General Discussions

IMDB comments

POSTED BY: Fireflythemovie
UPDATED: Sunday, February 8, 2004 06:28
VIEWED: 26013
PAGE 5 of 11

REDJACK

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 6:30 PM

deleted dupilcate post

REDJACK

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 6:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
Want to know what human livestock was really like then read a little about Irish History both in Ireland under the English and in America when the Irish fled their homeland.

I'm quite familiar with the Brits brutal treatment of the Irish. I consider it on the same level as that of American slavery. I think Michael Collins was hero and patriot. Gerry Adams too.

But to say that it was somehow worse is just ridiculous.

Actually you don't say it. You just imply it.

What happened to the Irish in America is just the story of 19th Century immigrants. Ask the Italians what happened to them. Or the Chinese. Immigrants get the short end. The new guy gets the crap beat out of him. Ugly but, hey, nobody ASKED you to make the trip. Wait a couple generations and you'll be part of the establishment. One day you'll be in the White House.

Tell me again how that's worse or even on par with the experience of Africans/African descended Americans.

Oh, wait. You can't.

You know. 'Cause it's not.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 6:37 PM

Redjack wrote:

Quote:
That's sad for you. But those people were scum. Get over it. Suck it up like a man (or woman). Look to the modern Germans and how they've come to grips with their ignoble past.

Pretty broad generalization calling all Southerners who fought in the War scum. Sounds like bigotry to me, or perhaps just revisionism at it's most venomous.

Perhaps we are not the ones to get over it.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

REDJACK

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 7:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:

Pretty broad generalization calling all Southerners who fought in the War scum. Sounds like bigotry to me, or perhaps just revisionism at it's most venomous.

All Southerners who fought for the South.

Bigotry would be if I met modern day southerners and held them accountable for the actions of their anscestors. I don't.

Holding those anscestors accountable for their own behaviour is not bigotry. It's knowing how to read. And being adecent human being.

Quote:
Perhaps we are not the ones to get over it.

No. It's you.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

BROWNCOAT1

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 7:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
All Southerners who fought for the South.

Bigotry would be if I met modern day southerners and held them accountable for the actions of their anscestors. I don't.

Holding those anscestors accountable for their own behaviour is not bigotry. It's knowing how to read. And being adecent human being.

No. It's you.

Perhaps prejudiced is a better word than bigoted, though I would say your opinions border on bigoted.

Damning everyone who fought for the South, and labeling them as "scum" when you have no idea why they fought is just plain narrow minded and does more to defeat your arguements than anything I or anyone else could say in response. It shows that you are biased and not willing to extend the same courtesy that the rest of us are to those that fought for the North.

I hold my ancestors "accountable" for nothing but defending their homes and way of life from an armed aggressor that invaded their state. Not one of my ancestors owned slaves, so I would laugh if you try to argue that they fought to keep slavery as an institution.

And, reading your last few posts, it definitely you.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."

REKKA2

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 7:41 PM

You can't fault someone for trying to defend what was considered the norms for their time, no matter how those norms would be considered in modern light. Study of the past has shown us that secession wasnt even widely supported by the people...you condemn the many for the faults of a few. The real issue in the south was the right for each state to set its own rules...slavery was brought into the spotlight later in the war as a politcal move for support as well as enabling blacks to be enlisted in the North. I'm not saying I support slavery, but you must look at history within its context.

REDJACK

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 10:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Perhaps prejudiced is a better word than bigoted, though I would say your opinions border on bigoted.

Damning everyone who fought for the South, and labeling them as "scum" when you have no idea why they fought is just plain narrow minded and does more to defeat your arguements than anything I or anyone else could say in response.

They damned themselves by joining up. I have nothing to do with that.

I know the actual history. The details. Not the propaganda of either side. I cite the actual history. I draw the obvious objective conclusions. I draw (or refute) analogies so the kids in the back can keep up.

It's not these pearls that keep me from "winning" the argument. There's no debate among people who actually know the material.

The fault is in the local pork.

Quote:
It shows that you are biased and not willing to extend the same courtesy that the rest of us are to those that fought for the North.

The Confederacy was a bankrupt endeavour fom day one. Morally and, it must be said, socio-economically. The instant that new states were proscribed from being able to own slaves, the writing was on the wall.

The words of Davis and Calhoun, to name but two, damn The Confederates forever in the annals of history. Just as Mein Kamf damns Adolf Hitler and his idiot followers. In precisely the same way as a matter of fact.

You can bob and weave all you like but the facts sit there unblemished and uncompromising. Whether you "agree" with them or not. That's what facts are.

Quote:
I hold my ancestors "accountable" for nothing but defending their homes and way of life from an armed aggressor that invaded their state.

LOL. "Way of Life." "States Rights." "Extend the same courtesy."

What, was there a sale at Euphemisms R Us?

I guess it's no coincidence that the Confederate uniform was grey after all.

Quote:
Not one of my ancestors owned slaves, so I would laugh if you try to argue that they fought to keep slavery as an institution.

Well. Apparently ignorance is not only bliss but euphoria as well.

Bottom line. They had a choice. Union or Rebs. If they chose Rebs without reading the fine print (which, of course we know they must have unless they were conscripts) they get tarred with the same brush as their fellows.

Sorry if that's agrieving but, you know, not everything is shiny.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:47 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:

But I think you are ignoring a very important event. Note the various others are arguing about how the war was NOT about slavery. They are trying to harken back to the founding fathers, and the concepts of individual liberty. Even in the face of government opposition.

This is a joke.

Please read what I wrote again. Yes, most of the founding fathers were slave owners, and yes, the south refused to join the union unless slavery was kept. But you missed the point I was trying to make.

You've won that argument. No one has even attempted to argue that slavery was a good thing or anything like that. Which is why the argument is now about "other causes" which to some are the "real causes" of the split. They are trying to distance themselves and the South from that issue, because they agree with you that slavery was wrong.

Now, what exactly is your purpose here? To gibbet the dead? Look, we already understand what bastards they were, especially the ones with statutes built to them. So that seems kind of pointless, especially given the fact they are dead.

If your purpose is to persuade, then I am afraid your present tactics aren't going to work. The reason why slavery survived as long as it did in the South, after the Declaration of Independence, is that southern slaver owners did not percieve their slaves as "human", as something less than human. What your present rather strident tone and style are doing, is giving your opponents an idea that YOU don't see them as "human" That you see them as moral inferiors, which as a persuasive technique does not work well. You want to lecture and preach, but that is not going to persuade an audience, especially if they see in you a lack of decorum, respect, or civility.

Especially if you are agruing that slavery was evil, which they already know.

Quote:

Slavery in the rest of the world is not germain to this discussion and is only invoked to minimize the culpability of those who participaited in it here.

Two points: 1) It is germain, in that slavery was a common practice through much of recorded history, throughout the world. To say that the southerners were doing something particularly evil, without noting the context, or the fact of what occured earlier, does not seem to make sense. You seem to be trying to argue that southern slave owners did see their slaves as people and still treated them like chattel, or that their view was unique in the world. When nothing could be further from the truth.

2) The problem as has been pointed out before is one of perception. To a lot of folks, even to this day, individuals in other countries are still considered "others" or not quite human. It is a perception that while you and most of us fight against, still persists elsewhere. Sometimes even in our own enlightened arenas. One of the reasons why about 1 million Africans die each year of malaria, because DDT is "too harmful" to use to control the spread of the disease.

The perceptions of others is germain. If you had been raised all your life to think of certain individuals with unique characteristics as subhuman, you are going to go along with it till something changes your mind. If you are always doing what had always been done, you are not going to see the problem.

Quote:

Remember: No other country in the world has a founding document that asserts the fundamental value of an individual human as an intrinsic condition of existance.

Note to the founders: Don't talk the talk if you're not prepared to get called on it when you don't walk the walk.

You are demanding perfection in humans, and rationality, that does not exist, even in this day and age. Personally, I am glad they were hypocrits back them. Even if it did cost us a civil war. Without that hypocracy, think where we would be today?

Quote:

That is just a load of crap. The Union was limiting the expansion of slavery into th new states, effectively bott

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

DRAKON

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Rekka2:
You can't fault someone for trying to defend what was considered the norms for their time, no matter how those norms would be considered in modern light. Study of the past has shown us that secession wasnt even widely supported by the people...you condemn the many for the faults of a few. The real issue in the south was the right for each state to set its own rules...slavery was brought into the spotlight later in the war as a politcal move for support as well as enabling blacks to be enlisted in the North. I'm not saying I support slavery, but you must look at history within its context.

Very well said.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

BROWNCOAT1

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 3:12 PM

Originally posted by Redjack:

Quote:

They damned themselves by joining up. I have nothing to do with that.

I know the actual history. The details. Not the propaganda of either side. I cite the actual history. I draw the obvious objective conclusions. I draw (or refute) analogies so the kids in the back can keep up.

It's not these pearls that keep me from "winning" the argument. There's no debate among people who actually know the material.

The fault is in the local pork.

So you must be special then, since you and you alone know the "details" and not the "propoganda". How is it that all the "details" and not the propoganda or revised histories of both sides do no color your judgement? Seems w/ your view of the South and those who fought for her your judgement is definitely colored prejudced by something. Must be a real burden to be the only person to know the "truth", especially since historians on both sides must be wrong.

No debate amongst those who know the "material". What material is that? It is laughable to say there is no debate. All things are debated, especially this War and the events leading up to, during and following the War. Maybe you don't get out much.

Local "pork"? I won't even acknowledge that little foolishness w/ a comment.

Quote:
The Confederacy was a bankrupt endeavour fom day one. Morally and, it must be said, socio-economically. The instant that new states were proscribed from being able to own slaves, the writing was on the wall.

The words of Davis and Calhoun, to name but two, damn The Confederates forever in the annals of history. Just as Mein Kamf damns Adolf Hitler and his idiot followers. In precisely the same way as a matter of fact.

You can bob and weave all you like but the facts sit there unblemished and uncompromising. Whether you "agree" with them or not. That's what facts are.

Bob and weave? I surely don't remember doing that at any point. I do like how you avoid the facts that the North used slavery as a justification, and that the Northern states made it illegal for blacks to live in their states. Those are facts. Ignore them all you want, they won't change, despite your perception on the matter.

Quote:
LOL. "Way of Life." "States Rights." "Extend the same courtesy."

What, was there a sale at Euphemisms R Us?

I guess it's no coincidence that the Confederate uniform was grey after all.

The only thing laughable here is your transparent arguements and lack of sources for your "details".

The Confederate uniform may have been gray, but at least they did not wrap themselves in hypocrisy as the North, Lincoln, and the Federalist government did and has done. Freedom and equality indeed. LOL Ask the Native Americans Polk and Lincoln hung what they think of Federalist justice and equality.

Quote:
Well. Apparently ignorance is not only bliss but euphoria as well.

Bottom line. They had a choice. Union or Rebs. If they chose Rebs without reading the fine print (which, of course we know they must have unless they were conscripts) they get tarred with the same brush as their fellows.

Sorry if that's agrieving but, you know, not everything is shiny.

If ignorance is bliss than you must be living in a land of rapture.

This last arguement of "Tarred with the same brush" is as flawed as the rest of your arguements. Really nice how it, like others were backed with nothing but your personal opinion, and no facts.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it seems your lacks the enlightenment of many others on this subject.

Drakon at least can cite sources for his arguements and is a worthy debate adversary. Come back when you can cite these "details" of yours and are willing to argue fact instead of your personal insight, or lack thereof.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."