Georgia Senate OKs Confederate Month [Archive] - Bimmerforums

M3Alpine99

03-16-2007, 08:49 PM

As an outsider (moved here almost 4 years ago) I will never understand the longing for the confederate nation. Southerners say the traditions are important to them, I say hogwash. The civil war was about pretty much one thing...slavery. When I see a Confederate flag flying at a house it says to me "Man, I wish I could still own slaves."

Not to mention the fact that the South lost the war. You would think they wouldn't want to constantly remind themselves of their moral and technological inferiority to the North. I don't see a lot of Nazi flags flying in Germany (yes, I am comparing Confederates to Nazis).

Even though I voted 'no' I am with Fast5 on this one. The outcry, protests, etc. will be fun to watch.

Ahhhhh good one.

As someone who has taken American history in a Georgia school and then again in a school in Chicago I can say you are plain wrong.

The civil war was not about "slavery". It was about the Federal government stepping its boundaries and rules set in the constitution. "Technically" President Lincoln was not supposed to be able to just say "no slaves for you". That is for the individual states to decide. He had hinted and said "I will end slavery when I am elected"

Taking away the south's slavery would have completely ruined there "industry" and be horrible for the southern economy. So they formed their own country :)

This will be taught in 1 of two ways.

Northern School - "Civil War was because Southerners wanted slavery" (I was told I was WRONG when I brought up this issue with my teacher)

Southern School - "Civil War was because Federal government overstepped the boundaries"

Also a tidbit of information about the war. The south lost because early in the war they have zero leadership. In the first real battle the north routed in minutes. They fled and southerners started celebrating. If they had pressed on the south would have won within weeks, maybe days. They did not have the industry to win a long war.

*I don't support slavery and it was/is wrong*

I voted yes so I can see the Debate. This is just like apparently it is "white history month" for 11 months.

Also I thought of this yesterday. There is a station in Atlanta for Hip-Hop that is the "People's Station"

Would it be racist if I started a station that was "The People's Station" and all it played was angry hard rock and metal? Something to think about it :) Today's society is so messed up. I think 95% of the people in this country could careless if you are white, brown, yellow, black, purple, pink etc but it is 5% that have to make it a huge deal and make sure you know about it.

atl530i

03-16-2007, 09:44 PM

Screw "Confederate Month"! These losers need to pass the bill allowing alcohol sales on Sunday.

+1

Whatever though, I could really go into detail about this subject but if I do, the thread will be closed.

Now all they need to do is make the state flag to pre-Barnes or Purdue... One of those morons I did not vote for.

M3Alpine99

03-16-2007, 09:47 PM

I have a flag for the real georgia flag :)

98silver328i

03-16-2007, 10:49 PM

Sure, why not.

Analog

03-16-2007, 11:39 PM

CVGTURBO86

03-17-2007, 12:15 AM

Black History Month - Honoring blacks who helped bring needed social change to this country so that all people could be treated with the same respect and dignity by the government.

Confederate History Month - Honoring traitorous "rebels" bent on splitting this country apart in more ways than one.

Yeah exactly the same... :rolleyes
Um ok and those same rebels fought for our freedom and rights. way to be greatful....:rolleyes

ls1z28chris

03-17-2007, 09:11 AM

Nicely put M3Alpine99.

I can't stand it when I hear people talking about the civil war and say it's about slavery. Modern schools have made it into this.

Honestly, I don't see a problem with this at all. I mean there is a "save a spider day" so why not this?

I was taught the South ultimatly left the union when Lincoln got elected president without a single Southern electoral vote. Also, that slavery was indeed a big part of the issue but it was more about the South trying to hold onto its antiquated economic and social values--slavery being one of them.

This was in a public school in Cobb county.

Hari

03-17-2007, 11:29 AM

Um ok and those same rebels fought for our freedom and rights. way to be greatful....:rolleyes

LOL :rofl "our freedom and rights"... You mean YOUR freedom and rights! Had the South won, people like me probably would have been denied freedom and rights for many years to come if not to this very day.

Hari

03-17-2007, 11:34 AM

Also I thought of this yesterday. There is a station in Atlanta for Hip-Hop that is the "People's Station"

Would it be racist if I started a station that was "The People's Station" and all it played was angry hard rock and metal? Something to think about it :)

Well seeing that according to the recent CNN special about hip hop, 70% of rap music is bought by WHITES I could say that V-103 is the people's station. :D

98silver328i

03-17-2007, 04:19 PM

Well seeing that according to the recent CNN special about hip hop, 70% of rap music is bought by WHITES I could say that V-103 is the people's station. :D

I have to disagree. I hardly ever hear a white person listening to V-103.

krisko

03-17-2007, 04:34 PM

Ahhhhh good one.

As someone who has taken American history in a Georgia school and then again in a school in Chicago I can say you are plain wrong.

The civil war was not about "slavery". It was about the Federal government stepping its boundaries and rules set in the constitution. "Technically" President Lincoln was not supposed to be able to just say "no slaves for you". That is for the individual states to decide. He had hinted and said "I will end slavery when I am elected"

You say I'm wrong in stating the Civil War was about slavery and then you go on to say the Civil War was about....slavery. Lincoln told the South to give up their slaves, they didn't so he enforced the constitution (bill of rights) with military force. Sounds like it was about slavery to me.

President Lincoln was elected to end slavery, plain and simple. It's not surprising that he didn't win any votes in the South, they wanted cheap/free labor.

It's funny how Confederates think they almost won that war. The South was morally, financially, and ultimately militarily bankrupt. They were passionate and won some battles but the South stood zero chance of winning a war of any length. The thinkers and industrialists were in the north. What was in the south...cotton fields, mosquitoes, and backward thinkers who probably had terrible dental hygiene.

I'm interested in hearing under what circumstances the south could've won that war. Do you really think Lincoln would give up after losing a few battles and make the notion that 'all men are created equal' just a fleeting thought? Washington could've fallen and Lincoln hanged from a tree and the South would still have lost.

Make no mistake, slavery was the darkest aspect of our new nation. The Civil rights struggle of the 1900s pretty much confirms the South as a backward thinking people. If the Confederacy somehow gained independence it would've surely imploded within 50 years.

While I'm embarassed at the sight of th confederate flag, I would never go so far as to ban it as the German's have the Nazi flag. When the flag disappears from truck bumpers and trailer park homes, that will be a sign that the South has 'risen again'. They will no longer be proud of a heritage that advocates ownership of other human beings.

atl540i

03-17-2007, 04:53 PM

I was taught the South ultimatly left the union when Lincoln got elected president without a single Southern electoral vote. Also, that slavery was indeed a big part of the issue but it was more about the South trying to hold onto its antiquated economic and social values--slavery being one of them.

This was in a public school in Cobb county.

Wow - we actually have a thread about this? There were a myriad of issues that led to the southern states secceding from the union. Which one was the "biggest" tends to depend on your political, social, and economic views. We will find very little fact in this discussion and a lot of opinion. With that said - history is written by the winners of wars and we are too far beyond the Civil War to have a completely objective discussion about about its basis. Is the spirit of this "awareness" month to say that the Confederacy was all good? I should hope not. History is there to learn from - hopefully such a month would lead to more awareness of how close this country came to NOT being the "United" States of America. I have not read the bill but notice that the last word is "Awareness" and not "Pride". You can't do anything these days without offending someone. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen (except in high school History classes) or, if this passes, take it as an opportunity to learn from our history, both the good and the bad. Luckily, we can all look back now with the gift of hindsight and have an interesting debate on this. I will step down from the soap box now and see where this goes...

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 04:58 PM

The Civil rights struggle of the 1900s pretty much confirms the South as a backward thinking people.
This is one of the most persistent, fallacious, narrow-minded, and - tellingly - selective trains of thought concerning the South that remains as a supposed "given" for most people who were born elsewhere.

Absolutely no consideration is given to the countless Southern people who were against slavery from the beginning, fought against it while it was practiced, undermined it by helping slaves escape at the risk of their own lives, fought against secession (many of the most heavily unionist areas were in northern Georgia, by the way), worked, fought, and suffered alongside blacks FOR the civil rights movement, and have never harbored a racist sentiment in their lives.

As long as it's so easy for the allegedly brilliant, enlightened northerners, and others who can't bear to share the moral high ground with anyone else, to conveniently ignore the larger, more diverse picture of the South as it is now, and yes, was back then, they'll do so. They decry anyone who dares to speak in generalities about anyone else, and yet, they somehow reserve the right to slap the convenient, all-encompassing label of "backward thinking people," and a host of other slurs, on an entire region of people, our ancestors, and descendants, without exception or even intellectually honest consideration. Such is the outcome from people who get their history lessons in televised capsules, and government-employed "educators" unqualified to do anything but babysit 40 kids at a time.

Confederate awareness may not be that great an idea, but the world could sure as hell use some Southern awareness. :rolleyes

atl540i

03-17-2007, 05:01 PM

This is one of the most persistent, fallacious, narrow-minded, and - tellingly - selective trains of thought concerning the South that remains as a supposed "given" for most people who were born elsewhere.

Absolutely no consideration is given to the countless Southern people who were against slavery from the beginning, fought against it while it was practiced, undermined it by helping slaves escape at the risk of their own lives, fought against secession (many of the most heavily unionist areas were in northern Georgia, by the way), worked, fought, and suffered alongside blacks FOR the civil rights movement, and have never harbored a racist sentiment in their lives.

As long as it's so easy for the allegedly brilliant, enlightened northerners, and others who can't bear to share the moral high ground with anyone else, to conveniently ignore the larger, more diverse picture of the South as it is now, and yes, was back then, they'll do so. They decry anyone who dares to speak in generalities about anyone else, and yet, they somehow reserve the right to slap the convenient, all-encompassing label of "backward thinking people," and a host of other slurs, on an entire region of people, our ancestors, and descendants, without exception or even intellectually honest consideration. Such is the outcome from people who get their history lessons in televised capsules, and government-employed "educators" unqualified to do anything but babysit 40 kids at a time.

Confederate awareness may not be that great an idea, but the world could sure as hell use some Southern awareness. :rolleyes

Well said!!!! :buttrock :buttrock :buttrock :buttrock

krisko

03-17-2007, 05:05 PM

Wow - we actually have a thread about this? There were a myriad of issues that led to the southern states secceding from the union. Which one was the "biggest" tends to depend on your political, social, and economic views. We will find very little fact in this discussion and a lot of opinion. With that said - history is written by the winners of wars and we are too far beyond the Civil War to have a completely objective discussion about about its basis. Is the spirit of this "awareness" month to say that the Confederacy was all good? I should hope not. History is there to learn from - hopefully such a month would lead to more awareness of how close this country came to NOT being the "United" States of America. I have not read the bill but notice that the last word is "Awareness" and not "Pride". You can't do anything these days without offending someone. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen (except in high school History classes) or, if this passes, take it as an opportunity to learn from our history, both the good and the bad. Luckily, we can all look back now with the gift of hindsight and have an interesting debate on this. I will step down from the soap box now and see where this goes...

Good points that are eloquently put. But do you think if there is a 'Confederate Awareness Month' that schools will have seminars on the inherent evil of enslaving people because of their skin color? Do you think they'll talk about the folly of the South defying Lincoln and thinking they could actually win that war? Will there be a moment of silence for the many thousands of Rebels and Union troops that died in the name of slavery?

More likely, I suspect the KKK would have numerous activities planned for Confederate Month. I think redneck parents would take it as an opportunity to teach their little redneck children hate and distrust of black people. Perhaps they would learn about their family's history of slave ownership and long for the day when they can own slaves again (you know, when the South 'rises again').

And the only way one could deny that slavery was the biggest issue in the Civil War is if they don't have a problem with slavery itself.

krisko

03-17-2007, 05:16 PM

Absolutely no consideration is given to the countless Southern people who were against slavery from the beginning, fought against it while it was practiced, undermined it by helping slaves escape at the risk of their own lives, fought against secession (many of the most heavily unionist areas were in northern Georgia, by the way), worked, fought, and suffered alongside blacks FOR the civil rights movement, and have never harbored a racist sentiment in their lives.

You are absolutely correct and these people should receive more attention for their heroic efforts in denouncing slavery and smuggling slaves out. While I came down a little hard on the South, I fully understand there were enlightened southerners then and a lot more now.

My concern is that a Confederate Awareness Month would be viewed as some kind of modern day endorsement of Confederate ideals. I'm not positive but I think most southern states have never formally apologized to blacks for slavery...that's fairly appalling to me.

You say northerners have a moral highground? That is absolutely correct...the notion that blacks shouldn't be enslaved is a tad more moral than the South's view. And I still don't understand the 'education' comments. I'm not sure it matters that some went to school in NYC or there were 40 kids to a class. Was the Civil War not about the South's defiance of President Lincoln's decree that all men are created equal?

You can't put a positive spin on slavery or the Confederacy though I guess a 'Confederate Awareness Month' would attempt to.

atl540i

03-17-2007, 05:19 PM

Good points that are eloquently put. But do you think if there is a 'Confederate Awareness Month' that schools will have seminars on the inherent evil of enslaving people because of their skin color? Do you think they'll talk about the folly of the South defying Lincoln and thinking they could actually win that war? Will there be a moment of silence for the many thousands of Rebels and Union troops that died in the name of slavery?

More likely, I suspect the KKK would have numerous activities planned for Confederate Month. I think redneck parents would take it as an opportunity to teach their little redneck children hate and distrust of black people. Perhaps they would learn about their family's history of slave ownership and long for the day when they can own slaves again (you know, when the South 'rises again').

I think that your comments prove you to be just as racially biased as anyone in any of the stereotypes you are using slurs for. Have you read the bill? Do you really think that if people want to raise their kids with ideals such as this they need a government approved "Awareness" month to do so? I don't think the KKK is waiting for such an event to do their next political move. Ignorant people will always be ignorant until they choose otherwise. I come from a very "redneck" family (by your definition) and I can speak from experience that your stereotype is no more correct than any of those stereotypes that you despise about black people are correct when applied to you. In my opinion (and it is just an opinion, mind you), your comments border on paranoia. Do the Black Panthers use Black History Month as a spring board for public promotion of their ideals? However, I am glad that we all enjoy the freedom now to believe and say what we choose. Personally, if Cobb County Schools was to start teach the "virtues" of slavery (that's sarcasm, by the way) they would be eye-ball deep in lawsuits, as well they should be. We are a too well-informed society now with far too much information access to allow such a thing to happen.

atl540i

03-17-2007, 05:21 PM

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 05:21 PM

Good points that are eloquently put. But do you think if there is a 'Confederate Awareness Month' that schools will have seminars on the inherent evil of enslaving people because of their skin color? Do you think they'll talk about the folly of the South defying Lincoln and thinking they could actually win that war?
The question should be, are such seminars necessary? We've had generations of such lessons now, and the war is long over. Secession is such an impractical option now, it's an utter impossibility. If it passes, it'll probably only be a symbolic gesture at best. As for formal programs, I doubt there will be much of anything done.

Will there be a moment of silence for the many thousands of Rebels and Union troops that died in the name of slavery?
Again, you need to learn more about the motivations for many of the people who fought for the Confederacy. Not everyone "died in the name of slavery." Lincoln didn't even care that much about slavery as an issue until his re-election appeared to be in jeopardy. Then, all of a sudden, "OMG!! We've got a moral imperative (a term recently resurrected, btw) to stop slavery!"

The fact is that the vast majority of the Confederate military had no slaves at all. They were fighting mostly on the principle that the States, as deemed by the Founders, were supposed to be soverign. Lincoln decided he didn't like that idea. But even with the principle aside, people were fighting because it was their homes, their lands, their farms, and their cities being invaded and destroyed. The South didn't go north looking for a fight; The North came down here to bring one.

More likely, I suspect the KKK would have numerous activities planned for Confederate Month.
The KKK, as a viable organization, has been dead for at least a decade and a half. The few morons left in it are dying off. The idea that there will be a sudden upswing in membership and activities just because of a meaningless, un-funded proclomation is laughable.

I think redneck parents would take it as an opportunity to teach their little redneck children hate and distrust of black people. Perhaps they would learn about their family's history of slave ownership and long for the day when they can own slaves again (you know, when the South 'rises again').
Once again, you show your incredibly narrow bias toward the South. You give absolutely no thought to the fact that not everyone from the South thinks that way! But I'll indulge your questions anyway.

No one alive today has any clue about what it's like to own slaves. They cannot, by definition, "long for" something "again" that they've never done before. And rednecks, meanwhile, will always be rednecks. The ignorant need no offical government sanction to remain ignorant.

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 05:26 PM

You are absolutely correct and these people should receive more attention for their heroic efforts in denouncing slavery and smuggling slaves out. While I came down a little hard on the South, I fully understand there were enlightened southerners then and a lot more now.
Again, your bias is convenient for you, so you embrace it. If anything, you've just proven all that I've said on that subject is correct.

I'm not positive but I think most southern states have never formally apologized to blacks for slavery...that's fairly appalling to me.
Blacks - and every other group you could care to name - have more opportunity in the US today for self-improvement and prosperity than any other time or place on earth. In short, apologies only apply to those against whom the offense was made. The slaves are dead, as are the people who enslaved them. Such gestures are meaningless, empty, and do absolutely nothing.

You say northerners have a moral highground? That is absolutely correct...the notion that blacks shouldn't be enslaved is a tad more moral than the South's view.
More generalizations, more fallacies. The "South's view" wasn't as cut and dried as your labels require it to be. But I hate repeating myself, so I'll just let you go back and read it again.

And I still don't understand the 'education' comments. I'm not sure it matters that some went to school in NYC or there were 40 kids to a class. Was the Civil War not about the South's defiance of President Lincoln's decree that all men are created equal?
No, it wasn't. Not by a long shot.

You can't put a positive spin on slavery or the Confederacy though I guess a 'Confederate Awareness Month' would attempt to.
I haven't tried to put a spin on anything. The only thing you've shown is that you're operating on a severe shortage of facts.

But as I say, you're welcome to do so.

krisko

03-17-2007, 05:29 PM

Have you read the bill?

I admit I haven't read the legislation so probably all of my points are moot. I'm concerned that GA will be viewed as backward for enacting a 'month' even if the lawmakers intentions are pure. I take enough crap for living in Georgia already, though I love it here and I won't be moving for 20 years at least.

Doctor Wha, you've lost me on a few things. Why wouldn't an apology to blacks for slavery be appropriate? While it is meaningless to white people, I suspect blacks would appreciate it. It might also give the average redneck some guidance...he's see that his state government ackowledges that prejudice against and ownership of blacks was wrong. You are right though, racists will be racists no matter what a state legislature says.

I've read criticism of Lincoln for attacking slavery when it appeared his reelection was in jeopardy. It doesn't resonate with me...simply put he had the balls to end slavery. Whenever it happened in his presidency doesn't matter to me.

And the Civil War wasn't about the South's defiance of Lincoln? Huh?

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 05:31 PM

I admit I haven't read the legislation so probably all of my points are moot. I'm concerned that GA will be viewed as backward for enacting a 'month' even if the lawmakers intentions are pure. I take enough crap for living in Georgia already, though I love it here and I won't be moving for 20 years at least.
Don't worry, the way most people from "up there" think of us, it can't get any worse. ;)

atl540i

03-17-2007, 05:33 PM

Don't worry, the way most people from "up there" think of us, it can't get any worse. ;)

:lol :lol :lol :lol Them thar fereners and yankees don't know nuttin' 'bout me an' my kin. I ain't 'bout to give a damn hootenanny about what dem idjuts thank 'bout me! :lol :lol :lol :lol

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 05:35 PM

Them thar fereners and yankees don't know nuttin' 'bout me an' my kin. I ain't 'bout to give a damn hootenanny about what dem idjuts thank 'bout me!
:rofl

And I'm sure your wife-sister-cousin agrees with you! :rofl

atl540i

03-17-2007, 05:36 PM

:rofl

And I'm sure your wife-sister-cousin agrees with you! :rofl

Funny - my wife just said something to that effect :rofl. Keep all good things in the family I always say :rofl.

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 05:56 PM

Doctor Wha, you've lost me on a few things. Why wouldn't an apology to blacks for slavery be appropriate?
Simple: If my great-great-great grandfather shot your great-great-great grandfather, do I owe you an apology? The idea is nuts. It achieves nothing.

Clinton "apologized" for it a decade ago. Other states have issued similar proclomations. And yet, while trendy, it has changed nothing about the black culture in the US. Meanwhile, blacks who decide to work and be successful continue to do so, and did so long before it became fashionable to right every wrong in the history books with symbolic weeping.

The fact is, that people - individuals - of every race determine their own fates, for good or il. No governmental edict can either help or hinder them.

You are right though, racists will be racists no matter what a state legislature says.
Correct. And that applies to racists of every color. ;)

I've read criticism of Lincoln for attacking slavery when it appeared his reelection was in jeopardy. It doesn't resonate with me...simply put he had the balls to end slavery. Whenever it happened in his presidency doesn't matter to me.
But is does matter. Actions have motivations and context. Hitler did some great things for the German economy - at first. Do we just ignore all that genocide stuff, and say he had the balls to make the Germans feel good about themselves?

We can't pick and choose what we remember; one has to look at the bigger picture.

And the Civil War wasn't about the South's defiance of Lincoln? Huh?
You're making my fingers tired. :help

The roots of most conflicts have to do with control, and money (often the same thing). The Civil War's roots were in a nutshell, over economic self-determination. Now yes, there was a slavery component to that economy, but it was not the be-all and end-all of it.

People also forget that slavery as an institution was doomed before the war began. It was becoming less and less feasible. The invention of the cotton gin in particular, and the industrial revolution in general, was (and eventually did) make it impractical.

I could type all day, but as I say, but suffice to say that an entire country doesn't split over just one issue. Slavery was part of a much larger, and more complicated series of issues. There's a great deal of reading to be done on it, written by people with more patience than I have. You seem like a smart guy, so I'm sure you'd find it interesting. :)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go molest some livestock, then stand on the corner and scream epithets at people who don't look like me.* ;)

:cool

*This is a joke, by the way.

G. P. Burdell

03-17-2007, 06:15 PM

Why wouldn't an apology to blacks for slavery be appropriate? While it is meaningless to white people, I suspect blacks would appreciate it.
An apology would pave the way for financial reparations by the state and federal government to descendants of African slaves. Money would be redistributed from taxpayers who weren't even alive during the era of slavery and whose families never owned slaves to anyone who claimed to be descended from slaves.

Furthermore, the lack of accurate birth records from the 17th through 19th centuries would make it impossible for the government to identify and compensate every descendant. There would be a LOT of fraud perpetrated by scammers wanting a piece of the reparations pie.

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 06:36 PM

Oh, and one other note on apologies for slavery: Slavery didn't happen in a vacuum. The slave trade was fueled by Africans selling other Africans into slavery. Those sold off were often the captives gained during fights between warring factions and tribes. But the "winners" didn't give a second thought to the act of selling people of their own race into servitude.

And yet, no one pressures Africans into self-imposed angst and symbolic apoloigies. Just the country with the deep pockets. :ponder

As I noted eariler, conflict arises over control... and money.

But enough of that, let's get back to the pressing issue at hand:

Did everyone buy enough devil juice to last them through tomorrow?? :drink3

:D

:cool

atl540i

03-17-2007, 06:47 PM

...But enough of that, let's get back to the pressing issue at hand:

Did everyone buy enough devil juice to last them through tomorrow?? :drink3

:D

:cool

But of course!

keeptheuroalive

03-17-2007, 07:11 PM

I'm a fan of it. Then again my school's mascot is a rebel so this shouldn't surprise y'all. And be happy you can go somewhere to buy alcohol on Sunday I can't even get a beer at a bar on Sunday in oxford.

krisko

03-17-2007, 07:31 PM

Simple: If my great-great-great grandfather shot your great-great-great grandfather, do I owe you an apology? The idea is nuts. It achieves nothing.

In your example, I would never hold you responsible or expect and apology for slavery. I have no moral issue regarding slavery since my family was in europe at the time. But in the case of slavery, state governments had specific laws on the books regarding slave ownership and it's citizens fought and died in defense of them. I think it's appropriate that state govts. apologize for their role in slavery, similar to how German companies and government apologized for their role in the Holocaust. An apology would be purely symbolic and would in no way make reparations more likely.

Correct. And that applies to racists of every color. ;)

Are you insinuating that I'm racist, I assume against rednecks? I hate no one group of people based upon color or their beliefs. While I really do like Southerners, I'll admit that when I see a Confederate flag I tend to paint a certain picture.

But is does matter. Actions have motivations and context. Hitler did some great things for the German economy - at first. Do we just ignore all that genocide stuff, and say he had the balls to make the Germans feel good about themselves?

We can't pick and choose what we remember; one has to look at the bigger picture.

I don't quite understand this point. Surely your aren't comparing Lincoln's political timing for hi Proclaimation to be comparable to anything Hitler did. I suppose Confederates might accuse Lincoln of attrocities or war crimes but let's not forget the big picture here. The Confederates were owning, breeding, and killing black people like they were cattle. Unfortunately a certain amount of violence was required to bring about an end of violence against blacks. Lincoln's decision to invade was incredibly brave and ultimately cost him his life....I can't bring myself to criticize him in any way.

The roots of most conflicts have to do with control, and money (often the same thing). The Civil War's roots were in a nutshell, over economic self-determination. Now yes, there was a slavery component to that economy, but it was not the be-all and end-all of it.

People also forget that slavery as an institution was doomed before the war began. It was becoming less and less feasible. The invention of the cotton gin in particular, and the industrial revolution in general, was (and eventually did) make it impractical.

There were other factors than slavery but it's safe to assume that if the southern states acquiesced to Lincoln's wishes there would've been no war. The argument could be made that slavery would've died out on it's own but I kind of doubt it. Many generations thought slavery was perfectly acceptable...they wouldn't lose their slaves without a fight. I look at the results of the Civil War as natural selection...the inferior thinkers lost and the Nation is stronger for it.

Oh, and one other note on apologies for slavery: Slavery didn't happen in a vacuum. The slave trade was fueled by Africans selling other Africans into slavery. Those sold off were often the captives gained during fights between warring factions and tribes. But the "winners" didn't give a second thought to the act of selling people of their own race into servitude.

There's bad people all over the world and slavery exists in Africa to this day. This doesn't give American slave owners a pass though. If memory serves, slavery was largely banned in europe in the 1400/1500s. Didn't people come to America to escape persecution and restrictions in european countries? I guess we weren't very respectful of freedom after all...at least in the early years.

It's been an interesting discussion but alas no minds were changed (as is usually the case). I remain dumbfounded that Southern Pride is important to so many but I'll try not to view it as a racist thing.

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 08:08 PM

In your example, I would never hold you responsible or expect and apology for slavery. I have no moral issue regarding slavery since my family was in europe at the time. But in the case of slavery, state governments had specific laws on the books regarding slave ownership and it's citizens fought and died in defense of them.
Ah, but governments are made of - and funded by - the people. That means me, you, and everyone living within its bounds. So an act of government, by definition, is an act on behalf of all of us. And such acts should be representative and beficial of the whole; Not any particular group, class, or race. That's the difference.

An apology would be purely symbolic and would in no way make reparations more likely.
While that's very optimistic of you, it's rather naive. Much is made of symbolic acts, and in certain cases, much is gained by their exploitation.

Are you insinuating that I'm racist, I assume against rednecks? I hate no one group of people based upon color or their beliefs. While I really do like Southerners, I'll admit that when I see a Confederate flag I tend to paint a certain picture.
I'm insinuating nothing about you personally with that statement whatsoever. Merely noting that prejudice and racism are not exclusive to any one particular race, and should be therefore be guarded against across the board, rather than selectively.

I don't quite understand this point. I suppose Confederates might accuse Lincoln of attrocities or war crimes but let's not forget they brought it upon themselves. Lincoln's decision to invade was incredibly brave and ultimately cost him his life....I can't bring myself to criticize him in any way.
That's not entirely your fault, given the lack of depth most people have in their education on the subject. But again, context matters, and there is far more to the circumstances that led to the war than most people are ever taught, or bother to find out. I'll try to summarize...

One has to remember (and for most, it's a difficult concept) that the United States were (note the plural verb) originally set up as an affiliation, rather than an iron-clad group. The States were supposed to be sovereign, and answerable to their own citizens. The Federal government had nowhere near the authority or sway that it did today. In case of extreme disagreement (over whatever issue), the States had, in one view, the right to say to the states with whom they disagreed, "Fine, we're done, we'll go be independent."

Lincoln took a much different view. He believed, and decided, that wasn't the way things should be. He advocated a stronger Federal government, and rather than a truly free alliance, a once-and-for-all union that could be enforced, even against those who didn't wish to be a part of it. And when challenged, rather than respect the rights of the states to leave the union and go about their business on their own, he chose to enforce the union militarily. In so doing, he also suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus, seized private property and homes for the stationing of troops, and stepped over many other individual rights, in the pursuit of those who opposed him. In many ways (largely ignored in the shallow "education" people receive - as opposed to pursue for themselves), he did indeed rule with some very tyrannical edicts and acts. Those are facts. But one of the biggest questions that remains (and remains legitimately debateable) is, did the ends justify the means?

So while today we may find it unfathomable that the US could ever be split into separate states, the principle, back then, was entirely legitimate and logical, though never tested. Unfortunately, the test came not in a courtroom, as it would today, but on battlefields.

There were other factors than slavery but it's safe to assume that if the southern states acquiesced to Lincoln's wishes there would've been no war.
As I noted above, back then, that would have been as unthinkable as allowing your neighbor to simply stroll over and take your home (or since this is a car board, your car). ;)

I look at the results of the Civil War as natural selection...the inferior thinkers lost and the Nation is stronger for it.
That's unfortunate, as it is not only far too simplistic, it's decidedly inaccurate. But people like to hold onto such notions, so I'm not surprised that you're loath to consider anything else.

There's bad people all over the world and slavery exists in Africa to this day. This doesn't give American slave owners a pass though.
I didn't say it should. I'm wondering why Africa seems to get one (even to this day).

I guess we weren't very respectful of freedom after all...at least in the early years.
Some would say we still aren't, and are becoming less so with every day. (But that's another snake pit I'd rather not jump into this evening.)

It's been an interesting discussion but alas no minds were changed (as is usually the case). I remain dumbfounded that Southern Pride is important to so many but I'll try not to view it as a racist thing.
That's a step in the right direction.

Meanwhile, I'm dumbfounded that it's fine and dandy for every other group to have pride in their own unique histories and identities, but Southerners, in your view (and the view of so many others), have no business whatsoever being afforded the same privilege.

Now, where's my devil juice...?

:cool

cody3

03-17-2007, 08:14 PM

I'll admit that when I see a Confederate flag I tend to paint a certain picture.

That would be the definition of "Pre-Judgment" - ironic?

The Confederates were owning, breeding, and killing black people like they were cattle. Slavery was not just a Confederate "problem" - it was a United States problem that was occurring in most of the states in the union prior to the Civil War.

it's safe to assume that if the southern states acquiesced to Lincoln's wishes there would've been no war Are you willing to give up 75% of your salary so I can have have food and water while doing nothing for you in return ?

There's bad people all over the world and slavery exists in Africa to this day. You're correct.

krisko

03-17-2007, 08:34 PM

I'm wondering why Africa seems to get one (even to this day).

America can't solve the world's problems but we can solve our own. I'm honestly not concerned one bit about slavery in Africa but I'm ashamed it happened here in the US.

Some would say we still aren't, and are becoming less so with every day. (But that's another snake pit I'd rather not jump into this evening.)

I smell what you're cooking. America is supposed to be the bedrock of freedom but many other nations have more basic freedoms than we do.

Meanwhile, I'm dumbfounded that it's fine and dandy for every other group to have pride in their own unique histories and identities, but Southerners, in your view (and the view of so many others), have no business whatsoever being afforded the same privilege.

I enjoy reading about history in the south, and there's lots of it, but lets keep it real here. The Confederate flag is about one thing, a failed attempt by the South to keep an archaic notion such as slavery around. When I see one it's the second or third thing I think about...the first two being dental hygiene or maybe incest.

And again, the south lost that war. Why continually remind yourself of your shortcomings. I imagine the French don't remember pretty much any war they've ever been in because it's so damned depressing.

I've been blunt in my assessment of the Confederate nation and rednecks (not all southerners obviously). I appreciate that you and most of the board doesn't hate me for that.

krisko

03-17-2007, 08:38 PM

That would be the definition of "Pre-Judgment" - ironic?

I never said I was perfect.

Slavery was not just a Confederate "problem" - it was a United States problem that was occurring in most of the states in the union prior to the Civil War.

Slavery was nearly dead in the north and it pretty much ended with the Proclaimation.

Are you willing to give up 75% of your salary so I can have have food and water while doing nothing for you in return ?

Not sure what that means. There would've been hardship in the South with the abolishment of slavery though I suspect less than they endured during the Civil War.

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 08:45 PM

America can't solve the world's problems but we can solve our own. I'm honestly not concerned one bit about slavery in Africa but I'm ashamed it happened here in the US.
Selective morality? Convenient.

I smell what you're cooking. America is supposed to be the bedrock of freedom but many other nations have more basic freedoms than we do.
Exactly.

I enjoy reading about history in the south, and there's lots of it, but lets keep it real here.
An interesting statement, considering that you've chosen to ignore and overlook the very real points and facts of history that don't suit your pre-conceived notions.

The Confederate flag is about one thing, a failed attempt by the South to keep an archaic notion such as slavery around. When I see one it's the second or third thing I think about...the first two being dental hygiene or maybe incest.
See what I mean? Stereotypes are fine, as long as they're against Southerners. :rolleyes

And again, the south lost that war. Why continually remind yourself of your shortcomings.
Who said they were "my" shortcomings? I'm an individual of my own time, not the past.

I imagine the French don't remember pretty much any war they've ever been in because it's so damned depressing.
Now that's a good point! :rofl

I've been blunt in my assessment of the Confederate nation and rednecks (not all southerners obviously). I appreciate that you and most of the board doesn't hate me for that.
Glad you appreciate it, but you should know that your continued cracking off with insulting stereotypes (such as in that fourth quote there) isn't helping matters at all.

A more even, objective, and less inflammatory approach to such debates would be most welcomed (not to mention more effective) to those who invest their time in a discussion with you.

:cool

G. P. Burdell

03-17-2007, 09:06 PM

An apology would be purely symbolic and would in no way make reparations more likely.
I disagree. Activist groups seeking reparations for slavery have openly stated that an apology is the first step towards reparations.

Aetna, which insured Southern slaveholders against the deaths of their slaves, issued a public apology for its role in the slave trade in 2000. Two years later, Aetna and other companies were hit with a class-action lawsuit claiming that they were "unjustly enriched" by the slave trade.

cody3

03-17-2007, 09:41 PM

I never said I was perfect.

Slavery was nearly dead in the north and it pretty much ended with the Proclaimation.

Not sure what that means. There would've been hardship in the South with the abolishment of slavery though I suspect less than they endured during the Civil War.

None of us are perfect, thank goodness.. of course that pre-judges the un-good crowd :)

Slavery itself may have no longer been a economic force in less agricultural states or legal, but it still existed

The economic hardship is the crux of the problem - take away a societies ability to utilize it's capital in a productive way by simple proclamation without compensation is why wars are started... If I had the authority to simply say that 75% of the money you earned was now mine to do as I pleased, would you simply stand by and do nothing about it ?

I apologize for the crimes against humanity, but I had no part in committing the crimes, so is my apology worth anything ? Or would it simply be full of sound and furry signifying nothing ?

krisko

03-17-2007, 10:38 PM

Who said they were "my" shortcomings? I'm an individual of my own time, not the past.

I never said they were 'your' shortcomings...I was referring to the people that display the confederate flag on their car or in front of their trailer. It's confusing to me and insulting to others. The South was trounced in the war and didn't have a moral leg to stand on but I guess they want to remember the 'good' times. If I were black, I wouldn't respect or like a person that displayed the Confederate flag.

Regarding my selective morality, I freely admit it and make no apologies for it. I identify with people that experience the same things I do, ie Americans. As an example, I don't think Iraqi freedom is worth one American life (bag 'o worms). Darfur is a tragedy but I'm not sure it's our problem. Slavery in Africa sucks but slavery in America is positively shameful.

I might have different opinions on the Civil War if I weren't a product of Chicago schools. I'm willing to admit my opinions are insensitive to some but it's a black and white issue to me. Enslaving other Americans is wrong and worthy of war. I know there's other issues but it's hard for me to see past the slavery aspect. It just sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me...southerners are embarassed of their past and try to justify the Civil War by saying it was about more important things than slavery.

Incidentally I'm completely against reparations. They might have been appropriate within a few years of slavery being abolished but the thought of it now is just laughable. Hell, some could argue successfully that the social programs of the 70s and 80s were practically reparations.

Doctor Wha

03-17-2007, 10:46 PM

I might have different opinions on the Civil War if I weren't a product of Chicago schools. I'm willing to admit my opinions are insensitive to some but it's a black and white issue to me. Enslaving other Americans is wrong and worthy of war. I know there's other issues but it's hard for me to see past the slavery aspect. It just sounds like a lot of smoke and mirrors to me...southerners are embarassed of their past and try to justify the Civil War by saying it was about more important things than slavery.
I suppose some people may not be able see things with more depth (or just choose not to do so). You're by no means alone in that.

However, you should know that history is rarely - actually, pretty much never - simple enough to be about one, cut & dried, black & white issue. It's as wide and varied as the human experience, full of all kinds of issues, motives, and perspectives. Maybe someday, with more time, experience, and research, you'll come to understand that.

Make no mistake: I'm not saying slavery was by any means right (my ancestors were too poor to have owned much of anything, never mind anyone), nor that it wasn't an issue at some point, nor that it shouldn't have been abolished. I'm simply saying that there is far more to that time period than any one issue, slavery or otherwise. It's not a question of whitewashing things; merely trying to keep in mind a broad, historical accuracy that takes all issues into account, and pays no favoritism to any one narrow focus or group.

Incidentally I'm completely against reparations. They might have been appropriate within a few years of slavery being abolished but the thought of it now is just laughable. Hell, some could argue successfully that the social programs of the 70s and 80s were practically reparations.
Now, on that, we're in complete agreement. :)

:cool

M3Alpine99

03-17-2007, 11:24 PM

LOL :rofl "our freedom and rights"... You mean YOUR freedom and rights! Had the South won, people like me probably would have been denied freedom and rights for many years to come if not to this very day.

Oh please.... They would have been brought back into the union within 5-10 years. If the South had won. The North would EASILY pull ahead in terms of technology, wealth, industry and a President looking to make a mark on history could easily take it back.

Well seeing that according to the recent CNN special about hip hop, 70% of rap music is bought by WHITES I could say that V-103 is the people's station. :D

Ok your right!

You say I'm wrong in stating the Civil War was about slavery and then you go on to say the Civil War was about....slavery. Lincoln told the South to give up their slaves, they didn't so he enforced the constitution (bill of rights) with military force. Sounds like it was about slavery to me.

President Lincoln was elected to end slavery, plain and simple. It's not surprising that he didn't win any votes in the South, they wanted cheap/free labor.

It's funny how Confederates think they almost won that war. The South was morally, financially, and ultimately militarily bankrupt. They were passionate and won some battles but the South stood zero chance of winning a war of any length. The thinkers and industrialists were in the north. What was in the south...cotton fields, mosquitoes, and backward thinkers who probably had terrible dental hygiene.

I'm interested in hearing under what circumstances the south could've won that war. Do you really think Lincoln would give up after losing a few battles and make the notion that 'all men are created equal' just a fleeting thought? Washington could've fallen and Lincoln hanged from a tree and the South would still have lost.

Make no mistake, slavery was the darkest aspect of our new nation. The Civil rights struggle of the 1900s pretty much confirms the South as a backward thinking people. If the Confederacy somehow gained independence it would've surely imploded within 50 years.

While I'm embarassed at the sight of th confederate flag, I would never go so far as to ban it as the German's have the Nazi flag. When the flag disappears from truck bumpers and trailer park homes, that will be a sign that the South has 'risen again'. They will no longer be proud of a heritage that advocates ownership of other human beings.

Did you read a word I said. The south won the first battle easily. If General Lee was at the head he would have pressed on to Washington. War over, North let's the South leave the Union. End of story.

Also, I think 5/6 the first US president's owned slaves. Unfortunately our weakling country needed them to start.

Wow - we actually have a thread about this? There were a myriad of issues that led to the southern states secceding from the union. Which one was the "biggest" tends to depend on your political, social, and economic views. We will find very little fact in this discussion and a lot of opinion. With that said - history is written by the winners of wars and we are too far beyond the Civil War to have a completely objective discussion about about its basis. Is the spirit of this "awareness" month to say that the Confederacy was all good? I should hope not. History is there to learn from - hopefully such a month would lead to more awareness of how close this country came to NOT being the "United" States of America. I have not read the bill but notice that the last word is "Awareness" and not "Pride". You can't do anything these days without offending someone. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen (except in high school History classes) or, if this passes, take it as an opportunity to learn from our history, both the good and the bad. Luckily, we can all look back now with the gift of hindsight and have an interesting debate on this. I will step down from the soap box now and see where this goes...

+1

This is one of the most persistent, fallacious, narrow-minded, and - tellingly - selective trains of thought concerning the South that remains as a supposed "given" for most people who were born elsewhere.

Absolutely no consideration is given to the countless Southern people who were against slavery from the beginning, fought against it while it was practiced, undermined it by helping slaves escape at the risk of their own lives, fought against secession (many of the most heavily unionist areas were in northern Georgia, by the way), worked, fought, and suffered alongside blacks FOR the civil rights movement, and have never harbored a racist sentiment in their lives.

As long as it's so easy for the allegedly brilliant, enlightened northerners, and others who can't bear to share the moral high ground with anyone else, to conveniently ignore the larger, more diverse picture of the South as it is now, and yes, was back then, they'll do so. They decry anyone who dares to speak in generalities about anyone else, and yet, they somehow reserve the right to slap the convenient, all-encompassing label of "backward thinking people," and a host of other slurs, on an entire region of people, our ancestors, and descendants, without exception or even intellectually honest consideration. Such is the outcome from people who get their history lessons in televised capsules, and government-employed "educators" unqualified to do anything but babysit 40 kids at a time.

Confederate awareness may not be that great an idea, but the world could sure as hell use some Southern awareness. :rolleyes

+112334542425

When I moved from Georgia to Chicago, I spent the first 6 months of my high school there with jokes such as "Halston why don't you go beat your slaves" "Yee Haw Halston" and other slavery jokes. It was fucking ridicolous. Oh yah and Also I was a southern hick redneck because I had the state of Georgia flag on my Lifted Jeep Wrangler, and supported slavery!

So don't play that Moraly highstanding BS...

You are absolutely correct and these people should receive more attention for their heroic efforts in denouncing slavery and smuggling slaves out. While I came down a little hard on the South, I fully understand there were enlightened southerners then and a lot more now.

My concern is that a Confederate Awareness Month would be viewed as some kind of modern day endorsement of Confederate ideals. I'm not positive but I think most southern states have never formally apologized to blacks for slavery...that's fairly appalling to me.

You say northerners have a moral highground? That is absolutely correct...the notion that blacks shouldn't be enslaved is a tad more moral than the South's view. And I still don't understand the 'education' comments. I'm not sure it matters that some went to school in NYC or there were 40 kids to a class. Was the Civil War not about the South's defiance of President Lincoln's decree that all men are created equal?

You can't put a positive spin on slavery or the Confederacy though I guess a 'Confederate Awareness Month' would attempt to.

Read above, LOTS of Northerners had slaves, 5 states were slavery states that simply "kept their mouths shut" because of LARGE Union armies were in their states within days of the first shots of the civil war. Attempting to keep them in line.

M3Alpine99

03-17-2007, 11:26 PM

Also, Krisko, as pointed out. If you are from Europe, somewhere down the line SOMEWHERE your ancestors had slaves, whether it was Roman's with the britons to US with African's. EVERYONE has had them.

krisko

03-18-2007, 07:08 AM

Did you read a word I said. The south won the first battle easily. If General Lee was at the head he would have pressed on to Washington. War over, North let's the South leave the Union. End of story.

Also, I think 5/6 the first US president's owned slaves. Unfortunately our weakling country needed them to start.

Read above, LOTS of Northerners had slaves, 5 states were slavery states that simply "kept their mouths shut" because of LARGE Union armies were in their states within days of the first shots of the civil war. Attempting to keep them in line.

I don't how the south winning the first battle means the could've won the war. I'm pretty sure the Brits won a few battles during the Revolution but there was no chance they could've won that war.

I'm aware that many US presidents have owned slaves but I don't have a comment on it. I know that northern states used slavery but at least they gave up their slaves when Lincoln told them to.

I'm pretty sure my ancestors never had slaves because they came from humble beginnings. Not to mention slavery ended in europe hundreds of years ago.

ls1z28chris

03-18-2007, 10:46 AM

Wow - we actually have a thread about this? There were a myriad of issues that led to the southern states secceding from the union. Which one was the "biggest" tends to depend on your political, social, and economic views. We will find very little fact in this discussion and a lot of opinion. With that said - history is written by the winners of wars and we are too far beyond the Civil War to have a completely objective discussion about about its basis. Is the spirit of this "awareness" month to say that the Confederacy was all good? I should hope not. History is there to learn from - hopefully such a month would lead to more awareness of how close this country came to NOT being the "United" States of America. I have not read the bill but notice that the last word is "Awareness" and not "Pride". You can't do anything these days without offending someone. We can bury our heads in the sand and pretend it didn't happen (except in high school History classes) or, if this passes, take it as an opportunity to learn from our history, both the good and the bad. Luckily, we can all look back now with the gift of hindsight and have an interesting debate on this. I will step down from the soap box now and see where this goes...

Who pays attention to any of the government declared awareness months, anyway? It means nothing, and is entirely symbolic. All black history month means to me is I get to see signs around town with MLK Jr's picture on it. Native American history month, I get to see pictures of Native Americans. Hispanic history month, I see pictures of hispanics. Breast cancer awareness month, I see pink ribbons. I couldn't care less about any of those causes. And if "confederate awareness month" passes, we'll see even more confederate flags than we already do.