Atraveller
Banned
Slaves or no slaves? It's a simple yes/no question, what the fuck is a "not sure"?
Enough do
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
81% of Democrats support Tubman on the $20, 34% of Republicans.
- Thread starter ItWasMeantToBe19
- Start date
- Status
brainchild
Banned
Well, to be fair, the question wasn't exactly 'slaves or no slaves'. Maybe some of them hadn't brushed up on their history?
Still, the results from that survey are absolutely horrifying. Can you imagine if slavery was made legal again?!
I have a hard time believing that 12% of Ben Carson supporters think blacks should still be slaves. Pretty sure they're just people who don't have a clue about history and answer whatvever... right?
I nominate David Bowie as Tesla from the Prestige. We get a scientist and David Bowie! 2 birds!
All black people look the same to racist Republicans man.
Benjamin Franklin already on the bills.
And Harriet invented "Come with me if you want to live."
exmachina64
Banned
"I'm not sure, were they happier back then?"
Maybe I want Tony Stark or Elon Musk to replace Ben Franklin.
Speak for yourself. I'm American and I'm not fine with worshipping Andrew Jackson and I don't think our history is all roses. And obviously other Americans agree as they had a movement to change some of the idols on the bill out.
I'm not against keeping flawed people on the money if they are significant and their views were mostly a product of their times. But Andrew Jackson was a monster by any standard. Tubman by contrast was a voice for reason.
Again I don't think we need to ensure that everybody who gets the honor is up to our 21st century progressive standards (nobody back then was) but Jackson really needs to go. It's shameful he's lasted as long as has/will.
Again I don't think we need to ensure that everybody who gets the honor is up to our 21st century progressive standards (nobody back then was) but Jackson really needs to go. It's shameful he's lasted as long as has/will.
Irobot82
Member
Enough do
One is an online poll that offers no proof people are actually republicans or democrats and one is an image with no source data, and we're treating it as gospel? Cool.
And all the news stories about how the GOP wants to regulate where people shit is sufficient examples of evilness?
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2...-of-south-carolina-republicans-is-terrifying/
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/nh-exit-poll-muslim-ban-should-have-people-worried
Yeah I'm sure they're all democrats. All the Hillary and Bernie voters at my polling place were decked out on Confederate memorabilia and talking in coded language. So weird that black folks would be such heavy supporter of people who wish they were still in chains. Especially when the right is just stacked with people who are working to right the wrongs of the past.
You'd have to be asleep for the last 50 years not to see the racist connotations and rhetoric which infest the Republican party of today. They barely try and cover it up these days. So sure find a better source, but as far as I'm concerned these polls are akin to reading a study telling me morbid obesity isn't path to prolonged life.
The Artisan
Member
we got her on the dollar coin! but it would be dope for more native americans. this country doesn't do enough for them imo.
Understatement of the century.
I think a lot of the denialism comes from people who are fiscally conservative at their core, but not aligned with the plantation owner mentality of the leadership. They don't want to face the fact that the party which shares their prefered financial model as a core building block is also home to a massive number of bigots. So they pretend they don't exist. If they didn't maintain that bubble it would lead many of them to wonder if the conservative economic agenda they support might in fact be a means to an end that isn't the bootstrap centric utopia for all they unconvincingly claim.
Afterall if many of the people who support this structure for social movement think abolishing slavery wasn't really essential during/after the war, then could they really be that concerned about the less privileged? Wouldn't that sort of suggest the goal isn't for a more productive society that benefits hard work alone?
Nobody with a shred of decency wants to feel responsible for propping up a racist system because they were more comfortable with selective examination and blind obedience. That's why there are still people who aren't willing to draw the clear connection between a sexist, racist, christianity first closet-confederacy that runs the right, with the policies they devised to ensure they stay on top.
The Artisan
Member
so is that you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
Agreeing
Aaron Strife
Banned
I could see it very well.
They'd say Carson is just "one of the good ones." We won't enslave every black person, just the thugs, you know?
LQX
Member
This is so ridiculous as it sort of implies you have sort prove your devotion. And how exactly do "fans" prove they're really "fans"? Prince is a universal icon in the music world for many but like many older Legends he has not had huge mainstream song in years so course you are not going to find people constantly talking about him all the time but that should be taken as them not being true fans. Come on.
The Artisan
Member
brainchild
Banned
I think you misunderstood me. I don't expect anyone to prove their devotion; that would be ridiculous. I'm just saying, support for Prince has never been very positively vocal in the mainstream (aside from him being a great artist). He has always been seen as this weird androgynous human being that people couldn't understand.
Now that he's dead, everyone is talking about how much of a great person he was. It's just a little frustrating to me, because as someone who's admired and followed him for decades, I'm looking at this instant evolution of public opinion of Prince change right before my very eyes.
LQX
Member
No way dude. No way. Prince was Prince. Prince as ALWAYS been in his own lane and I think by large most took him for what he was so I'm not buying you saying support for him was not positive. If people had issues with him it was because he sort of kept his music captive from us. It was very hard to get a hold of his music via streaming and on sites like YouTube. But outside of that I cant say I remember a recurrence of him being slandered by people or the media like say Micheal Jackson.
Also, I think Prince was sort of a recluse. Only in the past few years have we been seeing more of him which is why when he showed up for events people were or sort of shocked if not in awe. So yeah, I think your arguments falls flat. Prince was admired and loved by a lot of more people than you think. Sure his death made them more vocal but that is to be expected.
brainchild
Banned
I'm not saying that support for him wasn't positive. I'm saying that that positive support wasn't very vocal; it was not very noticeable (at least, to me), aside for the admiration of his artistry.
I should also say that negative impressions of him weren't all that vocal either, but from what I remember from decades ago until now, I've noticed more of his weirdness being vocalized than his greatness (again, whenever they weren't talking about him as an artist).
But this is getting WAY off topic now, so I digress.
AnotherNils
Member
They should put Grant meeting Lee at Appomattox on the back.
Big Green Anus
Member
I agree that the party switched bases in the 1960s, but does that mean FDR would be a Republican similar to how Lincoln would be a Democrat today??
FDR would be rejected by both parties for what he did today honestly. He's a weird one. Too racist and warhawky for modern Dems, too communist for modern GOP.
Enough do
It isn't the least bit surprising to see Donald Trump supporters are the most likely ones to say they wish the south won. Not all Donald Trump supporters are white supremacists, but all white supremacists are Donald Trump supporters.
Pass the word down to Ann Coulter
Regginator
Member
can you blame them? why would you want to have anything else than an old white male?
brainchild
Banned
Careful there. Not all satire is ToS friendly.
AaronB
Member
Conservatives tend to be reluctant to change, and have a reverence for the office of the Presidency in general (unless they are from the opposing party within living memory); they also have different views of merit. A conservative approach would be something like starting with a particular worthy person and saying "This person deserves to be added to a denomination of currency." If on the flip side you say "hey, let's get rid of this president and put a woman on the 20; not any particular woman, we'll just figure that out later", it's not hard to predict that's going to rub conservatives the wrong way.
The Civil War poll is not what some people are portraying it as. The poll was not "should enslavement of blacks be reinstated?" If you get a lot of "yes" answers to that, you can call them out. People have different views of what the Civil War represented, and it was far from being only a war to end slavery.
The Civil War poll is not what some people are portraying it as. The poll was not "should enslavement of blacks be reinstated?" If you get a lot of "yes" answers to that, you can call them out. People have different views of what the Civil War represented, and it was far from being only a war to end slavery.
Slavery was specifically the reason stated by the southern states for leaving in their goodbye letters to the Union.
Their Constitution, copied from the US one, added phrases and lines that said "fuck black people in particular". This is a good breakdown:
http://www.jjmccullough.com/CSA.htm
Attempting to minimize slavery as the reason for the Civil War is revisionist history. And even every other reason leads back to slavery.
"State's rights?" The right to slavery was the State Right the war was about, in that case.
Federal overreach? The CSA Consitution actually expanded the federal government's power and made the President even more powerful, and specifically said the states could control slaves.
They even specifically defined slaves as being black persons ONLY. The original Constitution actually does not specify what races can be slaves. The Confederate government went out of their way and made it illegal to have a white person as a slave, made black persons the only legal slaves, and made it so no law or amendment could be passed to banish slavery.
Finally, the Cornerstone speech by one their leaders specifically, with no room for re-interpretation, canonically makes the Confederacy about slavery and white supremacy:
Cornerstone Speech said:
The Civil War was about slavery.
AaronB
Member
The South cited slavery when leaving, but that didn't start the Civil War. The war occurred when the North decided not to let them secede. So, the relevant question is why the North did not allow the South to secede. Lincoln explicitly said that he intended to maintain the union whether that meant freeing the slaves or not. He also supported the Corwin amendment, which would have prevented the federal government from ever interfering with slavery (which ironically would have probably been ratified if the South hadn't seceded).
Can you even imagine the North (or Lincoln specifically) saying "Sure, you guys are free to separate and form your own nation. We don't care about the tax revenues or anything else, but we only insist that you free your slaves first?"
Leatherface
Member
I don't see why this is such a big controversy. Harriet Tubman symbolizes what America should represent and is a true hero. We should be proud of this! Nobody gave a flying shit about Jackson previously, now it's a big deal?
Clockwork5
Member
But I thought all republicans were racists.
Dash_Riprock
Member
AaronB
Member
@Toxi Fort Sumter is your argument? The Confederacy declared independence; the North refused to abandon its fort in the middle of a major Confederate port, If the North were interested in a peaceful separation, they could easily have left. The South even offered to pay for seized federal property. Instead, Lincoln intentionally provoked a conflict by declaring that he would resupply the fort, and then claim the other side was the aggressor for attacking the fort. He then called for troops to restore the union (not, I might add, free the slaves). All this is clear in your own link.
stump sock
Member
oh good we've entered the "War of Northern Aggression" portion of this thread
I can't think of any conflict in recorded history where citizens of a nation form their own in response to the changing of society they did not agree with, and that country simply allowed them to essentially commit treason against their citizenship.
Why the fuck would the federal government just allow the southern states, that ratified the United States Constitution, just leave because they didn't like the rules?
You have not actually given a decent reason why the US was obligated to give up Fort Sumter.
The South offered to pay; the US was perfectly within their rights to refuse that offer.
And yes, attacking the fort does make the Confederacy the aggressor.
oh good we've entered the "War of Northern Aggression" portion of this thread
Revisionist history is so fascinating, reading this shit after the Armenian Genocide thread (With a real live denier/nationalist being banned) and having just celebrated Anzac day in Australia (People get real weird about how perfect our military history is) it sorta feels like I'm living in the twilight zone.
Why are people so nuts when it comes to messed up things their state/country/whatever did in the past
I agree that misinformation disseminated over especially the last 70 years has led some major confusion and would agree we can't decisively say everybody who said the south should win or are unsure are dyed in the wool racists.
But it's foolish to think that more than a small number of people who otherwise support equal rights have been totally caught up in the revisionism to the point where they don't think it was one of the major reasons.
And while you're right it wasn't solely a war to end slavery I wouldn't be as bold as you to say it was "far" from being just about that institution. Bless their souls the folks who proudly declared their intentions at the time were quite keen to point out in the documents of secession that it was in I believe all but one case listed by the states as a reason, and by most either placed first or more directly stated it as the point where their participation in the union was no longer tenable.
AaronB
Member
Governments don't generally want to let territory go under circumstances. It's just convenient in this case that the part that wanted to secede also had slavery, so that can be used as justification of why they are bad and the war was just. The New England states with the strongest abolitionist movements had considered seceding earlier because they couldn't stand to be in the same union with slave states. That would have really thrown these arguments into new light.
My view is that people have a right to self determination. If a country wants to leave a multi-national alliance they can. If a region of a country feels that their interests are not being served, they can separate as well. It's unfortunate that this view gets tainted by the south's holding of slaves, but there are and have been all kinds of secession movements, and massive centralization of large states and empires has led to many evils and bloodshed as well.
The North was obligated to give up Fort Sumter if they had any interest in a peaceful secession. My argument was that they did not. You don't maintain a fort within a key port of another country unless you can bully or bribe them into accepting it. That's the American way.
Dash_Riprock
Member
Can't believe we have a CSA apologist here on GAF. Next thing we'll have Holocaust Deniers.
The US was obligated to give up Fort Sumter because the Confederacy attacking it was an inevitability? That's such a ridiculous argument.
The Confederacy could have done many things. Fort Sumter was not hindering them. They chose instead to attack and start the bloodiest war in this country's history. That you can look at the battle of Fort Sumter and see the US as the "aggressors" boggles my mind. Because of what? They maintained a military base that was originally on their own property? And that makes them the aggressors over the people who attacked said military base?
If your view is that people have a right to self-determination, you cannot condone the existence of a government built on the ultimate denial of self-determination: Slavery.
Version 3.0
Member
It would indeed. Had some northern states been the first to attempt to secede, who knows how history would have played out? But that's not what happened. "What might have been" can raise interesting questions, but it doesn't prove much.
The question at hand is, "Was the Civil War about slavery, or was is about states' rights (to secede)?".
That's a misleading question, since the stated reason for secession was slavery. Had the states been seceding because tobacco was found to cause cancer and outlawed, then it would be perfectly correct to say the war was fought over tobacco.
Like any oversimplification, of course the reality is more nuanced, and states' rights was a factor. But to say the war was fought over states' rights, not mentioning slavery, is like saying a hitman's victim was killed "for money" rather than exploring why the hitman was hired.
- Status