Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Life, the Universe and Everything (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   Whitewashing The Civil War (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7221)

Wonderment 12-11-2011 05:22 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
I commend you for finding two points of disagreement you have with the article I linked by Sanderson.

I don't commend you or Don Zeko, however, for going ballistic over the mere notion that someone could disagree with the CW on the CW. Although it is inconceivable to you, apparently, that anyone who is not "crazy," Steve Sailer or a Sulla "co-signer" could view the CW as an unjust war, the view is not uncommon among peace activists like me who have been influenced by Gandhi and MLK. The article I cited, which is quite sympathetic to Lincoln, makes such a case. Take it or leave it, but don't get so defensive of your own beliefs that you resort to name calling. I found it sadly unsurprising that in the same thread where you call me a Sulla co-signer, he practically calls me a traitor.

Don Zeko 12-11-2011 05:31 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 234308)
Four of those five states remained in the Union: Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri. Only Virginia seceded from the union and joined the Confederacy.

Also, the enslaved proportion of the population in Virginia wasn't falling because the absolute number of slaves was falling. In fact, upper South states like Virginia and North Carolina had growing slave populations that became an export commodity; they sold slaves south to compensate for the higher mortality rates associated with the more brutal labor exacted in the large cotton plantations of the deep south.

graz 12-11-2011 06:12 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234339)
I commend you for finding two points of disagreement you have with the article I linked by Sanderson.

I don't commend you or Don Zeko, however, for going ballistic over the mere notion that someone could disagree with the CW on the CW. Although it is inconceivable to you, apparently, that anyone who is not "crazy," Steve Sailer or a Sulla "co-signer" could view the CW as an unjust war, the view is not uncommon among peace activists like me who have been influenced by Gandhi and MLK. The article I cited, which is quite sympathetic to Lincoln, makes such a case. Take it or leave it, but don't get so defensive of your own beliefs that you resort to name calling. I found it sadly unsurprising that in the same thread where you call me a Sulla co-signer, he practically calls me a traitor.

Oh fuck already. Get over your prissy-pants aversion to name calling. Your issue is that as a faith based believer in principles espoused by MLK and Gandhi, conclusions are predetermined. Facts and interpretations be damned. I hope we can coexist someday in a world as you wish it to be, rather than the one that exists. In the mean time, perhaps you'd consider addressing the concerns of your interlocutors, rather than hiding behind a proctors skirt.

TwinSwords 12-11-2011 06:25 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
If you would be willing, I'd like to talk about this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234339)
I don't commend you or Don Zeko, however, for going ballistic over the mere notion that someone could disagree with the CW on the CW. Although it is inconceivable to you, apparently, that anyone who is not "crazy," Steve Sailer or a Sulla "co-signer" could view the CW as an unjust war...

I must come across more harshly than I intend. I re-read my posts in this thread, and while it is true that I hurled some invective at Sulla, I don't really find myself doing that towards you, or otherwise "going ballistic" in response to you. I also don't know why you put "crazy" or "co-signer" in quotes; I haven't used either phrase. It is true that I said privately that you entered the discussion on Sulla's side, but this is true; after there had been some back and forth between Sulla and others, you chose a point in the discussion where you could express agreement with him. (The point being that slavery was on its way out, making war needless.)


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234339)
the view is not uncommon among peace activists like me who have been influenced by Gandhi and MLK. The article I cited, which is quite sympathetic to Lincoln, makes such a case. Take it or leave it, but don't get so defensive of your own beliefs that you resort to name calling.

Can you tell me what I've said that sounded to you like name calling? I really don't intend to talk that way to you, I apologize if I have, but I've re-read the thread and I haven't found anything that sounds like name calling to me. Maybe you would be willing to tell me where I'm out of bounds so I can try to do better in the future.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234339)
I found it sadly unsurprising that in the same thread where you call me a Sulla co-signer, he practically calls me a traitor.

I didn't call you a co-signer. I did say you entered the discussion on his side, which I meant to be taken as a much narrower claim than the one you heard: It is true, after all, that you took your first step in this thread with support for something Sulla said. In retrospect, I can see how my choice of words might appear to implicate you for greater agreement with Sulla than I intended.

Sulla the Dictator 12-11-2011 06:33 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 234305)
The only person who has spoken of conspiracies or quota systems here is you. Gerrymandering is a practice of incumbents in both major parties and is used to partisan advantage by both. My assertion had nothing to do with anything you've proposed here. What I did say was that slavery (in America) had a component of racism, it exacerbated racism, and that there is clear evidence of the effect of racism in the lives of contemporary black people.

Slavery in America had a component of racism. The grating nature of Reconstruction, in addition to the history of slavery, exacerbated racism. And the "effect of racism" is one of those unfortunate consequences of an imperfect species. Nothing to be done about it. Every race of man has been dealt unfortunate circumstance. Would that it weren't so.

Or put this way. There is nothing that is to be done about it without creating a greater injustice than the remedy cures.

Sulla the Dictator 12-11-2011 06:36 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234339)
I commend you for finding two points of disagreement you have with the article I linked by Sanderson.

I don't commend you or Don Zeko, however, for going ballistic over the mere notion that someone could disagree with the CW on the CW. Although it is inconceivable to you, apparently, that anyone who is not "crazy," Steve Sailer or a Sulla "co-signer" could view the CW as an unjust war, the view is not uncommon among peace activists like me who have been influenced by Gandhi and MLK. The article I cited, which is quite sympathetic to Lincoln, makes such a case. Take it or leave it, but don't get so defensive of your own beliefs that you resort to name calling. I found it sadly unsurprising that in the same thread where you call me a Sulla co-signer, he practically calls me a traitor.

Much as I enjoy the role of Sauron I've been cast in, in this thread....

How about we take a second and see where I've been corrected on a factual error (Other than Florian's correct point that I was too generous in my assumption on France's legal tolerance of slavery), or where I have made a statement of opinion without merit in light of the facts?

Can we get a link to either of these things? Indeed, I think what is clear is how quickly the opposition in this thread has abandoned the original assertion that the Confederates are analogous to Nazis.

Sulla the Dictator 12-11-2011 06:47 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 234306)
Uhh ... no. I just thought it was interesting to see Lew Rockwell's name surface again so soon after the very recent discussion of the racist Ron Paul newsletters. Rockwell edited (and, by some accounts, authored) those newsletters. That he is also hosting this article valorizing and rehabilitating Stonewall Jackson as a "champion of black literacy" on his web site further confirms what kind of racist trash he is.

I don't understand. Is it good or bad that Thomas Jackson educated slaves and freed blacks?

Quote:

LOL. Nice try. You know perfectly well that what was happening in that discussion was people were openly mocking your simplistic ideas as being about as sophisticated as Frank Miller's 300.
No, that isn't what you did. You ROFLed your way into embarrassing yourself by suggesting *I* was basing my view on history from 300. That seemed to suggest you were not only unfamiliar with the civilizational struggle between Greece and Persia in its particulars, but probably the philosophical concepts which grew from the struggle.

I would suggest anyone who "mocked" me for it is similarly ignorant. I'd be happy to provide you with some recommended reading material.

Don Zeko 12-11-2011 07:23 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234350)
Can we get a link to either of these things? Indeed, I think what is clear is how quickly the opposition in this thread has abandoned the original assertion that the Confederates are analogous to Nazis.

Nobody has abandoned any positions that they actually held, Sulla. And as with the article that Wonderment posted, the problem isn't factual mistakes, it's reaching nonsensical ethical and factual conclusions about those facts.

Sulla the Dictator 12-11-2011 07:35 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 234357)
Nobody has abandoned any positions that they actually held, Sulla. And as with the article that Wonderment posted, the problem isn't factual mistakes, it's reaching nonsensical ethical and factual conclusions about those facts.

I make no comment about Wonderment's article. I disagree with Wonderment that the war was not necessary, or its outcome useful and productive to achieving a broader vision of conflict.

I'm objecting to some bizarro world where a guy who says that the Confederacy is not equatable with the Third Reich gets lumped in with Steve Sailor.

Sulla the Dictator 12-11-2011 07:36 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234339)
I found it sadly unsurprising that in the same thread where you call me a Sulla co-signer, he practically calls me a traitor.

By the way, if you would prefer that no one raise eyebrows about your loyalties, avoid suggesting your support for secession from the United States.

Sulla the Dictator 12-11-2011 07:40 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 234307)
He oversaw the torture of his slaves.

What?

Quote:

He led armies into the north that captured free blacks and took them south in bondage, to become slaves.
Is the capture of a (very) few blacks before Gettysburg really the only charge you have against Lee in the way of an "atrocity"?

Wonderment 12-11-2011 08:17 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 234346)
I must come across more harshly than I intend. I re-read my posts in this thread, and while it is true that I hurled some invective at Sulla, I don't really find myself doing that towards you, or otherwise "going ballistic" in response to you. I also don't know why you put "crazy" or "co-signer" in quotes; I haven't used either phrase. It is true that I said privately that you entered the discussion on Sulla's side, but this is true; after there had been some back and forth between Sulla and others, you chose a point in the discussion where you could express agreement with him.

In my previous comment I was referring to "you" plural (Don Zeko and you). I've been attacked by some on the left so much in this discussion, the Plan B discussion and the Ron Paul discussion (as well as some previous ones) that it all seems to blend together sometimes. My fault. I apologize.

I thought you had made the "co-signer" comment. Actually, it was Graz: "You cosigned with Sulla (who tried to minimize slavery)".

I definitely don't want to blame you for Graz's relentlessly insubtantial vitriol.

Also, Don Zeko said "nutty" not "crazy" (I was trying to remember the phrase while typing on my phone).

Quote:

Can you tell me what I've said that sounded to you like name calling? I really don't intend to talk that way to you, I apologize if I have, but I've re-read the thread and I haven't found anything that sounds like name calling to me. Maybe you would be willing to tell me where I'm out of bounds so I can try to do better in the future.
No, I've looked over a few of the comments you made, and you're right: you haven't been engaging in name calling. So again, my apologies for suggesting otherwise.

Here, however, in the interest of improving our discourse is what I think you could improve on in your argumentative style in general. Feel free to offer me suggestions on how to improve my own.

1) You use terms like wingnuts, Paultards, etc. (incendiary language). I don't like this when right wingers do it, and I don't like it when Brendan, you or Graz do it either.

2) You tend to view the political world in Mannichean terms, or at the very least, in terms of "our side" v "their side." I just don't agree with that approach; I prefer to find common ground (not the same as middle ground).

3) You often jump to conclusions based on narrow agreement or disagreement. I get the impression that you think because I support Ron Paul's counter-militarism, I must admire a candidate who has authored racist literature. Or because I think Obama rejected science on Plan B to pander to anti-abortion voters, I must want "our side" to lose the 2012 election. I would hope you'd stick to what I actually say rather than speculate about what it implies I embrace (and don't). I realize we disagree on what's fair and balanced in regard to criticism of the Obama administration: You think what I say plays into the Republicans' hands, while I think harsh criticisms of Dem. policies and actions are entirely appropriate and let the chips fall where they may. I appreciate your input on this, and I think you have a good point: it's true that criticism of Obama from the left could hurt him and result in a Republican victory.

Wonderment 12-11-2011 08:21 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234359)
By the way, if you would prefer that no one raise eyebrows about your loyalties, avoid suggesting your support for secession from the United States.

Not a problem. Raise away, Bro! I feel zero sense of loyalty to the United States (or any other country).

chiwhisoxx 12-11-2011 09:01 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234339)
I commend you for finding two points of disagreement you have with the article I linked by Sanderson.

I don't commend you or Don Zeko, however, for going ballistic over the mere notion that someone could disagree with the CW on the CW. Although it is inconceivable to you, apparently, that anyone who is not "crazy," Steve Sailer or a Sulla "co-signer" could view the CW as an unjust war, the view is not uncommon among peace activists like me who have been influenced by Gandhi and MLK. The article I cited, which is quite sympathetic to Lincoln, makes such a case. Take it or leave it, but don't get so defensive of your own beliefs that you resort to name calling. I found it sadly unsurprising that in the same thread where you call me a Sulla co-signer, he practically calls me a traitor.

oh for christ sake wonderment. I tried to avoid this hellhole of a thread, but now I can't help myself. your pearl clutching about "name-calling" is precious, considering the amount of pejorative terms you throw out to your enemies; "extremists", "apartheid", "pro-violence" are terms that come to mind just off the top of my head, and the list is a lot longer. and the not to subtle implication that "gandhi and MLK would totally be on my side!" is utter bullshit. I don't give a shit who the people who oppose the civil war were inspired by, I care about the substance of the claim. I think graz is right. Faith taken is any extreme is dangerous, be it about god or some quaint notion about never engaging in violence.

graz 12-11-2011 09:04 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
I've been attacked by some on the left so much in this discussion, the Plan B discussion and the Ron Paul discussion (as well as some previous ones) that it all seems to blend together sometimes.

Awww, pobrecito.
Quote:

I definitely don't want to blame you for Graz's relentlessly insubtantial vitriol.
Them's fightin' words peacenick ;)
Quote:


Here, however, in the interest of improving our discourse is what I think you could improve on in your argumentative style in general:
Be like me. That's it.

graz 12-11-2011 09:10 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 234368)
oh for christ sake wonderment. I tried to avoid this hellhole of a thread, but now I can't help myself. your pearl clutching about "name-calling" is precious, considering the amount of pejorative terms you throw out to your enemies; "extremists", "apartheid", "pro-violence" are terms that come to mind just off the top of my head, and the list is a lot longer. and the not to subtle implication that "gandhi and MLK would totally be on my side!" is utter bullshit. I don't give a shit who the people who oppose the civil war were inspired by, I care about the substance of the claim. I think graz is right. Faith taken is any extreme is dangerous, be it about god or some quaint notion about never engaging in violence.

Off topic:
We must all now admit that there is a god, or at least that Tim Tebow is jesus.
Sorry about the Bears.

Ocean 12-11-2011 09:34 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 234369)
Awww, pobrecito.

Them's fightin' words peacenick ;)
Be like me. That's it.

This is a cute comment.

Maybe the "Awww, probrecito" bought my heart (me compró el corazón!).

graz 12-11-2011 09:39 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 234372)
This is a cute comment.

Maybe the "Awww, pRobrecito" bought my heart (me compró el corazón!).

What, do I have a speech impediment? :)

Ocean 12-11-2011 09:48 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
I've been attacked by some on the left so much in this discussion, the Plan B discussion and the Ron Paul discussion (as well as some previous ones) that it all seems to blend together sometimes. My fault. I apologize.

[...]


I realize we disagree on what's fair and balanced in regard to criticism of the Obama administration: You think what I say plays into the Republicans' hands, while I think harsh criticisms of Dem. policies and actions are entirely appropriate and let the chips fall where they may. I appreciate your input on this, and I think you have a good point: it's true that criticism of Obama from the left could hurt him and result in a Republican victory.

Wonderment, perhaps you have been particularly antagonistic on a variety of topics in the last few days. Blame it on a bad alignment of stars and planets. Or on having been born with built in stubborness. Who knows?!

I bet you've run into this kind of situation many times in your life. Where you stumble, there lies your treasure.

And you've stumbled three times here!

Peace, hermano.

Ocean 12-11-2011 09:49 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 234373)
What, do I have a speech impediment? :)

OMG! My Spanish is deteriorating very rapidly...

(Almost as fast as my English! Not to say anything about my typing skills!)

miceelf 12-11-2011 09:54 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
2) You tend to view the political world in Mannichean terms, or at the very least, in terms of "our side" v "their side." I just don't agree with that approach; I prefer to find common ground (not the same as middle ground).

I guess this is my boggle with you in these types of things.

You seem quite willing to engage in Manichean language in other matters. In fact, on the Plan B discussion, you seemed pretty black and white about it (in that thread you noted it as a "betrayal" and argued that the difference between Santorum and Obama on abortion was that Santorum was more honest). You also accused those who weren't as upset about the decision as you of being with the archdiocese, Pat Robertson, and the FRC (the latter seems a pretty clear example of "us vs. them").

I am sure you don't consider the above manichean, but simply a clear-eyed assessment of the facts as they are.

But that's true of most people who use manichean language.

Personally, I think manicheanism is fine in some circumstances and I am sure I engage in it as well. But you seem to both criticise manicheanism qua manicheanism and engage in it on occasion.

Wonderment 12-11-2011 10:16 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

I am sure you don't consider the above manichean, but simply a clear-eyed assessment of the facts as they are.

But that's true of most people who use manichean language.

Personally, I think manicheanism is fine in some circumstances and I am sure I engage in it as well. But you seem to both criticise manicheanism qua manicheanism and engage in it on occasion.
Good points.

chiwhisoxx 12-11-2011 10:18 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 234370)
Off topic:
We must all now admit that there is a god, or at least that Tim Tebow is jesus.
Sorry about the Bears.

as'fkljas'kfdlj.

whatever. when jay cutler broke this thumb the season ended. at this point, it probably pains me more to see tebow win than it does to see the bears lose.

TwinSwords 12-11-2011 10:21 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 234376)
OMG! My Spanish is deteriorating very rapidly...

(Almost as fast as my English! Not to say anything about my typing skills!)

Your sense of humor is holding up! ;-)

Ocean 12-11-2011 10:41 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 234380)
Your sense of humor is holding up! ;-)

:)

TwinSwords 12-11-2011 11:18 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
In my previous comment I was referring to "you" plural (Don Zeko and you). I've been attacked by some on the left so much in this discussion, the Plan B discussion and the Ron Paul discussion (as well as some previous ones) that it all seems to blend together sometimes. My fault. I apologize.

No problem. And I understand what you're saying about feeling under siege.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
Here, however, in the interest of improving our discourse is what I think you could improve on in your argumentative style in general. Feel free to offer me suggestions on how to improve my own.

Thank you for the thoughtful comments and observations. I have to log on to work and get a couple things done before the week starts tomorrow, so I have very limited time yet tonight, but I'll make a few quick points. My responses will be pretty weak, though, because it's late and I only have a couple minutes.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
1) You use terms like wingnuts, Paultards, etc. (incendiary language). I don't like this when right wingers do it, and I don't like it when Brendan, you or Graz do it either.

I do have a weakness for these terms. I'll admit they're not constructive to dialog with the people to whom they are applied. For this reason, I don't apply them to people I want to have a dialogue with, like you.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
2) You tend to view the political world in Mannichean terms, or at the very least, in terms of "our side" v "their side."

Yes, that's right -- as long as you say "the political world." And here's why: The political world is Manichean. We have a two party system, there are two sides, one side is clearly preferable to the other, and the other side is not just wrong, they are dangerous, and deranged, and they will do enormous damage if they are elected. Think about John Bolton as Secretary of State. Think about Gingrich's promise to sack federal judges who don't conform to the Tea Party agenda. Think about the Ryan Plan being signed into law, leading to millions of dead elderly, and millions more homeless elderly. Think about the open bigotry for gay people, and Muslims, the undocumented, the hatred for teachers, the war on public education, and so on. Those of us who live in America have gotten very comfortable with our way of life, but things could get very bad very quickly if we don't hold the line.

If you want to find common ground, find it with me and the other people who are trying to stop these terrible things from happening -- and not with the people who are threatening to do them!

If we had two reasonable, moderate parties, my language would be less strong, but the right in American politics has been captured by people who absolutely must be stopped, and I think we need to be crystal clear in our minds about (a) who's right and who's wrong, and (b) the horrifying consequences for all of us -- all over the world -- if Republicans win.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
I just don't agree with that approach; I prefer to find common ground (not the same as middle ground).

I certainly respect your approach, at least intellectually and in the abstract, though I will grant that there are many times I find it alarming and upsetting - both because you're undermining your own side and because you obscure what I think needs to be shown clearly: the Manichean distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans.

I also think that finding common ground or expecting to come to any kind of meeting of the minds with activist, base Republicans is a fool's errand; they really are beyond reach. We've all seen how you can hammer them with fact after fact, taking their arguments apart piece by piece, and they just stand there blinking at you, shrugging their shoulders, unfazed. You've been reading this forum a long time; you have seen it happen again and again.

Now, I would add that this is really only true of the base Republicans, what I would call "the cult" if I wasn't talking to you right now. ;-) For every one member of this deeply indoctrinated and impervious group of Republicans, there are one or two "normal" Republicans. I'm not sure what the exact breakdown is. I think probably somewhere between a third and a half of all Republican voters are in the cult, which leaves millions of normal people who can still be reasoned with. The only problem is that these aren't the type of people who hang around in internet forums talking politics. Almost every Republican here is in the cult; there have only been a handful of exceptions over the years. But in the offices where I work, or in my neighborhood, the proportion is much higher, and I when it comes to them, I actually do follow your approach of respectful, friendly conversation with the aim of finding common ground. Sometimes they compel to see things their way, and sometimes they see things my way.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234365)
3) You often jump to conclusions based on narrow agreement or disagreement. I get the impression that you think because I support Ron Paul's counter-militarism, I must admire a candidate who has authored racist literature. Or because I think Obama rejected science on Plan B to pander to anti-abortion voters, I must want "our side" to lose the 2012 election. I would hope you'd stick to what I actually say rather than speculate about what it implies I embrace (and don't). I realize we disagree on what's fair and balanced in regard to criticism of the Obama administration: You think what I say plays into the Republicans' hands, while I think harsh criticisms of Dem. policies and actions are entirely appropriate and let the chips fall where they may. I appreciate your input on this, and I think you have a good point: it's true that criticism of Obama from the left could hurt him and result in a Republican victory.

I've been frustrated and alarmed by your attacks on Obama and the Democrats, from time to time, but I've more often than not defended you when you made them, because I honestly do agree with you that we can't move the goalposts to the left without pressure from the left. I think, for example, the reason that we saw substantial progress on gay rights and on the pipeline from Canada was because of liberal activism. But ultimately, my own belief is that we have to be careful not to sink the ship we're sailing in.

Wonderment: Let me run a hypothetical past you. Suppose you're president and running for reelection. You know that if you get another term you will be able to do a great deal of good and advance an agenda you believe in on multiple fronts.

But there's one issue (I will confess this is childishly simplistic; please bear with me) where popular opinion goes strongly against you. Would you be willing to compromise on that one issue to ensure your reelection, or would you always stick with your principles, even if it meant being defeated?

You have always struck me as the type of person who would be willing to adhere to any position, no matter how unpopular, consequences be damned, which is what we expect of saints and activists, but not of politicians. I wouldn't want my saint to compromise on the great moral questions, but a politician has to make hard choices with an eye on what will help him stay in office so he can continue doing good.

miceelf 12-11-2011 11:34 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 234379)
when jay cutler broke this thumb the season ended. at this point, it probably pains me more to see tebow win than it does to see the bears lose.

It could be worse. You could be an Eagles fan. We don't even have any particular injury as an excuse for this season.

AemJeff 12-11-2011 11:49 PM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 234348)
Slavery in America had a component of racism. The grating nature of Reconstruction, in addition to the history of slavery, exacerbated racism. And the "effect of racism" is one of those unfortunate consequences of an imperfect species. Nothing to be done about it. Every race of man has been dealt unfortunate circumstance. Would that it weren't so.

Or put this way. There is nothing that is to be done about it without creating a greater injustice than the remedy cures.

That's quite a convenient argument.

Sulla the Dictator 12-12-2011 12:01 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 234388)
That's quite a convenient argument.

That is the funny thing about truth. It may not be easy, but it is usually simple.

stephanie 12-12-2011 12:09 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by chiwhisoxx (Post 234379)
as'fkljas'kfdlj.

whatever. when jay cutler broke this thumb the season ended. at this point, it probably pains me more to see tebow win than it does to see the bears lose.

Oh, great, I wondered whether this thread might have gotten better since yesterday, but instead it turns out a discussion of the Bears and Tim Tebow has been added.

AemJeff 12-12-2011 12:16 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 234392)
Oh, great, I wondered whether this thread might have gotten better since yesterday, but instead it turns out a discussion of the Bears and Tim Tebow has been added.

I'm pretty sure I'm proud to have almost no clue who Tim Tebow might be - I mean the context makes certain broad facts apparent, but still...

Sulla the Dictator 12-12-2011 12:19 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 234395)
I'm pretty sure I'm proud to have almost no clue who Tim Tebow might be - I mean the context makes certain broad facts apparent, but still...


He was the guy who upset people by thanking his mom for not aborting him, which was an option she considered as a single mom.

Don Zeko 12-12-2011 12:22 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
He's an NFL quarterback and an outspoken born-again Christian. Many people think his fame and professional success aren't justified by his actual skill at the game. So there are a lot of people that dislike the guy, and a lot of people that like the guy, and a lot of people that dislike the people that dislike the guy, etc. etc. etc.

stephanie 12-12-2011 12:23 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234248)
I don't really have a strong opinion about secession one way or the other. If my moral objections to the union were strong enough, I'd be open to it, however. For example, let's say slavery had only been abolished in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York, while all the other states practiced slavery and enforced the Fugitive Slaves Act. I think a good case could have been made for MaConnNY secession.

I haven't read the article you linked yet, so may drop in with more later.

However, with respect to the limited issue of secession, I think you have to think through how it affects your overall "how to resolve conflicts without violence" problem. As of 1861, I think one could argue that the rights re secession were unclear, but that's no longer the case, so you get a problem if you start claiming that states (or other entities) have a right to secede other than according to a legal method, which would not include an individual state voting they could and then, say, firing on entities representing the federal government, such as military bases.

One reason why, of course, is that I am not merely a citizen of my state, but more importantly of the US. Why should the majority in my state be able to either strip me of my rights as a citizen or force me to move?

To make this more concrete, let's consider another way this could have happened. Let's say no one seceded in '61, and slavery was abolished by Congress and former slaves declared to be citizens. Not liking this, the Confederate states seceded at some later date. Majorities in the states voted to do so, however, clearly the former slaves were generally not in favor. They just weren't a majority. That's the usual kind of problem when you have minority sections of a recognized country being able to assert a right to withdraw. Beyond the fact that I don't think it's okay to break up the union like this -- because the United States IS a country, not ARE a country (again, something that I acknowledge has changed as a result of the CW) -- I think the idea that this is something that adds to fairness, to the likelihood of non-violent resolution is simply wrong. You are instead giving an added tool to states who dislike the majority of the country's resolution of something to resort to other than the law.

If as a country we agreed to a legal secession, that would obviously be different, but it doesn't seem to me what's being talked about.

stephanie 12-12-2011 12:28 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 234397)
He's an NFL quarterback and an outspoken born-again Christian. Many people think his fame and professional success aren't justified by his actual skill at the game. So there are a lot of people that dislike the guy, and a lot of people that like the guy, and a lot of people that dislike the people that dislike the guy, etc. etc. etc.

Yeah, exactly. (Plus, I'm a Bears fan, although what chiwhi said above about the season is right.)

Wonderment 12-12-2011 12:52 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Yes, I think those are good points about hypothetical secession. For me, secession (or independence) would have to meet several criteria:

1) Have legitimate grievance
2) Have exhausted all institutional means to redress the grievance
3) Not be suicidal (provoking an attack by the larger entity)
4) Be nonviolent (like Occupy Wall Street, not like the Militia Movement)
5) Be democratic AND consensus-driven with minority opinions honored
6) Resolve the question of relinquishing "inalienable" rights that accrue to citizenship in the larger entity.

In practice, of course, one person's "secession" is another person's declaration of independence. For example, in Spain, where there are strong nationalistic movements in Cataluña and Euzkadi (País Vasco), the pro-union forces refer to the movements as separatist or secessionists, while their adherents argue for cultural-political autonomy and refer to a democratic Independence Movement.

My only point in raising this, really, was to challenge the idea that secession is necessarily a dirty word.

Wonderment 12-12-2011 01:03 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Twin. I think it's been constructive to talk these issues through. Probably neither of us will change much, but a little more awareness of (and hopefully respect for) each other's POV is always a good thing.

rfrobison 12-12-2011 01:40 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by graz (Post 234370)
Off topic:
We must all now admit that there is a god, or at least that Tim Tebow is jesus.
Sorry about the Bears.

And why would that be an admission and not a revelation?

Reminds me of a song by one the my favorite bands -- in my youth. The chorus goes like this:

Here He comes now/second time/spoil our fun now/what a crime/got us all now/in a bind/come again now/another time

--Terry Taylor (Daniel Amos)--

Of course, that only applies if you're a bears fan. If you're a (fair weather) broncos fan like me, it's another story.

Wonderment 12-12-2011 01:47 AM

OMG
 
I'd like to thank my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for allowing me to reply to your post, Jeff:

Quote:

A selection of the biblical verses that Tim Tebow wrote in his eyeblack during his college football days.

John 3:16
Jan. 8, 2009 vs. Oklahoma Sooners:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Ephesians 4:32
Oct. 24, 2009 vs. Mississippi State Bulldogs:

"And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven you."

Romans 1:16
Nov. 21, 2009 vs. Florida International Golden Panthers:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."


stephanie 12-12-2011 11:41 AM

Re: Whitewashing The Civil War
 
I agree with DZ's point here, about the location of the blame for "neo con" attitudes on the CW and our reaction to it -- a reaction that is much more complex than the rah, rah! response suggested -- being misplaced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 234245)
Well, I certainly didn't grow up being brainwashed that the Mexican War or the genocide of American Indians was our greatest moment, but I did grow up being indoctrinated into believing the Civil War and WWII were glorious triumphs that proved the greatness of our national character.

Couple things. One, I think it's important, especially with something like the CW, where there's obviously a variety of ways that it's taught and understood, to avoid assuming that "what I heard about the war growing up" is the sole thing that people hear about it. Especially when a quick look at popular culture would seem to show it's much more complicated which is, in fact, one of the things the original article by TNC was talking about.

Two, perhaps it's presumptuous of me, but I think you are really talking about something else. Not that the CW is taught as an uncomplicated triumph without a tragic element, which is of course not true, but that when discussions about potential wars occur, people quickly start trying to compare the particular conflict to one of the conflicts that are generally accepted by the vast majority of Americans to have been worth it. These are generally encompassed by the Revolution, the CW, and WW2, but the first doesn't generally provide a good comparison, because (a) it's hard to make the British into some "evil" force and (b) (probably more important) it rarely represents a good analogy for something the US wishes to do.

Anyway, as a result of this, it's common for those wishing to defend something like Iraq to go to wars that they assume the people they are talking to will agree were justified, and that means the CW or (much more commonly, IMO) WW2. Where I strongly disagree with you is the idea that this somehow means that the understanding of the CW or WW2 is somehow to blame for the state of mind of those who see Iraq as similar. The problem is that they are bad analogies.

And this gets to the basic disagreement between you and me and probably you and a number of others on this thread. I agree with you that we are too quick to justify the use of force. I also agree that we should be more concerned with the failure to consider ways in which the necessity (and I think it sometimes is a necessity) of force could have been proactively avoided. But I do not agree that force can never be justified. To me, the bigger problem is the broadening of the justifications, the failure to apply a strict rationale. And thus it makes sense to talk about wars like WW2 and the CW to understand why we see them as justified, to be more concrete about what is being said when we say they were worth it.

To go where you are here to a claim that ever seeing a war as a justified war means that one must always and everywhere push for the use of violence as a first resort, must be expansionist in one's use of military action as a foreign policy tool just seems to me to be wrong. The fact is that both sides of any argument over whether force is justified are almost always going to think that WW2 was justified from the Allied perspective. That doesn't suppose a claim that our "celebration" of our victory in WW2 is somehow a poison that has made us all pro-war. It merely recognizes that the vast majority of people aren't pacifists.

Thus, I guess I think with the argument in question you are painting yourself into a corner where the only issue is pacifist or not. I do think there's a place in the discussion, an important one, for those who will force the question of whether we are being too complacent in saying the CW was necessary, WW2 was necessary, who will talk about the tragedy of them, the ways in which they theoretically could have been avoided. Moreover, I don't think that talk re the CW is as uncommon as you seem to. Again, our national understanding of the CW is that it was tragic, among other things, and that it was related to our national sin. (There's some good stuff in Faulkner about this, among other sources.)

But I do think that in claiming that seeing any war as justified makes one a neo con and a proponent of "neo con rhetoric" means that you are defining down what neo con rhetoric is and how it's different than any non-pacifistic rhetoric such as to simplify the discussion into people like you (very few) vs. everyone else. If John Bolton and I are identical, merely because we don't agree with you, it's hardly possible to have a nuanced conversation.

Quote:

I'm not saying the Civil War explains everything (or anything really). I'm just proposing that we look at the entire history of violence in this country (and everywhere else) with a critical and skeptical eye.
I think this is a fair comment. It also reminds me of the discussion elsewhere about the emotional component of violence, that one problem with something like just war theory or an effort to apply ethics to military conflicts is that they assume a level of rationality in application that doesn't really exist. I think those are fair critiques, although I am not ready to toss out efforts to apply strict standards, even though I know they can be abused. I just can get to your position that all use of force must be wrong. In some cases the absence of a defense still seems immoral to me.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.