RACISM SOLVED on IIDB! "This whole business about whether someone had ancestors who were a slave or slaveholder is just ridiculous. It means nothing."

[RVonse]

Spoiler: Unimportant aside joke on confederate monuments..

View attachment 46998

Also, if they are so worried about 'erasing history', fine, we can replace every statue of Lee with one of Grant, and do the same with other generals. Replace statues, schools named for Davis with Lincoln, and put up a few memorials to Union soldiers lost. Then we won't be erasing history right?

They are proud of their military history and they should be. The south probably had the best soldiers but they lost the civil war due technology and lack of weapons. Even today, many of our best military warriors (those willing to die for their country) come from the US south.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

It was about money regarding slavery. States put forth secession documentation that justified their violating the Constitution. At best, maintaining the institution of slavery was a main reason, in some cases it was the only reason provided.

 

[RVonse]

However, you will find a far higher percentage of racists among theists.

Correct me if I am wrong but Martin Luther King was a devout Christian. Did that make him a racist?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Spoiler: Unimportant aside joke on confederate monuments..

View attachment 46998

Also, if they are so worried about 'erasing history', fine, we can replace every statue of Lee with one of Grant, and do the same with other generals. Replace statues, schools named for Davis with Lincoln, and put up a few memorials to Union soldiers lost. Then we won't be erasing history right?

They are proud of their military history and they should be.

Pride in treason.

Even today, many of our best military warriors (those willing to die for their country) come from the US south.

How can you even gauge that?!

 

[Angry Floof]

I wonder if any of you would consider a statue that represents your brothers, fathers, daughters, or siblings being hanged, raped, murdered, and stripped of their names, languages, and identities as art or something that must be preserved for its historical significance because there's supposedly no other way to remember your loved ones & what happened to them but by the artful hands of those who wronged them.

I want to amplify this message.

Hey, white persons! who genuinely do not want to contribute to systemic racism (not thinking of anyone in particular except maybe me): privilege is our blind spots. We have the privilege of not having to think about or listen to or see people who are not like us, which means having to constantly, constantly self reflect and check ourselves. That's what it takes to expand inclusion in the world. It takes a continuous practice to end systemic racism.

White dudes, put your contempt for me aside and hear this one thing: cis het white dudes tend to pool together and you tend to go wherever you want and make it your space without thinking of who else might be there. I'm talking about things that happen through a group of people, not just one. It's largely subconscious, which of course, means we don't see it. dur. But you all go along with it inadvertently. Social influences are invisible to us. Make a point to be mindful of others in the space and do the work of continuously keeping them in mind. That's what it takes to end systemic racism.

We all look basically the same in terms of interacting with Black people who don't know us. And that's why it's so important to be willing to go the extra mile in terms of humility, accepting criticisms, extra respectful. Like, extra respectful to the point where it is obvious that you are humble and safe, wearing a BLM shirt everywhere you go, back up a few feet. No need to talk about how not-racist you are or offer a litany of your activism history. Apologize when someone lets you know that your thoughtless remark had impact. Ask them how you can make amends and how you can be a good ally.

I have two main ideas in terms of practices, one is reminding ourselves of these things every day, just like Stuart Smalley. Things like, I am not automatically welcome in this space, who else is here, I'm willing to be embarrassed if I'm wrong and to apologize, etc.

The other is making a point and a promise to actively seek out Black faces and voices, stories, history, etc., and to do that without bothering Black people, and we have the technology for amplifying Black voices without bothering any Black persons! Whatever media you use, seek out Black faces and voices, movies, podcasts, youtube, whatever. News media is a great sort of avenue for this because you'll hear Black voices talking about shit that is happening now. Gotta train those algorithms. (I know you can do that because at one time I had successfully remained ignorant of who the Kardashians were OR who Justin Beiber was for like five years. )

Our discomfort is nothing, nothing, nothing at all compared to centuries of enslavement, human beings treated like animals, babies ripped from mothers, brutality, rape, murder, torture, and even when slavery was abolished, many of these things occurred and still occur wherever white supremacists think they can get away with it. (See Arbery murder). They don't always get away with it, but they believed they would. No number of life sentences can bring back the murdered, so their being imprisoned is not the end of that by any means. There are other Arbery murderers, so impinging on that culture and making them uncomfortable being racists is imperative to prevent future Arberys. (Also see Sonya Massey and numerous others.)

So, as I like to say on FB, be uncomfortable, you cowards! And I know I sound like I'm trying to be y'all's mama, but some of these details most of you honestly will not have thought about because you are living your life and not spending 24/7 immersed in DEI and related things and probably have enough discomfort as it is, so I'm saying them to whoever is willing to hear them.

 

[Gospel]

Even today, many of our best military warriors (those willing to die for their country) come from the US south.

How can you even gauge that?!

I believe RVonse is referring to enlistment numbers, not necessarily suggesting that they are Confederate sympathizers, but it certainly gives that impression.

 

[Gospel]

However, you will find a far higher percentage of racists among theists.

Correct me if I am wrong but Martin Luther King was a devout Christian. Did that make him a racist?

I wouldn't call him racist, but he was peacefully intolerant of racism due to his interpretation of what it means to be a theist. I argue that theism isn't necessary to find racism appalling, but historically, theism has often been a factor in making people racist.

 

[Elixir]

If the statues are going to be kept, the most reasonable approach IMO is in post #28, which I stand by and have not contradicted.

That sounds perfect to me (my ignorant self).
Also, my ignorant self is viscerally opposed to the destruction of art, period. Using "traitor trash" to extract some compensatory "good" no matter how small, would be great,. Logically however, I can certainly see why destroying symbols of slavery would be a thing to do to move us forward.

 

[Gospel]

But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so.

I don't agree. In the first place, the civil war was not really a civil war it was a war against succession from the union for economic tariff reasons. Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery other than the sympathy that it helped his cause. If George Bush would have been president at that time, he would have told us "we were spreading democracy!" But Lincoln used the slavery card instead to spread his cause. Since he knew black slavery was going out of style anyway. This is more than obvious when you consider every other country (at the time) having slavery got rid of the practice even though they had no war of succession like the US did. Furthermore Lincoln wanted to ship all the black southern slaves back to Africa after the civil war and would have done so had he not been assassinated. That does not sound like someone coddling black people to me. Should we tear down or put Lincolns statue in a museum as well?

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

The Civil War was a civil war by definition, as it involved conflict between groups within the same country—the Union and the Confederacy.

The primary cause of the Civil War was the secession of Southern states from the Union. The root cause of this secession was largely centered on issues related to slavery. The economic factors, including tariffs, also played a role. How? The tariffs that pissed off the South were an attempt by the north to strengthen the Union by making them less reliant on imports. But because the South was too bigoted to work with the North, they'd rather rely on imports like textile equipment and clothing from European countries (when the north could have easily supplied them with such). The tariffs having an effect on them was a direct result of them clinging to slavery (their money as you put it) on their damn cotton fields.

 

[TomC]

Years ago, I don't remember details, there was a kerfuffle over a statue of Robert E Lee.
It was heroically oversized, Lee mounted on a steed with upraised sword. There was talk of blowing it up. There was talk of removing it to some private location.

The suggestion I liked best was this.
Add a similarly heroic sized statue of Harriet Tubman in front of Lee. One fist raised in defiance and the other arm gathering cowering children behind her.
Tom

 

[Politesse]

It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

This is one of the dumbest things I've read today, and I've read a lot of dumb things. Even if you know nothing about the Confederacy and its stated goals (as it seems you are pretending not to) how could anything slavery-related not be about money, nor even the reverse in the case of a slave state? The Southern economy was intertwined with slavery on a fundamental level, and they were designing their proposed independent nation to be even more fundamentally reliant on the practice right up to the constitutional level.

 

[Politesse]

Even today, many of our best military warriors (those willing to die for their country) come from the US south.

And yet, you propose to insult them by putting up statues honoring those whose stated goal was to destroy the very country they died defending the freedoms of. If you despise our nation's veterans and wish to express it publically, why not just sneak into a national cemetery and film yourself pissing on their graves? You don't need any federal money to do that.

 

[couch_sloth]

But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so.

I don't agree. In the first place, the civil war was not really a civil war it was a war against succession from the union for economic tariff reasons. Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery other than the sympathy that it helped his cause. If George Bush would have been president at that time, he would have told us "we were spreading democracy!" But Lincoln used the slavery card instead to spread his cause. Since he knew black slavery was going out of style anyway. This is more than obvious when you consider every other country (at the time) having slavery got rid of the practice even though they had no war of succession like the US did. Furthermore Lincoln wanted to ship all the black southern slaves back to Africa after the civil war and would have done so had he not been assassinated. That does not sound like someone coddling black people to me. Should we tear down or put Lincolns statue in a museum as well?

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

The Civil War was a civil war by definition, as it involved conflict between groups within the same country—the Union and the Confederacy.

The primary cause of the Civil War was the secession of Southern states from the Union. The root cause of this secession was largely centered on issues related to slavery. The economic factors, including tariffs, also played a role. How? The tariffs that pissed off the South were an attempt by the north to strengthen the Union by making them less reliant on imports. But because the South was too bigoted to work with the North, they'd rather rely on imports like textile equipment and clothing from European countries (when the north could have easily supplied them with such). The tariffs having an effect on them was a direct result of them clinging to slavery (their money as you put it) on their damn cotton fields.

If the tariffs caused the secession, why did most of the Confedate states secede before the tariffs were voted on by the Senate in early 1861?

 

[Gospel]

But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so.

I don't agree. In the first place, the civil war was not really a civil war it was a war against succession from the union for economic tariff reasons. Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery other than the sympathy that it helped his cause. If George Bush would have been president at that time, he would have told us "we were spreading democracy!" But Lincoln used the slavery card instead to spread his cause. Since he knew black slavery was going out of style anyway. This is more than obvious when you consider every other country (at the time) having slavery got rid of the practice even though they had no war of succession like the US did. Furthermore Lincoln wanted to ship all the black southern slaves back to Africa after the civil war and would have done so had he not been assassinated. That does not sound like someone coddling black people to me. Should we tear down or put Lincolns statue in a museum as well?

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

The Civil War was a civil war by definition, as it involved conflict between groups within the same country—the Union and the Confederacy.

The primary cause of the Civil War was the secession of Southern states from the Union. The root cause of this secession was largely centered on issues related to slavery. The economic factors, including tariffs, also played a role. How? The tariffs that pissed off the South were an attempt by the north to strengthen the Union by making them less reliant on imports. But because the South was too bigoted to work with the North, they'd rather rely on imports like textile equipment and clothing from European countries (when the north could have easily supplied them with such). The tariffs having an effect on them was a direct result of them clinging to slavery (their money as you put it) on their damn cotton fields.

If the tariffs were the last-straw that caused the secession, why did most of the Confedate states secede before the tariffs were voted on by the Senate in 1861?

At no point did I claim that tariffs were the last straw and the sole cause of secession. I simply stated that tariffs, as part of their economic grievances, angered the South and explained why. Instead of creating a strawman argument, how about addressing my actual points directly?

My overall point, if you missed it, is that slavery was central to the South's reasons for secession. Slavery was at the core of their economic grievances, as the Southern economy heavily relied on slave labor. It was at the center of their moral arguments, where they justified secession by defending slavery as a positive good. Slavery was also at the heart of their so-called freedom argument against the North, claiming that their way of life and states' rights were under threat. Examples of this can be seen in the various secession declarations, the Confederate constitution explicitly protecting slavery, and the speeches of Southern leaders who made it clear that preserving slavery was their primary motivation.

 

[Gospel]

Some may rightfully argue that slavery was used as a tool to rally the troops. But then one must ask: why was it such an effective tool?

 

[Gospel]

For the record, I didn't learn about any of this from a fucking statue.

 

[couch_sloth]

But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so.

I don't agree. In the first place, the civil war was not really a civil war it was a war against succession from the union for economic tariff reasons. Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery other than the sympathy that it helped his cause. If George Bush would have been president at that time, he would have told us "we were spreading democracy!" But Lincoln used the slavery card instead to spread his cause. Since he knew black slavery was going out of style anyway. This is more than obvious when you consider every other country (at the time) having slavery got rid of the practice even though they had no war of succession like the US did. Furthermore Lincoln wanted to ship all the black southern slaves back to Africa after the civil war and would have done so had he not been assassinated. That does not sound like someone coddling black people to me. Should we tear down or put Lincolns statue in a museum as well?

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

The Civil War was a civil war by definition, as it involved conflict between groups within the same country—the Union and the Confederacy.

The primary cause of the Civil War was the secession of Southern states from the Union. The root cause of this secession was largely centered on issues related to slavery. The economic factors, including tariffs, also played a role. How? The tariffs that pissed off the South were an attempt by the north to strengthen the Union by making them less reliant on imports. But because the South was too bigoted to work with the North, they'd rather rely on imports like textile equipment and clothing from European countries (when the north could have easily supplied them with such). The tariffs having an effect on them was a direct result of them clinging to slavery (their money as you put it) on their damn cotton fields.

If the tariffs were the last-straw that caused the secession, why did most of the Confedate states secede before the tariffs were voted on by the Senate in 1861?

View attachment 47001

At no point did I claim that tariffs were the last straw and the sole cause of secession. I simply stated that tariffs, as part of their economic grievances, angered the South and explained why. Instead of creating a strawman argument, how about addressing my actual points directly?

My overall point, if you missed it, is that slavery was central to the South's reasons for secession. Slavery was at the core of their economic grievances, as the Southern economy heavily relied on slave labor. It was at the center of their moral arguments, where they justified secession by defending slavery as a positive good. Slavery was also at the heart of their so-called freedom argument against the North, claiming that their way of life and states' rights were under threat. Examples of this can be seen in the various secession declarations, the Confederate constitution explicitly protecting slavery, and the speeches of Southern leaders who made it clear that preserving slavery was their primary motivation.

Sorry for not being clearer, I figured you didn’t believe tariffs were the reason for the secession.
I just meant to point out that the whole argument about tariffs doesn’t make a lot of sense when you look at the fact that seven of the Southern states had already seceded before the law passed the Senate (It couldn’t be the reason why they seceded.)
It’s also important to note that if those states hadn’t left, their senators would have had a decent chance of blocking those tariffs.

 

[Politesse]

For the record, I didn't learn about any of this from a fucking statue.

People who claim to have learned their history from statues often seem to know next to nothing about the lives and values of those honored by them. Or even their names. A while back, there was a vicious debate about removing a atatue of noted slaver and mass murder Juan de Oñate over in New Mexico. Editorial pieces and radio call ins both pro and anti routinely misspelled or mispronounced his name, to say nothing of remembering anything concrete about his crimes or his accomplishments. Good job, statues! You educated us almost to the kindergarten level. As soon as we finish learning the alphabet, we should put up some more advanced racist statues to get us up to grade 2.

 

[Gospel]

But the Confederacy was inherently created to and was almost entirely about preserving slavery and killing US soldiers to do so.

I don't agree. In the first place, the civil war was not really a civil war it was a war against succession from the union for economic tariff reasons. Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery other than the sympathy that it helped his cause. If George Bush would have been president at that time, he would have told us "we were spreading democracy!" But Lincoln used the slavery card instead to spread his cause. Since he knew black slavery was going out of style anyway. This is more than obvious when you consider every other country (at the time) having slavery got rid of the practice even though they had no war of succession like the US did. Furthermore Lincoln wanted to ship all the black southern slaves back to Africa after the civil war and would have done so had he not been assassinated. That does not sound like someone coddling black people to me. Should we tear down or put Lincolns statue in a museum as well?

There were a lot of Americans killed during this conflict. It just was not really about slavery. It was about money.

The Civil War was a civil war by definition, as it involved conflict between groups within the same country—the Union and the Confederacy.

The primary cause of the Civil War was the secession of Southern states from the Union. The root cause of this secession was largely centered on issues related to slavery. The economic factors, including tariffs, also played a role. How? The tariffs that pissed off the South were an attempt by the north to strengthen the Union by making them less reliant on imports. But because the South was too bigoted to work with the North, they'd rather rely on imports like textile equipment and clothing from European countries (when the north could have easily supplied them with such). The tariffs having an effect on them was a direct result of them clinging to slavery (their money as you put it) on their damn cotton fields.

If the tariffs were the last-straw that caused the secession, why did most of the Confedate states secede before the tariffs were voted on by the Senate in 1861?

View attachment 47001

At no point did I claim that tariffs were the last straw and the sole cause of secession. I simply stated that tariffs, as part of their economic grievances, angered the South and explained why. Instead of creating a strawman argument, how about addressing my actual points directly?

My overall point, if you missed it, is that slavery was central to the South's reasons for secession. Slavery was at the core of their economic grievances, as the Southern economy heavily relied on slave labor. It was at the center of their moral arguments, where they justified secession by defending slavery as a positive good. Slavery was also at the heart of their so-called freedom argument against the North, claiming that their way of life and states' rights were under threat. Examples of this can be seen in the various secession declarations, the Confederate constitution explicitly protecting slavery, and the speeches of Southern leaders who made it clear that preserving slavery was their primary motivation.

Sorry for not being clearer, I figured you didn’t believe tariffs were the reason for the secession.
I just meant to point out that the whole argument about tariffs doesn’t make a lot of sense when you look at the fact that most of the Southern states had already seceded before the law passed the Senate (It couldn’t be the reason why they seceded.)
It’s also important to note that if those states hadn’t left, their senators would have had a decent chance of blocking those tariffs.

For the record tariffs were implemented as early as the 1830s, the states seceded in the 1860s. But whatever.

 

[marc]

Even today, many of our best military warriors (those willing to die for their country) come from the US south.

1. Joining the military is seen as a way to escape a life of poverty. Republican politicians have even used this as a reason to oppose Biden's student loan forgiveness. So it would be no wonder that a lot of troops come from the south and other red states, as they tend to lead in poverty.

2. The discussion is about Civil War monuments, when people from the south were not fighting for their country, they were fighting against their country. People carrying the US flag were the ones they were trying to kill. ya know, the ones actually fighting for their country.