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.

For me at the end of the day the confederate flag is just plain scary. There are enough people that use it as symbol for their hateful beliefs and do so loudly enough it takes on that meaning for me too. These are people that would honestly want to hurt me for what I am and have done so to my family members. Further, however many historical meanings the flag may have had, motivations the confederacy may have had, or beliefs the Confederates may have held one of those was still the support of slavery. Even if you somehow claim it was like only 5% of what the confederacy wanted, it was still a part of it.That real part of it is the one that is important enough to dominate the value that institution and their symbols had, regardless of their internal thoughts at the time.

If Doug spends 80% of his time helping is grandma, 15% of his time gardening and 5% of his time stabbing children to death he isn't "Doug that guy who loves his grandma and gardens and also sometimes does other stuff" he's "Doug that guy who stabbed a bunch of children". Similarly if your Confederacy goes to war with the united states 80% because the government was unfairly trampling their rights, 15% because of unfair economic practices and 5% because they wanted to keep in their slaves they're not the government that "Left for states rights, economic gains and also some other stuff" they're the "Guys who went to war to keep their slaves". That's not unfair, not twisting the truth and not leaving anything of relative importance out. The reprehensibility of slavery is such a massive multiplier on the importance of the matter that it being about slavery at all, means that slavery is really the only thing that should matter, at least in the general discussion for the broad public.


Take all that and I just can't stomach the thing, at least outside an educational/historic context. Fly your confederate flag or whatever outside your house, I'll see it turn my car around and go down another street. The issue with flying it in front your state capital is the states capital is that your minority residents can't just leave and shouldn't have to in order to get away from that terrible flag.

BeAfraid wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

BeAfraid wrote:


The GOP's policies are the preferred policies of racists. You can' they past that, EVEN IF the GOP has members who are minorities, it does not alter the fact that, IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP.

I got to ask, is it your belief that non-whites cannot be racist?

Because La Raza and The Black Panther Party don't typically donate to GOP candidates.

La Raza isn't really a U.S. Institution.

But the TINY number of supporters in the USA have not contributed to political parties as a rule. Same thing with the Black Panthers.

Both collectively don't even make up a percentage of the numbers of White Supremacists.

PLUS... The Black Panthers and La Raza are, as a rule, NOT "Latin/Blaxk Supremacists." They have other issues which tend to be problematic.

Also, La Raza in Spain is just another White Supremacist group.

This is yet another attempt to point at an exception and try to make it a rule. It is sort of like jumping out of an airplane without a parachute because someone once survived doing so.

MB

Man you are a goal post stretching son of a gun.

Your post which I replied to was pretty clear, you stated: "IF you find a racist organization who has contributed to a political party in the last couple of decades (maybe longer), then the party they contributed to was the GOP."

That is false. The NCLR (La Raza) sprung from the Chicano movement and has nothing in the context of my post to do with Spain, and I am pretty sure you're smart enough to know that. The SPLC calls the New Black Panther Party "The New Black Panther Party is a virulently racist and anti-Semitic organization whose leaders have encouraged violence against whites, Jews and law enforcement officers."


Size of the organization has nothing to do with your original statement. The New Black Panthers with clubs 'guarding' a voting site in 2008 did not have a Klan equivalent. Sometimes an organization can have influence well beyond its size.

These are not 'exceptions that prove the rule'. They are examples that show you are talking from a position of ignorance.

Having looked up both, neither have made contributions to Political Parties.

Any attempts by the NBPP have been returned, and La Raza does not support Democratic Hispanic Candidates. They have run their own candidates in LA and Arizona (and lost, apparently).

MB


MB

Bull gak.

La Raza works closely with the Democratic party on amnesty/dream act/immigration issues. The NCLR (which I referenced) did indeed give to the Democratic party: http://influenceexplorer.com/organization/national-council-of-la-raza/2f0920a5271d41a7a85c4a7946775390

The New Black Panther Party provided security for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, helped 'guard' that Philly polling place in 2008 (which Holder refused to prosecute), they worked with Charles Barron (D politician in NY) and have worked to 'get out the vote' for many Democratic candidates at state and local levels.

The Confederacy was based pretty heavily on the concept of White Supremacy, a concept that remained mandated (not allowed, but required) in the laws of the South for 100 years after the war. Slavery, segregation, racism... these are all symptoms of the overarching ideology: that only white people have the rights of due process, civil liberaties, and the ability to participate in the economic and political life of the body politic.

White Supermacy reached its apex in the the antebellum south with federally protected chattel slavery, but the Black Codes and sheer terror expressed by the State on black citizens under Jim Crow was horrible beyond modern analog.

It's this subtle distinction between racism and white Supremacy that is too often ignored. Sure, there are black racists, but you can't really be a black supremicist, because black people don't, as a group, have the influence to stifle white participation in society. Incidentally, this is why it's generally seen as worse for a white person to discriminate against a black person than vice versa. Both can be expressions of personal feelings, but only one is part of an overarching effort to keep entire races out of public life.

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Economic issue? I guess taking away slave labor is a pretty big economic issue.

Only 4.8% of whites owned slaves in the South. Over 25% of Free blacks owned slaves in the South. Slavery had nothing to do with the color of their skin.

Did I imply that it did somewhere?

dereksatkinson wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Economic issue? I guess taking away slave labor is a pretty big economic issue.

Only 4.8% of whites owned slaves in the South. Over 25% of Free blacks owned slaves in the South. Slavery had nothing to do with the color of their skin.

That's not just untrue, that's actively false.

Early colonial slavry in the 17th century was relatively color blind, with black slave owners and white slaves. There's a good amount of evidnece that most black "slave owners" had purchased their own families out of slavery, since manumission was so difficult. There were isolated instances of Blank planters in louisania, which was by far the most egalatarian states, and in Maryland, which had a long history of freedmen. But slavery was seen, explicitly, as a racial issue.

It's not like this was opaque or vague. The confederate Constitution states that clearly, for example with passages like "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Or here: "In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress."

This isn't a minor point buried in a 1000 page act of congress. It's the blueprint for their whole system of government, and it specifies that the government could not eliminate slavery of black people.

BeAfraid wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I understand that the Confederate Flag is offensive to some people, but where do we draw the line with the 'purging' of these historical symbols?

America has a capital city named after a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson was another slave owner, to name a few.

And what about Native Americans? If there's one group in US history that has arguably suffered more than African Americans, then its Native Americans.

I watched a BBC documentary on the subject and a lot of them consider these symbols to be offensive: Kansas City Chiefs, Washington Redskins, the 2nd Infantry division, Chicago Blackhawks?? etc etc

They feel their culture is mocked and trivialised, as it has been depicted on everything from cigarette packets to chocolate bars.

And don't get them started on 1950s Westerns!!

Like I say, there a ton of symbols in modern America that can be seen as historically 'embarrassing.

Are you really that blind to the intentions and philosophical foundations of the various agencies at question here:

• The Confederacy: Founded on the idea that all men are NOT EQUAL; that some men are granted superiority by GOD over all others,and that some THINGS that only look like men (but are actually less than "animals") must be placed under the complete dominion of "Human Beings" (this is read by the Confederacy as "White men from Europe Only") in the institution of perpetual slavery; that "Human beings" have SOME RIGHTS (dictated by their God given status. Rich people have been blessed by God, and are those his "chosen," deserving more rights, while the poor, being out of favor with God, deserve fewer rights), while "things" that just "look" like humans (and have Black Skin) have no rights at all.

The Confederacy COMPLETELY LIVED UP TO THEIR CLAIMS. I.e. They were completely evil in that regard.

• The USA (including Thomas Jefferson): Founded on the principle that all men are created equal, endowed with inalienable rights, etc. etc.

The USA did not always live up to that intention, but the changes to our Constitution tend to reflect times when we realized "Oops! We F-Ed UP! We better change things to make it up to those we have wronged."

Are you REALLY unable to see a distinction between those two entities, and the philosophies behind them?

MB

The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy. Slavery was legal and in practice in all 13 colonies before, and during the War for Independence and in 12 of the 13 colonies after. Both the Articles of Confederation and Constitution limited legal rights to a specific subset of the populace. Thomas Jefferson was an avowed slave owning racist white supremacist. While he believed that all men were created equal his definition of a man was not the same as what you're implying.

The first northern state to get rid of slavery was Vermont in 1777 but they did so without actually freeing any slaves. Slaves that were in Vermont had to be moved out of Vermont to other states where slavery was still practiced. Slaves were still owned in New Jersey until 1865.

The US constitution was signed by 12 states wherein slavery was legal and in practice. The Confederate constitution was signed by 11 states wherein slavery was legal and in practice.

 Polonius wrote:
The Confederacy was based pretty heavily on the concept of White Supremacy, a concept that remained mandated (not allowed, but required) in the laws of the South for 100 years after the war. Slavery, segregation, racism... these are all symptoms of the overarching ideology: that only white people have the rights of due process, civil liberaties, and the ability to participate in the economic and political life of the body politic.

White Supermacy reached its apex in the the antebellum south with federally protected chattel slavery, but the Black Codes and sheer terror expressed by the State on black citizens under Jim Crow was horrible beyond modern analog.

It's this subtle distinction between racism and white Supremacy that is too often ignored. Sure, there are black racists, but you can't really be a black supremicist, because black people don't, as a group, have the influence to stifle white participation in society. Incidentally, this is why it's generally seen as worse for a white person to discriminate against a black person than vice versa. Both can be expressions of personal feelings, but only one is part of an overarching effort to keep entire races out of public life.

Right this is what is missed by the "only 4.5% of southern whites owned slaves" crowd. The whole culture was based around white supremacy, and most of the whites that didn't own slaves, aspired to move up the social ladder to where they could be slave owners. Furthermore by keeping blacks as slaves, even poor whites received the benefits of that institution even at a minimum by defaulting to a higher caste.

So point being even they didn't own slaves, the non slave owning whites reaped benefits from the cultural institution of slavery. So I'm afraid unless they were part of the small southern abolitionist movement, there is no letting non southern slaveowners "off the hook" just because they didn't own slaves.

It's similar concept to the German civilians who turned a blind eye to the Concentration camps. Just because they didn't actively participate in the sloughter houses, doesn't mean that they aren't at least somewhat culpable.

GG

Prestor Jon wrote:
The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy.

Yeah, it was. It changed a bit over time, though. Unlike the CSA that did not, because they could not, because they did not exist anymore.
And unlike religious text, the Constitution can be changed when people change their mind, though for some reason the US refuse to do so except to add more stuff, if I understood correctly.

Prestor Jon wrote:

The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy.

Maybe, but probably not, if only because the states of the confederacy actively became more committed to white supremacy after the constituation, while the other states were less commited. For example, in many states, free black men could vote after the Revolution. This was slowly expanded in the North to cover more individuals, while in the south various laws prevented most free blacks from voting into the 1960s.

That both the US and CS constitutions allowed for slavery is undeniable, but it ignores that for the USA in the 18th centuries, it was seen as a distasteful compromise for many people, including delegates from the South. The CSA constitution not only endorsed slavery, it mandated that the practice expand.

If by "just as racist" you mean both were racist enough to at least allow slavery, than sure. But I dont' think it takes too much effort to see a moral differnece between one political body that merely accepts a practice differently than another that actively condones it

Orlanth 653519 7933330 59b90e1005a220e2ebc542eb9d950b1e.jpgls wrote:

It is anything but absurd. The Confederate Battle Flag was historical, as was the stars and bars, though the former is what we normally see. Yes the KKK decided to use it, but the KKK were post ACW, they were not around during the Confederacy but emerged afterwards.

It is ignorant to say the Confederate Battle flag is the flag of the KKK while denying that it was ao the standard of the Army of Northern Virginia, its premiere and most historically important military formation, and also served the base of the revised national flag, twice.

It is clearly a case that the symbol is a genuine historical Confederate symbol, which is public domain and was used by the KKK amongst others, including the Democrats while campaigning to elect Clinton and Obama. It is highly selective to highlight one unofficial usage and claim it represents it all, even worse to deny its actual source.

It's not ignorant, it's the truth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/confederate-flag-racist_n_7639788.html

In the late 1940s, the flag was adopted as a symbol of the Dixiecrats -- a political party devoted to, among other things, maintaining segregation. They also opposed President Harry S. Truman’s proposals to instate anti-discrimination laws and make lynching a federal crime.

In 1963, the year after the Ole Miss riot, Alabama Gov. George Wallace raised the flag over the state Capitol in protest against desegregation, as described by the Georgia State Senate Research Office in a 2000 report.

It was first flown over a southern capitol to protest against desegregation. So why is it still on capitol buildings? heritage? the heritage of fighting against equal rights for black? yep.

To claim that the flag only represents how it was used in the civil war is ignorant and ignoring the true history of it.

Today, Does anyone from the civil war still use it? nope. Do racist hate groups use it? yep.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Thomas Jefferson was an avowed slave owning racist white supremacist

Actually, from most everything I've read TJ actually hated slavery and was very quietly working to get rid of it. Yes, it's no secret that he owned slaves, and definitely "loved" some of them more than others. But from those same sources, Jefferson kept slaves not out of some racial malice or anything, but because it was literally the only way to be economically viable at that time.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Thomas Jefferson was an avowed slave owning racist white supremacist

Actually, from most everything I've read TJ actually hated slavery and was very quietly working to get rid of it. Yes, it's no secret that he owned slaves, and definitely "loved" some of them more than others. But from those same sources, Jefferson kept slaves not out of some racial malice or anything, but because it was literally the only way to be economically viable at that time.

I doubt that he was exactly egalitarian, in that he probably assumed that white people were racially superior, which was a not uncommon thought at the time, and through the mid 20th century. So, while many of his views would seem backward and racist today, they reflected progressive thoughts at the time.

Even in the 1860s, even among abolitionists, there was a lot of controversy over granting full legal equality to freed blacks. In many ways, it took until the massive data collections taken during World War II to show no major difference in IQ, height, weight, strength, or character between races. A generation later, DNA evidence put the nail in the coffin.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
The Confederacy was based pretty heavily on the concept of White Supremacy, a concept that remained mandated (not allowed, but required) in the laws of the South for 100 years after the war. Slavery, segregation, racism... these are all symptoms of the overarching ideology: that only white people have the rights of due process, civil liberaties, and the ability to participate in the economic and political life of the body politic.

White Supermacy reached its apex in the the antebellum south with federally protected chattel slavery, but the Black Codes and sheer terror expressed by the State on black citizens under Jim Crow was horrible beyond modern analog.

It's this subtle distinction between racism and white Supremacy that is too often ignored. Sure, there are black racists, but you can't really be a black supremicist, because black people don't, as a group, have the influence to stifle white participation in society. Incidentally, this is why it's generally seen as worse for a white person to discriminate against a black person than vice versa. Both can be expressions of personal feelings, but only one is part of an overarching effort to keep entire races out of public life.

Right this is what is missed by the "only 4.5% of southern whites owned slaves" crowd. The whole culture was based around white supremacy, and most of the whites that didn't own slaves, aspired to move up the social ladder to where they could be slave owners. Furthermore by keeping blacks as slaves, even poor whites received the benefits of that institution even at a minimum by defaulting to a higher caste.

So point being even they didn't own slaves, the non slave owning whites reaped benefits from the cultural institution of slavery. So I'm afraid unless they were part of the small southern abolitionist movement, there is no letting non southern slaveowners "off the hook" just because they didn't own slaves.

It's similar concept to the German civilians who turned a blind eye to the Concentration camps. Just because they didn't actively participate in the sloughter houses, doesn't mean that they aren't at least somewhat culpable.

GG

Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history - they had no choice but to just wait it out. The only ones that have any share in the blame are those who made knowledgeable decisions that placed the nazi party in power.

I also question the moral compass of anyone who thinks causing a war that killed over 800,000 Americans and left the entire south in ruins for 100 years to "free" 1.3 million blacks was in some way just. It wasn't at all and I think forgetting that history by removing it's symbols is wrong.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
The founding of the United States of America was just as "racist" as the founding of the Confederacy.

Yeah, it was. It changed a bit over time, though. Unlike the CSA that did not, because they could not, because they did not exist anymore.
And unlike religious text, the Constitution can be changed when people change their mind, though for some reason the US refuse to do so except to add more stuff, if I understood correctly.

Slavery had been in continual practice in the South for over 200 years when the Civil War broke out. It was in practice when they were colonies, when they were independent states and when they were part of the United States. The South wanted to continue their agrarian slave based economy and society even as a growing majority of northern states had modernized to a more industrial technologically advanced economy so they sought to secede and form their own country, much like the way some of the confederate states seceded from England during the War for Independence. Slavery was also in practice in multiple northern states both before and during the Civil War. Racist laws and slavery existed throughout the country, the South just depended on it and clung to it more strongly than some of the northern states did.

We've actually repealed multiple amendments to the constitution, it just hasn't happened as often as we've added new ones.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history - they had no choice but to just wait it out. The only ones that have any share in the blame are those who made knowledgeable decisions that placed the nazi party in power.

That's simply not true. Plenty of people have condemned the citizens of Germany, but concerns about their guilt quickly turned around with the Cold war. German civilians expressed far less resistence to the Nazi regime than any other people.

I also question the moral compass of anyone who thinks causing a war that killed over 800,000 Americans and left the entire south in ruins for 100 years to "free" 1.3 million blacks was in some way just. It wasn't at all and I think forgetting that history by removing it's symbols is wrong.

Is there a casualty to slaves freed exchange rate you are comfortable with? The war was prosecuted over the issue of secession, which while itself was primarily about slavery was also seen as outright rebellion. Civil wars are bloody. I'd look at it more as 800,000 died in the civil war, but hey, at least we freed some slaves too!

I think you're probably in a minority about the morals of the Civil War, but that's your right.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history

Nice to know that Russia isn't European in this case

Anyhow... yes, continue with the Lost Cause thinking that it was the North that caused the war in the first place.


Hypothetically speaking here... With the results of the 1860 election, Southern slave owners knew their bell was tolling, slavery was ticking down it's final hours. IF they had not seceded, and instead tried to fight things out through the legislative branch, or at least stalled any bills/motions, etc. for as long as possible, maybe they would have realized shortly that the economics behind slavery was actually turning into a lose-lose situation.

Personally, I do wish that there had been another way, but there were a group of people, mostly from the South that didn't see things that way. And the South lost the war.

Also, I think that if you really look, most of the posters here aren't calling for removing the symbols of a racist country. We're calling out the southern states who are flying the symbols at their state buildings. If Gettysburg were only a monument, let's say it's a large field gun, flanked by two flag-poles with a plinth that holds a plaque with some words about never forgetting... There'd be absolutely no problem with one of the flag-poles holding the Confederate battle flag, or one of the confederate national flags, because that is exactly what the monument is there for. Throwing the flag on a pole in front of the state capitol in 1961 and keeping it up until 2015 isn't "commemorating" anything, it's deliberately thumbing the nose at people who are offended by the racist ideals that that flag upholds.

Taking the confederate flag down from state buildings isn't "forgetting history" it's moving beyond that history.

Prestor Jon wrote:

We've actually repealed multiple amendments to the constitution, it just hasn't happened as often as we've added new ones.

The only amendment that's been repealed was the prohibition amendment, IIRC.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Racist laws and slavery existed throughout the country, the South just depended on it and clung to it more strongly than some of the northern states did.

Which gave them the privilege of being remembered as the bad guys.
Because having your economy depend on terrible crimes against humanity, and clinging to the laws allowing said crimes even when that means an appalling number of deaths to tend to make you remembered as the bad guys.
Moral of the story: if you care about how history is going to remember you, try not to get your economy dependent on crimes against humanity.

Prestor Jon wrote:
We've actually repealed multiple amendments to the constitution, it just hasn't happened as often as we've added new ones.

Oh. My bad then.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Moral of the story: if you care about how history is going to remember you, try not to get your economy dependent on crimes against humanity.

But the problem here is that you're projecting today's modern values onto a past people.

Personally, yes, I condemn slavery as a "wrong" institution. But when I read history from that time period, I'm not thinking, "Oh my, what a bunch of evil d-bags", because then I'd be projecting my modern values onto something I should not be doing that with.

The general public opinion of the time of the Confederacy was against slavery, though, as it was recognised as an evil.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The general public opinion of the time of the Confederacy was against slavery, though, as it was recognised as an evil.

That really depends how wide a lens you use. In industrializing areas, such as europe and the British Empire, it was seen as increasingly disasteful. Big pockets of people saw it as evil, but even then, it was seen as more acceptable for Black people due to the scientific racism of the time. The Islamic world still had slavery, as did chunks of asia. And serfdom was nearly equivilent.

That said, the British government, and many people, saw the institution in a negative enough light to preclude any intervention on behalf of the CSA. There's a story that even the laid off textile workers supported the union, as while they were idle without Southern Cotton, they felt slavery was worth fighting against.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history

Nice to know that Russia isn't European in this case

Anyhow... yes, continue with the Lost Cause thinking that it was the North that caused the war in the first place.


Hypothetically speaking here... With the results of the 1860 election, Southern slave owners knew their bell was tolling, slavery was ticking down it's final hours. IF they had not seceded, and instead tried to fight things out through the legislative branch, or at least stalled any bills/motions, etc. for as long as possible, maybe they would have realized shortly that the economics behind slavery was actually turning into a lose-lose situation.

Personally, I do wish that there had been another way, but there were a group of people, mostly from the South that didn't see things that way. And the South lost the war.

Also, I think that if you really look, most of the posters here aren't calling for removing the symbols of a racist country. We're calling out the southern states who are flying the symbols at their state buildings. If Gettysburg were only a monument, let's say it's a large field gun, flanked by two flag-poles with a plinth that holds a plaque with some words about never forgetting... There'd be absolutely no problem with one of the flag-poles holding the Confederate battle flag, or one of the confederate national flags, because that is exactly what the monument is there for. Throwing the flag on a pole in front of the state capitol in 1961 and keeping it up until 2015 isn't "commemorating" anything, it's deliberately thumbing the nose at people who are offended by the racist ideals that that flag upholds.

Taking the confederate flag down from state buildings isn't "forgetting history" it's moving beyond that history.

I'm not aruging for state institutions to fly the confed flag. I agree that is stupid - they should be flying 1 flag. The American flag. Maybe a state flag too. If some hill billy wants to fly it on his truck though - it doesn't bother me.

 Xenomancers wrote:

I'm not aruging for state institutions to fly the confed flag. I agree that is stupid - they should be flying 1 flag. The American flag. Maybe a state flag too. If some hill billy wants to fly it on his truck though - it doesn't bother me.

Ahh, then we actually agree.

I mean, seeing some hillbilly, or redneck, or whatever you want to call them flying the rebel flag "bothers" me... but it does not, and will not ever bother me to the point where I think we need to infringe on a "god" given right.

 Polonius wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nah dude - no one holds german civilians responsible for any of that nonsense.. They were under rule of the most violent regime in European history - they had no choice but to just wait it out. The only ones that have any share in the blame are those who made knowledgeable decisions that placed the nazi party in power.

That's simply not true. Plenty of people have condemned the citizens of Germany, but concerns about their guilt quickly turned around with the Cold war. German civilians expressed far less resistence to the Nazi regime than any other people.

I also question the moral compass of anyone who thinks causing a war that killed over 800,000 Americans and left the entire south in ruins for 100 years to "free" 1.3 million blacks was in some way just. It wasn't at all and I think forgetting that history by removing it's symbols is wrong.

Is there a casualty to slaves freed exchange rate you are comfortable with? The war was prosecuted over the issue of secession, which while itself was primarily about slavery was also seen as outright rebellion. Civil wars are bloody. I'd look at it more as 800,000 died in the civil war, but hey, at least we freed some slaves too!

I think you're probably in a minority about the morals of the Civil War, but that's your right.

I'm happy to be in the minority when the majority is in denial.

I think it's absurd to blame German civilians for anything associated with the holocaust. I hope I am not in the miniority on that one. Innocent people in fear for their lives are victims and they should feel no guilt. What is the proper exchange rate for freed slaves to war casualties? Preferably 0. If we elected some responsible leadership instead of a blood thirsty tyrant - there never would have been a civil war - slavery would have dissipated on its own over time - like it has everywhere else in the civilized world without the need for almost a million dead. Then again when one side is morally superior - you can just blame the other side for all the dead so no guilt should be given to yourself...it is a joke. Oh yeah - those immigrants? Those were my people. I'm sure they would have been happy to work fields instead of fight a stupid war - there was no other way?


The north blockaded the southern ports and used a steady supply of immigrants to beat down the south.

You know what a smart a fair leader would have done? Buy all the slaves from the south, then let them use the cheap labor of immigrants to ween them off slavery in a tapered system. Anything is better than all out war and there is always alternatives to it.

German civilians were starving in the streets, having been forced to pay unheard-of reparations for a war they didn't start, and losing the industrial production centers required to create the goods that would have allowed them to halt the free-fall their economy was in and actually repay that debt certainly didn't help.

Along comes a guy who says he's going to put Germany back to work, a pig in every pot, a Volkswagen in every garage, and latches on to an already-prevalent social belief the world over ("Those dirty Jews did it!") and gets elected to office.

Anti-semitic thought did not originate with the Nazis, not by a long shot. It was a fairly common belief throughout the United States at the time, too (as was anti-Catholic sentiment).

So... no, the citizens of Germany aren't really culpable for the Nazi Party. The Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 pretty much ensured that someone like Hitler would rise to power.

 Psienesis wrote:
German civilians were starving in the streets, having been forced to pay unheard-of reparations for a war they didn't start, and losing the industrial production centers required to create the goods that would have allowed them to halt the free-fall their economy was in and actually repay that debt certainly didn't help.

Along comes a guy who says he's going to put Germany back to work, a pig in every pot, a Volkswagen in every garage, and latches on to an already-prevalent social belief the world over ("Those dirty Jews did it!") and gets elected to office.

Anti-semitic thought did not originate with the Nazis, not by a long shot. It was a fairly common belief throughout the United States at the time, too (as was anti-Catholic sentiment).

So... no, the citizens of Germany aren't really culpable for the Nazi Party. The Treaty of Versailles that ended WW1 pretty much ensured that someone like Hitler would rise to power.

Many historians are now of the opinion that the Treaty of Versailles was really more of a "Pause" button than an end to the war.

Here's one thing that many people don't realize: There were around 48 different right wing, fascist political parties in Bavaria alone. Prior to Hitler's election, he managed to unite all of them under his Nazi party, and then began swallowing all of the similar parties throughout the rest of Germany as well.

And the truly terrible thing was, after WW1, the US was giving Germany millions of dollars per year (under the table) because at the time, the President basically felt that if Germany completely collapsed, it would lead to another Great War. Unfortunately for the Presidents, and the US, 1929 hit and we stopped our quiet help of Germany.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
But the problem here is that you're projecting today's modern values onto a past people.

Are you trying to tell me that back then, the slave loved being slave and thought slavery and institutionalized racism was great and awesome and morally very justified?
My bad then.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, yes, I condemn slavery as a "wrong" institution. But when I read history from that time period, I'm not thinking, "Oh my, what a bunch of evil d-bags", because then I'd be projecting my modern values onto something I should not be doing that with.

What about “Oh my, what a bunch of people doing something extremely evil”? Is that okay with you? That seems about right to me.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
But the problem here is that you're projecting today's modern values onto a past people.

Are you trying to tell me that back then, the slave loved being slave and thought slavery and institutionalized racism was great and awesome and morally very justified?
My bad then.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Personally, yes, I condemn slavery as a "wrong" institution. But when I read history from that time period, I'm not thinking, "Oh my, what a bunch of evil d-bags", because then I'd be projecting my modern values onto something I should not be doing that with.

What about “Oh my, what a bunch of people doing something extremely evil”? Is that okay with you? That seems about right to me.

Now you're definitely projecting. I have no doubt that there were some minority of slaves who went to "good" masters, who treated them well because he/she knew that his own livelihood depending on their performance. Obviously there are less than good people who owned slaves who didn't treat their "property" all that well.

What I'm saying is that, when you look at the institution, and the society as a whole, the very people perpetrating these acts were morally "justified" by their own logic. What was "right" back then, obviously wasn't right, and there was a war to try and fix it.

Again, the people who were owning slaves and had lives which were only economically viable, felt that they were morally on the high ground. It is more modern values that show us that owning human beings is dead wrong. From where I'm sitting, here, in the 21st Century, reading about the Southern States of the confederacy may as well be as foreign to me as Han Dynasty China. ... there values and "morality" are that alien to what we view today.

Except even at the time of the ACW many of the big players in the colonial world had already brought in the abolition of slavery.

So even without applying our modern standards but rather the standards of the time at which the ACW happened, slavery was still wrong and evil.

There is no amount of "good treatment" that mitigates the grinding oppression of unregulated slavery in the American South. Families could be split up, education was forbidden, violence and terror were common, women were frequently and repeatedly raped, and there was nothing you could do to better your situation.

A minority might prefer three hots and a cot under such terms, but for most people, that level of horror is too great to bear.