Read 49239 times

  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #720 on: March 01, 2021, 08:31:34 am »
You know how I often say that white supremacy is allowed to sneak in here over and over again? And now Kyndo is perpetuating it.

First off, I think you're wrong that the cause for the civil war was 100% about ethical qualms regarding slavery.
The South didn't care one way another: they seceded from the union and ended up attacking the North to protect their right to enslave others because it was the basis of their economy. Defending the institution of slavery was the casus belli, but protecting the southern economy was an important underlying reason for doing so.
 
Secondly, I think this is a deliberate and pretty untransparent attempting to misconstrue comments as being pro-slavery when they *very clearly* are not.
I know we have differences in opinions on how threads ought to be moderated, but I would much prefer that you address them directly rather than like this.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2021, 08:43:52 am by Kyndo »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #721 on: March 01, 2021, 09:41:54 am »
Okay, let me be direct:

a) the Southern economy was slavery. Any economic issue about the South has to be about slavery. Maybe think for a minute about why tariffs on labor-intensive industries would affect the South more than the North.

b) you were making common revisionist statements where you tried to take the focus away from slavery. I'm not sure you realized you were doing this, but you are. Again, do some reading about the subject. Please.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #722 on: March 01, 2021, 11:46:13 am »
McPherson is entitled to his view. However he makes what I would consider a questionable decision- That not being opposed to something equates to fighting for it.

Wow, for someone who keeps whining about people twisting his words, you sure are quick to do it to others.  That is not at all what he said.
Quote

 If someone is willing to risk volunteering to march, fight and die, and these were men who had no problem voicing their opinions, then why wouldn't they explicitly say so?

As the Civil War expert said--not you, the one with the Pulitzer Prize for a Civil War book, who is past president of the American Historical Society, and first recipient of  the Pritzker Military Library Literature Award for lifetime achievement in military history--because it was understood

Similarly, I'm led to understand that Mafiosi don't sit around reminding each other, "Y'know, this strong-arm protection racket of ours is illegal."  It is understood.

You keep talking about all these Civil War books you have. A) If you can just wave away what is said very clearly and specifically by one of the utmost experts in the field, why mention all those books?  B) You got those 50,000 quotes yet--not "beyond" slavery as you tried to weasel in, but instead of?  C) Have you bothered to read those books?


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #723 on: March 01, 2021, 11:56:33 am »


Notice how you use the fallacious argument from authority?

You mean like how you say stuff like "You clearly haven't read much on the subject"  and keep mentioning your large library of Civil War books?  That kind of argument from authority?


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • I am a geek!!

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #724 on: March 01, 2021, 12:16:38 pm »
Okay, let me be direct:

a) the Southern economy was slavery. Any economic issue about the South has to be about slavery. Maybe think for a minute about why tariffs on labor-intensive industries would affect the South more than the North.
Right.
 - Tariffs on labour intensive industries would affect the South more strongly than the North. It's why those tariffs were created, right?
 -The north was far more industrialized than the south. Putting tariffs on cotton etc would give the North a strong advantage over the South when dealing with the lucrative European markets.
 - The abolitionist movement along with the new tariffs threatened the economic viability of the South.
 - The South seceded to protect it's institution of slavery, their source of economic power.
 - The civil war was about slavery, which in turn was about the South trying to hold on to its source of wealth.

I'm not certain exactly which of the above points you take issue with. It seems like most everything I've read lays it out like this.

b) you were making common revisionist statements where you tried to take the focus away from slavery. I'm not sure you realized you were doing this, but you are. Again, do some reading about the subject. Please.
 
Ah.
I agree that the issue of slavery is the defining principle behind the conflict in the American Civil, and if it seemed like I was trying to debate that, then I apologize for being unclear.
What I was trying to point out was that the reasons slavery was so important to the *South* were economic ones, which made the conflict, in essence, about competing economics.

As for revisionism: actively trying to obscure/rewrite history is like erasing science. Gross.

  I would honestly consider reading more on the topic, as it seems interesting and it wasn't something we were ever required to study in school. What would you recommend as a good place to start (other than Wiki)?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2021, 12:21:12 pm by Kyndo »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #725 on: March 01, 2021, 06:50:58 pm »
Here's a tip Marti.  Rather than relying a CNN report, perhaps you could wait for the conclusion of the medical examiner's report. After that I'm sure you'll find a different focus for your gaslighting!  :laugh:
Doesn't "Wait for the ME's report" apply both ways?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #726 on: March 01, 2021, 06:52:58 pm »
They'll get a COD when they figure out which of Martin's Qanon buddies struck the blow that killed Sicknick. Martin probably believes that he accidentally slipped and fell to his death, Russian journalist style.
Actually the preliminary ME'a report, per CNN ruled out blunt force trauma.

But don't let facts like that get in the way of things.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #727 on: March 01, 2021, 06:54:34 pm »
You mean like how you say stuff like "You clearly haven't read much on the subject"  and keep mentioning your large library of Civil War books?  That kind of argument from authority?
I mean I think that kind of applies when you arent even aware of political generals.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #728 on: March 01, 2021, 08:06:34 pm »
I mean I think that kind of applies when you arent even aware of political generals.

Pffft, whatever.  If they were "covered" by Appomattox, they were generals.  Davis and Stephens were not generals--that's the distinction I was making and you know it.  But you argue in bad faith here, as too often. 

Let's not forget that this whole subthread is related (as fka points out above) to the violent neo-Nazis, Rebel-flag wavers, Proud Bois (sic), etc who were motivated to march to protect a statue that you think you no one cares about at all. 

Why aren't we trying to tear down statues of Lincoln? you pathetically asked before, calling him a CW "veteran".  I mocked your question, because it is deserving of mockery.  The obvious answer is that he did not go to war to support the vile institution of slavery.  He did so to keep the Republic together. 

I know you're going to say that many people of the time didn't think it was vile.  But those people were wrong, both in our view and in the view of many many others of the time (thus the war, which we have seen that quite a lot of Union soldiers felt was a moral war against slavery--assuming you read your own cite, much less ones I provided).

Washington and Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers kept slaves.  Yes, they did (having been to both of their estates, I can confirm).  And it was wrong.  And at least some of them who kept slaves knew it was wrong, but did not have the courage of their convictions, lest they face the ruin of their personal economy.  But they didn't fight the Revolutionary War to protect slavery, did they? 

Hell, they didn't even go to war because their taxes were too high.   However, their reasons were righteous, both to many at the time and many today.  I'm sure we can at least agree on that.  That said, I can't really bring myself to care what you think anymore.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #729 on: March 02, 2021, 12:09:58 pm »
Pffft, whatever.  If they were "covered" by Appomattox, they were generals.  Davis and Stephens were not generals--that's the distinction I was making and you know it.  But you argue in bad faith here, as too often. 
Appomattox only applied to the soldiers directly under Lee's command. Also, again, and you don't really seem to grasp this, the people who enabled the Confederacy politically, many went on to serve in the Confederate military. James Kemper, for example, served simultaneously as Virginia Speaker and a general in the Confederate Army.

How do you treat them? As a politician or a general?

Although we had largely moved on from the era of kings and nobles leading troops on the battlefield, there were still these lingering notions of honor (or outright greed for fame and status) that caused many politicians to join the army and lead their troops into battle, at the front of their lines. The line between politician and general was not as clearly delineated then as it is now.

Quote
to the violent neo-Nazis, Rebel-flag wavers, Proud Bois (sic), etc who were motivated to march to protect a statue that you think you no one cares about at all.
And according to the polls, something like 50% of Americans who think they shouldn't be torn down either, but hey, ignore them and focus on Nazis if you must.

People wouldn't care if it was just left there to rust. But try to whip up a campaign to go after everything and people will get defensive. It's like Tiger Stadium- Shabby attendance, then it was announced that it would be torn down and suddenly there was a massive wail that went up.

Quote
Why aren't we trying to tear down statues of Lincoln? you pathetically asked before, calling him a CW "veteran"
Never called him a veteran. I don't think you got my point with that question.

Quote
The obvious answer is that he did not go to war to support the vile institution of slavery.  He did so to keep the Republic together.
Shall we ask the Apache and the Navajo about Mr. Lincoln? If you're going to blast these statues for supporting "white supremacy" then put your money where your mouth is. Lincoln, Sherman and Sheridan supported white supremacy and fought for it as well, just not towards blacks but towards the Native peoples. you call them heroes, but while these "heroes" were fighting the Confederacy, they were raging a war of conquest bordering on extermination against the Native peoples.

What about the Mexican War?  A war that was little more than a bald-faced landgrab and a war U.S. Grant himself thought wicked (although he fought in it anyways- if its okay for him to fight for a wicked cause, then...).

Mr. C, I don't think you've really thought this through or really stopped to consider the can of worms this opens up.

Quote
But they didn't fight the Revolutionary War to protect slavery, did they?
Well, that's debatable and a significant amount of modern scholarship seems to be pointing in the direction that yes, at least some were motivated to ensure slavery's continuation. The writing was already on the wall regarding slavery in the British Empire.

There's a reason slaves overwhelmingly supported the British.

Quote
However, their reasons were righteous, both to many at the time and many today.  I'm sure we can at least agree on that.
Again, this need to view history through the lens of "good guys vs. bad guys." What is your obsession with finding good and evil in history?

I really can't agree because your concept of history seems to be a narrative one, and that is simply a view of history I don't accept. History is what happened and what didn't and often involved a host of motives and interests, some of which were conflicted or muddled or haphazard or simply a response to various events. That's not to say I don't admire or cheer for certain sides, but when I think when taking a serious look at history, we have to set that aside for the moment. We can certainly pick it up again, but I think we're doing more than simple cheering right now.

I hope their reasons were righteous. I think they probably were, but I don't want to mind-read too much.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #730 on: March 02, 2021, 12:11:23 pm »
Also, again..

Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know their identity?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or Unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #731 on: March 02, 2021, 12:22:30 pm »

And according to the polls, something like 50% of Americans who think they shouldn't be torn down either, but hey, ignore them and focus on Nazis if you must.
10 years ago, something like 50% of Americans thought gay marriage should be illegal.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #732 on: March 02, 2021, 04:36:45 pm »
10 years ago, something like 50% of Americans thought gay marriage should be illegal.
What rights are being denied by a statue existing?

I guess you could make some libertarian taxation or endorsement argument.


  • stoat
  • The Legend

    • 2085

    • March 05, 2019, 06:36:13 pm
    • seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #733 on: March 02, 2021, 04:39:31 pm »
Only one in six Black British people think toppling statues is a good idea.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/84-of-black-britons-reject-toppling-statues-w2v5hf9f8
« Last Edit: March 02, 2021, 04:45:15 pm by stoat »


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 3023

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #734 on: March 02, 2021, 04:50:05 pm »
What rights are being denied by a statue existing?

I guess you could make some libertarian taxation or endorsement argument.
Well, the point was about how polls change,

But I don't want the statues to be destroyed, they belong in a museum.  /Indiana Jones


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #735 on: March 02, 2021, 06:16:50 pm »
What rights are being denied by a statue existing?

The right to not live in a country that venerates murderous white supremacy.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #736 on: March 03, 2021, 03:04:19 am »
The right to not live in a country that venerates murderous white supremacy.
The U.S. is already such a place. Seriously, if you think it actually is, even with the statues, you need to lay off the internet and actually get out in the real world.

Claiming the U.S. is venerating white supremacy is an insult to millions of people around the world who deal with REAL crushing ethnic violence. That's not to say there aren't serious issues with racism in the U.S. but there's a reason why people aren't fleeing the U.S. en masse as refugees from ethnic violence. Like, if the U.S. were such a horribly racist place, wouldn't we see black people overwhelmingly moving AWAY from white areas and into predominantly black ones?

Like you guys could easily make a sensible, rational argument for statue removal, instead you go with the most dramatic, over-the-top view of the issue that makes the U.S. seem like 1990s Bosnia on steroids. Same with the Capitol riot.

Like you ever think of going with maybe 5/10 or 6/10 instead of 11/10?


  • gogators!
  • Waygook Lord

    • 5245

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #737 on: March 03, 2021, 04:37:37 am »
The weaker the argument, the more foolish the questions asked to support it.

The facts continue to speak, no matter how much those on the right lie and obfuscate.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #738 on: March 03, 2021, 09:16:38 am »
AGAIN-

Question-
1) Do the U.S. intelligence/law enforcement agencies have the ability to find out who QAnon is and their identity?
2) Why don't we know their identity?
3) Shouldn't this be priority #1 if QAnon truly is responsible for a serious threat to our nation and encouraging an insurrection? Why the lack of urgency by the FBI? Why no Bin Laden or Unabomber-style manhunt? Why isn't the media trying to find out who Q is?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #739 on: March 03, 2021, 09:22:45 am »

DeMartino: "You know what the real problem is?"


Those are two separate issues that we are debating.

You do realize this just as easily gets turned on its head the other way, right? "Why are you worried about taking down statues when Biden is bombing places in Syria and locking kids in cages and Cuomo and blah blah blah?" Same damn thing.