and crimes against humanity, all together with not reeducating the native population, then the amount of actual positive change would be negligible at the absolute best.

Neconilis wrote:Never I'd say. As by the time that war ended we realized that if we let the defeated side keep flying their flags and other related symbols, and have full amnesty for those arguably guilty of high treason and crimes against humanity, all together with not reeducating the native population, then the amount of actual positive change would be negligible at the absolute best.

Yeah, that's all true. My question was rhetorical - I don't think it'll ever happen. My point really was that if it ever happened, it would be just as absurd as calling the American Civil War the war of Northern Aggression.

It seems that alot of arguments are flying a bit far afield by trying to bring in comparisons to other historial figures, wars, etc. Such comparisons may be usefull. However, let's look at the lowest common denominator of the issue.

1) It has been proposed that a licesnse plate be made avaialble with a name of a brilliant historical General on it.

2) This historical person had many good and bad qualities and behaviors about him. No better or worse than many other individuals of his time.

3) He was a formative memer of the KKK...

Stop!

What's that, oh yes, he was a formative member of the KKK. That he renounced it later in life is admirable, and historians should report on his entire life. However, when it comes to putting a name on a license plate, the matter is quite simple.

It should be a matter of common sense that founders of the KKK should not be put on license plates.

Whether or not he gets the esteem of military historians, a park and commemerative statue in his hometown, etc, a license plate is different. It's a state issued placard, and the state should be held to a higher standard.