Read 30080 times

Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #680 on: February 22, 2021, 02:45:52 pm »
You've often been called out for being on the wrong side of history, but we usually mean you'll be shown wrong in the future, but you also that rare gift of being on the wrong side of history that's in the past.

History doesn't have a right or wrong side. It simply has what happened.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2412

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #681 on: February 22, 2021, 03:23:06 pm »
Generals were soldiers, covered by Appomattox, Davis and Stephens were not.
The only person painting too broad of a brush is you who keeps claiming GAR was fine with Confederate statues without offering a shred of evidence.
You said "build unity and prevent future enmity" and "heal and move on".  And that is nonsense.  It was to reassert white supremacy. 
You think one blue election in Georgia, due to changing demographics, not changing minds, erases my experience of thirty years?  You're a fool.
Quote
Politicians were voted in or out and responded to public sentiment.
True.  And the South voted in racist politicians who enacted the Jim Crow laws.  Thank you for making my point.

Quote
If you take something as big as the Civil War and dumb it down to "All of these guys in the blue were good and all of these guys in the grey were bad" then you're an idiot.
Not the people per se.  Certainly there were conscripts, and those who fought alongside their brothers and neighbors, and those who believed the lies of the politicians. Um, as I read it you said the South were all conscripts ("The soldiers they faced were similarly all conscripts")?!  Pretty sure the number comes in as about 90,000 ( https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/11/civil-war-conscription-laws/ ) of a total 1,000,000 CSA. 

However, what the South fought for was BAD and what the North fought for was GOOD. 
« Last Edit: February 22, 2021, 05:14:23 pm by Mr C »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #682 on: February 22, 2021, 08:00:17 pm »
Generals were soldiers, covered by Appomattox, Davis and Stephens were not.
Does that apply to the Cobb Brothers, Breckinridge, Kemper, etc.? In turn does that apply to Sickels, Sigel, Banks, Logan, etc.?

Quote
You said "build unity and prevent future enmity" and "heal and move on".  And that is nonsense.  It was to reassert white supremacy.
No, I said that was one reason among many. You are asserting one single reason- Asserting of white supremacy, which you are using in its 21st century context to discuss something that was pretty much believed by most whites, North and South back during that era.

Quote
You think one blue election in Georgia, due to changing demographics, not changing minds, erases my experience of thirty years?  You're a fool.
No, but I think you might be overlooking the degree of change. It's not one blue election. It's been a change across scores of Southern suburbs over the past 20 years.

Quote
True.  And the South voted in racist politicians who enacted the Jim Crow laws.  Thank you for making my point.
The South wasn't magically not going to be progressive and enlightened overnight. The North too still had massive amounts of racism and defacto segregation across much of it. But what they didn't vote for was for massive retribution or to reignite the conflict. There was no broad support for it.

Quote
Um, as I read it you said the South were all conscripts ("The soldiers they faced were similarly all conscripts")?!  Pretty sure the number comes in as about 90,000 ( https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/11/civil-war-conscription-laws/ ) of a total 1,000,000 CSA.
Sorry, I mistyped that. South was primarily volunteers. It should be noted though that the volunteers were impressed for the duration of the conflict after originally signing up for a certain period. Many were not happy about that and had little love for the Southern government after that.

Quote
However, what the South fought for was BAD and what the North fought for was GOOD.
Again, there were a variety of motives that the respective nations fought for. While slavery was the cause and primary motivation, that didn't stop free access of the Mississippi or other concerns from getting tacked on and becoming the focus of some. Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives amongst the civilians, the private soliders, the generals, and the politicians.

As far as statues, lets take statues of Northern leaders. What are your feelings on Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. How do we feel about them? What motives did people have for putting up their statues?


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 1810

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #683 on: February 23, 2021, 07:42:06 am »
It should be noted that during that time people fought for a host of reasons. Not the cause of the war, that was slavery, but why individuals fought.

From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli.
As I understand it, the real underlying issue was tariffs. The industrialized north was trying to impose economic pressure on the south by raising tariffs on labour intensive industries (like cotton, indigo etc).
Slavery became a moral issue only because it supported a transition toward automation, technology, and manufacturing, all of which greatly benefited the north.

   Not to say that many people weren't genuinely incensed about slavery, but I think that the Union as a political entity only really cared about slavery insofar as it could put them in a morally superior position.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2412

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #684 on: February 23, 2021, 12:13:23 pm »
Does that apply to the Cobb Brothers, Breckinridge, Kemper, etc.?
I don't get the significance of this list.  These were CSA generals who resumed their lives and either did or did not have a political career ...
Quote
In turn does that apply to Sickels, Sigel, Banks, Logan, etc.?
So you think the rules for the losers of a war should also apply to the winners?  I guess that's why I saw Patton at Nureumberg.
Quote
No, I said that was one reason among many. You are asserting one single reason- Asserting of white supremacy, which you are using in its 21st century context to discuss something that was pretty much believed by most whites, North and South back during that era.
While it's certainly true Jim Crow was a national cancer, and racism today exists north and south (I myself participated in counter-protests to Nazi marches in Skokie, Ill  c. 1980), it was far more institutional in the south.
Quote
No, but I think you might be overlooking the degree of change. It's not one blue election. It's been a change across scores of Southern suburbs over the past 20 years.
But due to demographic change, which is my point!
Quote
The South wasn't magically not going to be progressive and enlightened overnight. The North too still had massive amounts of racism and defacto segregation across much of it. But what they didn't vote for was for massive retribution or to reignite the conflict. There was no broad support for it.
Sorry, I mistyped that. South was primarily volunteers. It should be noted though that the volunteers were impressed for the duration of the conflict after originally signing up for a certain period. Many were not happy about that and had little love for the Southern government after that.
Again, there were a variety of motives that the respective nations fought for. While slavery was the cause and primary motivation, that didn't stop free access of the Mississippi or other concerns from getting tacked on and becoming the focus of some. Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives amongst the civilians, the private soliders, the generals, and the politicians.
Gosh, thanks for that.
Quote
As far as statues, lets take statues of Northern leaders. What are your feelings on Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. How do we feel about them? What motives did people have for putting up their statues?
Hmm.  Lincoln has a whole monument, doesn't he?  I think I might have seen it somewhere.  Lincoln was the sixteenth President--don't we always put up a monument to the 16th one of something?  Like, aren't there Tennessee statues everywhere, because it was the sixteenth state?  And I know  we have statues of Neil Armstrong all over, because he was the sixteenth American in space.  Right?  You know, along with David Scott, on Gemini 8.  But the point is he was #16.  And that's why we put up monuments.  Sometimes for multiples of 16, like not too far from the Lincoln memorial in old DC, is one for the 32nd President, FDR, just because, you know, 32 is 16 times 2.  The reason we put statues of horses all over the place (no matter who is riding them) is because the Denver Broncos won Superbowl 32, and a bronco (technically, I don't know if you knew this) but technically a bronco is a horse.  Superbowl 32 is 2 times Superbowl 16.  Did I answer your question?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #685 on: February 23, 2021, 02:40:21 pm »
I don't get the significance of this list.  These were CSA generals who resumed their lives and either did or did not have a political career ..
If a Confederate General had engaged in a political act enabling secession, such as being part of the legislature and casting votes for it or in drafting the Confederate Constitution or in serving the Confederate government, are they a political figure or a military figure?

Quote
So you think the rules for the losers of a war should also apply to the winners?  I guess that's why I saw Patton at Nureumberg.
Actually if you knew anything about Nuremburg, you'd know that one of the reasons Karl Donitz was not sentenced for war crimes for unrestricted submarine warfare was because they established that the Allies had done the same thing.

And yes, in a just world, the rules regarding war crimes, motivations, etc. would at the very least hold the winners to some level of accountability as well and acknowledge that simply losing did not make someone immoral.

Quote
it was far more institutional in the south.
That's true. It's also 2021.

Quote
But due to demographic change, which is my point!
And attitude change. You claim that there are rampant racists and white nationalists everywhere. Sorry, but the white nationalists are an isolated fringe. The overwhelming majority of even arch-Trump supporters reject slavery and white supremacy.

Quote
Hmm.  Lincoln has a whole monument, doesn't he?  I think I might have seen it somewhere.  Lincoln was the sixteenth President--don't we always put up a monument to the 16th one of something?  Like, aren't there Tennessee statues everywhere, because it was the sixteenth state?  And I know  we have statues of Neil Armstrong all over, because he was the sixteenth American in space.  Right?  You know, along with David Scott, on Gemini 8.  But the point is he was #16.  And that's why we put up monuments.  Sometimes for multiples of 16, like not too far from the Lincoln memorial in old DC, is one for the 32nd President, FDR, just because, you know, 32 is 16 times 2.  The reason we put statues of horses all over the place (no matter who is riding them) is because the Denver Broncos won Superbowl 32, and a bronco (technically, I don't know if you knew this) but technically a bronco is a horse.  Superbowl 32 is 2 times Superbowl 16.  Did I answer your question?
I think you knew where I was going with my point of statues for Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer.

Rather than address it and its very real relevance, you instead chose to do this. A clear sign of cognitive dissonance. You know that your position is horribly inconsistent and hypocritical and your "It's all because of white supremacy" argument will collapse when you address this point. But rather than gamely try your best, you do this.

Do you support statues to Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, and Custer? Civil War veterans of course.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #686 on: February 23, 2021, 06:17:39 pm »
From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli.
As I understand it, the real underlying issue was tariffs. The industrialized north was trying to impose economic pressure on the south by raising tariffs on labour intensive industries (like cotton, indigo etc).
Slavery became a moral issue only because it supported a transition toward automation, technology, and manufacturing, all of which greatly benefited the north.

   Not to say that many people weren't genuinely incensed about slavery, but I think that the Union as a political entity only really cared about slavery insofar as it could put them in a morally superior position.

Oh come on you're better than this garbage.

First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

Secondly, the confederacy repeatedly stated that they seceded and declared war on the north over slavery. Bleeding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 had been going on for years before the civil war started. Secessionists didn't make Northern tariffs an issue, instead they made Lincoln's anti-slavery victory in 1860 an issue.

Now go read a damn history book. It's a common confederate apologist tactic to try and steer the conversation away from slavery and talk about how the poor innocent South was being oppressed by the evil North. Another common tactic is to act like the South weren't the ones who started the war. Don't do that.
Quote
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on Yesterday at 01:40:32
    Trump is a liar and a con man.
Quote
Quote from Mr.DeMartino on June 14, 2019 at 02:28:07
Donald Trump is a lying sack of shit


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4484

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #687 on: February 23, 2021, 07:42:12 pm »
From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli.
As I understand it, the real underlying issue was tariffs. The industrialized north was trying to impose economic pressure on the south by raising tariffs on labour intensive industries (like cotton, indigo etc).
Slavery became a moral issue only because it supported a transition toward automation, technology, and manufacturing, all of which greatly benefited the north.

   Not to say that many people weren't genuinely incensed about slavery, but I think that the Union as a political entity only really cared about slavery insofar as it could put them in a morally superior position.
Sounds like Southern revisionism.


  • 745sticky
  • Hero of Waygookistan

    • 1163

    • March 26, 2020, 01:52:57 pm
    • Korea
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #688 on: February 24, 2021, 08:27:37 am »
First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

where did kyndo state or imply that the war was started by the north?

besides, he's right. pretending that the union cared about slavery primarily as a humanitarian issue rather than as a way to get one up over the south is buying into "american exceptionalism" propoganda and whatnot. even back in the days of ol' abe lincoln, we weren't that clean.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2021, 08:31:25 am by 745sticky »


  • Kyndo
  • Moderator LVL 1

    • 1810

    • March 03, 2011, 09:45:24 am
    • Gyeongsangbuk-do
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #689 on: February 24, 2021, 08:38:36 am »
Why revisionism? The South was clearly morally wrong. Slavery was, is and always will be reprehensible. Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict. These things aren't debatable among reasonable people.

   My point was that while the North was pretty firmly pro-abolishment, the South had strong economic reasons for being anti-abolishment. When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things (although I'm sure a number of them thought that as well), but because they believed that without slavery, their entire economy would essentially collapse. Tariffs, and the strong pro-abolishment feeling in the North promised economic ruin, which drove the South to do what it did.


I didn't say that the South was oppressed by the North, and certainly not that the North attacked the South and I'm honestly a bit confused how that could be read into my comments.  :sad:
« Last Edit: February 24, 2021, 08:40:26 am by Kyndo »


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #690 on: February 24, 2021, 11:15:28 am »
Oh come on you're better than this garbage.

First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

Secondly, the confederacy repeatedly stated that they seceded and declared war on the north over slavery. Bleeding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 had been going on for years before the civil war started. Secessionists didn't make Northern tariffs an issue, instead they made Lincoln's anti-slavery victory in 1860 an issue.

Now go read a damn history book. It's a common confederate apologist tactic to try and steer the conversation away from slavery and talk about how the poor innocent South was being oppressed by the evil North. Another common tactic is to act like the South weren't the ones who started the war. Don't do that.
Just because it's an apologist tactic doesn't make the issue wholly irrelevant. You're doing the reverse- Just completely disregarding anything that adds more information or nuance.

No one denies that Japan invaded and brutally colonized. At the same time the fact that such acts were the norm across the world and the Washington Naval Treaty and the sudden end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance are factors one has to acknowledge that partially explain their behavior.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2412

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #691 on: February 25, 2021, 12:21:18 am »
Just because it's an apologist tactic doesn't make the issue wholly irrelevant. You're doing the reverse- Just completely disregarding anything that adds more information or nuance.

No one denies that Japan invaded and brutally colonized. At the same time the fact that such acts were the norm across the world and the Washington Naval Treaty and the sudden end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance are factors one has to acknowledge that partially explain their behavior.

You know, there is a thing called  a moral voice.  And this isn't it.  In fact, it is quite the opposite, and shame on you for voicing it.  Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.

The Washington Naval Treaty  =  The Rape of Nanking?  You are a full of it!  For those of you who don't know, the Washington Naval Treaty gave Japan some kind of balance compared to the western countries, not a right to attack China and perform acts of sadism and brutality that are unequaled in the twentieth century  outside what the Germans did to the Jews.

Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.  No sensible person can say that the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance excuses this behavior, but DeMartino is saying EXACTLY that!

And then he suggests that Westerners are also culpable.  Were there crimes committed by American soldiers in WWII?  Sure.  And some needed to be criminalized, which a lot of them were.  But mostly, they were like say, Dachau, when soldiers saw unbelievable depredations and couldn't stop themselves from killing the horrible bastards who did it.  Hard to blame them.  But DeMartino wants us us to see them as the same as the rapists and soccer child's head footballers. 

Partially explain their behavior, indeed!
« Last Edit: February 25, 2021, 10:24:33 am by Mr C »


  • gogators!
  • The Legend

    • 4484

    • March 16, 2016, 04:35:48 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #692 on: February 25, 2021, 03:43:47 am »
Why revisionism? The South was clearly morally wrong. Slavery was, is and always will be reprehensible. Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict. These things aren't debatable among reasonable people.

   My point was that while the North was pretty firmly pro-abolishment, the South had strong economic reasons for being anti-abolishment. When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things (although I'm sure a number of them thought that as well), but because they believed that without slavery, their entire economy would essentially collapse. Tariffs, and the strong pro-abolishment feeling in the North promised economic ruin, which drove the South to do what it did.


I didn't say that the South was oppressed by the North, and certainly not that the North attacked the South and I'm honestly a bit confused how that could be read into my comments.  :sad:

It's revisionism to say the war was about tariffs rather than slavery. The South's economy was based on slavery and that's what they went to war for.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #693 on: February 25, 2021, 10:42:54 am »
It's revisionism to say the war was about tariffs rather than slavery. The South's economy was based on slavery and that's what they went to war for.
That's not what he said. It's not his fault you have a hard time with nuance and tend to disregard qualifiers when reading.

His point was that there are reasons why they supported slavery beyond white supremacy and there were economic factors as well that were adjacent or underlying motivations.

Here is a parallel- The Iraq War was about WMDs and terror. However there were various other motives alongside it by various parties. Some had visions of mass reform across the region. Others no doubt were thinking of oil. Meanwhile Saddam fought for whatever reason, but it was not WMDs, Terror, oil, and only somewhat over Mideast reform.

While I do think the Civil War was much more about its core cause and the gusts of popular feeling that led to the war reflected that, that doesn't mean the powerful weren't looking at their pocketbooks, as they always do.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #694 on: February 25, 2021, 10:53:10 am »
You know, there is a thing called  a moral voice.  And this isn't it.  In fact, it is quite the opposite, and shame on you for voicing it.  Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.
This warrants a separate reply.

I don't study history with the objective of judging things through the lens of my 20th-21st century morals and to look for people and countries to declare as good guys and bad guys, and which should have been supported.

I think that is a terrible way to study history and will cause you to not pay attention to facts and begin to craft things to fit a narrative. Once your mind decides certain parties were "good" or "bad" you will disregard anything that doesn't fit that filter one way or the other.

It seems you view history through some sort of grand moral or narrative arc and that above all you use the moral filter to interpret it. That's fine in some ways, but it is dangerous when it comes to factual understanding.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #695 on: February 25, 2021, 11:26:54 am »
Their acts were NOT THE NORM across the world, unless you think Leopold in the Congo was the norm--which no one except DMT does.
They weren't that far off. In establishing their various empires the other nations had certainly done some things. The British, French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese had collectively mass depopulated two continents, and repeatedly broken treaties in doing so. They also used biological warfare. They also used race-based slavery in doing so. They also colonized pretty much everyone else and would have no qualms about doing so.

In the 1930s Their peoples and their leaders were overtly racist and even had the supremacy of white people enshrined by law. They had seen Armritsar and Stalin and the Indian Wars.

That is the world they lived in- The world of 1932 and the history that had preceded it. A world where the "nice guys" ruled across the glove and the others had Jim Crow. You have to put their actions into context which is the world they lived in and how it did business.

Quote
The Washington Naval Treaty  =  The Rape of Nanking?  You are a full of it!  For those of you who don't know, the Washington Naval Treaty gave Japan some kind of balance compared to the western countries, not a right to attack China and perform acts of sadism and brutality that are unequaled in the twentieth century  outside what the Germans did to the Jews.
Japan felt it needed 70% to achieve Naval parity. They were given 60%. It also saw their ally outright disregard them in favor of a cultural and racial brother. They now had far less incentive to play by international norms. These promises of order and friendship would look hollow. What appeared to matter was power and every nation being out for themselves.

Were they some noble lot who weren't also playing the game themselves? Of course not, but the system and its norms now looked like mere tools for power rather than a genuine attempt at a brotherhood of nations. The message was, as interpretes by them- "We have the rights to empire and the benefits, you do not."

And what did they expect to happen with the next round of treaties?


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #696 on: February 25, 2021, 11:29:35 am »
Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.  No sensible person can say that the end of the Anglo-Japanese Alliance excuses this behavior, but DeMartino is saying EXACTLY that!

And then he suggests that Westerners are also culpable.  Were there crimes committed by American soldiers in WWII?  Sure.  And some needed to be criminalized, which a lot of them were.  But mostly, they were like say, Dachau, when soldiers saw unbelievable depredations and couldn't stop themselves from killing the horrible bastards who did it.  Hard to blame them.  But DeMartino wants us us to see them as the same as the rapists and soccer child's head footballers. 
That was NOT what I said and you don't seem to be understanding my point. You are hallucinating what I said.


  • Mr C
  • The Legend

    • 2412

    • October 17, 2012, 03:00:40 pm
    • Seoul
Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #697 on: February 25, 2021, 01:24:56 pm »
That was NOT what I said and you don't seem to be understanding my point. You are hallucinating what I said.
"I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion." --said by DeMartino fifty bazillion times in this forum.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #698 on: February 25, 2021, 02:54:33 pm »
Literally, the Japanese in China in the late 30s raped grandmothers literally dozens one after another.  Just to be brutal. They played soccer with children's heads, scoring goals only after the head came off the body.
Also, those two examples you listed I would look at with a skeptical eye. If you can't read that and strongly detect the high probability of bullsh*t and exaggeration in that story, then you are a sap. Do those stories really pass the sniff test?

Where exactly is this company or battalion of Japanese soldiers that is being organized as some sort of industrial granny rape assembly line? How are these soldiers getting it up for this? Is there just a line of soldiers who decided that the with the run of the city, the best thing they could do was industrial rape 60-80 year old snatch?

And how are these soldiers playing soccer with heads attached to 40 lb. children bodies? Oh that's right every 120 lb. Japanese soldier knows Ninja-Fu and can kick 40 lbs. around like they're Kevin DeBruyne.

You realize in WWI there were claims that German soldiers were eating Belgian babies, right? I'm not saying the Rape of Nanking didn't happen or that it wasn't horrific, just that you don't have to believe some of the more outlandish claims and you should probably refrain from using them if you want to make a serious point.


Re: Potential for Violence
« Reply #699 on: February 25, 2021, 02:59:05 pm »
"I'm just taking your argument to its logical conclusion." --said by DeMartino fifty bazillion times in this forum.
That wasn't the logical conclusion of my argument.