Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-07-2017, 10:43 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 11:10 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 11:17 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 06:05 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(03-07-2017 12:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

Let's not. All totally 100% irrelevant.
The QUESTION at hand, was what the Civil War was caused by and fought over.
Nice try at deflection and changing the subject.
The Southern States SAID why they were (trying) to leave to Union. We can READ those documents now.
Try harder.

BTW I see the "quotes" are too difficult for you, (the above post). Try to remove some, so people can read what you wrote, without having to "reply" to see it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-07-2017, 11:26 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(29-06-2017 09:13 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote:  http://www.cnn.com/2017/05/22/politics/s...index.html

Quote:4(CNN)A Mississippi Republican lawmaker has apologized after calling for the lynching of politicians who approve of the removal of Confederate monuments.

State Rep. Karl Oliver expressed his frustration over the weekend with a growing movement to get rid of monuments that critics say celebrate slavery.
"The destruction of these monuments, erected in the loving memory of our family and fellow Southern Americans, is both heinous and horrific," he posted on Facebook Saturday. "If the, and I use this term extremely loosely, 'leadership' of Louisiana wishes to, in a Nazi-ish fashion, burn books or destroy historical monuments of OUR HISTORY, they should be LYNCHED!"

Where are the calls for him to resign? This fucker needs to be out. Also, it's amusing how closely the Christofascist worldview resembles that of ISIS, or Saudi Arabia.

While agreeing that this guy is a douchebag, I have to question the thread title. What does any of this have to do with Christ, or religion in general? There is nothing anti-religious about wanting to take down the monuments, and nothing religious about wanting to keep them. During the Civil War, the leaders and soldiers on the North side of the conflict were probably as likely to be Christian as those on the South side. This issue might illustrate Republican racism (or, more accurately, the racism of one individual who happens to be Republican), but I don't get "Christofascism".

Huh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
04-07-2017, 11:43 AM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(01-07-2017 11:09 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  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.

Apparently quite a few Southerners don't agree with that. THEY are the ones taking these down. Not Yankees.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
04-07-2017, 11:46 AM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 11:51 AM by BlkFnx.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
Quote:Let's not. All totally 100% irrelevant.
The QUESTION at hand, was what the Civil War was caused by and fought over.
Nice try at deflection and changing the subject.
The Southern States SAID why they were (trying) to leave to Union. We can READ those documents now.
Try harder.

BTW I see the "quotes" are too difficult for you, (the above post). Try to remove some, so people can read what you wrote, without having to "reply" to see it.

Allow me to quote Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural ""I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,""

Lincoln declared war to collect taxes in his two presidential war proclamations against the Confederate States, on April 15 and 19th, 1861: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein."

On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)." (Paragraphs 5-8)

***
Let me use an analogy.

Abe and Jeff live together. Jeff decides that he is tired of Abe's controlling ways and being hit with increasing rent and unfair fees so he goes to Abe and says "I'm moving out. And oh ya I have a right to keep slaves.". Abe then walks up to Jeff and says "I don't give a shit if you have slaves. You have to keep living here and paying me rent and whatever other fees I come up with" then he punches Jeff in the face. Who started the fight? What caused the fight? and what was the fight over?

Abe threw the first punch. He explicitly said he didn't give a shit about slavery. He also said he started the fight because he was going to loose the revenue from Jeff. How can the fight be over slavery if Abe explicitly said he didn't care if Jeff had slaves?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 12:03 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 12:07 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 11:46 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Allow me to quote Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural ""I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so

Great. Then why did the STATES say that was the reason they were seceding in their secession documents ?

Quote:Lincoln declared war to collect taxes in his two presidential war proclamations against the Confederate States, on April 15 and 19th, 1861: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein."

Exactly. And WHY was that impossible ? They SAID why they were leaving the Union.

Quote:On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)." (Paragraphs 5-8)

Let's read the WHOLE thing, shall we, NOT just the small part you want us to see.
http://web.archive.org/web/2009020118534...carsec.asp

Quote:Let me use an analogy.

Abe and Jeff live together. Jeff decides that he is tired of Abe's controlling ways and being hit with increasing rent and unfair fees so he goes to Abe and says "I'm moving out. And oh ya I have a right to keep slaves.". Abe then walks up to Jeff and says "I don't give a shit if you have slaves. You have to keep living here and paying me rent and whatever other fees I come up with" then he punches Jeff in the face. Who started the fight? What caused the fight? and what was the fight over?

Abe threw the first punch. He explicitly said he didn't give a shit about slavery. He also said he started the fight because he was going to loose the revenue from Jeff.

Your Abe and Jeff tale is the fallacy of the false analogy. The reasons are obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain.
The STATES declared in their secession documents why they were doing so. All your attempts to find other shit to pin it on, are pathetic revisionism.
The economic system of the South was based on slavery. It HAD to end, one way or another, sooner or later. Southern culture has demonstrated time and again their resistance to equality, over and over again. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 19th Century, and the 20th Century.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 12:14 PM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 12:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 11:46 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Allow me to quote Abraham Lincoln's first inaugural ""I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so

Great. Then why did the STATES say that was the reason they were seceding in their secession documents ?

Quote:Lincoln declared war to collect taxes in his two presidential war proclamations against the Confederate States, on April 15 and 19th, 1861: "Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has broken out and the laws of the United States for the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein."

Exactly. And WHY was that impossible ? They SAID why they were leaving the Union.

Quote:On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)." (Paragraphs 5-8)

Let's read the WHOLE thing, shall we, NOT just the small part you want us to see.
http://web.archive.org/web/2009020118534...carsec.asp

Quote:Let me use an analogy.

Abe and Jeff live together. Jeff decides that he is tired of Abe's controlling ways and being hit with increasing rent and unfair fees so he goes to Abe and says "I'm moving out. And oh ya I have a right to keep slaves.". Abe then walks up to Jeff and says "I don't give a shit if you have slaves. You have to keep living here and paying me rent and whatever other fees I come up with" then he punches Jeff in the face. Who started the fight? What caused the fight? and what was the fight over?

Abe threw the first punch. He explicitly said he didn't give a shit about slavery. He also said he started the fight because he was going to loose the revenue from Jeff.

Your Abe and Jeff tale is the fallacy of the false analogy. The reasons are obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain.
The STATES declared in their secession documents why they were doing so. All your attempts to find other shit to pin it on, are pathetic revisionism.
The economic system of the South was based on slavery. It HAD to end, one way or another, sooner or later. Southern culture has demonstrated time and again their resistance to equality, over and over again. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 19th Century, and the 20th Century.
I am not saying that slavery was not a reason. It wa not however the only reason why jeff moved out. What i am saying is if the guy who started the fight is saying he doesn't give a shit about slavery. Then the fight cannot be said to be about slavery. Again part of the reason jeff decided to move out was motivated by slavery. It still doesn't mean the fight was about slavery.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 12:54 PM (This post was last modified: 04-07-2017 01:53 PM by epronovost.)
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 10:43 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Okay so with this last you just tripped my bullshit detector. First the only reason sex slavery is able to flourish at all is because prostitution is criminalized.

Of course it is. If prostitution was legal, destigmatised and well regulated, there would be very little room for sex slavery outside of child prostitution.

(04-07-2017 10:43 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  That being said I in no way want to ignore the fact that there is genuine sex slavery. I'm going to call bullshit on that statistic in the US. Yes I have actually read the hard study (or one damn close to it) and the way they come to that number is through some very clever manipulation. If you are a prostitute you are more or less lumped into that number.

Saying that pretty much all prostitutes are lumped in this statistic is completly, outrageously false. There are around a million sex workers in the US, only 15 000 of which could be classified as sex slaves. That's a tiny fraction of the overall population of sex workers.

(04-07-2017 10:43 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  As far as "girls" go the way the data is manipulated is actually even worse. I don't know if you remember that huge scandal that was all over the news a few years ago of under age (12-17) year old girls who were prostituting themselves to be able to go out and buy designer cloths and hand bags. Again they are also counted in there as well.

Of course they should be counted! We are talking of teenager girls who have very little if no experience of intimate relationship, very litlle knowledge of sex itself and still not even fully developped intellectually. These girls were bribed by fancy fashion objects. They were the most classic victims of adults using bribes to manipulate teenagers to their own end. Even if there were no prior manipulation if a 15 years old girl tells you ''I will suck you off for $100'' your answer should be ''girl you need help'' not ''sure!''. Age of concent exist for a reason and its to avoid immature teenagers to make dangerously stupid decisions based on partial knowledge of an issue biased by disparity in a power based relationship.

(04-07-2017 10:43 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Then there is the LGBTQ minors. Usually males who are between 14-17 who have been kicked out of their homes and ended up on the street. They often turn to prostitution because it is a quick and easy way to make money and it is illegal to get a job without parental consent. but again this is not really a subject you want to get me started on.

Fortunately (sort off), they are relatively few in numbers even within the numbers of sex slaves who are 80% adult women. Sadly, LGBTQ persons are much more vulnerable to sex trafic, poverty and crime than a cisgender person. It's also good to note that this constitute child abandonment and is criminal in most country in the world.

(04-07-2017 10:43 AM)BlkFnx Wrote:  Yes, absolutely there are those even here in the US that are forced into sex work. The solution for this however is a simple one. Decriminalize sex work, and at the very least reduce restriction on minors so they can get jobs, along with making it easier to emancipate.

On that, we completly agree, provided it's done correctly and with a system of check and balance to make sure slavery doesn't disguise itself a bit like it did during the early 20th century in monoindustrial towns were employees were paying rent to their company and could only buy from corporate stores, making them completly dependant of their employers.

PS: While discussions on modern day slavery are interesting, I think they are unrelated to this thread and we should focus more on the American Civil War. On that subject, I would say that slavery did played an important role in the American Civil War, but indeed cannot be considered exclusively responsible for the conflict. Socio-economical disparities between the Northern and Southern States, a multitude of disagreements, some of which burried in a distant past, are also responsible for the onset of the conflict. Yet, I do think that the war did crystalised itlsef around the issue of slavery which became a symbol and central point of all the issues between Northern and Southern States. In posterity, the conflict most major impact was to put an end to slavery. In no way did it solve the socio-economical disparities of the Southern and Northern States which are still visible today.

Freedom is servitude to justice and intellectual honesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes epronovost's post
04-07-2017, 01:38 PM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 12:14 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  I am not saying that slavery was not a reason. It was not however the only reason why jeff moved out. What i am saying is if the guy who started the fight is saying he doesn't give a shit about slavery. Then the fight cannot be said to be about slavery. Again part of the reason jeff decided to move out was motivated by slavery. It still doesn't mean the fight was about slavery.

You made up the story about Jeff. It was a false analogy as their mutual contractual status in no way even remotely resembled the states who agreed to become a part of the US, so STOP talking about a false analogy to justify your position.

Of COURSE there were many reasons. However if there had been no slavery in the South, there would have been no Civil War. The central economic position of the South, ie agriculture, built on slavery, demanded they try to preserve their economic life -blood. The economy of the pre-war South was mainly agriculture, and increasingly so, cotton, tobacco, and sugar. That made their investment in the means of production (slaves) increasingly valuable. The economy of the North (and the developed West) was increasingly industrial. The South was in a corner.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/news...nomy-south

The idea that the Civil War would have occurred anyway, even if there had been no legalized slavery in the South, is preposterous.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-07-2017, 01:50 PM
RE: Yet another example of Republican Christofascism.
(04-07-2017 12:14 PM)BlkFnx Wrote:  
(04-07-2017 12:03 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great. Then why did the STATES say that was the reason they were seceding in their secession documents ?


Exactly. And WHY was that impossible ? They SAID why they were leaving the Union.


Let's read the WHOLE thing, shall we, NOT just the small part you want us to see.
http://web.archive.org/web/2009020118534...carsec.asp


Your Abe and Jeff tale is the fallacy of the false analogy. The reasons are obvious to anyone with 1/2 a brain.
The STATES declared in their secession documents why they were doing so. All your attempts to find other shit to pin it on, are pathetic revisionism.
The economic system of the South was based on slavery. It HAD to end, one way or another, sooner or later. Southern culture has demonstrated time and again their resistance to equality, over and over again. They had to be dragged, kicking and screaming into the 19th Century, and the 20th Century.
I am not saying that slavery was not a reason. It wa not however the only reason why jeff moved out. What i am saying is if the guy who started the fight is saying he doesn't give a shit about slavery. Then the fight cannot be said to be about slavery. Again part of the reason jeff decided to move out was motivated by slavery. It still doesn't mean the fight was about slavery.

Bullshit. Jefferson Davis wanted to keep the free labor. That was it. That was at the heart of the issue. The cotton gin was a huge game changer in the south. The more slaves the more cotton -- pre-civil war, the south supplied cotton to nearly all the world and certainly all of Europe. The war caused a price surge in European countries for frabric and textiles.

Really think about that for a moment. The south supplied the majority of cotton to the world.

Jefferson Davis refused to believe the south was losing and was even more delusional, remaining hopeful that the south could still win -- long after the war ended.

Jefferson Davis also ordered conscription, and at the end ordered Robert E Lee to use slaves. The war was already lost by that point and the slaves were already freed by that point too.

Regarding Lincoln, he was no fool and knew the economics behind slavery. He also understood the pressure the country was facing because of it. Europe and our allies had already outlawed the practice and felt the US should also step up if they were to be taken seriously. He also wanted peace and understood that real change takes time. As the war dragged on far longer than anyone imagined, he felt no choice but to rip the bandaid off quickly. But he believed strongly that the United States should not be divided -- and did actively look for a solution that everyone could live with.

But he also believed that slavery needed to go and was very aware our countries founding fathers debated hotly this topic.

The south, meanwhile, wealthy plantation owners were funneling money into the north fueling anti-war sentiment that was felt. They believed if the north would just give up, they could just carry on. Even that thought was flawed. The south continued holding slave auctions up until word of Lee's formal surrender reached them.

The confederate flag was morphed into something almost romantic, where people, like yourself I assume, try to retell the narrative so it doesn't seem as bad.

The civil war was a complex machine but at the heart of its economic endurance lay the slave. People who try to say it wasn't about that or it was just about states rights, ok...it was the right of the state's to buy and sell other humans as chattel.

Let's not forget the last part.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: