[Nicodimas]

amphibian, on 06 July 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 06 July 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

I was trying to find it, but didn't the North try to vote in the 1830's to invade the south? That pushed the south off the edge. I always thought?

Good read:
http://www.san.beck....lnCivilWar.html

anyhow moving along..

That's... not a good read.

Also, what you are thinking of regarding the 1830s vote is the Nullification Crisis in which South Carolina tried to resist imposing federal tariffs within the state. SC went as far as getting ready to use militia force and President Jackson threatened to use the US/federal military to stomp that out. The end result was something along the lines of SC imposing reduced tariffs and no actual military force being authorized by Congress or used by President Jackson.

The reasons why SC objected to the tariff almost all revolve around the tariffs making the slavery business model more expensive by going along with the Brits not buying cotton as much and prioritizing the well-being of Northern machine-made goods over Southern slave-produced goods.

So it's not as simple as "the North tried to big-boy the South over taxes". Slavery was a central focus of massive and vicious debate for decades before the Civil War kicked off.

Imagine if Dred Scott went the other way, think that would have kicked it off earlier, or the south would have compromised quicker based off this law. Alt History type stuff.

[Obdigore]

Nicodimas, on 06 July 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

amphibian, on 06 July 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 06 July 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

I was trying to find it, but didn't the North try to vote in the 1830's to invade the south? That pushed the south off the edge. I always thought?

Good read:
http://www.san.beck....lnCivilWar.html

anyhow moving along..

That's... not a good read.

Also, what you are thinking of regarding the 1830s vote is the Nullification Crisis in which South Carolina tried to resist imposing federal tariffs within the state. SC went as far as getting ready to use militia force and President Jackson threatened to use the US/federal military to stomp that out. The end result was something along the lines of SC imposing reduced tariffs and no actual military force being authorized by Congress or used by President Jackson.

The reasons why SC objected to the tariff almost all revolve around the tariffs making the slavery business model more expensive by going along with the Brits not buying cotton as much and prioritizing the well-being of Northern machine-made goods over Southern slave-produced goods.

So it's not as simple as "the North tried to big-boy the South over taxes". Slavery was a central focus of massive and vicious debate for decades before the Civil War kicked off.

Imagine if Dred Scott went the other way, think that would have kicked it off earlier, or the south would have compromised quicker based off this law. Alt History type stuff.

Imagine if the French didn't help the Colonials in their struggle against Britania.

Imagine if the Vikings were able to colonize North America successfully.

Imagine if Ching Shih sailed to North America and colonized it.

Boy I love useless what-if games after you claimed that 1) A Battle Flag of a State that literally wrote they were rebelling from the United States to maintain their slaves, wasn't racist, and that 2) It was a war of 'Northern Aggression'.

Better come on out of your bunker and brush up on your history there, Nico.

[Nicodimas]

Obdigore, on 06 July 2015 - 10:42 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 06 July 2015 - 07:10 PM, said:

amphibian, on 06 July 2015 - 06:51 PM, said:

Nicodimas, on 06 July 2015 - 05:47 PM, said:

I was trying to find it, but didn't the North try to vote in the 1830's to invade the south? That pushed the south off the edge. I always thought?

Good read:
http://www.san.beck....lnCivilWar.html

anyhow moving along..

That's... not a good read.

Also, what you are thinking of regarding the 1830s vote is the Nullification Crisis in which South Carolina tried to resist imposing federal tariffs within the state. SC went as far as getting ready to use militia force and President Jackson threatened to use the US/federal military to stomp that out. The end result was something along the lines of SC imposing reduced tariffs and no actual military force being authorized by Congress or used by President Jackson.

The reasons why SC objected to the tariff almost all revolve around the tariffs making the slavery business model more expensive by going along with the Brits not buying cotton as much and prioritizing the well-being of Northern machine-made goods over Southern slave-produced goods.

So it's not as simple as "the North tried to big-boy the South over taxes". Slavery was a central focus of massive and vicious debate for decades before the Civil War kicked off.

Imagine if Dred Scott went the other way, think that would have kicked it off earlier, or the south would have compromised quicker based off this law. Alt History type stuff.

Imagine if the French didn't help the Colonials in their struggle against Britania.

Imagine if the Vikings were able to colonize North America successfully.

Imagine if Ching Shih sailed to North America and colonized it.

Boy I love useless what-if games after you claimed that 1) A Battle Flag of a State that literally wrote they were rebelling from the United States to maintain their slaves, wasn't racist, and that 2) It was a war of 'Northern Aggression'.

Better come on out of your bunker and brush up on your history there, Nico.

Valid Statement Obdigore for sure.

[HoosierDaddy]

"States Rights" is one of the most obvious dog whistles that exist historically.

[Andorion]

If I remember correctly a law was passed that whatever new states would be formed in the West would be Free states and the cumulative effects of this would be that the Southern states would be in a minority eventually. I seem to remember this being a major factor in the building hostility between the North and the South.

[worry]

I like this idea. Dystopian stories have long needed to be levered out from under the speculative fiction umbrella, and this man has just the right crowbar. No wonder they call him the "smart" brother.
http://abcnews.go.co...ory?id=32313997

[Studlock]

That's--that's an insane thing to say about Americans specifically, whom, if I'm remembering my statistics right, work longer and on average more productive than most of the developed nation counter-parts. Like it's looking at maligned forest, picking the healthiest tree, and saying 'you know what, every other tree is doing fine, but this tree here, well it's not do to well.' (and because metaphors are metaphors I'll state I don't think America's economy is actually a maligned forest).

[Gnaw]

"Wisconsin’s GOP is trying to nix an existing law that requires employers in the manufacturing and retail sectors to give employees at least 24 hours off during each consecutive seven-day period."

http://www.theatlant...tors_picks=true

[Shinrei]

HoosierDaddy, on 07 July 2015 - 12:46 AM, said:

"States Rights" is one of the most obvious dog whistles that exist historically.

I thought I heard something.

[Terez]

I am in Illinois at the moment, but I still follow MS social media (newspapers & stations, etc.) so I have seen some. There was a rally/parade in Biloxi the other day. I wish they would all open carry so we could compare them to ISIS. (Difference being that they already control the territory.) I know most of them have lots of guns. They were open enough with the mud-covered pickup trucks.

[EmperorMagus]

I saw this post on Reddit and thought it would be interesting to share it here. I don't really support any side of this argument as it's none of my business, but it's interesting to hear people's thoughts on it.
A Native American's comments on the Confederate flag

[Terez]

I see that argument a lot. It's not a very good one. At the time we conquered the New World, this kind of racial differentiation to the point of genocide was normal. The USA was nevertheless founded on a principle of equality. It's in our founding documents and it was eventually added to the Constitution itself. We have evolved in our understanding of equality but one might argue that that founding principle has guided us toward ever greater equality. We still have a long way to go.

The Confederacy was explicitly founded on a principle of white supremacy. It's in their founding documents, their Constitution, and the words of their leaders. As Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy said:

Quote

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws.

He specifically contrasted the ideals of the Confederacy with the ideals of the Union. Aside from that, the rebel flag has been the emblem of white supremacy ever since. It has no other meaning. Even those who cite heritage are talking about a heritage of white supremacy, whether or not they admit it.

For all its imperfections, the US is the country we've still got. The Confederacy is gone; waving the flag serves no other purpose than a continued assertion of white supremacy.

[Vengeance]

The confederate flag represents traitors to America. They were defeated at great cost. But they were traitors to the country that they had originally pledged their allegiance. If America had lost the Revolution war do you think that the english government would have allowed for the star and stripes to be flown anywhere. Hell no. No other government allows for flags of traitors to be flown on federal land or in government buildings. China doesn't allow the Tibetan flag to be flown anywhere in Tibet. They lost the war. China won. The rebals of the confederacy lost. In this country we have a strong personal rights. So people can fly the flag of traitors from their porches and pickup trucks. But any government institution be it state or Federal should be looking at Treason Charges. It is honestly that simple.

[Studlock]

Arguable that the USA was founded on 'principle of equality' when its foundational equality involved not recognizing the rights of women, a backbone of slavery, and actions of cultural genocide to establish it. As a First Nation person from Canada I really don't think there's much a difference to what the Confederate battle flag means to those who use and Black Americans and the Stripe & Stars means to those who use it and Native Americans. You can talk about whatever it means but to the people that were destroyed underneath it (and lets not pretend that's over--if I remember correctly Native Americans are routinely the most disadvantaged group in America--colonization is an on-going process in North America) it means something completely different which is the exact same from the Confederate battle flag. It doesn't matter what it's suppose to represent to those you use it proudly (be is white supremacist believes or freedom and equality) , its what it represents to those who have been, or have relatives, who have been harmed underneath that flag.

That being said I'm not defending the Confederate battle flag and think it's a great victory for all those who've spent great amount of time and energy for it to be taken down--I just don't think you can argue that the American flag is actually all that different symbolically--it represents the great expansion westward that was detrimental millions of people.

[Terez]

Studlock, on 15 July 2015 - 03:31 AM, said:

Arguable that the USA was founded on 'principle of equality' when its foundational equality involved not recognizing the rights of women, a backbone of slavery, and actions of cultural genocide to establish it.

Terez, on 14 July 2015 - 06:54 AM, said:

I see that argument a lot. It's not a very good one. At the time we conquered the New World, this kind of racial differentiation to the point of genocide was normal. The USA was nevertheless founded on a principle of equality. It's in our founding documents and it was eventually added to the Constitution itself. We have evolved in our understanding of equality but one might argue that that founding principle has guided us toward ever greater equality. We still have a long way to go.

Studlock, on 15 July 2015 - 03:31 AM, said:

It doesn't matter what it's suppose to represent to those you use it proudly (be is white supremacist believes or freedom and equality) , its what it represents to those who have been, or have relatives, who have been harmed underneath that flag.

That being said I'm not defending the Confederate battle flag and think it's a great victory for all those who've spent great amount of time and energy for it to be taken down--I just don't think you can argue that the American flag is actually all that different symbolically--it represents the great expansion westward that was detrimental millions of people.

The difference is, again, that white supremacy was explicitly a first principle of the Confederacy. It wasn't just a part of the fabric, as it was in pretty much every country, but the proclaimed ethics of that would-be nation. And that's a huge difference.

[Studlock]

@Terez

The key word being proclaim--but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that the Stars & Stripes, despite what it means to Americans (and whatever that may be) can be seen a symbol for Native Americans, just like the Confederate battle flag, despite what it means to the people who hold it dear, can be (and almost always is) a symbol of terror for African Americans. They hold similar value to different groups of people. Symbols don't have inherent value or meaning, the have the meaning we give it. For the Confederate battle flag it has come to be a symbol of white supremacy because that's what those who 'wore' gave it, but that's not why it should be taken down--it should be taken down because it was a symbol of terror for 13 percentage of the population.

I'm not saying you should change the American flag (though gods know it's be changed enough times in its history) but I find it a bit hypocritical to proclaim that the Confederate battle flag stands for white supremacy (which it does, did, and will probably always do) and at the same time claim that the Stars & Stripes doesn't represent the same for millions of people. Its a symbol of terror not because of the proclaim ethics of equality written by a bunch of slave owners who clearly didn't understand the irony but because underneath that flag people here killed, raped, torn from there family, torn from there way of life, and so on.

[Terez]

I disagree; it matters very much what our proclaimed ethics are because what we proclaim shows what we are willing to accept without social consequence, what we embrace vs what we tolerate. The Confederates labeled the ethics of equality to be both illogical and immoral. Their society was intended to prevent progress from ever happening. That was never true in the United States, and that makes all the difference. Even without a war, the Confederacy was doomed by its principles.

The use of the Confederate flag for terrorism is a good reason to remove it from official poles, but it's not the only reason. We have given complex and often conflicting meanings to most of our symbols, but the history of the rebel flag is not very complex or conflicting. It all comes back to one thing: white supremacy.

[Studlock]

And you can rightly argue that the American flag comes down to one thing as well: expansion without remorse.

EDIT: also I think we heavily disagree with what ethics can do and what they can't--I'm not saying America's proclaim ethics are unimportant--it was a highly important thing--but that doesn't mean just because it was written it will be so. I really don't think the ethics outline by the early important pieces of American legislation have informed much of what America as a Nation-State has done. Its good to have 'equality' as a legal precedence but that doesn't mean that it'll be followed. And I'd argue it rarely has from the nations inception to today and even when it was it does not mean that it was effective (the Civil Rights movement won a legal victory not a cultural one). But again that's not what I'm arguing--I'm arguing that the symbol of America is just a violent reminder for Native Americans who have, for the past 250 years have been brutalized by the state, as the symbol for the Confederate is a reminder for African Americans for the same thing. I don't really think its much a jump and I don't we need to start discussing virtue ethics (or something like it) to answer the question.

This post has been edited by Studlock: 15 July 2015 - 11:59 PM

[Terez]

Briar King, on 15 July 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

Are you happy Magnus?

I imagine he feels the same way he did when the deal was first tentatively agreed upon. Maybe not, though.

[EmperorMagus]

Terez, on 15 July 2015 - 11:52 PM, said:

Briar King, on 15 July 2015 - 08:53 PM, said:

Are you happy Magnus?

I imagine he feels the same way he did when the deal was first tentatively agreed upon. Maybe not, though.

Yep. Nothing will change I think. A direct flight from Tehran to Canada would be nice though.