Leftists Purging History or Al Queda in America

[Crossless2.0]

I hear you and see where you are coming from. I grew up in the north, so we learned that the war was all about slavery. But since then, I've heard from other people who supposedly also know their history, that it wasn't. That the north didn't care at all about the slaves, and were only forbidding them to handicap the south... and the South was merely fighting for Independence.

I'm not a history buff at all. I'm just someone who has heard 2 different stories. You could very well be 100% right. And if that's the case, then I would say the people telling the other story are ignorant, not necessarily racist.

Does it matter if anyone in the North really cared about black people though? I mean, there are plenty of contemporary writings in the newspapers reflecting a growing progressive movement towards abolition. The term abolitionist was around for decades before the war. But even if the North's motivation was purely political, how does that change things?

From Shit No One Ever Said (episode 13):

[Slave 1]: Did you hear? They've outlawed slavery. We're free!

[Slave 2]: Finally, they recognized our worth as human beings and did the right thing out of a profound respect for our dignity and rights!

[Slave 1]: Well, not exactly. I think it was really about politics. Word is a lot of folks in the North don't really care about us. They just wanted to stick it to our oppressors.

[Slave 2]: Well, fuck that then! I'm staying.

*Resumes his field work*

[Anomalocaris]

I hear you and see where you are coming from. I grew up in the north, so we learned that the war was all about slavery. But since then, I've heard from other people who supposedly also know their history, that it wasn't. That the north didn't care at all about the slaves, and were only forbidding them to handicap the south... and the South was merely fighting for Independence.

I'm not a history buff at all. I'm just someone who has heard 2 different stories. You could very well be 100% right. And if that's the case, then I would say the people telling the other story are ignorant, not necessarily racist.

You know, the Nazis had a whole lot of other programs, some of them very admirable, besides murdering the Jews, gypsies and the Slavs. They also didn't start WWII primarily to exterminate the Jews, gypsies and the Slavs. In fact they even tried to come up with many options for getting rid of the Jews humanely without murdering them. The western allies, much less the Soviets, could hardly lift half a finger for the Jews. Germany was merely fighting to redress the wrongs of Versailles, and what they planned to do with all the natives once they had taken over all of Europe and build a state to rival the USA in size and natural resource is hardly any worse than what the Americans did to the Indians.

So I guess you can see both sides concerning the notion of Germany erecting statues of Hitler, goering, goebbles, himmler and heyrich.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lets take another tack, here, and see if any "statue enthusiasts" show up to signal their approval.  Howsabout we keep these statues, but convert them in form, as the statues to Certain Traitors* of the Revolutionary War, to damnatio memoraie?  

So, cut the rider off the horse, and put a new inscription down.  

"On this site we commemorate the greatest hero of the defeated confederate states, whose leadership in rebellion condemned 620,000 brave americans to their graves, brother against brother, in perpetuation of the fiction of a person as property."

The base of the statue could be a designated dog shitting area. So, howsabout it, do you think that the statue nerds would accept such a proposal?

[Catholic_Lady]

I hear you and see where you are coming from. I grew up in the north, so we learned that the war was all about slavery. But since then, I've heard from other people who supposedly also know their history, that it wasn't. That the north didn't care at all about the slaves, and were only forbidding them to handicap the south... and the South was merely fighting for Independence.

I'm not a history buff at all. I'm just someone who has heard 2 different stories. You could very well be 100% right. And if that's the case, then I would say the people telling the other story are ignorant, not necessarily racist.

But, does it matter whether the north really cared about the slaves?  That doesn't alter what the confederacy stood for, or what the statues of its leaders symbolize today.

I am not saying it matters. Im just saying that if someone sees it differently or has a different interpretation, they aren't necessarily racist. If they are incorrect in their assessment of history, that makes them wrong, but it doesn't, in and of itself, make them racist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Their ignorance of history ( a convenient fiction, CL....such bullshit, but lets run with it) does not excuse them for their sympathies in the present.

People wanted to get rid of a racist statue. A nazi ran them over for it. "Well, those leftists had sticks! Both sides!"

-bam, done, fucking racist. case closed.

[SteelCurtain]

I am not saying it matters. Im just saying that if someone sees it differently or has a different interpretation, they aren't necessarily racist. If they are incorrect in their assessment of history, that makes them wrong, but it doesn't, in and of itself, make them racist.

But if their incorrect assessment of history furthers a racist agenda towards the future of America, one can call the assessment racism.

A person may not be racist. But if they do racist things, and they refuse to correct those things once it is pointed out, then what conclusion can be drawn?

[LadyForCamus]

But, does it matter whether the north really cared about the slaves?  That doesn't alter what the confederacy stood for, or what the statues of its leaders symbolize today.

I am not saying it matters. Im just saying that if someone sees it differently or has a different interpretation, they aren't necessarily racist. If they are incorrect in their assessment of history, that makes them wrong, but it doesn't, in and of itself, make them racist.

It means they're ignorant on the subject of American History which, in and of itself, is not necessarily a "bad" thing.  I would be embarrassed to admit to you all how little of U.S. history I remember.  The thing is, if you're going to take a position on something; anything; the responsible and intellectually honest thing to do is actively seek to close your knowledge gaps, so that when you take that stance, it's one that's well-informed and closest to the truth.

[Pat Mustard]

black Confederate soldiers along side the existing white Confederate statues and monuments?

You mean the black slaves forced at gunpoint to dig trenches for the confederate army? Not too many black soldiers in that army, never mind blacks allowed to bear arms.

[Catholic_Lady]

I am not saying it matters. Im just saying that if someone sees it differently or has a different interpretation, they aren't necessarily racist. If they are incorrect in their assessment of history, that makes them wrong, but it doesn't, in and of itself, make them racist.

But if their incorrect assessment of history furthers a racist agenda towards the future of America, one can call the assessment racism.

A person may not be racist. But if they do racist things, and they refuse to correct those things once it is pointed out, then what conclusion can be drawn?

Hmm, I guess I don't follow. Racism is defined as prejudice against someone of another race. I don't see how a person's assessment can be racist if it had nothing to do with any sort of prejudice against another race.

[Rev. Rye]

[quote='A Theist' pid='1604856' dateline='1503059475']
You mean the black slaves forced at gunpoint to dig trenches for the confederate army? Not too many black soldiers in that army, never mind blacks allowed to bear arms.

They did exist, but the CSA only sanctioned their being armed four weeks exactly before Appamatox as a last-ditch effort to salvage the war effort, and they probably wouldn't even have tried it if Robert E. Lee didn't convince them it could work.

And even if they fought for longer, if even poor whites can be caught up in the disconnect between the "Northern Aggression" rhetoric and the reality of why the Confederacy existed in the first place, I see no problem seeing why the slaves, many of whom who had been more or less forced to live in a sort of Platonic Cave by Massa for the past two centuries with a good-sized portion no doubt unable to break on through, wouldn't be caught up in it as well.