Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Burrito Al Pastor]

Poor choice of words on my part. More, the civil war had something to do with slavery, but very little, since the actual issue was representation in government and state's rights.

States' rights TO DENY THE BASIC HUMANITY OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

At the time? Yes. Those were completely legitimate and constitutional rights. Do we know better now? Of course. But AT THE TIME we didn't, which is why AT THE TIME it still fell entirely within the purview of state's rights.

Not being enslaved is a right today. Slavery was a right in the early 1800s.

[Transportation]

THE CONFEDERATE VICE PRESIDENT WEIGHS IN

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other-though last, not least: 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. This idea, though not incorporated in the Constitution, was the prevailing idea at the time. The Constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly used against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. 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."

AND AGAIN

The substance of what I said on slavery was, that on the points under the old Constitution out of which so much discussion, agitation, and strife between the States had arisen, no future contention could arise, as these had been put to rest by clear language. I did not say, nor do I think the reporter represented me as saying, that there was the slightest change in the new Constitution from the old regarding the status of the African race amongst us. (Slavery was without doubt the occasion of secession; out of it rose the breach of compact, for instance, on the part of several Northern States in refusing to comply with Constitutional obligations as to rendition of fugitives from service, a course betraying total disregard for all constitutional barriers and guarantees.)

And here's some Declaration of Causes.
Texas really hates abolitionists.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

[Mongrel]

[Classic]

It bears noting that the entirety of the world was obviously racist. The assumption that whitey is more fit is a base assumption for a lot of the imperialist movement.

Please don't ask me to give sources, or I'll have to give sources, and then I'll write a 6 page paper about how Shinra is clearly an inferior human being in the language of the accumulated sources and I'll feel bad afterwards because Shinra is usually not a prick.

At the risk of assuming too much, Shinra wants to stop a mischaracterization of the south that he believes to be a popular cultural myth. Like how Columbus was searching for the new world, or the tacit, divine ordinance of the union. Unfortunately, this is as much a cultural myth as the holocaust is. The south as a whole would like to stop being blamed and punished for something that "happened generations ago". And maybe they should be forgiven for leaving the union because the other half of it wanted them to not use slave/child/Ood labor. I won't make that judgment.
The problem is that not just the south, but the world was and is clearly racially divided and people who ignore/bridge those gaps are few and far between. So it's difficult to the descendants of the original victims to forgive, because they're still being victimized, and it's dangerous to those who "aren't" racist because erasing that distinction would make it abundantly clear that they really are.

[Fredward]

Yeah, I remember being read an excerpt from a 1906 Canadian social studies textbook basically summarizing how every race except the Whites and (sort-of) the East Asians were inferior. My Grade 10 Social Studies teacher was great.

Which brings up the question, why did 19th century (and into the early 20th) Western culture have such a hard-on for East Asia? Were they the first weeaboos?

[TA]

Sideways vagina, obviously.

Also was about the only place we didn't own.

[Classic]

I was given the impression that the correlation worked exactly opposite.

People who didn't have to deal with "the redskins" fucking up their shit (e.g. Jefferson) were willing to say that with proper education, they would probably prove to be roughly equal to whites in "mind and body". Of course, as someone who has to justify owning slaves, he makes a point of arguing that they are racially inferior and unable to make their own decisions even if given the prerogative.

[Transportation]

Yeah, I remember being read an excerpt from a 1906 Canadian social studies textbook basically summarizing how every race except the Whites and (sort-of) the East Asians were inferior. My Grade 10 Social Studies teacher was great.

Which brings up the question, why did 19th century (and into the early 20th) Western culture have such a hard-on for East Asia? Were they the first weeaboos?

East Asia was full of highly advanced civilizations? China had the world's largest GDP until the late 1800s when it was surpassed by the U.S.

Edit: Here is an excellent visualization

[Thad]

Poor choice of words on my part. More, the civil war had something to do with slavery, but very little, since the actual issue was representation in government and state's rights.

States' rights TO DENY THE BASIC HUMANITY OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS.

At the time? Yes. Those were completely legitimate and constitutional rights. Do we know better now? Of course. But AT THE TIME we didn't, which is why AT THE TIME it still fell entirely within the purview of state's rights.

Not being enslaved is a right today. Slavery was a right in the early 1800s.

If you want to play the "historical context" game, maybe this rings a bell:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

I'd say that's a pretty fucking unambiguous statement as to whether or not the writer felt liberty and equality were rights shared by all men, regardless of his own personal failure to live up to that standard.  And if that's not enough for you, perhaps you knew that Jefferson cut all the more explicitly anti-slavery stuff out of the Declaration of Independence because he needed the South's support for the Revolution.

The country was founded with the intent to abolish slavery, when it became feasible to do it.  Shinra is saying "if they had just waited a little longer and not rocked the boat, it would have happened."  That may be true, but that's also the selfsame logic that Dr. King rejected in his Letter from Birmingham Jail: we've waited long enough, now we've got to DO something.

[Brentai]

Of course, Dr. King did it with reason and peaceful protest.  Lincoln did it with a big fucking war.

My respect for Lincoln has steadily decreased as I'm getting older.  Not nearly enough that I'm going to bother trying to sway anyone else from respecting him, but enough that I take the hero worship with a grain of salt.

[Thad]

Lincoln didn't force the South to secede.

We've spent the past eight years under the fucking Bush Administration and there's been no serious talk of secession (well, maybe in Alaska).  I'm damn near a pacifist, but I find it hard to sympathize with people who decided they were going to quit America because their government was so oppressive and invasive and had so little respect for the Constitution as to tell them they couldn't treat human beings like livestock.

Was there an alternative?  Maybe.  But the only one I've seen proposed in this thread so far is "Step 1: Wait a little while longer.  Step 3: Profit!"

[Guild]

You are equating Bush with slaveholding cultural values.

Jesus monkey Christmas.

[Thad]

Hey Guild,

Have I complimented you on your reading comprehension skills lately?

No?

Huh.