[frenchcorporation]

(04-26-2017 05:41 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Nobody said slavery had nothing to do with it.

The first post I quoted begs to differ, I'll repost it here in case you missed it:

(04-25-2017 11:29 PM)Dr. Howard Wrote:  

The cap on this is the deceit that the civil war was at all about slavery.

(04-26-2017 05:41 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

Can you explain to me why the slaves weren't just freed by way of sending a bunch of cash to the south to buy the slaves' freedom if that's what it was all about? Or are you just going to rest comfortably on your confirmation bias?

Slave owners were given cash/paid reparations, you could have googled that before you posted.

https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featur...pation-act

Quote:

On April 16, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed a bill ending slavery in the District of Columbia. Passage of this law came 8 1/2 months before President Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation. The act brought to a conclusion decades of agitation aimed at ending what antislavery advocates called "the national shame" of slavery in the nation's capital. It provided for immediate emancipation, compensation to former owners who were loyal to the Union of up to $300 for each freed slave, voluntary colonization of former slaves to locations outside the United States, and payments of up to $100 for each person choosing emigration. Over the next 9 months, the Board of Commissioners appointed to administer the act approved 930 petitions, completely or in part, from former owners for the freedom of 2,989 former slaves.

How come I know more about your own history than you?

[weambulance]

Thank you for proving my point. The Civil War was not about slavery. It was about forcing the southern states to stay in the union.

[frenchcorporation]

Reading excerpts from southern states explicitly mentioning wanting to continue slavery , and then denying slavery is a factor, Is kinda like liberals reading islamic manifestos from jihadists and saying Islam has nothing to do with their actions. Carry on though, this thread has been great for observing cognitive dissonance.

There really needs to be a master thread on the forums glaring biases, but I'm not sure how productive it would be, due to said glaring biases. Oh well.

[weambulance]

Quote:

How come I know more about your own history than you?

Oh, I see you decided to be a smarmy ass with that edit. You don't know more about my history than I do. You have nothing but the slightest, skin deep knowledge of the issues in America. If you did know history, you wouldn't say the Civil War was all about slavery.

There was a long history of economic strife between the north and the south. Slavery was a minor part of the argument and was basically a wedge issue excuse. The Civil War was unequivocally about maintaining the union, not about ending slavery as is so commonly taught here.

Your own logic is fucking idiotic, which is mysterious to me since you claim to be a programmer. If the slaves were freed by fiat, and the owners compensated by 1862, then why the fuck did the north continue to fight a war until 1865 and kill 600,000 people? I suppose you can't see past the obvious logic holes when it comes to an emotional subject like slavery.

You read a few bits of rhetoric and did a little googling and now you're an expert? Get the fuck out of here with that arrogant bullshit.

I love it when foreigners lecture me on my own country.



Edit - Grammar

[weambulance]

(04-26-2017 06:03 AM)frenchcorporation Wrote:  

Reading excerpts from southern states explicitly mentioning wanting to continue slavery , and then denying slavery is a factor, Is kinda like liberals reading islamic manifestos from jihadists and saying Islam has nothing to do with their actions. Carry on though, this thread has been great for observing cognitive dissonance.

Bullshit strawman argument.

You realize the war was fought because of the North, not the South, right? Since you're such an expert on American history. So exactly what the South cited as reasons for leaving does not define the Civil War.

[weambulance]

It's absurd that people try to distill these enormously complex historical events down to just one or two causes. You might as well claim World War I was over the assassination of a single Austrian nobleman, or that World War II started just because Hitler was feeling expansionist one day.

Give me a fucking break. History is never that simple. It's always enormously complicated and at the time it's happening, it might not even be clear why hostilities are rising.

It's also fairly stupid that people say the Iraq War was about WMDs. That got a lot of press, but even at the time things were winding up, as a dumbass high schooler I knew it was a lot more complicated than that. And by the way? I was on a mission guarding a cache of chemical weapons in Iraq that the US didn't bring in. I met a guy years later who guarded that same exact cache in a different unit, during a different deployment. There were at least some WMDs in Iraq. But that still was not the major reason for the war and nobody who was paying attention to the actual details at the time thought it was.

Wars are virtually always about economics at the core. Remember that, follow the money, and you'll get a lot more answers out of history than if you just blindly believe the propaganda you read. Especially if you're reading the propaganda written by the winner!

Perhaps it's just human nature to try to break things down to the level a fucking dog could understand even if it's completely misleading to do so.

[Prufrock]

Here's a group of Canadians, and a man from Arkansas, reporting on the situation:

[Duke Castile]

(04-25-2017 02:22 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

Oh really.

Importation of slaves was halted in 1808. Are you suggesting it would've been more costly to just, I dunno, buy the remaining slaves' freedom than fight a war that killed 600,000 Americans?

Slavery was nothing but a tangential issue in the civil war. The war was fought over whether the states had the power to leave the union. Lincoln couldn't stand the affront and kicked off the most devastating war in US history. Full stop.

This is just another way to shit on white people and virtue signal at the same time. Full stop.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Anyway, it hardly matters worth a damn who's cozmikly right on this and who's cozmikly wrong. People are pissed off and this social justice shit is going to trigger off an epic shitstorm. A shitstorm I might add which is going to lop-sidedly affect the very people this political correctness was designed to protect.

Don't like the history of the South? Choose to ignore the monuments, choose to move, or choose inevitable bloodshed.

[Uruz]

Well, whatever "conventional" argument you throw in, it does not matter. War was about this or that, Confederacy was good or bad, Slavery was this or that. It does not matter one bit.

The whole point here is, which probably Mr. Kona and AtlantaMan will never understand, relationship of European natives toward the warriors. It's not something thats "cultural" or "political", its a blood memory and nothing less. If you don't feel a certain way about warriors from the past and you are white, your blood has been corrupted or/and polluted (I cannot speak for others, because I am not them but it seems from here that they don't understand the relationship.).
We don't celebrate warriors because they were "right", whatever it mean, but because they were warriors. I think that concept of Victory or Death might be strange to some ethnicities. There is no shame in losing or dying, there is just one shame, in not going into the fight (For whatever it might be.).

If some state-paid cunt would take down the statue of WWI. soldiers in my hometown (My grand-grandfather being one of the fallen.), because they "lost" or whatever the retarted argument might be, there will be blood, no trenches, but blood nevertheless.

[monster]

The victors of war determine the history.

To me, the statues should have never been erected in the first place by the union. The union had it in its best interest to take the statues down right away once they found out about them.

However, they weren't taken down then and now these are not being taken down for that reason (namely, the victor says "hell no you can't erect a statute of your losing general"). They're being taken down for another reason - the SJWs.

This is a tricky situation indeed because I don't think the statues should have ever been up in the first place, but since they were and are now being removed due to SJW pressure, I don't think that's right either.

Because they've been up for so long their meaning has transformed into a historical monument and I think historical monuments by and large have earned their right to stay.

[Chevy Woonsocket]

(04-26-2017 10:41 AM)monster Wrote:  

The victors of war determine the history.

To me, the statues should have never been erected in the first place by the union. The union had it in its best interest to take the statues down right away once they found out about them.

The victors get to write history because there is nobody to stop them, not because they are morally superior.

Had the federal government intervened then there would have been bloodshed. The government at the time was smart enough to understand that you don't take everything away from a defeated foe, unlike today's SJW's who seem to think they can just keep pushing everyone and everything ad infinitum with no repercussions.

[weambulance]

Apparently the government is still worried about bloodshed over it.

You'd think that would be a sign not to fucking do something.

You know how people say "if you have to ask if something is right, it probably isn't"? Well, how about "if you think someone might shoot you in the face for doing ________, reconsider."

[frenchcorporation]

(04-25-2017 07:11 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

After I learned what the statue actually stood for and read the mayor's reasoning, I supported it being taken down:

Quote:

New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu has called the Liberty Monument "the most offensive of the four" to be taken down, adding it was erected to "revere white supremacy."

"If there was ever a statue that needed to be taken down, it's that one," he said in an interview Sunday with The Associated Press.

The Crescent City White League attempted to overthrow a biracial Reconstruction government in New Orleans after the Civil War. That attempt failed, but white supremacist Democrats later took control of the state.

An inscription added in 1932 said the Yankees withdrew federal troops and "recognized white supremacy in the South" after the group challenged Louisiana's biracial government after the Civil War. In 1993, these words were covered by a granite slab with a new inscription, saying the obelisk honors "Americans on both sides" who died and that the conflict "should teach us lessons for the future."

------------------------------------------------------

The removals are "about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile — and most importantly — choose a better future," Landrieu said in a statement released by his office. "We can remember these divisive chapters in our history in a museum or other facility where they can be put in context — and that's where these statues belong."

------------------------------------------------------

"The monuments are an aberration," he said. "They're actually a denial of our history and they were done in a time when people who still controlled the Confederacy were in charge of this city and it only represents a four-year period in our 1,000-year march to where we are today."

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-...ls-n750036

The statue is a physical representation some of the most absurd and extreme behavior to ever rise in the United States of America.

It represents an aberration of mankind, so I do agree that it should be taken down.

Still, it should be put in a museum, so we don't forget our past, no matter how bad it can be.

This is the logo/crest for the white league, by the way



Imagine wanting to keep the statues up, and knowing what it actually stands for. Wild.

[Rocha]

To the ones defending the removal of the statues, I like to ask if they also defend that the muslim made Alhambra Caste in Granada/Spain should also be taken out.

[All or Nothing]

(04-26-2017 06:12 AM)weambulance Wrote:  

There was a long history of economic strife between the north and the south. Slavery was a minor part of the argument and was basically a wedge issue excuse. The Civil War was unequivocally about maintaining the union, not about ending slavery as is so commonly taught here.

If you open a history book and read more about the period from the start of the Union to the start of the Civil War, July 4, 1776 - April 12, 1861, whether or not you were for or against slavery had everything to do with the division of the North and the South.

The South maintaining "state's rights" and agrarian society was driven heavily by the desire of plantation owners to maintain slavery.

The North's desire to enforce a strong central government and develop industrially drove a desire to push for a more egalitarian society that was in line with the ideology that the Constitution was based on. This fueled the abolitionist movement in the North.

Slavery was the key driver of division between North and South from the inception of the United States of America. Northerners did not even want to include slavery in the Constitution, but they knew that was the only way to get the South to sign onto the Union. Many Northerners who were a part of the founding government predicted that there would be a war 50-60 years out to end the practice of slavery once and for all.

[All or Nothing]

(04-26-2017 11:03 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

To the ones defending the removal of the statues, I like to ask if they also defend that the muslim made Alhambra Caste in Granada/Spain should also be taken out.

Is the castle a physical symbol of the Moor's racial supremacy over the Spanish people?

[Rocha]

(04-26-2017 11:19 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:03 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

To the ones defending the removal of the statues, I like to ask if they also defend that the muslim made Alhambra Caste in Granada/Spain should also be taken out.

Is the castle a physical symbol of the Moor's racial supremacy over the Spanish people?

As far as I can tell the statue was nowadays honoring: "Of those Americans on both sides who died in the battle of Liberty Place...A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future"

[Repo]

(04-26-2017 11:35 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:19 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:03 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

To the ones defending the removal of the statues, I like to ask if they also defend that the muslim made Alhambra Caste in Granada/Spain should also be taken out.

Is the castle a physical symbol of the Moor's racial supremacy over the Spanish people?

As far as I can tell the statue was nowadays honoring: "Of those Americans on both sides who died in the battle of Liberty Place...A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future"

That quote was added to cover up the quote about white superiority.

[Rocha]

Deleted.

[Duke Castile]

(04-26-2017 11:37 AM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:35 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:19 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:03 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

To the ones defending the removal of the statues, I like to ask if they also defend that the muslim made Alhambra Caste in Granada/Spain should also be taken out.

Is the castle a physical symbol of the Moor's racial supremacy over the Spanish people?

As far as I can tell the statue was nowadays honoring: "Of those Americans on both sides who died in the battle of Liberty Place...A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future"

That quote was added to cover up the quote about white superiority.

Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

[Repo]

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:37 AM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:35 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:19 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:03 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

To the ones defending the removal of the statues, I like to ask if they also defend that the muslim made Alhambra Caste in Granada/Spain should also be taken out.

Is the castle a physical symbol of the Moor's racial supremacy over the Spanish people?

As far as I can tell the statue was nowadays honoring: "Of those Americans on both sides who died in the battle of Liberty Place...A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future"

That quote was added to cover up the quote about white superiority.

Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

Is choosing to continue to commemorate a statue originally dedicated to white superiority necessary to remember the lives lost on both sides?

[All or Nothing]

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

I hope your realize that the ideology that led to the erection of that statue has no basis in reality. The whole ideology behind white supremacy was formed in the South as a way of maintaining social order and had no basis in observable reality.

The fact is that the South formed a deeply hierarchical system in order to enforce social order, but that does not mean the ideology driving the hierarchical system has a basis in reality.

I would draw a comparison to the Austronesian or Aztec society, which was also heavily stratified and less egalitarian:

Quote:

Anthropologists have suggested that human sacrifice gave emotional power to group values and provided a collective catharsis during crises. There were other advantages, too. The Aztecs, who sacrificed for many different reasons, also practiced cannibalism, with victims serving as a source of protein. And then there’s the “social control hypothesis,” which posits that human sacrifice served to subordinate the lower classes. Writing in the journal Nature last April, Joseph Watts of the Max Planck Institute in Germany and colleagues presented evidence supporting this idea.

----------------------------------

This tracing of different paths of cultural development led to interesting conclusions about the independent effect of human sacrifice. They found that the practice had a twofold impact, historically, on Austronesian societies: It made them significantly less likely to turn in an egalitarian direction and significantly more likely to become more hierarchical. In other words, the ritualistic sacrificing of humans seems to have stabilized and deepened social inequalities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/human-sacri...1490379093

When the Aztec elite sacrificed victims to the gods, did that actually bring in rain for the crops?

No. It was pure fiction created by the elite in order to control the masses.

The same goes for the whole ideology surrounding white supremacy. That was fiction created by plantation owners so they could control the masses (poor whites and black slaves).

[Duke Castile]

(04-26-2017 12:00 PM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:37 AM)Repo Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:35 AM)Rocha Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:19 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Is the castle a physical symbol of the Moor's racial supremacy over the Spanish people?

As far as I can tell the statue was nowadays honoring: "Of those Americans on both sides who died in the battle of Liberty Place...A conflict of the past that should teach us lessons for the future"

That quote was added to cover up the quote about white superiority.

Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

Is choosing to continue to commemorate a statue originally dedicated to white superiority necessary to remember the lives lost on both sides?

Are any statues necessary?

LOL

As I said before, this is about virtue signaling and shitting on white people.

It really doesn't change a single thing though does it?

[Duke Castile]

(04-26-2017 12:04 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(04-26-2017 11:51 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Interesting. So when white people take down a statue that is about white supremacy, do other races no longer remain inferior?

I hope your realize that the ideology that led to the erection of that statue has no basis in reality. The whole ideology behind white supremacy was formed in the South as a way of maintaining social order and had no basis in observable reality.

The fact is that the South formed a deeply hierarchical system in order to enforce social order, but that does not mean the ideology driving the hierarchical system has a basis in reality.

I would draw a comparison to the Austronesian or Aztec society, which was also heavily stratified and less egalitarian:

Quote:

Anthropologists have suggested that human sacrifice gave emotional power to group values and provided a collective catharsis during crises. There were other advantages, too. The Aztecs, who sacrificed for many different reasons, also practiced cannibalism, with victims serving as a source of protein. And then there’s the “social control hypothesis,” which posits that human sacrifice served to subordinate the lower classes. Writing in the journal Nature last April, Joseph Watts of the Max Planck Institute in Germany and colleagues presented evidence supporting this idea.

----------------------------------

This tracing of different paths of cultural development led to interesting conclusions about the independent effect of human sacrifice. They found that the practice had a twofold impact, historically, on Austronesian societies: It made them significantly less likely to turn in an egalitarian direction and significantly more likely to become more hierarchical. In other words, the ritualistic sacrificing of humans seems to have stabilized and deepened social inequalities.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/human-sacri...1490379093

When the Aztec elite sacrificed victims to the gods, did that actually bring in rain for the crops?

No. It was pure fiction created by the elite in order to control the masses.

The same goes for the whole ideology surrounding white supremacy. That was fiction created by plantation owners so they could control the masses (poor whites and black slaves).

Hey I agree, white people all over the world and ages building the best cities, the most wealth, colonizing and improving places wherever they have gone, inventing and endless list of things has nothing to do with reality.

Nothing.

Pure coincidence. A luck of the draw.

Everyone is equal and all that.

Honestly it's amazing to hear people that are not white, STILL complain about white privilege as well, when as you know it's not reality.

Especially when white people have taken great and self destructive measures to give power away.

Thank you for pointing it out.

edit - What if the Aztecs were white?