Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Puck · 11-13-2002, 05:32 AM

wildernesse wrote:
It's because we CAN'T vote on the flag. It's against the GA Constitution because the legislature has made some laws about it, putting the flag in their province

Yes, but that didn't stop sonny from taking advantage of the fact that alot of folks didn't know that. That he is now backpedaling on the issue is going to make some people *very* angry, again.

And we have three people that won on the democratic ticket, that have now switched over to the republicans. Ah, Georgia politics, like a bad soap opera.

wildernesse · 11-13-2002, 07:35 AM

Crownboy,

I want to thank you for your comments too.

May I ask you if your family in Georgia riots? And if they don't, why not? What do they do to release the stress of constant oppression due to living in the South?

Sorry for the sarcasm--this is in response to atheist in a foxhole's comment that we all know why blacks in the South don't riot. He wouldn't tell us why, and even though others (including myself) gave some reasons, do you think those reasons were accurate?

I agree that a symbol with such negative connotations as the Confederate battle flag should not be part of an inclusive symbol like the state flag. I also think the current flag is horribly ugly because it tries to be all things to all people.

I also think that people who point to the South as the basement of the country are incredibly ignorant of overall U.S. history and the history of the place they live in. Our entire country has issues regarding race and minorities and striving to live up to an ideal set forth in the Constitution of treating every person equally before the law (and equally in our personal, private lives also).

I think that people who are preoccupied with how the South is dealing with these issues are ignoring the problems that they are having in their own communities. Yes, the South has problems--no one can deny that--but we (blacks, whites, pinks and greens)are daily working on them. And things have changed and continue to change for the better.

--tibac

P.S. to Puck
It surely will be interesting to see how the flag changes (or most likely, doesn't change back) with our good friend Sonny, won't it. I'm sure there will be some very unhappy people shortly! I love it. Serves them right for being uninformed.

crownboy · 11-13-2002, 02:23 PM

Puck asked:

Quote:

If I may ask...is it a negative symbol because of it's current use, it's past use, or both? The Confederate Flag has been taken up as a banner for the KKK and other unsavory groups. If they had not adopted the Flag for their own nasty purposes, would it still be such a *strong* a negative symbol for you?

I guess it's probably both. Even if the Confederate flag were the offical flag of vegans who wouldn't eat anything that cast a shadow and who also worked toward acheiving world peace, the fact that it once represented a system that endorsed slavery as one of its main ideals would make me uncomfortable with seeing that symbol on something that's supposed to be as representative and public as a state flag. Not that I think people don't have the right to fly their Confederate flag, but if that (state) flag is also supposed to represent me as much as it does you, then I think it's definitely inappropriate. The fact that the Confederate flag is used by the inappropriate groups you mentioned (and the fact that many want to see the Confederate flag on the state flag for reasons steming from thinking of that sort) certainly adds to my personal disliking of the symbol. However, I am not and never was one of those people who'd like to see the Confederate flag removed from everywhere public. All the arguments put forth here that I've seen before can be appropriate for flying the Confederate flag on other occasions (though, unfortunately due to the missuse of the flag you mentioned, it's very difficult sometimes to decipher the motives of people who want to fly the Confederate flag. However, for me personally, it's pretty moot since I support a persons right to fly the flag for any reason; I just might think twice before hitch hiking at the back of your truck, though.

), but loose any credibility IMO when referring to something like the state flag, which has to represent black people as well. Another symbol signifying "white pride" or "states rights", but doesn't offend on that level would be better. But we seem to agree on many points, anyway

.

wildernesse asked:

Quote:

May I ask you if your family in Georgia riots? And if they don't, why not? What do they do to release the stress of constant oppression due to living in the South?

Well, having visited the Georgia many times, I certainly can't say I've seen any perceptible racism by any of the white people I met, and my family essentially has the same experience (I guess they avoid the racist

). The south is pretty nice, the reason I said I'd never move has more to do with the culture of NYC vs. Atlanta more than anything (i.e.: if I get bored in one of the more metropolitian areas of the south, I sudder to think what life would be like in a place like Macon or Augusta. Or maybe it's not that bad and I'm just too used to NYC). My uncle, the lone "real" wage earner in his household, works for a smaller salary than my father (and my father works for a slightly smaller salary than my mom), yet has a bigger house in Georgia than the one my parents bought here in NYC, plus he paid over a $100,000 less for his house than my parents did for their's! He did buy his house before the price of property in the area started going up, but I'm sure it's still cheaper now in Atlanta than in NYC. There are many great things about the south, and of course blacks don't fear for their lives, but the Statue of Liberty kicks Stone Mountain's ass any day of the week, IMO

.

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: crownboy ]

ybnormal · 11-13-2002, 10:44 PM

What a load of horseshit! Calling the CSA evil has about as much basis as calling Atheists evil. You just got to love that much tunnel vision.

Maybe, just maybe, biased whites with tunnel vision wrote most all the history that you've read...

The Civil War was a war of states' rights versus strong federal government...

Slavery was one such state right and the major issue of the day.

Huh? So, uh, the Civil War was fought over "states' rights", not slavery... but, slavery was... the major states' rights issue???

Who is insensitive here? Someone who declares that there is absolutely nothing good (or bad) attached to a symbol, or someone who acknowledges that there are both good and bad things attached to it?

In this case, the latter.

But it has also been used to represent the valor of young men (not just white men) who gave their lives for their homes.

Exactly... it has been, for well over a century. This accounts for the skewed and lingering "states' rights" version of Civil War history pushed by so many Southern xian bigots, who continue to cling to their flawed dream of "The Lost Cause."

A couple of years ago, I found an article similar to the one below that I liked better, about the 'new' Gettysburg Superintendent, John Latschar, but the link died. I ran into this today. I'm still looking for the other one.

Only a very poor and revisionist student of history would label any conflict as "good" versus "evil."

Sorry, friend... I try to keep it simple... either slavery is an evil thing, or it ain't.

Quote:

<a href="http://www.yonip.com/View%20Point/Board06/messages/91.html" target="_blank">source</a>

U.S. News -- Cover Story 9/30/02

The better angels -- BY ANDREW CURRY

(excerpts)
"We went to war on account of the thing we quarrelled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause of quarrel than slavery," wrote Confederate guerrilla John Mosby, the famous "Gray Ghost." "Men fight from sentiment. After the fight is over they invent some fanciful theory on which they imagine that they fought."

For almost 2 million visitors each year, the [Gettysburg] Pennsylvania battlefield confirms everything they know from documentaries, Hollywood, and popular fiction: that the war was America's epic, a heroic conflict both sides fought for freedom. The same tale is told at battlefields across the country. And it's wrong.

In trying to honor the soldiers who died, Civil War battlefields have historically avoided referring to what the two armies were actually fighting about. As a result, say scholars and park service officials alike, the message of most Civil War parks is subtly pro-Confederate, alienating many people who should find the parks compelling. What's missing, they say, is a moral element, what Abraham Lincoln referred to as "the better angels of our nature." The Civil War was a fight over slavery. The South was for it, the North against it. Not talking about slavery, they say, erases right and wrong from history�not only in the parks but in the national memory itself.

More than a century later, the pendulum is swinging the other way. In a 1995 speech commemorating the 100th anniversary of the park, Gettysburg Superintendent John Latschar attacked the Lost Cause mythology head-on. "We have bent over backwards to avoid any notion of fixing blame for the war," he said. "We are extremely reluctant to tackle that issue, partially due to our sense of 'fairness'�which only extends to our white constituency�and partially, I would suggest, due to the still lingering affects of the 'myth of the Lost Cause.' " By neglecting the causes of the war, Latschar argued, the park had failed to make itself relevant to all Americans.

[Something really weird happens when you have a "colon D" in a hyperlink]

[ November 13, 2002: Message edited by: ybnormal ]

RufusAtticus · 11-13-2002, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ybnormal:
Maybe, just maybe, biased whites with tunnel vision wrote most all the history that you've read...

For the most part, you got that right--Biased Yankees who want to perpetuate the myth that their ancestors fought a valiant efford to end slavery. Too bad the Union was fighting to keep the nation together. Slavery wasn't abolished by the Union until after the war was over. People forget that both Delaware and Maryland were slave states.

Quote:

Huh? So, uh, the Civil War was fought over "states' rights", not slavery... but, slavery was... the major states' rights issue???

Yeap, more was at stake for the South and the North then just slavery.

Quote:

In this case, the latter.

Why must one deny reality and objectivity to be "sensitive?" How is denying that people see good things in the CBF, the same type of things that people see in the US Flag, being sensitive to their views? To put it bluntly, why are "Black" views considered important, but "White" views considered not important?

Quote:

Exactly... it has been, for well over a century. This accounts for the skewed and lingering "states' rights" version of Civil War history pushed by so many Southern xian bigots, who continue to cling to their flawed dream of "The Lost Cause."

Why is "states' rights" the "xian bigot" position?

Whether people are wrapped up in "The Lost Cause" or not, makes no difference that "states' rights" was the overall issue. That doesn't remove or ignore the importance of slavery in establishing the conflict, but recongnizes that history and politics are much more complicated, than the popular myths about them.

Quote:

Sorry, friend... I try to keep it simple... either slavery is an evil thing, or it ain't.

Nice slight of hand. I was refering to the conflict, not the institution of slavery. Yes, slavery is morally wrong. But also, most Southerners were too poor to own slaves and fought because their nation told them too. Likewise, most Northerners had no interest at all in slavery, but fought because their nation told them too. That historical reality is completely lost on most people. Sure calling others "evil" is a successful rhetorical and emotional argument, but it is also a hightly intellectually bankrupt one.

I'm sure anyone will change if you keep calling them evil, just ask fundies.

~~RvFvS~~

RufusAtticus · 11-13-2002, 11:40 PM

Quote:

the fact that it once represented a system that endorsed slavery as one of its main ideals would make me uncomfortable with seeing that symbol on something that's supposed to be as representative and public as a state flag.

This is the perfect oportunity to point out that were are talking about The Confederate Battle Flag here, not the National flag of the Confederate States of America. It didn't represet the system, but rather it represented the soldiers. The Battle Flag, although popular, was the Confederate symobol least attached to slavery during the Civil War. Only later when all other symbols were forgotten did people forget this distinction.

Of course, this doesn't mean that is an inclusive symbol and not attached to racism. I just think people should rely on more accurate arguments than "It flew over slavery."

wildernesse · 11-14-2002, 06:12 AM

crownboy:

I've never been to NYC (poor, poor me!--no sarcasm either!), but I certainly can't begrudge your preference for it over the cities in the South. Heck, even I shudder when I think about being made to live in Augusta or Macon!

Athens, on the other hand, is fabulous. As is the tiny little town I grew up in. (of course)

ybnormal:

I'm not sure of the motives behind why my family fought for the Confederacy. They weren't slaveholders or large scale farmers. Did they fight for the right to own slaves? I don't know that they did.

What do you think about the use of the Confederate government's flag to show support for Confederate heritage? You see that quite often down here--to me, it's a statement that you can be both proud of your heritage and respect the many people who feel that the more recognized Confederate symbol is a symbol of hate.

--tibac

ybnormal · 11-14-2002, 12:07 PM

Let's start with my "Nice slight of hand."

RA:
Only a very poor and revisionist student of history would label any conflict as "good" versus "evil."

yb:
Sorry, friend... either slavery is an evil thing, or it ain't.

RA:
Nice slight of hand. I was refering to the conflict, not the institution of slavery.

Ah, ha! There's the problem, which I suppose we should attempt to clear up first. I had already asked the following...

Huh? So, uh, the Civil War was fought over "states' rights", not slavery... but, slavery was... the major states' rights issue???

...thinking it was obvious, that you are having a hard time admitting to what you are actually saying. Please correct me, but you are saying that slavery was the major issue of the day, yet you refuse to admit that the major issue of the day was the major cause of the conflict. Right?

Your adding into the mix, that, "Slavery was one such state right , does NOT alter the fact, by your own words, that Slavery was... the major issue of the day.

I suppose that it could be argued that slavery in the South was also the major economic issue, the major agricultural issue and the major human rights issue, but that DOES NOT alter the fact, by your own words, that Slavery was... the major issue of the day.

Slavery was the major issue of the day. Period! Your absolute statement needs no qualifier, interpretation or clarification. Those only muddy the simplicity of your absolute statement regarding the "major issue."

Yet you responded:

Yeap, more was at stake for the South and the North then just slavery.

Of course there was more at stake... there's always more at stake in a war... there are always 'lesser' issues at stake. Are you claiming that lesser issues are just as responsible for wars as the "major issue" is?

Are you claiming, that even without the Southern issue of slavery, the Civil War would have been fought anyway? That, even if the South had fully agreed to abolish slavery, the Civil War would have been fought anyway?

So, back to your, Nice slight of hand. I was refering to the conflict, not the institution of slavery. comment.

Seems we are left with your attempt to separate the conflict from the institution of slavery, where to me, they are synonymous, simply because we would not have had the conflict, without first having slavery.

I'm certainly no historian... like I said, I try to keep things simple and understandable... for this particular issue, IMO, most all your other arguments regarding how long slavery may have persisted here and there, and/or what the US has done as a Nation under the American flag, and certainly whatever happened on the Trail of Tears, are major distractions. Can we first, just address the cause of the Civil War?

For me, and for clarification purposes only, the question is this: Are you are claiming that there would still have been a Civil War, even without slavery in the South?

[Grrrr... added a "/"]

[ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: ybnormal ]

Puck · 11-14-2002, 12:11 PM

crownboy wrote: I just might think twice before hitch hiking at the back of your truck, though.

Not to worry, you won't see it on the back of my truck. But, I don't pick up hitch hikers unless it's out here on a back road and I see their broke-assed rattle-trap. Heck, I'm cautious of folks with rebel flag tags on their trucks. From my expierence, those who hate blacks, are just hateful persons who aim their hate at blacks because they think that's okay. A good deal of them beat their wives, too. And think it's funny when they roll the truck when they are drunk and don't end up in hospt. Although, at least you can spot those type a mile away, it's the ones (examp: politicians) who make nice, and believe different that are really scarey.

crownboy wrote: Even if the Confederate flag were the offical flag of vegans who wouldn't eat anything that cast a shadow and who also worked toward acheiving world peace, the fact that it once represented a system that endorsed slavery as one of its main ideals would make me uncomfortable with seeing that symbol on something that's supposed to be as representative and public as a state flag.

Which brings up the idea that the American Flag once flew over a whole nation that praticed slavery. But, I suppose the line needs to be drawn somewhere. And I do see what you mean, the south's main sticking point was the slavery issue, although that issue was a state's rights issue. I still say that untill we recognize that the south depended upon slavery for their survival, and it should have been undone over a 5-10 year period, we will not understand that War. I don't believe that share-cropping and it's evils would have come about like it did, and I don't think we would have had the KKK and Jim Crow. I think that is one of the big reasons I tend to defend the soldiers of that time. They saw things different than we do today, today we see white southerners only as evil slave masters, when most of them didn't own slaves, but the regions fiscal health did depend on slavery. Those men were (as we are today) mostly interested in not letting their economy unravel. Losing their 'property' (ugh, ugly even to type it), was secondary at the most.

Can you believe that over 150 years later, the results of that war still effects us today? Maybe not you or I personally, but in a general sense, at least here in the south. The way things are going, I do believe it will take another 150 years to smooth things out. There's still resentment on both sides, and the blame game won't fix it.

ybnormal? Where are you from? Your tone comes off as angry, when some of us are sincerely trying to be open and honest as far as our perspective allows us. Throwing verbal assults isn't condusive to discussion. I mean, I see your point about the parks service, but that's not sharing about how you feel and why. I haven't been to the park you refer to. I have, however, been to Andersonville, the most horrible prisoner of war camp shy of Germany. I understand the history of that camp, yet it still makes me ill. Battlefields and POW camps are facts. Facts are good for learning about the whole picture, but slavery wasn't going on in the battlefields and camps, you know. If you are Southern, black or white, please share how you see things. If you have a 'Yankee' perspective that you think would contribute to that aspect of the war, share. But I'm asking, please, don't just get pissed off. Pissed off is what got things to the mess they are today. Pissed off tends to close the mind.

ybnormal · 11-14-2002, 01:19 PM

ybnormal? Where are you from?

What can that possibly have to do with this, other than to give you reason to ignore facts and aid your assumptions of "Why" I must be saying what I'm saying?

Your tone comes off as angry...

What has that to do with what I said? And yes, I've been told that before, and as before, you also refuse to be specific, so I ain't got a clue what you are talking about. I talk in absolutes, which some folks read as anger. I doubt that everyone reads your posts exactly as you intend them to be read either. With all due respect... what's your point? Did I say something incorrect or did I not?

...when some of us are sincerely trying to be open and honest as far as our perspective allows us.

If you are going to imply that I am being insincere and dishonest, please be specific. Perhaps you are reading something that I didn't write. Perhaps you owe me an apology.

Throwing verbal assults isn't condusive to discussion.

And to imply, with no demonstration, that someone is being insincere and dishonest is not a verbal assault? Again... if you must accuse me of bad behavior, please have the decency to show it to me. Cutting and pasting is easy. I don't appreciate being distracted from the topic by having to guess what you must have read wrong.

I mean, I see your point about the parks service, but that's not sharing about how you feel and why.

Excuse me! What's this? I'm not sharing how I feel and why? What about all that anger you see? I shared exactly how I feel and why. Read! And I assure you Sir, you do not see my point about the parks service. It obviously went straight over your head.

I haven't been to the park you refer to. I have, however, been to Andersonville, the most horrible prisoner of war camp shy of Germany. I understand the history of that camp, yet it still makes me ill. Battlefields and POW camps are facts. Facts are good for learning about the whole picture, but slavery wasn't going on in the battlefields and camps, you know.

Like I said... it went straight over your head. Please don't say that you saw my point, when you so clearly did not. Next time, please read first, then chide me and advise me on what I should say here, and why.

If you are Southern, black or white, please share how you see things. If you have a 'Yankee' perspective that you think would contribute to that aspect of the war, share. But I'm asking, please, don't just get pissed off. Pissed off is what got things to the mess they are today. Pissed off tends to close the mind.

You're kidding, right? Are you certain exactly who is pissed off here? You Sir, are in error.

Back on topic, would care to actually read the article I posted and then explain your, slavery wasn't going on in the battlefields?

For starters, do you deny that many Southerners sent their slaves to the battlefields to fight and to die in their stead?

If you don't deny this, how do you reconcile it with your above statement?

Peace!

11-14-2002, 12:07 PM	#68
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	Let's start with my "Nice slight of hand." RA: Only a very poor and revisionist student of history would label any conflict as "good" versus "evil." yb: Sorry, friend... either slavery is an evil thing, or it ain't. RA: Nice slight of hand. I was refering to the conflict, not the institution of slavery. Ah, ha! There's the problem, which I suppose we should attempt to clear up first. I had already asked the following... Huh? So, uh, the Civil War was fought over "states' rights", not slavery... but, slavery was... the major* states' rights issue???* ...thinking it was obvious, that you are having a hard time admitting to what you are actually saying. Please correct me, but you are saying that slavery was the major issue of the day, yet you refuse to admit that the major issue of the day was the major cause of the conflict. Right? Your adding into the mix, that, "Slavery was one such state right , does NOT alter the fact, by your own words, that Slavery was... the major issue of the day. I suppose that it could be argued that slavery in the South was also the major economic issue, the major agricultural issue and the major human rights issue, but that DOES NOT alter the fact, by your own words, that Slavery was... the major issue of the day. Slavery was the major issue of the day. Period! Your absolute statement needs no qualifier, interpretation or clarification. Those only muddy the simplicity of your absolute statement regarding the "major issue." Yet you responded: Yeap, more was at stake for the South and the North then just slavery. Of course there was more at stake... there's always more at stake in a war... there are always 'lesser' issues at stake. Are you claiming that lesser issues are just as responsible for wars as the "major issue" is? Are you claiming, that even without the Southern issue of slavery, the Civil War would have been fought anyway? That, even if the South had fully agreed to abolish slavery, the Civil War would have been fought anyway? So, back to your, Nice slight of hand. I was refering to the conflict, not the institution of slavery. comment. Seems we are left with your attempt to separate the conflict from the institution of slavery, where to me, they are synonymous, simply because we would not have had the conflict, without first having slavery. I'm certainly no historian... like I said, I try to keep things simple and understandable... for this particular issue, IMO, most all your other arguments regarding how long slavery may have persisted here and there, and/or what the US has done as a Nation under the American flag, and certainly whatever happened on the Trail of Tears, are major distractions. Can we first, just address the cause of the Civil War? For me, and for clarification purposes only, the question is this: Are you are claiming that there would still have been a Civil War, even without slavery in the South? [Grrrr... added a "/"] [ November 14, 2002: Message edited by: ybnormal ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2002, 05:32 AM	#61
Puck Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: A middle aged body. Posts: 3,459	wildernesse wrote: It's because we CAN'T vote on the flag. It's against the GA Constitution because the legislature has made some laws about it, putting the flag in their province Yes, but that didn't stop sonny from taking advantage of the fact that alot of folks didn't know that. That he is now backpedaling on the issue is going to make some people very angry, again. And we have three people that won on the democratic ticket, that have now switched over to the republicans. Ah, Georgia politics, like a bad soap opera.

11-13-2002, 07:35 AM	#62
wildernesse Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,578	Crownboy, I want to thank you for your comments too. May I ask you if your family in Georgia riots? And if they don't, why not? What do they do to release the stress of constant oppression due to living in the South? Sorry for the sarcasm--this is in response to atheist in a foxhole's comment that we all know why blacks in the South don't riot. He wouldn't tell us why, and even though others (including myself) gave some reasons, do you think those reasons were accurate? I agree that a symbol with such negative connotations as the Confederate battle flag should not be part of an inclusive symbol like the state flag. I also think the current flag is horribly ugly because it tries to be all things to all people. I also think that people who point to the South as the basement of the country are incredibly ignorant of overall U.S. history and the history of the place they live in. Our entire country has issues regarding race and minorities and striving to live up to an ideal set forth in the Constitution of treating every person equally before the law (and equally in our personal, private lives also). I think that people who are preoccupied with how the South is dealing with these issues are ignoring the problems that they are having in their own communities. Yes, the South has problems--no one can deny that--but we (blacks, whites, pinks and greens)are daily working on them. And things have changed and continue to change for the better. --tibac P.S. to Puck It surely will be interesting to see how the flag changes (or most likely, doesn't change back) with our good friend Sonny, won't it. I'm sure there will be some very unhappy people shortly! I love it. Serves them right for being uninformed.

11-14-2002, 06:12 AM	#67
wildernesse Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 1,578	crownboy: I've never been to NYC (poor, poor me!--no sarcasm either!), but I certainly can't begrudge your preference for it over the cities in the South. Heck, even I shudder when I think about being made to live in Augusta or Macon! Athens, on the other hand, is fabulous. As is the tiny little town I grew up in. (of course) ybnormal: I'm not sure of the motives behind why my family fought for the Confederacy. They weren't slaveholders or large scale farmers. Did they fight for the right to own slaves? I don't know that they did. What do you think about the use of the Confederate government's flag to show support for Confederate heritage? You see that quite often down here--to me, it's a statement that you can be both proud of your heritage and respect the many people who feel that the more recognized Confederate symbol is a symbol of hate. --tibac

11-14-2002, 12:11 PM	#69
Puck Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: A middle aged body. Posts: 3,459	crownboy wrote: I just might think twice before hitch hiking at the back of your truck, though. Not to worry, you won't see it on the back of my truck. But, I don't pick up hitch hikers unless it's out here on a back road and I see their broke-assed rattle-trap. Heck, I'm cautious of folks with rebel flag tags on their trucks. From my expierence, those who hate blacks, are just hateful persons who aim their hate at blacks because they think that's okay. A good deal of them beat their wives, too. And think it's funny when they roll the truck when they are drunk and don't end up in hospt. Although, at least you can spot those type a mile away, it's the ones (examp: politicians) who make nice, and believe different that are really scarey. crownboy wrote: Even if the Confederate flag were the offical flag of vegans who wouldn't eat anything that cast a shadow and who also worked toward acheiving world peace, the fact that it once represented a system that endorsed slavery as one of its main ideals would make me uncomfortable with seeing that symbol on something that's supposed to be as representative and public as a state flag. Which brings up the idea that the American Flag once flew over a whole nation that praticed slavery. But, I suppose the line needs to be drawn somewhere. And I do see what you mean, the south's main sticking point was the slavery issue, although that issue was a state's rights issue. I still say that untill we recognize that the south depended upon slavery for their survival, and it should have been undone over a 5-10 year period, we will not understand that War. I don't believe that share-cropping and it's evils would have come about like it did, and I don't think we would have had the KKK and Jim Crow. I think that is one of the big reasons I tend to defend the soldiers of that time. They saw things different than we do today, today we see white southerners only as evil slave masters, when most of them didn't own slaves, but the regions fiscal health did depend on slavery. Those men were (as we are today) mostly interested in not letting their economy unravel. Losing their 'property' (ugh, ugly even to type it), was secondary at the most. Can you believe that over 150 years later, the results of that war still effects us today? Maybe not you or I personally, but in a general sense, at least here in the south. The way things are going, I do believe it will take another 150 years to smooth things out. There's still resentment on both sides, and the blame game won't fix it. ybnormal? Where are you from? Your tone comes off as angry, when some of us are sincerely trying to be open and honest as far as our perspective allows us. Throwing verbal assults isn't condusive to discussion. I mean, I see your point about the parks service, but that's not sharing about how you feel and why. I haven't been to the park you refer to. I have, however, been to Andersonville, the most horrible prisoner of war camp shy of Germany. I understand the history of that camp, yet it still makes me ill. Battlefields and POW camps are facts. Facts are good for learning about the whole picture, but slavery wasn't going on in the battlefields and camps, you know. If you are Southern, black or white, please share how you see things. If you have a 'Yankee' perspective that you think would contribute to that aspect of the war, share. But I'm asking, please, don't just get pissed off. Pissed off is what got things to the mess they are today. Pissed off tends to close the mind.

11-14-2002, 01:19 PM	#70
ybnormal Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 430	ybnormal? Where are you from? What can that possibly have to do with this, other than to give you reason to ignore facts and aid your assumptions of "Why" I must be saying what I'm saying? Your tone comes off as angry... What has that to do with what I said? And yes, I've been told that before, and as before, you also refuse to be specific, so I ain't got a clue what you are talking about. I talk in absolutes, which some folks read as anger. I doubt that everyone reads your posts exactly as you intend them to be read either. With all due respect... what's your point? Did I say something incorrect or did I not? ...when some of us are sincerely trying to be open and honest as far as our perspective allows us. If you are going to imply that I am being insincere and dishonest, please be specific. Perhaps you are reading something that I didn't write. Perhaps you owe me an apology. Throwing verbal assults isn't condusive to discussion. And to imply, with no demonstration, that someone is being insincere and dishonest is not a verbal assault? Again... if you must accuse me of bad behavior, please have the decency to show it to me. Cutting and pasting is easy. I don't appreciate being distracted from the topic by having to guess what you must have read wrong. I mean, I see your point about the parks service, but that's not sharing about how you feel and why. Excuse me! What's this? I'm not sharing how I feel and why? What about all that anger you see? I shared exactly how I feel and why. Read! And I assure you Sir, you do not see my point about the parks service. It obviously went straight over your head. I haven't been to the park you refer to. I have, however, been to Andersonville, the most horrible prisoner of war camp shy of Germany. I understand the history of that camp, yet it still makes me ill. Battlefields and POW camps are facts. Facts are good for learning about the whole picture, but slavery wasn't going on in the battlefields and camps, you know. Like I said... it went straight over your head. Please don't say that you saw my point, when you so clearly did not. Next time, please read first, then chide me and advise me on what I should say here, and why. If you are Southern, black or white, please share how you see things. If you have a 'Yankee' perspective that you think would contribute to that aspect of the war, share. But I'm asking, please, don't just get pissed off. Pissed off is what got things to the mess they are today. Pissed off tends to close the mind. You're kidding, right? Are you certain exactly who is pissed off here? You Sir, are in error. Back on topic, would care to actually read the article I posted and then explain your, slavery wasn't going on in the battlefields? For starters, do you deny that many Southerners sent their slaves to the battlefields to fight and to die in their stead? If you don't deny this, how do you reconcile it with your above statement? Peace!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.