Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2017, 01:06 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 01:17 AM by Szuchow.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 12:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  I think the symbolism is important. No one would argue that it's necessary to keep every statue placed by the third reich for example. Or every statue of Saddam. They have their place in a museum, but not necessarily in a place of honour?

Agreed.

Quote:I used to think as well, that the history was important to preserve, but it's not like anyone's gonna forget that it happened anytime soon.

People are capable of easily forgetting or changing the interpretation of past events to suit their needs. Look for the example of Hungary:

On the Sunday morning of July 20, 2014, police cordoned off Freedom Square while construction workers put the finishing touches on an addition to this urban tableau already brimming with historical tributes: the Memorial to the Victims of the German Occupation. From the moment its construction was announced, following an opaque artistic competition lacking public consultation, it had been the subject of heated dispute. Beginning with its very title, which labels the unimpeded movement of German soldiers onto friendly territory an “occupation,” the memorial absolves Hungarians of complicity in the Holocaust. Depicting the Archangel Gabriel (described in the plans as “the man of God, symbol of Hungary”) under attack from a sharp-clawed German imperial eagle, it portrays the Hungarian nation as a collective victim of Nazi predation. This distortion of history obscures both the specifically anti-Jewish nature of the Holocaust and the Hungarian state’s active collaboration in mass murder. Randolph Braham, professor emeritus at the City University of New York and himself a Hungarian Holocaust survivor, writes about the role played by Hungarian authorities in the crime: “With Horthy still at the helm and providing the symbol of national sovereignty, the approximately 200,000 Hungarian policemen, gendarmes, civil servants, and ‘patriotic’ volunteers had collaborated in the anti-Jewish drive with a routine and efficiency that impressed even the relatively few SS who had served as ‘advisors.’ ” So able and willing were the Nazis’ Hungarian accomplices that Adolf Eichmann, the SS official in charge of deporting the country’s Jews to the death camps, managed to oversee the gruesome task with just 200 Germans at his command.[James Kirchick, The End of Europe, chapter 2 Hungary: Democracy without Democrats, EPUB edition, 2017].

ETA: It's not only Hungary and not only now. Dwight D. Eisenhower said in 1951 that he don't believe that German soldier lost his honor. Perhaps he forgot who aggressor was or wasn't fully aware of atrocities committed by German army but it shows that people are fully capable of "forgetting" or rather changing the interpretation of events to suit their needs quite quickly.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 01:53 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(03-07-2017 01:27 PM)adey67 Wrote:  So this guy is trying to say that the slave regiments that were as they were slaves forced to fight for a confederacy are somehow justification for his sick position ? He can fuck right off in my opinion.
Excuse me? What exactly do you think my "sick position" is? If you think it's that I think slavery is ethical you're dead wrong. Slavery is never ever justified or justifiable under any circumstance.

That does not mean that I cannot understand how someone who came to the (false) conclusion that ending the mass evil of slavery would lead to the mass evil of poverty would be conflicted.

The point I am making about the slave regiments is, what idiot thinks its a good idea to beat an individual on a regular basis then give them a gun? What conditions might have prevailed for the beaten individual not to have immediately turn the gun on said slave master?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 03:21 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 01:53 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 01:27 PM)adey67 Wrote:  So this guy is trying to say that the slave regiments that were as they were slaves forced to fight for a confederacy are somehow justification for his sick position ? He can fuck right off in my opinion.
Excuse me? What exactly do you think my "sick position" is? If you think it's that I think slavery is ethical you're dead wrong. Slavery is never ever justified or justifiable under any circumstance.

That does not mean that I cannot understand how someone who came to the (false) conclusion that ending the mass evil of slavery would lead to the mass evil of poverty would be conflicted.

The point I am making about the slave regiments is, what idiot thinks its a good idea to beat an individual on a regular basis then give them a gun? What conditions might have prevailed for the beaten individual not to have immediately turn the gun on said slave master?
Well it did kinda sound like that a bit but I'm glad to hear its not the case. Are you sure those regiments were actually armed ? it took a lot of pressure for the 54th Mass to get proper equipment and a combat role and they were a union regiment, I can't imagine the confederacy arming black units but my history isn't brilliant so I could be wrong.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 05:56 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 03:21 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 01:53 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Excuse me? What exactly do you think my "sick position" is? If you think it's that I think slavery is ethical you're dead wrong. Slavery is never ever justified or justifiable under any circumstance.

That does not mean that I cannot understand how someone who came to the (false) conclusion that ending the mass evil of slavery would lead to the mass evil of poverty would be conflicted.

The point I am making about the slave regiments is, what idiot thinks its a good idea to beat an individual on a regular basis then give them a gun? What conditions might have prevailed for the beaten individual not to have immediately turn the gun on said slave master?
Well it did kinda sound like that a bit but I'm glad to hear its not the case. Are you sure those regiments were actually armed ? it took a lot of pressure for the 54th Mass to get proper equipment and a combat role and they were a union regiment, I can't imagine the confederacy arming black units but my history isn't brilliant so I could be wrong.

Yes they were armed. A book that I cannot recommend enough is a renegade history of the untied states. It's not one of those boring history books and it has a lot of good information in it and is well researched by an actual historian. In reference to history of black regiments I will need to go through my library to find titles but it may take a while because it's not well organized. If you ask though I will look for them.

I am not going to say that slaves weren't beaten and raped. I will say that both happened much less than is portrayed. Slave owners were constantly concerned about slave revolts, and it was not uncommon for female slaves to kill both slave masters, and overseers who raped them. I tend to think that one of the reasons why beatings were tolerated (to a point) by slaves is explained when we considered this occurred when it was common to beat your children as a form of punishment. I say to a point because slaves would punish overseers and slave owners if beatings were considered "unjustified" or "excessive". They would do this either by running away for weeks or months at a time, or in the more extreme cases slave revolts in which overseers, and masters were killed to a one.

Remember that the slaves outnumbered free landowners so slave revolts would have been a real fear, especially in the countryside.
I will also point to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Limber]Jim Limber Davis[url] which is an unforgivable tragedy for which I will always despise and hate Lincoln.
Wikipedi Wrote:In 2008, the Sons of Confederate Veterans offered a $100,000 statue of Jefferson Davis to the American Civil War Center in Richmond. A life-sized Jim Limber is depicted on the statue, holding one hand of a life sized Jefferson Davis who is holding the hand of his son Joseph with the other hand. The statue was completed in fall 2008[7][8] and while it was initially accepted by the center, the deal quickly fell through and is now on permanent display at [9] Beauvoir, Davis' Mississippi home
This is one of the monuments which would be destroyed.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 06:05 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(03-07-2017 12:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(01-07-2017 11:09 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  This is a yankee misconception. It's like saying that the "rebel" flag is a racist flag, or a symbol of racism. I find this particularly humorous when Yankee's see black southerners with a confederate flag https://www.youtube.com/embed/snGlGGvsB0s . or when they learn about Jim Limber Davis or about blacks who fought for the south.

I am in no way making a justification for slavery. I am however sick and tired of this narrative that all or even most southerners owned slaves. This is in itself a bigoted view, and a distortion of history.

The monuments are not about the glorification of slavery, rather it's about honoring those who died defending their homes. Again most of those who fought and died did not own slaves.

They were defending a system which demanded that slavery be continued, at a time the entire world was rejecting it. Slavery WAS the primary cause of the Civil War. Trying to re-write history as something else, is dishonest.

http://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-w...myths.html

The monuments are glorifying a political system and the people who sought to SAVE that system, which approved of the enslavement of other human beings.

I also think taking down the monuments is bad. Not for the reasons generally given but because trying to re-write history and pretending these events never happened, and trying to forget how HEINOUS slavery was, and its APPROVAL by these states' governments is shameful, and should never be forgotten.

BTW, the war between the North and the South WAS about slavery.
All one has to do is actually READ the secession documents from the states. SLAVERY is named in them as the primary or one of the primary, causes for secession .
Lets lok at how Yankee's have rewritten history about race and slavery
race laws

lynching

race riot

Abraham Lincoln Tax not Slave war

More Lincoln

And my personal favorite

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." Lincoln didn't care one fig about slaves or slavery. What he did care about was the continued centralization of power, and he feared what the break up of the US would mean for that centralization. The republican party was and remains a Nationalist party.

And one more thing. Not everyone who is white now was always considered white.
[Image: Scientific_racism_irish.jpg]
The text:
An illustration from the H. Strickland Constable's Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View shows an alleged similarity between "Irish Iberian" and "Negro" features in contrast to the higher "Anglo-Teutonic." The accompanying caption reads "The Iberians are believed to have been originally an African race, who thousands of years ago spread themselves through Spain over Western Europe. Their remains are found in the barrows, or burying places, in sundry parts of these countries. The skulls are of low prognathous type. They came to Ireland and mixed with the natives of the South and West, who themselves are supposed to have been of low type and descendants of savages of the Stone Age, who, in consequence of isolation from the rest of the world, had never been out-competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races."
[url=An illustration from the H. Strickland Constable's Ireland from One or Two Neglected Points of View shows an alleged similarity between "Irish Iberian" and "Negro" features in contrast to the higher "Anglo-Teutonic." The accompanying caption reads "The Iberians are believed to have been originally an African race, who thousands of years ago spread themselves through Spain over Western Europe. Their remains are found in the barrows, or burying places, in sundry parts of these countries. The skulls are of low prognathous type. They came to Ireland and mixed with the natives of the South and West, who themselves are supposed to have been of low type and descendants of savages of the Stone Age, who, in consequence of isolation from the rest of the world, had never been out-competed in the healthy struggle of life, and thus made way, according to the laws of nature, for superior races."] Origin[/url]]

http://www.theroot.com/when-the-irish-we...1793358754
https://theundefeated.com/features/white...cceptable/

And finally William Ellison
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 06:13 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 06:16 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(03-07-2017 08:29 PM)epronovost Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 10:56 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  So what finally ended slavery elsewhere? Industrialization.

Actually, slavery did ended through armed conflict in other places, especially in Africa. More than industrialization, its revolutions that brought the end of slavery. While not as dramatic as the American Civil War, these were violent conflicts. Industrialisation severely weakenned slavery as an economical structure, but never destroyed it completly. Changes to fundamental political and economical structures were always necessary and these changes are almost always violent. It's true though that economical disparities between Northern and Southern States are extremely important in how slavery came to an end (officially) in the US.

I will need to go back and check because I believe I specified the Western world. Also slavery still occurs on a large scale in Africa and the middle east. I will check on your claim that slavery was ended in (at least parts) of Africa by violent conflict. It is down on my list however because I have about a dozen things I need to do and it's going to take time to actually dig into the facts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 06:52 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 05:56 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 03:21 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Well it did kinda sound like that a bit but I'm glad to hear its not the case. Are you sure those regiments were actually armed ? it took a lot of pressure for the 54th Mass to get proper equipment and a combat role and they were a union regiment, I can't imagine the confederacy arming black units but my history isn't brilliant so I could be wrong.

Yes they were armed. A book that I cannot recommend enough is a renegade history of the untied states. It's not one of those boring history books and it has a lot of good information in it and is well researched by an actual historian. In reference to history of black regiments I will need to go through my library to find titles but it may take a while because it's not well organized. If you ask though I will look for them.

I am not going to say that slaves weren't beaten and raped. I will say that both happened much less than is portrayed. Slave owners were constantly concerned about slave revolts, and it was not uncommon for female slaves to kill both slave masters, and overseers who raped them. I tend to think that one of the reasons why beatings were tolerated (to a point) by slaves is explained when we considered this occurred when it was common to beat your children as a form of punishment. I say to a point because slaves would punish overseers and slave owners if beatings were considered "unjustified" or "excessive". They would do this either by running away for weeks or months at a time, or in the more extreme cases slave revolts in which overseers, and masters were killed to a one.

Remember that the slaves outnumbered free landowners so slave revolts would have been a real fear, especially in the countryside.
I will also point to [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Limber]Jim Limber Davis[url] which is an unforgivable tragedy for which I will always despise and hate Lincoln.
Wikipedi Wrote:In 2008, the Sons of Confederate Veterans offered a $100,000 statue of Jefferson Davis to the American Civil War Center in Richmond. A life-sized Jim Limber is depicted on the statue, holding one hand of a life sized Jefferson Davis who is holding the hand of his son Joseph with the other hand. The statue was completed in fall 2008[7][8] and while it was initially accepted by the center, the deal quickly fell through and is now on permanent display at [9] Beauvoir, Davis' Mississippi home
This is one of the monuments which would be destroyed.

Interesting stuff I've definitely learned something thanks for taking the time to post, and sorry for the misunderstanding earlier.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 06:59 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(03-07-2017 08:55 PM)Dom Wrote:  I am against any and all attempts to wipe out history.

Destroying historic buildings/statues or whatever deprives future generations of tangible remnants of times gone by.

Agreed.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 07:10 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 12:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  I used to think as well, that the history was important to preserve, but it's not like anyone's gonna forget that it happened anytime soon.

Oh yes, they are. They have forgotten all about suffragettes being thrown in jail and beaten for asking to be allowed to vote. They have obviously forgotten all about Hitler or we would not have trump.

Without tangible remnants it all becomes abstract. Many people don't do abstract. The feeling of it, the Zeitgeist, gets lost and the actual impact of events goes with it.

The spirit of slavery needs to be preserved, the stupid pride portrayed in statues and such will be more and more obvious to future generations trying to relate. It doesn't matter whether history was winning or losing, beautiful or ugly, right or wrong, it needs to be preserved and not white washed or altered in any way.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 09:59 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 10:02 AM by epronovost.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 06:13 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I will need to go back and check because I believe I specified the Western world. Also slavery still occurs on a large scale in Africa and the middle east. I will check on your claim that slavery was ended in (at least parts) of Africa by violent conflict. It is down on my list however because I have about a dozen things I need to do and it's going to take time to actually dig into the facts.

Trading blockades were imposed by the British Empire on the King of Lagos, the biggest slaver king of Africa. Slave traders were considered as pirates by the british navy captured over 1600 ships in 60 years of operation and destroying three forteresses where this now illegal trade was based. The anti-slavery movement was even a driving force of the colonisation of Africa at the end of the 19th and the beginning if the 20th century. It was integral to the ''White men burden''. You can also count the first and second Barbary Wars which were directed to stop the slave trade of white people exercised by those ''pirates''. In France, the French Revolution abolished slavery which was then restaured by Napoleon and was then re-abolished after the third French Revolution of 1848. The conflict between democracy and monarchy was central to the abolition of slavery in France. Hope this can help you a little bit.

As a little reminder, I would like to mention that slavery is still rather common in Nigeria, India and Mauritania despite the fact that its illegal. There is also around 15 000 slaves in the United States, most of them girls sold as sex slaves. Slavery, especially sex slavery, is the fastest growing global criminal enterprise.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: