IMDB comments
POSTED BY: Fireflythemovie
UPDATED: Sunday, February 8, 2004 06:28
VIEWED: 26013
PAGE 1 of 2
I'm not sure how many of you read imdb.com, but the only comment you see on the Firefly page itself right now (which, I think means it's the most recent quote that was posted) is this:
The one line description (which you see toward the top of the page under the title "User Comments") is:
B-O-R-I-N-G
If you click on the "more" tag, it takes you down to the full comment:
----------------------------------------------
Date: 9 May 2003
Summary: B-O-R-I-N-G
What utter crap. Bland & boring and a total waste of time. Most think Joss Whedon is a genius, but I think he is pretty much hit or miss. Buffy was great the first few years but went down the toilet since its move to UPN. Angel, on the other hand, is sheer brilliance. Excellent characters, excitement, fantastic action, a linked plot, deep revelations...probably the BEST show on TV now. Firefly was just a bore. Dirty westerns trying to be sci-fi don't do it for me. And the cast was just plain annoying.
-------------------------------------------
If you actually go in and read all the comments, the vast majority of them are overwhelmingly positive, but I think we need to get this comment thoroughly buried. I've already submitted my comment, but they're currently processing comments from 1/20, so it won't likely be posted for awhile.
(Edited to make it clear what was a quote from imdb, and what I actually wrote.)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That must have JUST happened, because I was there yesterday and didn't see it! I agree: Let's bury it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I think we need to get this comment thoroughly buried
I don't know if this is what you wanted, but if you don't like Firefly, as your post makes it seem, then I agree that your comments should be buried deep.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No! I love Firefly! They weren't my comments! I was cutting and pasting, bringing that one negative comment, so prominently displayed, to the attention of fans!
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
What utter crap. Bland & boring and a total waste of time. Most think Joss Whedon is a genius, but I think he is pretty much hit or miss. Buffy was great the first few years but went down the toilet since its move to UPN. Angel, on the other hand, is sheer brilliance. Excellent characters, excitement, fantastic action, a linked plot, deep revelations...probably the BEST show on TV now. Firefly was just a bore. Dirty westerns trying to be sci-fi don't do it for me. And the cast was just plain annoying.
What an ass. Angel is my least favorite of the Whedon shows.
--------------------------------
It's sickening how comforting the privacy of the mind can be.
"Bible's broken; contradictions, false logistics. Doesn't make sense." - River
http://stripe.filetap.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
carrowsboy's comment was made on 2003-05-09. The newest one I can see is dreamer2point2's on 2004-01-26, and the oldest on the show's debut on 2002-09-20.
Why would you want to bury it anyway? Some people don't like the show, and that's ok. Maybe they don't like westerns, maybe they don't like sci-fi, maybe they don't like its politics (like me), maybe they wanted only supernatural stuff from Mutant enemy... If someone decides to not buy the DVDs or watch reruns, based on one review on imdb, they probably wouldn't have liked the show and, say it with me, that's ok.
--
I am Jack's username
FTL Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>
"Been a long time since Patience shot me and that was due to a perfectly legitimate conflict of interest. I got no grudge." - Mal
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Why would you want to bury it anyway?
Because it doesn't come close to reflecting the general sentiment if you read through all the comments?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Why would you want to bury it anyway?
Because it doesn't come close to reflecting the general sentiment if you read through all the comments?
Let that person have their opinion, if it doesn't reflect the general sentiment, you should be glad. If that's the only negative review and everything else is nothing but praise, I wouldn't worry about it.
EDIT: note-I haven't read the IMDb board and I don't have the time or desire to right now. So hopefully I'm not talking out of my ass with my assumption that the rest of the reviews are positive
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the general thought though is that a lot of people base a decision on whether to watch a movie on a quick view of the reviews. And if the first one is so negative, they won't bother looking further to see what others think.
Many people do it this way because there are so many different movies they are researching to determine if it's worth their time.
Yes, I agree, losing one viewer shouldn't make a difference - but with Firefly, we have all relied on word of mouth, etc. And since IMDB is so widely used, myself being an avid fan, would want to see a positive review, not a negative one, reflecting the majority of views.
I don't ask for much - just Firefly back on the air once a week.... oh, and maybe world peace.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by firelily:
Let that person have their opinion, if it doesn't reflect the general sentiment, you should be glad.
They can have their opinion. Just lower. I'm burrying it.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
, maybe they don't like its politics (like me),
Yeah. I was dicey about the whole "Reconstruction in Space with the Son's of the defeated South as the Heroes" thing too.
But, whatever the germinal thesis, the practical application was more obscure and less mired in the actual historical references than the notion of corporations and nation states sort of ultimatley melding into one and that being bad for folks like you and me. In a universe like that, I'd probably end up a Browncoat too.
Also, based on the actual ideals of the Confederacy versus those stated by Mal and the rest of Serenity's crew (except Jayne), I doubt the Greys would get along with Browns either.
The Alliance isn't the Union. It's just the closest analog. And not a very good one.
The idea that corporations, once they become large enough, are also inherently evil, is not just a notion comfined to scifi but, alas, is born out in RL as well.
On that score Whedon and Co. got it spot on.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
why bury it indeed? If someone hates the show, let them. Who are we to decide what peolpe can and cannot hate? Are we that petty that we want to detroy someones opinion? I would hope not, but something tells me i'm wrong.
meh
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
We aren't trying to destroy someone's opinion or decide what people should or shouldn't hate. Just don't want that one review to be the first thing someone sees at IMDB.
"Didn't she shoot you one time?"
"Well yeah, she did a bit."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The last user comment saved is the one that is displayed prominently to visitors to the Firefly page. They don't see the other comments unless they go looking for them.
No one is trying to take anyone's voice away, for heaven's sake. That person's post will stay there for prosperity. It's just a good-natured pride thing: Knock down the other team's flag and get ourselves back on top.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
How does a "May 9, 2003" comment stay at the top in imdb?
There's been 40+ posts since that one was posted and about some 100+ comments before it... Is there some sort of rating or trust system tot he reviewers? It doesn't seem like simply posting yet another comment will bury it. Maybe we need to figure out how that top post gets there before we brute force run around like "chickens with our heads cut off" fashion.
Quote:
Originally posted by Saffy:
The last user comment saved is the one that is displayed prominently to visitors to the Firefly page. They don't see the other comments unless they go looking for them.
No one is trying to take anyone's voice away, for heaven's sake. That person's post will stay there for prosperity. It's just a good-natured pride thing: Knock down the other team's flag and get ourselves back on top.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, and let's not forget, the South wasn't exactly 'evil'. I mean, if it was a show that made the Nazis seem like heros, that'd be one thing; they were evil.
Make no mistake, the Civil War wasn't a war to end slavery. The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.
I'm not a southerner, by the by, nor am I one of those guys who drives a pick-up with a Rebel flag on the back. I just understand what they were fighting for, and why, and I can't say that they were wrong.
-Steve
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Went back to check that IMDB site and it seems a different review is posted.I looked through a bunch of the reviews posted and they all do seem pretty positive. I wonder if the site rotates through all the reviews and posts them randomly, because the one showing today is from Jan 8, and many have been posted since. Just a thought.
Crow
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Hey, and let's not forget, the South wasn't exactly 'evil'. I mean, if it was a show that made the Nazis seem like heros, that'd be one thing; they were evil.
I'm really intesested in what a society would have to do to qualify as evil in your mind.
Quote:
The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.
That's one of the most frightening things I've ever read in my life.
Quote:
I'm not a southerner, by the by, nor am I one of those guys who drives a pick-up with a Rebel flag on the back. I just understand what they were fighting for, and why, and I can't say that they were wrong.
-Steve
Then you don't have a problem with a society which was entirely based upon and fueled by the generational exploitation of human beings as livestock and labor saving devices.
The Confederay WAS evil. Any way you slice it. It was antithetical to everything the United States was and, more importantly, IS supposed to stand for.
There is no difference between the Confederacy and the Nazi regime. Aside from being about a century apart (providing the Nazis with better tools) their world veiws were essentially the same.
And to describe them as fighting for "freedom" is to completely fail to grasp history. The Articles of Confederation alone refute your assessment.
The issue was "States Rights." What right was being contested? The "right" to own and trade, rape, kill and otherwise degrade human beings.
Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.
But not by me.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
It doesn't seem like simply posting yet another comment will bury it. Maybe we need to figure out how that top post gets there before we brute force run around like "chickens with our heads cut off" fashion.
I posted there. I hope you're not implying that I act thoughtlessly. A good review is still good for Firefly, reguardless of the motivation.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Redjack, there's no way I can say this without somehow being offensive to you, but I'll try to minimize it, ok ?
Nobody does evil just to do evil, all people think that what they are doing is the right thing to do, no matter what side of the battlefield they wind up on.
It would seriously help to actually study the history instead of blithely accepting the spoon-fed, heavily politically-correct version of it taught in most schools.
There wasn't a right or a wrong there, just two ways of life and ideals of government that clashed and turned to violence - and history, as we know it, was written by the winners, of COURSE they're going to demonize the losers, it's human nature.
PEOPLE are not evil, what people DO sometimes is.
And most of the folks who do "evil" things do not see it that way, and it might have even been the "right" thing to do in their worldview and historical context, they did not have the internet or an informed information society.
So, can we back off the hate spewing here, ok ?
-frem
diefuxdie
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This guy is going to the 'Special hell'.
-Hiro
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Redjack, there's no way I can say this without somehow being offensive to you, but I'll try to minimize it, ok ?
Nobody does evil just to do evil, all people think that what they are doing is the right thing to do, no matter what side of the battlefield they wind up on.
Tell that the to millions of human livestock the Confederates were willing to die and kill to keep in their generationally degraded condition.
Quote:
It would seriously help to actually study the history instead of blithely accepting the spoon-fed, heavily politically-correct version of it taught in most schools.
Yes. it would. When you you plan to do that? I cited the Articles of Confederation. What's PC about those? Or you could take any random speech by Jefferson Davis. That's just for starters.
And you can check your "I know the REAL story attitude" at the door. It's clear you don't. Or dont' care.
Quote:
There wasn't a right or a wrong there, just two ways of life and ideals of government that clashed and turned to violence - and history, as we know it, was written by the winners, of COURSE they're going to demonize the losers, it's human nature.
Soooo describing American Slavery [and the government that subsisted on it and fought to maintain it and nearly kept the country from being born in the first place over it] as it actually was-accurately– is "demonizing? Keep dreaming, kid.
There was a wrong there. And, though the war wasn't, strictly speaking, about righting it, it defintiely became an integral part. Again, there's that actual History you might want to look at before "correcting" me.
Quote:
PEOPLE are not evil, what people DO sometimes is. And most of the folks who do "evil" things do not see it that way, and it might have even been the "right" thing to do in their worldview and historical context, they did not have the internet or an informed information society.
So, can we back off the hate spewing here, ok ?
I haven't spewed any hate. I know and have cited the actual history. If you'd like a real lesson we can move this off the site. Calling the Confederacy evil is by no means Hate Speech. No more than calling Hitler an insane egomaniac with delusions of "racial purity" is either innacurate or an insult.
And, wow, if that was "minimizing" the offensiveness, what on Earth must you really think?
Yikes.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No, I didn't think posting there is thoughtless. I was asking if we know if that actually will drown that one comment by posting several hundreds of others. I was asking if we know how that particular commenting thing works since, that one comment in the middle of a sea of 150+ comments was singled out to float to the top. You can't defeat an enemy if you don't know how it operates - wildly thrashing at it, while valiant, is a complete waste of time if there is a better way of doing it.
Quote:
Originally posted by Saint Jayne:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
It doesn't seem like simply posting yet another comment will bury it. Maybe we need to figure out how that top post gets there before we brute force run around like "chickens with our heads cut off" fashion.
I posted there. I hope you're not implying that I act thoughtlessly. A good review is still good for Firefly, reguardless of the motivation.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then? Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics. And let's not talk about caste systems that exist today. (Yes, in the US, we don't name it, but it's there) We use animals as labor and feed today (I am not PETA either), perhaps some hundreds of years from now, we will find out that animals can really make choices and they resented being strapped to a machine - but instead would rather run wild - we sure as hell wouldn't know it today, but will certainly be whipped for it years later without even knowing it today.
We can learn from history without beating those folks over it - because those poor sod are exactly like you and me, completely clueless that every single action we do today will be reinterpreted years from now. Learn and move on.
Think about child labor, is it think of as a bad thing today? Of course, children should have a bright and happy childhood. Running around, playing, having fun. But the concept of "childhood" certainly didn't exist until the early second half part of 20th century with industrialization in full swing. Kids were integral part of the household and workforce. Every family needed every moving limb to make a "living". Yeah, there were time to play. But all of this idle time we have for chitchat nowadays are completely nonexistent. For some reason, nowadays, we seem to rationalize that it makes sense that we need a bright, happy-happy, joy-joy childhood.
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Redjack, there's no way I can say this without somehow being offensive to you, but I'll try to minimize it, ok ?
Nobody does evil just to do evil, all people think that what they are doing is the right thing to do, no matter what side of the battlefield they wind up on.
Tell that the to millions of human livestock the Confederates were willing to die and kill to keep in their generationally degraded condition.Quote:
It would seriously help to actually study the history instead of blithely accepting the spoon-fed, heavily politically-correct version of it taught in most schools.
Yes. it would. When you you plan to do that? I cited the Articles of Confederation. What's PC about those? Or you could take any random speech by Jefferson Davis. That's just for starters.
And you can check your "I know the REAL story attitude" at the door. It's clear you don't. Or dont' care.Quote:
There wasn't a right or a wrong there, just two ways of life and ideals of government that clashed and turned to violence - and history, as we know it, was written by the winners, of COURSE they're going to demonize the losers, it's human nature.
Soooo describing American Slavery [and the government that subsisted on it and fought to maintain it and nearly kept the country from being born in the first place over it] as it actually was-accurately– is "demonizing? Keep dreaming, kid.
There was a wrong there. And, though the war wasn't, strictly speaking, about righting it, it defintiely became an integral part. Again, there's that actual History you might want to look at before "correcting" me.Quote:
PEOPLE are not evil, what people DO sometimes is. And most of the folks who do "evil" things do not see it that way, and it might have even been the "right" thing to do in their worldview and historical context, they did not have the internet or an informed information society.
So, can we back off the hate spewing here, ok ?
I haven't spewed any hate. I know and have cited the actual history. If yoNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then?
Yes. Britain and France had done away with the practice altogether. The American government was restricting the addition of new slave states with an eye to phasing the practice out completely and, let's not ever forget that the nation itself was almost stillborn because of the South's refusal to agree that keeping african slaves was hypocritial if you going to war over issues of Freedom. Does the phrase "Peculiar Institution" ring any bells?
No one is "revising" anything. In fact this whole "they didn't know any better back then" stuff is the real modern twist. There was an ongoing debate about the practice pretty much from its inception.
Quote:
Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics.
That's a very facile and immature construct. Slavery, previous to the inception of American Chattel Slavery, was a function of conquest and was neither generational nor based upon ethnicity.
It was the European/American addition of "racial inferiority" as a component and the mechanization of the process which differentiated American Chattel Slavery from what had gone before.
Quote:
And let's not talk about caste systems that exist today.
Oh please. There's no comparisson. None. That's like saying a guy not being able to catch a cab is the same as getting lynched or whipped to death.
Quote:
We can learn from history without beating those folks over it - because those poor sod are exactly like you and me, completely clueless that every single action we do today will be reinterpreted years from now.
Uh. Nope. Those "poor sods" were no differnt than any Nazi. They weren't ignorant. They were in willful opposition to the thrust of Western society at the time. And damned proud of it.
Quote:
Learn and move on.
Back atcha, Kiddo.
Still
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior". Neither of which are unique to the American culture. Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on. Every nation has their own set of scapegoats. There isn't anything new. I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm
I am not only saying that we are revising/reinterpreting what happened and casting with our own ethics is bad in a big judgemental way (if it new, it's new, I don't particularly care about that part) - and don't get me wrong, if it's wrong, it's wrong - I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong. Nothing will change today, what we do today will again be interpreted by people who don't realize that it's a time wasting exercise to keep blaming people for doing what they don't know and to keep judging and labeling them. They did something wrong by our standards - ok. So, let's not do it ourselves and move on.
Rather than saying, "those are horrible bad man/woman, let's dig up their graves and put them thru the grinder". We will never learn if we just learn them as *them*... They are as much us as we are them. B/C someday very very soon. We will be *them* too. and the cycle of blame continues, absolutely no learning whatsoever.
No really...
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then?
Yes. Britain and France had done away with the practice altogether. The American government was restricting the addition of new slave states with an eye to phasing the practice out completely and, let's not ever forget that the nation itself was almost stillborn because of the South's refusal to agree that keeping african slaves was hypocritial if you going to war over issues of Freedom. Does the phrase "Peculiar Institution" ring any bells?
No, I meant the 4000 thousand years before that. Why does everyone think History itself began with the American Revolution? There is a huge long track record for slavery (not justifing it, not "oh, they did it, so it's ok", just saying that there has been a huge long history of people doing exactly that without recognizing that it was wrong.)
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
No one is "revising" anything. In fact this whole "they didn't know any better back then" stuff is the real modern twist. There was an ongoing debate about the practice pretty much from its inception.Quote:
Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics.
That's a very facile and immature construct. Slavery, previous to the inception of American Chattel Slavery, was a function of conquest and was neither generational nor based upon ethnicity.
It was the European/American addition of "racial inferiority" as a component and the mechanization of the process which differentiated American Chattel Slavery from what had gone before.
hmmm... I don't think the Americans invented racial inferiority on top of Slavery either. Also, "racial inferiority" as a concept was definitely not limited to Africans as slaves either. The target for inferiority spanned a wide range and the focus rolled over from the Irish, to the Italians, to the Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, what have you. In every case, it was the threat of economy and new voter ship that drove the designation for inferiority race. For a brief period durin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's a good thought too. And probably a much fairer system than "the latest get to the top" deal.
Quote:
Originally posted by Crowflyy:
Went back to check that IMDB site and it seems a different review is posted.I looked through a bunch of the reviews posted and they all do seem pretty positive. I wonder if the site rotates through all the reviews and posts them randomly, because the one showing today is from Jan 8, and many have been posted since. Just a thought.
Crow
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I just want to say to all those people who told me that Firefly was a good series...you were WRONG...it is a GREAT series. I am studying for the NY bar, and it has gotten me this far...unfortunately, I have no more episodes to watch.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior".
Not at all. They are part of the same evil. You can't discuss the one without coming to the other in short order. Well. You can try but people will tend to notice.
Quote:
Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on.
Well, isn't that a comfortable fiction? Not every group even adhered to the concept of Race until Europeans introduced it across the globe. Indeed, not every group adhered AFTER they had it inflicted upon them. This is partly because it has no basis in biology but is merely a social construct. It's not something that ALL human societies came up with independantly and, in fact, most of our time on Earth, we've done without it.
This is a carved in stone fact. Don't take my word for it. Delve.
Quote:
I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm
It's accurate. The concept of "race" didn't even exist until the Renaissance. Tribes aren't analogs for race.
Quote:
I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong.
Crap. Many of us are loads better. We have their disgusting example as another signpost of what not to do and where not to go. Your moral relativist pose is another facile dodge and allows you to avoid having to put your feet down on this.
If we- and by we I mean intelligent people who get their history from someplace other than Hollywood distillations– weren't any better there'd be something wrong with us. Humans survive by learning from past mistakes.
Quote:
and the cycle of blame continues, absolutely no learning whatsoever.
"The cycle of blame." Wow.
Well. Never let a few facts get in the way of cartoon dogma.
Quote:
No, I meant the 4000 thousand years before that. Why does everyone think History itself began with the American Revolution?
I don't think that "everyone" does. I don't and never implied otherwise. I'm talking about the U.S. because that's the history FIREFLY supposedly mined for its motifs.
The continuity of slavery no more connects to what happened here than the history of conquest leads inevitably to German gas chambers. The latter motivations were different in both cases. So different, in fact, as to have created something new.
Hence the shock normal humans feel when comparing the two.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Hey, and let's not forget, the South wasn't exactly 'evil'. I mean, if it was a show that made the Nazis seem like heros, that'd be one thing; they were evil.
I'm really intesested in what a society would have to do to qualify as evil in your mind.Quote:
The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.
That's one of the most frightening things I've ever read in my life.Quote:
I'm not a southerner, by the by, nor am I one of those guys who drives a pick-up with a Rebel flag on the back. I just understand what they were fighting for, and why, and I can't say that they were wrong.
-Steve
Then you don't have a problem with a society which was entirely based upon and fueled by the generational exploitation of human beings as livestock and labor saving devices.
The Confederay WAS evil. Any way you slice it. It was antithetical to everything the United States was and, more importantly, IS supposed to stand for.
There is no difference between the Confederacy and the Nazi regime. Aside from being about a century apart (providing the Nazis with better tools) their world veiws were essentially the same.
And to describe them as fighting for "freedom" is to completely fail to grasp history. The Articles of Confederation alone refute your assessment.
The issue was "States Rights." What right was being contested? The "right" to own and trade, rape, kill and otherwise degrade human beings.
Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.
But not by me.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights. Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought. Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves. Usually the wealthy and wealthy middle class Confederates owned slaves and most of them were able to get enough of an education to be high ranking officers. I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time. And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army. There were alot more issues involved in the American Civil War than just slavery and slavery should never bury the other issues. I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellion and that was done to hurt the South's economy but lost Lincoln a lot of support in the North which led to the draft and then later the draft riots, some violent (ie. New York City as seen in 'Gangs of New York' at the end'). There were still slave states that did not leave the Union and join the Confederacy. In fact, Kentucky even joined the Union after at first declaring themselves neutral.
And with that, I would urge you all to study American Civil War history. After picking up many books written by American Civil War scholars you will learn that the issues and the war itself wasn't as black and white as you were taught in school. There were heroes and villians on both sides and each side had its own good points and evil.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Firefly0helped0me0pass0the0bar:
I just want to say to all those people who told me that Firefly was a good series...you were WRONG...it is a GREAT series. I am studying for the NY bar, and it has gotten me this far...unfortunately, I have no more episodes to watch.
Maybe you can find something to sue FOX over as far as Firefly....
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights.
I covered that. Stopping at the phrase "States Rights" allows for a linguistic grey area which does not, in fact, exist.
Quote:
Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought.
Name them. And then describe how the removal of the economic base- Chattel Slavery- didn't directly affect them.
Quote:
Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves.
Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you don't agree that people should be allowed to. Clearly the low caste whites were too stupid to realise that their own situations weren't too far above those of the blacks whose bondage they were willing to kill and die to maintain. Either that or they just agreed.
Quote:
I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time.
Making them either liars or hypocrites or both. Bravo, gentlemen.
Quote:
And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army.
Shouldn't have seceded then, I guess. Declaring war tends to make people shoot at you.
Quote:
I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery.
No reminder necessary. You're absolutely right. But to discuss the Civil War and its ramifications without placing Slavery dead center is to miss the issue completely. Either willfully or through ignorance.
Quote:
In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellion and that was done to hurt the South's economy but lost Lincoln a lot of support in the North which led to the draft and then later the draft riots, some violent (ie. New York City as seen in 'Gangs of New York' at the end').
There were heroes and villians on both sides and each side had its own good points and evil.
I grant you that there were villians on both sides. I defy you to name one good thing about the Confederacy which wasn't supported entirely on the backs of enslaved human beings.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Steve580:
Make no mistake, the Civil War wasn't a war to end slavery. The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.
-Steve
I can, because I read the actual articles of Secession. Sadly, the reason why the South rebelled, according to the Southerners at the time, was to pre-empt the Federal Government, (led by a political party that had formed out of the anti-slavery movement) from outlawing slavery.
Look, I got at least two ancestors that fought for the south. One died in a Union POW camp of smallpox. But all the talk about state's rights and such, was just to hide the fact that they were fighting for the preservation of slavery.
At the time of the Revolution, and when the Constitution was written, an accomidation with the slave holding south was required. But slavery was and still is, fundamentally contrary to the American Ideal as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Maybe the war was what was needed to correct such a grave hypocracy.
There is a lot of flowery prose in those Southern Declaration of Secession, but as one example, South Carolina's first complaint is that the Northern states are not returning escaped slaves and those aiding and abetting them. For a war that was not about slavery, this is completely at odds, especially so when you consider this is their first complaint, from the first state to secede.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.
But not by me.
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.
But in making the argument they are, they are recognizing that slavery was a fundamental hypocracy in America's founding. That slavery was, and still is, an evil that should be stamped out. What was disagreed about at this stage of the game was how exactly to convert the economy of the south into a free system, without doing so much damage that you would end up with rebellion and loss of life that both sides were trying to avoid. (However imperfectly)
What makes a person, or a system evil is what it does, and what the consequences of those actions are. And in that respect, I think everyone is agreeing that slavery was evil, for the effects it created on the slaves first and foremost, but also in the denial of freedom required by the slave holders to maintain the slave system.
[It had been noted elsewhere that most of the pre-Civil War gun control regulations came from the South, in order to prevent slave rebellions. And those southern courts had decided in favor of such anti-second amendment legislation, because they did not want to get killed.]
Most folks, myself included, hate to think that our ancestors died in a less than noble pursuit. So fictions about the true causes of the war constantly get floated about. But in recognizing the simple fact that they are agreeing with you that slavery was evil, I think is itself a victory.
Besides which, todays southern rebel ain't all that much like his 19th century forebearers. He may take a more watchful eye toward Washington, and it has been noted that southerns are over represented in the US military.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights.
I covered that. Stopping at the phrase "States Rights" allows for a linguistic grey area which does not, in fact, exist..
Would that be the same "grey area" that the Union's "freedom for slaves" gave them when they invaded the South to keep control of the South? The same "grey area" they used to justify their actions when states in the North passed legislature making it illegal for freed slaves to move into their states?
Quote:
Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought.
Name them. And then describe how the removal of the economic base- Chattel Slavery- didn't directly affect them..
I think anyone with a soul can say that slavery is wrong, and that it deserved to be ended, but do the ends justify the means? Guess they do if you are the victor and write the history books. Funny that the North, who purchased those slave w/ rum and sold them in the South, South America, and the Caribbean, who passed laws to keep blacks out of their states, whose officers held slaves more than 3 years past the Emancipation Proclomation were so concerned w/ freeing the very people they helped to enslave.
Quote:
Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves.
Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you don't agree that people should be allowed to. Clearly the low caste whites were too stupid to realise that their own situations weren't too far above those of the blacks whose bondage they were willing to kill and die to maintain. Either that or they just agreed.
So you have proof that these "low caste stupid" whites were in favor of slavery and that is what they fought for during the War? I sure would be interested in seeing those facts.
Quote:
I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time.
Making them either liars or hypocrites or both. Bravo, gentlemen..
So, a man who, years before the war, frees all of his slaves, then takes up his sword to defend his state and his fellow countrymen from an armed invader is a liar or hypocrite?
By that logic, you can sign up all the Founding Fathers, and me and nearly everyone I know. I would defend my state against any invader. There are ways to resolve differences without armed violence.
Quote:
And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army.
Shouldn't have seceded then, I guess. Declaring war tends to make people shoot at you..
Sounds pretty much like what I am sure England & King George said about the colonies. Guess the only difference here really is that England lost, so they did not get to villianize their opponent.
Quote:
I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery.
No reminder necessary. You're absolutely right. But to discuss the Civil War and its ramifications without placing Slavery dead center is to miss the issue completely. Either willfully or through ignorance.
Nobody is saying that slavery was not an issue, only that it was not the pivotal one. The North and Lincoln fought to bring the South back into the Union, not free slaves. The Emancipation Proclomation and slavery were not the rally cry until 1863, two years after the war started. Lincoln and Washington were more interested in revenues than any race in bondage.
Quote:
In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellioNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior".
Not at all. They are part of the same evil. You can't discuss the one without coming to the other in short order. Well. You can try but people will tend to notice.
hmmm... doesn't matter to me. But I think you had pointed out earlier that they were different things... They are both excuses for economic judgements at the *ruling* level - and taken as factual judgements by the *sheeps* - then again further exploited at the top. Bummer. Unless we all get smart and learn how us sheeps are always being led around and exploited, we will never get out of this mudball.
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on.
Well, isn't that a comfortable fiction? Not every group even adhered to the concept of Race until Europeans introduced it across the globe. Indeed, not every group adhered AFTER they had it inflicted upon them. This is partly because it has no basis in biology but is merely a social construct. It's not something that ALL human societies came up with independantly and, in fact, most of our time on Earth, we've done without it.
This is a carved in stone fact. Don't take my word for it. Delve.
Alright, I wanna learn show me. Let's not talk about "race" (I did quote it, meaning that it was a concept, meaning that every group of people had some concept of us; whether it's invented biologically or not) Every group had their favorites "others" to pick on. *They* speak differently. *They* wear different clothese. *They * don't use spoons and forks. *They* wear funny and unnecessary decorations. Oh, and *They* don't believe in our God. Let's slaughter them. *They* don't fit to eat or work with us. How often has that happened? These are not recent or renaissance inventions. I suggest that we had people who thought differently and started writing these things down in that aspect rather than "We are the righteous and we were triumphant over evil and we casted those bottom dwellers back to the hell that they deserve". Instead we started to recoginize that those base instincts of ours (not to hate, but to classify things into different buckets according to traits, and to fear the unknown and new) have always been exploited by the upper echelon to promote their economic cause.
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm
It's accurate. The concept of "race" didn't even exist until the Renaissance. Tribes aren't analogs for race.
No "tribes" are not "race" exactly. But it is the same type of invented concept that a people would use to call the "us" and further to keep the "them" away from "us". If there is an "us", then we can go and fight, enslave, and kill of the "them". Oh and conveniently take over their water sources, their land, their wives, and all of their possessions - there's no more them, so why not use what they had (Unless, of course, if it represented their "evil", then we will have to burn it in a big pyre and dance around it chanting and stuff)
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong.
Crap. Many of us are loads better. We have their disgusting example as another signpost of what not to do and where not to go. Your moral relativist pose is another facile dodge and allows you to avoid having to put your feet down on this.
If we- and by we I mean intelligent people who get their history from someplace other than Hollywood distillations– weren't any better there'd be something wrong with us. Humans survive by learning from past mistakeNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, as you all have proven, the American Civil War is all gray and there isn't black and white for either side.
Slavery is wrong. I am also a Unionist or would have been back in those days.
But not everyone in the South were fighting for slavery or against the Union. There were many more issues. Many of these men were fighting to defend their homes from what they considered a foreign army. We have to remember at this time that These United States (it didn't become the The United States until after the war) resembled more of what we see in the European Union today. Many people in American didn't call themselves Americans but Virginians or New Yorkers. Much of the South was against the strong central government and wanted to keep it sort of what we see the European Union like today. Lincoln was very vocal in his opinion in having a strong central government as well as his party. That is why the South seceded when Lincoln won the Electorial College for President (Lincoln lost the popular vote just as Bush did in 2000) and that is why they seceded because they saw no way to protect their State's Rights or State's Sovereignty with those that controlled the Federal Government. Then it came to the point where Lincoln would not surrender Fort Sumter over to South Carolina and the South saw this as an infringement of their sovereignty and fired on Fort Sumter. The North saw this as an act of war against the Union and the destruction of the Union. And then it goes on from there with Lincoln calling up voluteers to quell the South and then Virginia and the last of the other states seceded from the Union.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
1) The founding fathers were a bunch of hypocrites. Well, most. Adams and a few others got it right.
The issue of hypocrisy vis a vis slavery was raised at the Continental Congress and was shot down by the southerns states who refused to be part of a union if it required them to free their slaves. Fact. Not disputed.
2) You are proposing that the southern states, whose economy and society was completely supported by slavery and which had enjoyed that support for centuries, was going to willingly "phase it out" if only the North could provide them with a plan?
Pathetic.
And not in line with the facts.
Re: RKLENSETH
The "grey area" only exists because so many Americans subsequent to the event want to soft pedal the evil that was done by other Americans with whom they apparently sympathize more than with the other Americans who were treated like livestock and worse.
Quote:
But in making the argument they are, they are recognizing that slavery was a fundamental hypocracy in America's founding.
You might be. I'm not seeing that anywhere else.
Quote:
That slavery was, and still is, an evil that should be stamped out.
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.
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.
Quote:
What was disagreed about at this stage of the game was how exactly to convert the economy of the south into a free system, without doing so much damage that you would end up with rebellion and loss of life that both sides were trying to avoid. (However imperfectly)
That is just a load of crap. The Union was limiting the expansion of slavery into th new states, effectively bottling the southern economy with an eye to shutting it down.
It would have been perfectly reasonable under the model some of you are presenting for Lincoln to simply let the practice continue as people saw fit locally.
Quote:
What makes a person, or a system evil is what it does, and what the consequences of those actions are. And in that respect, I think everyone is agreeing that slavery was evil, for the effects it created on the slaves first and foremost, but also in the denial of freedom required by the slave holders to maintain the slave system.
The slave holders deserved the same fate as Nazi war criminals post WW2. No more. No less. What they got was Andrew Johnson re-establishing the original paradigm as best he could under the circumstances. This gave us another century of Jim Crow and violent suppression of a significant portion of the American populace a la South African Apartheid.
The problem of the former slaveholders would best have been solved with bullets. No. Ropes would do just as well and would have been cheaper.
Quote:
Most folks, myself included, hate to think that our ancestors died in a less than noble pursuit.
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.
Quote:
So fictions about the true causes of the war constantly get floated about.
As we are seeing here. It's really sad. And not a little frightening, I have to say. Mostly it's just really really disappointing.
Quote:
But in recognizing the simple fact that they are agreeing with you that slaveryNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You all might also want to know that Nathan Fillion's ancestor is Jubal Early, a famous Civil War Confederate General. Just pointing that out because this dicussion has turned into the Civil War and all.
My ancestor is Thomas Francis Meagher, a famous exiled Irish rebel turned Union General that built the Irish Brigade that fought for the Union during the Civil War.
Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
deleted dupilcate post
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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
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?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sources.
people on the net are always yakking about sources.
I'm smart. I can read. I am able, you see, to form the right conclusion without being spoon fed. However, since you seem to think that the support of documents and/or PHD's who agree with me is necessary, here are some few that might light up your dark nights of the soul.
THe U. S. Constitution.
South Carolina Congressonal Debate on Secession
Constitutional Law for a Changing America- Lee Epstein/ Thoas Walker
The Articles of Confederation
Anything by James McPherson
Any speech by John C. Calhoun
Anything by Shelby Foote
There. That should keep the kids busy while grown folks is talking.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I take exception to your comment on children and adults. Of course if you want to resort to name calling, you only show your own level of maturity.
Seems the adults were talking until you showed up w/ your "details" that only you seem to be aware of, and per your own admission are formed from something other than history.
You see, I majored in history and very likely own more books on the subject than you. I asked for sources on your wild accusations that all Confederates are "scum" and that they are "damned". You have failed to do anything but list some legal documents any high school student is famaliar with, and bandied names of some die hard secessionists. Hardly evidence of your claims.
Nice try though. Better luck next time.
Oh, and
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I take exception to your comment on children and adults. Of course if you want to resort to name calling, you only show your own level of maturity.
Take exception all you like. With the exception of a single poster I've found the analysis of the issue on the Pro-Confederate side (chilling that there even is such a thing) to be thin and illformed. And ill informed.
Quote:
Seems the adults were talking until you showed up w/ your "details" that only you seem to be aware of, and per your own admission are formed from something other than history.
Sigh. Another common 'net response. It's clear I know the material in question by the statements I make. Only those without their own ability to collate the data appropriately themsleves fall back on mere regurgitation of what others wrote. I am fully capable of collating the requisite data appropriately myself.
I don't merely parrot what somebody wrote in some book and I don't limit myself to reading or assimilating only those texts which support my original thinking.
The bulk of the things I cited for you– by no means the totality of my own immersion in the subject or even a significant fraction– were ORIGINAL SOURCE documents. You can't pass those off as having been "spun" by me or somehow not central to the issue.
Grapple. Or go in defeat.
Quote:
You see, I majored in history and very likely own more books on the subject than you.
Uhh. Yeah. I'm fairly certain I could TEACH your college level history class. So what? This is not about parchment and never was. Use your own sober brain without the emotional crap and you'll see, objectively, what's what.
Anything you can't deal with beyond that point is your own lookout.
Quote:
I asked for sources on your wild accusations that all Confederates are "scum" and that they are "damned".
as Wash: God. Oh, dear God, no.
"Scum," I'll grant you, is my own assessment. I concede that point. Whoopee. Was there ever any doubt?
"Damned" OTOH is a common turn of phrase without any religous connotation. It simply means they took the side of evil whether they admitted to it later or not.
Quote:
You have failed to do anything but list some legal documents any high school student is famaliar with, and bandied names of some die hard secessionists.
Really? I wasn't aware that the complete works of Shelby Foote or the Masters level text on the evolution of Constitutional Law was High School reading these days. What school is that? I better get my kids in now.
And, frankly, if more of you had actually READ the Articles of Confederation, this "debate" would never have got going.
Quote:
Hardly evidence of your claims.
Evidence of my "claims?" Hm. Have I said something which can be disputed beyond the conclusion that the Confederates were vermin? (Granted that's a generalization and somewhat of a harsh description but then the vast weight of – what's the word– um- oh yeah- evidence supports me. There's all that enslaving and seceding and killing people, see.)
Quote:
Nice try though. Better luck next time.
Back atcha, baby. Though it'll take a lot more than luck if current performance is any indication.
As an easy primer, History Major, you might want to check out the written companion to KEN BURNS' THE CIVIL WAR. Or, if the tome is too heavy, just rent and watch.
In it you will find letters written by Confederate soldiers, their wives and children at home and others. Not saying what's IN those letters but, you know, take a look.
Despite their bankrupt worldveiw, some of them are quite beautiful.
Too bad thy took that left turn at Human Decency.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Everyone was scum at the time. All Americans thought that it was perfectly OK to subjugate others. Lincoln is a good example, he didn't believe in slavery for religious reasons... but he never threatened the slave trade in the south until a few years into the Civil War.
Soooo... in my humble opinion; the Calvinistic guilt of America may have given the President a sudden surge of morality in difficult times, or he simply needed more soldiers and had to have a real reason to convince people to go and get killed for reasons other than stopping what amounts to a massive and greedy land grab.
Not that I'd be so simple as to say 'the Confeds were evil' or 'the Union walks funny'.
Wow, funny but I didn't even need to watch PBS to come up with that answer lads. Sorry... no footnotes. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Calvinist Guilt is an oxymoron.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ rubbish. Please try not to make knee-jerk posts. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^
Oh, you big silly.
The Calvinist Doctrine is clear.
Man is Fallen. Tainted forever by Original Sin. Nothing He does in this world, no act or confession, can change his Fallen state. He is Irredeamable except by God Himself.
Only God's Grace, doled out only to those He deems deserving according to some criteria known only to Him, can clean the soul.
So there's no room for guilt. Either God pulls your number out of the box or it's the Hot Place. Nothing you do in your life matters to God in the Calvinist veiw. He only likes you for Heaven or not.
America is primarily a Protestant nation, true, but it was the Calvinism of the South which allowed for Slavery in the first place.
Using a mistranslated/understood passage from the OT referring to the mark of Cain and his descendants, coupled with the basic Calvinist notion that, if you were placed in a degraded state in life (slavery, poverty, being female, etc.) it was because God wanted you there, they justified the generational abuse and degredation African Slaves.
It is a more streamlined version of the Hindu caste system which, as you know, places reincaranted souls in the approriate social class based upon the karmic debt accumulated in past lives. Untouchables at the bottom, Brahmin I believe, at the top.
American Calvinists just cut out the middle castes.
A similar baseline notion is at the heart of the concept of Manifest Destiny which, as we know, the original occupants of North America were so thrilled to have introduced to them by their European cousins.
Lincoln may well have suffered from a sense of Christian guilt but, I guarantee you, it wasn't due to the Calvinist interpretation.
But thank you for adding another ripple to this fascinating discussion.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yea... but it's not an oxymoron is it?
Americans are often described, being a reactionary and overly religious fundamental folk, as Calvinistic in thier belief systems. That is, all that Calin crapola you mention above is buried within the American personality.
Americans are often seen as being fundementalists.
But anyho'... I feel very off topic right now. Go start a thread and define your arguments if you're so keen on academic minutia.
Now... the imdb needs to be hacked by a few browncoats ... 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
No sense arguing w/ RJ Ghoulman. He or she will only insult you and start the name calling and question your intelligence.
Funny how the self appointed intellectual wannabes question everyone elses intelligence and claims. LOL
I refuse to rise to the weak bait anymore. I have better things to discuss and far more capable peers to debate with on this forum.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, it's a nice little flame war. After all - ranting is the water with which the Net flows.
Besides... this BS needs a thread dedicated to the Civil War and the 'Reconstruction' if only to keep our minds occupied with actual history.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
... this BBS !!! Oops! Goram spell check done left me. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thanks...If anyone likes warhistory...id recommend a book by Dr. Anthony Joes, "America and Guerilla Warfare." I had a course this semester with him on the subject and it was very interesting. Its a good read as well.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't insult intelligence. Only willful bending of that intelligence to ensure one's misunderstanding of complex facts and inspire nauseating apologies for an evil and illegal regime which, of course, The Confederacy was.
Indeed I'm trying to appeal to your American-ness and your intelligence and only getting back the same uniformed drivel. I'm sorry if my tolerance for that is low. Time on Earth is too short for soft sell.
However- We can limit comversation to how cute Kaylee is or why Wash is SUCH a madman behind the wheel or how Joss got the show on the air in the first place considering the local atmo. I'm cool with that. Indeed that's why I came here in the first place.
But I also worried that the occassional comment, like those which caused this thread to diverge, would crop up.
This is the problem with basing fiction on such a complex and hurtful event as the Civil War. Any soft treatment of the activities of the aggressors (that would be the South, kids) allows for revisionists, apologists and sympathizers to have a feild day in the grey cracks.
Reading around me on this thread I see that that is, in fact, the sad result.
And, as for me being a "self appointed" anything, I'm not. I really LOVE Firefly. Check my blog.
What I don't love is anybody weaving it into the ugly history that comprised the South, the Confederacy and Reconstruction.
History is only fluid because people who don't like certin bits of it like to smooth or omit. I prefer my truths undiluted.
Just read the facts. Take out your grandfather's spin or your current political leanings. Just the unvarnished facts. There's only one possible conclusion. The not-as-bad guys beat the bad guys and then got on with the business of truly becoming Good. That business is, sadly, ongoing.
The Confederacy was an ugly rabid animal that needed to be put down before infecting the rest of the nation. THAT's what the war became about after the South started it.
Anyone who claims to beleive otherwise is either selling something or hasn't read enough.
I'm confident, given the time and enough access to facts, that even some of those who seem to dislike my veiw (or me ) will eventually embrace the truth.
But that's just me. You know; Optimistic.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
^^^ well, I can agree that imho the Confederacy was in the wrong. That is, they were making a clearly illegal and greedy grab at ... well, everything. The rhetoric of the time (no, I don't know much about it) certainly shows the South to be the aggressor. The so called 'War of Northern Aggresion' is a cliche' as propoganda.
However... I believe everyone is taking your absolute position of 'the Confederates are scum! Evil!' with all the seriousness it deserves. Of course, any absolute is a failure to recognise the subtle fact that life isn't like that. Not by a long shot.
Colouring your comments with 'rabid ugly dog' and the like only makes you appear unretractable. Which you keep insisting too! Please, you keep telling us how knowledgeable you are about the subject yet insist on refering to the Confederacy as the very earthly embodyment of Hell itself. Well, compared to what? The Union? Yea, wonderful people *cough*. You see what I mean.
Sorry for being OT guy. Redjack... I hope you start a thread about the parallels you see in Firefly given you knowledge of the Civil War.
Myself... gonna go watch The Outlaw Josey Wales. 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ well, I can agree that imho the Confederacy was in the wrong. That is, they were making a clearly illegal and greedy grab at ... well, everything.
Big of you. Considering it's true.
Quote:
The rhetoric of the time (no, I don't know much about it) certainly shows the South to be the aggressor. The so called 'War of Northern Aggresion' is a cliche' as propoganda.
You should really check both the official rhetoric and, more importantly, the PRIVATE communications of Confederates at the time.
You have no idea how frustrating it is to try to sustain debate with folks who don't know the facts and don't wish to seek them out. Only yourself and one other seem to have even a tangential grasp of the events in question. Yet those who take the proConfederate side (did I say Yikes about that yet?) continue to flap their metaphoric gums.
Please.
As I said, it would be irritating if it wasn't so disappointing and sad.
Quote:
However... I believe everyone is taking your absolute position of 'the Confederates are scum! Evil!' with all the seriousness it deserves. Of course, any absolute is a failure to recognise the subtle fact that life isn't like that. Not by a long shot. Colouring your comments with 'rabid ugly dog' and the like only makes you appear unretractable.
I think it was "rabid ugly animal." I like dogs.
Quote:
Which you keep insisting too! Please, you keep telling us how knowledgeable you are about the subject yet insist on refering to the Confederacy as the very earthly embodyment of Hell itself.
Never did that. The only comparisson I drew was between the South and Hitler's Germany. Which is totally analogous given the 100 year gap and the technological differences. Though Andersonville was as close to Hell as most humans should ever hope to come.
Who ran that place again? Let's think.
The Confederacy was, for the 19th Century, almost precisely the same thing Hitler's Germany was to Euprope in the 20th.
The only difference between the victims of the Confederacy and the victims of the Nazis is skin color.
And, curiously, there aren't too many Nazi apologists running around these boards. Folks seem to be able to tell a hand from a hacksaw when their own great great grands aren't involved. The rosey lenses only appear when the needle points their way. Shocking.
Never said the Union was anything like Heaven. Never implied it either. "Not-as-bad" is how I described the Union.
Am I intractable? Sure. In the face of Evil? Abso-ruttin-lutely. The Confederate South was and remains a massive disgusting, truly evil blight on American history. Just as more than one of the Founders feared it would from the get.
The blight is even more pernicious because of the continual attempts to soften and minimize their behaviour by folks who don't even bother to learn what that behaviour actually was.
You and others have tried to paint me as hyperbolic yet have failed to produce even single factual refutation of any of my assertions.
The questions stand.
Name one thing- one single thing- that the South did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.
Describe in detail those things the Articles of Confederation referred to that lift their cause up out of the go se.
Tick tock.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
No sense arguing w/ RJ Ghoulman. He or she will only insult you and start the name calling and question your intelligence.
Funny how the self appointed intellectual wannabes question everyone elses intelligence and claims.
I think most folk smelled the hate (make no mistake, that's what is being espoused, no matter how much icing it's dressed up in) and passed the bait a while ago.
FLAT-EARTHER
------------------------
SYLLABICATION: flat-earth·er
PRONUNCIATION: fltûrthr
NOUN: One who stubbornly adheres to outmoded or discredited ideas: “If you don't accept the ideas derived from Adam Smith … then you are [considered] a flat-earther” (James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly December 1993).
ETYMOLOGY: From the long-discredited belief that the earth is flat.
-frem
diefuxdie
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Name one thing- one single thing- that the South did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.
Name one thing- one single thing- that the North did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.
A standing army
Federal Taxes
Conscription
(which is slavery, of the combat sort, and the North practiced it)
The Anti-Federalists of our founding fathers were concerned that a powerful, Federal government would become the monsterous all-consuming, self-serving beast that it has - they were CLEARLY correct even if scorned at the time.
(Go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.)
These are the same folk who founded the Confederacy because that Federal Goverment began usurping powers reserved to the states ALONE, (Federal "fiat money" is in violation of the Constitution for example) and it was well on it's way to the bloated fascist monstrosity it is today.
I dare one to tell me that Patrick Henry would not be loading his trusty rifle after one good look at what we have now ?
Enough with the hate, both sides were fighting for something they really believed in, enough to die for it - men are not evil, governments are not evil, only *actions* are.
To blame someone for doing what they felt was "right" at the time and in the historical context from hindsight is easy, but it is not correct - they felt they were protecting their way of life from an oppressive, ever-expanding nightmare of red tape, taxes and exploitation.
Go on, tell us that's not exactly what happened to them when they lost ?
150 years from now, some twit on a FOPTIC Interplanet net will likely be calling US "evil"... but we ain't, some of the things we do are.
-frem
diefuxdie
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow - this topic has gone WAYYYYYYY off the original mark.
So here's my 2 cents - The IMDB has a new update which reads:
User Comments:
Animus
Hickory, NC
Date: 13 December 2003
Summary: a great series lost in FOX TVs bugzapper
FIREFLY is one of the best television series' to appear in a long time. Sadly it appeared on FOX where only the moderate will do. To have a series that is well acted, well written and brilliantly filmed is anathema to network television. FIREFLY deserved so much more, as did its fans who will never get to see the series go to the wondrous and vibrant worlds that the series would have explored had it not been shot down during its ascent. We'll never know what the real deal with River was, what Book's mysterious background was, who the Reavers truly were nor even the story behind the Blue Sun. Alas poor FIREFLY, we never knew ye...
So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!
www.fof-films.com
Firefly Fan Film - Coming SOON
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow - this topic has gone WAYYYYYYY off the original mark.
So here's my 2 cents - The IMDB has a new update which reads:
User Comments:
Animus
Hickory, NC
Date: 13 December 2003
Summary: a great series lost in FOX TVs bugzapper
FIREFLY is one of the best television series' to appear in a long time. Sadly it appeared on FOX where only the moderate will do. To have a series that is well acted, well written and brilliantly filmed is anathema to network television. FIREFLY deserved so much more, as did its fans who will never get to see the series go to the wondrous and vibrant worlds that the series would have explored had it not been shot down during its ascent. We'll never know what the real deal with River was, what Book's mysterious background was, who the Reavers truly were nor even the story behind the Blue Sun. Alas poor FIREFLY, we never knew ye...
So stuff that in your pipe and smoke it!
www.fof-films.com
Firefly Fan Film - Coming SOON
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
the aggressors (that would be the South, kids)
Point of info: in the strictest historical sense (and this is one of your beloved immutable FACTS) the forces of the North (i.e. Union) were the "aggressors" as they were the first to formally declare war. Against the South.
I feel a LITTLE like a troll for pointing this out, but you do profess a desire to argue the facts...
Not that I disagree with your main argument, either :)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
double post
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
triple post (damn it)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
QUADRUPLE post (GOR-AMMIT!)
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
QUINTUPLE post! what's WROOOOONG with me? must be some kind of horrible record, anyway....
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Name one thing- one single thing- that the North did or stood for that wasn't absolutely corrupted by or given the lie by the cancerous truth of their system.
Off the top of my head as I walk out to door...
The Union prevented slavery from expanding to new states.
The Union allowed blacks, one in particular, to have access to the president as an advisor.
The Union allowed fleeing slaves a safe haven or safe passage through to Canada.
The Union preserved the Union. Had that not occured things would have gone from bad to worse. Odds are good that neither the Confederacy nor the Union would have survived to present day.
I will modify this list when i get back. I'm sure there are shinier Union achievements.
Quote:
A standing army
Um. That's bad?
Quote:
Federal Taxes
So you don't like highways and phone lines and clean water and medicine etc.? Interesting.
Quote:
Conscription
(which is slavery, of the combat sort, and the North practiced it)
Well. You got me there. Conscription is awful.
Quote:
The Anti-Federalists of our founding fathers were concerned that a powerful, Federal government would become the monsterous all-consuming, self-serving beast that it has - they were CLEARLY correct even if scorned at the time.
(Go read the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers.)
Read 'em cheif. And I think my comprehension of the papers is somewhat shinier than yours.
Quote:
These are the same folk who founded the Confederacy because that Federal Goverment began usurping powers reserved to the states ALONE, (Federal "fiat money" is in violation of the Constitution for example) and it was well on it's way to the bloated fascist monstrosity it is today.
That's a load of go se. Again. The Federal government offended the Confederates by exercising its powers over INTERSTATE COMMERCE. And what was it that was being regulated out of existance? Three guesses.
Quote:
I dare one to tell me that Patrick Henry would not be loading his trusty rifle after one good look at what we have now ?
You have no idea what Patrick Henry would or would not do in modern times. Other than continue to rot.
Quote:
Enough with the hate, both sides were fighting for something they really believed in, enough to die for it - men are not evil, governments are not evil, only *actions* are.
Sorry. All beleifs are not equal. The nazis had a fairly detailed beleif structure too. And, frnakly, there was more dissent in their ranks (they tried to KILL Hitler after all) than ever evidenced itself in the Confederacy.
Quote:
To blame someone for doing what they felt was "right" at the time and in the historical context from hindsight is easy, but it is not correct - they felt they were protecting their way of life from an oppressive, ever-expanding nightmare of red tape, taxes and exploitation.
I haven't done that. I have used the morals and philosophies of the time to damn those scumbags. I've used their own words.
Quote:
Go on, tell us that's not exactly what happened to them when they lost ?
It's less than they deserved. But let's look at the Presidency of Andrew Johnson shall we? Lincoln wasn't even cold before he began cutting, reshaping or recasting all the efforts which had been put in place to give the degraded population of former slaves some parity with their former oppressors. In short order he used arcane economic means to shackle those people to the same land they'd been forced to work before the war. Jim Crow. Perhaps you've heard of it.
And you still haven't ponied up any answers.
* edited Johnson for jackson to acknowledge the correction, not to hide the mistake.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When you just discard any fact that is inconvenient to your argument....
(like the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and how they reflect on the topic)
It defeats the point of the discussion.
You call the Confeds "evil" and then use this to "justify" the "evil" conduct of the Union, which is STILL following the same practices ?
Ludicrous.
Have your flat earth and green sky, just don't try to foist it on us.
-frem
diefuxdie
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
But let's look at the Presidency of Andrew Jackson shall we? Lincoln wasn't even cold before he began cutting, reshaping or recasting all the efforts...
I believe you are referring to the Presidency of Andrew JOHNSON, as "Ole Hickory" died almost twenty years before Lincoln did.
And on a minor note, Jackson was something of a racist himself: he HATED the INDIANS, and tried to instigate his own little pogrom, somewhat less effective than smallpox, but...
Quote:
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Well, I think you oughta at LEAST know yer POTUS'S.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Johnson. Sorry. One slip. Hadda happen eventually.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When you just discard any fact that is inconvenient to your argument....
(like the Federalist/Anti-Federalist papers and how they reflect on the topic)
It defeats the point of the discussion.
I'm more than happy to slap you around with the Federalist/Anti-Federalist debate. Raise a specific point and I will either agree or correct you.
Quote:
You call the Confeds "evil" and then use this to "justify" the "evil" conduct of the Union, which is STILL following the same practices?
I call them evil because they are demonstrably so. No quotations. I justify nothing.
On a side note... are you an American? Are you seriously proposing that the Confedracy was NOT evil? Or that the Union was the lesser of the two societies? Be specific in how that can possibly be so.
Also...
What evil Union practices are ongoing? Be specific. Then tell me how a Confederate win would have changed these conditions. This should be good for a laugh.
Quote:
Ludicrous.
Yes. you are.
Quote:
Have your flat earth and green sky, just don't try to foist it on us.
I'm a Flat Earther. Yet the list of benign Confederate accomplishments continuues not to appear. Funny that.
Come into the Light Carol-Anne.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Johnson. Sorry. One slip. Hadda happen eventually.
Two slips, actually: please read my previous post concerning your mislabelling the South as the "aggressor".
Three slips, even, if we count BOTH of your erroneous references to the Jackson[sic] presidency following Lincoln's demise.
BTW, is your nickname chosen in honour of Jack the Ripper? IIRC, that's one of HIS nicknames, too...if so, kind of an odd choice, considering your stern stance on historical evil.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
When you just discard any fact that is inconvenient to your argument....You call the Confeds "evil"... I call them evil because...Are you seriously proposing that the Confedracy was NOT evil?....What evil Union practices are ongoing? Be specific. Then tell me how a Confederate win would have changed these conditions. This should be good for a laugh.
...the list of benign Confederate accomplishments continuues not to appear...
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to weigh in on this discussion with something more substantive than my previous nit-picking; Red Jack, you're just bringing out the Troll in me, and I hate that. So here goes...
"All that is required for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing." (or something like that)
I forget who said/wrote this originally, but I've liked it ever since I first heard it (of all places, in a short-lived Russell Wong vehicle called "Vanishing Son" - yes, I AM a philistine!). And I think it is applicable here.
To be honest, I probably don't know my history as well as any of the main debaters here. What I DO know is a little logic and common sense, which I've applied in my own mind to my limited understanding of the socio-political situations leading up to, during, and following from the American Civil War.
On the one hand, I agree that individual soldiers - on BOTH sides - fought for their own reasons, not necessarily the same as the others, or the offical political mandate. I imagine not a few of them couldn't've given a peddlar's damn about Ideals or Morals: to many, military service might've offered a better standard of living, in terms of food, clothing and medical care than their situation at home. Others might have genuinely believed in a higher political or reason for fighting: defense of home and lands for an ignorant sharecropper, perhaps, or an end to human bondage for an ignorant Northern slum-dweller.
These hypothetical examples comprise but a fraction of the possibilities, but they are the ones that offer the greatest window for moral absolution in this conflict (well, agreeing to kill people just for better food is still reprehensible, but anyways).
But any such argument ultimately fails, if we accept the truth of the above quote. A more applicable corollary to it might read: "People get exactly the gov't they deserve." Individual citizens were given a say in how they were governed, with the expectation that they would be decently informed about the issues before they had their say. I think this is a crude approximation of some of Jefferson's ideals. Hamilton, his major opponent, felt the benighted masses were entrenched in their ignorance, and needed to be guided by their more enlightened fellow citizens (another crude approximation).
In other words, Hamilton believed that basically decent people would stand by and do nothing as evil had its way. Jefferson was hoping they wouldn't, given the chance.
Fast-forward up to the Civil War. Jefferson may have held the high ground on idealism, but it turns out Hamilton was right: the ignorant majority - North AND South - remained willfully ignorant, probably deciding that it was enough to just make a living for themselves, and maybe a family. I've heard paeans to this brand of foolishness, and all I can respond with is the "evil prevails when good men do nothing" quote.
As citizens of a state and a (Con)Federation of States, everyone has a moral obligation to keep informed of the important issues of the day. Because if they don't, smooth-talking hucksters and firebrands will lead them astray. I seriously doubt the average Southern dirt farmer really cared if he were a citizen of a Confederacy or a Union, as much as I doubt the average Northern sweat-shop labourer cared if those bunch of states down there left the Union or not. Both of these hypothetical salt-of-the-earth types likely cared for little beyond securing a living day-to-day, season-to-season. What would have tiNOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bourne:
Two slips, actually: please read my previous post concerning your mislabelling the South as the "aggressor".
In Japan, even now, schoolchildren are taught that WW2 was their battle against Western Imperialist expansion.
Pretty hefty spin but one I'm sure they prefer to the actual goods. Those few brave souls who've hoped to tell the true story faced career suicide and even assault.
IOW: Fort Sumter, April 12, 1861.
See, how it works is, the aggressor in this conflict was the guy who snuck up and started shooting.
Quote:
Three slips, even, if we count BOTH of your erroneous references to the Jackson[sic] presidency following Lincoln's demise.
Same slip twice. A typo. It was clear by context who I meant. I sometimes say Peter Gabriel when I clearly mean Phil Collins. Whoopee. Yuh got me.
Hope you're also at least getting to look at all that ground you're losing.
Quote:
BTW, is your nickname chosen in honour of Jack the Ripper?
Nope. Private thing between me and some freinds. There used to be a Redmichael out there and a Redjess. I'm the last of the three still using the handle. I know about the Ripper thing, of course but, no, this ain't that. One day I'll switch to something new.
Boy. That list of Confedrate accomplishments must be huge by now.
Having a hard time whittling it down? It must be difficult to choose when your society made such comprehensive boons to the world.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bourne:
If y'all don't mind, I'd like to weigh in on this discussion with something more substantive than my previous nit-picking; Red Jack, you're just bringing out the Troll in me, and I hate that. So here goes... etc.
Bourne-
When they've done reading this post I'm sure some will dive in again with the weird and scare-ifying ProConfederate Rhetoric and say that I was being snide.
I swear that I was not.
I appreciated your second post. It was thoughtful and heartfelt. I don't know what I've said or what position I've taken which would, as you put it, "bring out the troll" in you but, setting that aside, I will address what you said in the spirit you said it.
Much of it is true.
It is mostly the rulers who do the deciding when and who to fight. It is mostly the propagandas of the higher castes which impels those who can least afford it to saricfice themselves and their fortunes for some cause in which the leaders themselves might not even really beleive.
It is also true that the U.S. has never had a so-called Good Samaritan law. It's perfectly legal to stand by and watch a crime take place and do nothing. You're not even required to call the cops.
A lot of evil goes unchecked because lawabiding (I won't say "good") people fail to act morally.
I agree very much with the spirit of your post. I even understand your desire to give the benefit of the doubt to the guys who did the bulk of the anonymous bleeding out on the various feilds of battle.
But here's the thing...
You summed up with a statement implying that there was some moral parity between the North and the South in this conflict.
There wasn't.
Even if I concede that the activities of the Federal Government were outside the legitimate Constitutional bounds (and I don't really, but, for the sake of argument) you have to remember that it was over the buying and selling of human beings that the South became outraged and went to war.
If I give a speech saying something to the effect of "All those Gorram MIMES are responsible for the world's ills. Those black clothed white faced devils are a blight on the safety of decent folks everywhere! What's with the face paint? What's with the silence? What we should do is round them up and FORCE them to renounce the leotard! FORCE them to speak. If they won't?" ::throat cutting gesture::
I would be laughed at and perhaps hauled away for either extreme public stupidity or attempting to fomment a riot.
The laughter comes because the people in the crowd, quite rightly, would think my worldveiw vis a vis Mimes was, at the very best, extreme. There would be no sympathetic response to what I had to say.
With the Confederacy, the opposite is true. Horrible, insane, morally bankrupt speechs were used to whip up the appropriate sentiment in the masses, to make them ready for war. Had those masses not agreed, there would have been no war. You can't plant in unfertile ground.
For all its hideous treatment of more than a third of its population, like South Africa (until recently), the South actually considered itself to be a democracy. So, had there been any desire to stay at the negotiating table with the Federal government, the Southern Representives would have stayed at that table or face the boot come the next election.
Instead we got a brutal war.
Yes. Absolutely. There were, I'm sure, several people on the Rebel side who looked up and said "What the hell? I'm not fighting over THIS."
Just as there were several more on the Union side who did the same. "And I give a damn about those darkies why, exactly?" they might say.
But simple arithmatic tells us that the number of true beleivers must have far far outweighed the number of reluctant fighters. And, even among those reluctant fighters, the number of those who disagreed with their government on issues of Slavery and Union must have been even smaller.
How do we know? Because the South was outgunned and outmanned from the beginning, yet they kept the war go
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Redjack, your last post reads a bit more diplomatic, for lack of a better term, and less a rant against all things Southern.
To respond to two points:
- Andersonville: Truly a horrible prison, but not due entirely to neglect. The prison was built as the war was winding down and the South had pitiful few resources to dedicate to the prisoners. I will be happy to point out the many attempts by the commander of the prison, and the Confederate Congress to alleviate the situation in Andersonville if you require it.
Some statistics:
Union prisoner deaths: approximately 22,000 prisoners; 8% of the POW population.
Confederate prisoner deaths: numbers between 28,000 & 31,000 (exact # unknown due to burning of Richmond & Atlanta); 12% of the POW population.
As for your request for "Confederate contributions", is that during the War or the contributions of Confederates to America and society in general after the conflict? If it is postbellum, I can gladly supply a lengthy list of Confederate contributions to the expansion and settling of the West, medicine, politics, etc.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Redjack, your last post reads a bit more diplomatic, for lack of a better term, and less a rant against all things Southern.
I myself am a southerner. Born in West Virginia. Lived between W Va., Virginia and Georgia for long chunks of my life. Small ess because I'm an American. I get the whole country not only one little region.
I like the Waffle House and Po' Folks and sweet tea instead of soda.
Quote:
To respond to two points:
- Andersonville: Truly a horrible prison, but not due entirely to neglect.
The prison was built as the war was winding down and the South had pitiful few resources to dedicate to the prisoners. I will be happy to point out the many attempts by the commander of the prison, and the Confederate Congress to alleviate the situation in Andersonville if you require it.
Don't bother. The decent man would have opened the doors.
Quote:
As for your request for "Confederate contributions", is that during the War or the contributions of Confederates to America and society in general after the conflict? If it is postbellum, I can gladly supply a lengthy list of Confederate contributions to the expansion and settling of the West, medicine, politics, etc.
Post the war there were no Confederates. That would have been treason.
Southern states have given us our best authors. (Mark Twain, not Shakespeare, is IMHO, the greatest writer in the English language.) Many of our finest statesmen and women and not a few artists, musicians and scientists.
And, of course, there's Jazz.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Once again some a-wipe with time on their hands wants to vent their spleen. The fan base and attention they have given this show proves that it isnt a bore, and also their efforts, such as full page articles in newspapers etc.
The cast, normally I would agree if there was a weak link, I wont blow smoke up someone's butt just because, but in this case I simply can't find one. All the cast were excellent and outstanding.
Bury that WIPE!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
I don't insult intelligence. Only willful bending of that intelligence to ensure one's misunderstanding of complex facts and inspire nauseating apologies for an evil and illegal regime which, of course, The Confederacy was.
Horse manure. You're posts have been quite insulting and this level of debate is both beneath your cause and couterproductive to your stated goals. Calling your opponents "scum", "children" and such are insults, designed not to convince your opponents, nor help others who might be trying to argue the same point. You don't want a debate, you want a flame war. That is apparent in your argumentative style.
Don't lie. The insults alone will cause those you are trying to convince to write you off as an immature or at least uncivil person, with no credibility, but a ton of arrogance.
The problem is that your case is quite strong. But it is not going to get a fair hearing because the manner in which you argue is too much of a distraction. You want folks to listen to you, and your point of view, try a more subtle, or polite approach. Even if you think your opponents are scum, children, or damned, telling them that to their face won't convince them of the rightness of your arguments. It will only give them cause to assume that you are full of crap, irrational, and thus not worthy of consideration.
Style does matter. You are not going to convince Browncoat1 or anyone in the audience by behaving badly. You don't need to, either. Insulting your opponent in the manner you have been doing, is not only ineffective but counterproductive. It not only won't accomplish what you want, (unless all you want is to troll for a flame war) and actually make it harder for the opposition to listen to you. If they don't listen, for whatever reason, you cannot persuade.
"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
You're posts have been quite insulting and this level of debate is both beneath your cause and couterproductive to your stated goals.
Says you. I will, of course, keep my own counsel on how to proceed. I find many of the expressed veiws here to have been so offensive it's difficult to keep from retching as I read them so, you know, there you go.
Quote:
Calling your opponents "scum", "children" and such are insults, designed not to convince your opponents, nor help others who might be trying to argue the same point.
I never called my opponents scum. Not once. I implied that some of them were children in a sarcastic and, I think, humorous way.
Obviously what that meant was that, in the context of this discussion, I find some of their veiws to be so unformed or uniformed as to resemble those of children.
Quote:
You don't want a debate, you want a flame war.
A flame war is when I just call names without making a point or, in fact, discussing the subject in question.
That hasn't happened. And it won't from this end.
Quote:
That is apparent in your argumentative style.
Yeah. Never claimed to be Socrates. Waddaya gonna do? Takes all kinds to make a world, cheif.
Quote:
Don't lie.
Never have, never will. No need.
Quote:
The insults alone will cause those you are trying to convince to write you off as an immature or at least uncivil person, with no credibility, but a ton of arrogance.
Uncivil? Have a I sworn at anynone? Insulted anyone's mother? Said anything that wasn't absolutely so? Please. I simply describe a regime and the people that supported it in the appropriate terms. You just don't like my position or the fact that I won't give an inch.
The problem is that inch doesn't exist.
Quote:
The problem is that your case is quite strong.
LOL. My "case?" LOL. You seem to be laboring under the impression that the argument here is between two equivalent veiws of the same events. It's not. It's between the facts and the results of generational whitewashing of those facts.
My "case." Sheesh.
Quote:
But it is not going to get a fair hearing because the manner in which you argue is too much of a distraction.
A fair hearing. Look. I couldn't care less what your opinion of the facts is. I'm not coming to you or anyone here with my hat in my hands hoping for your approval or even agreement.
I'm pointing out the big elephant in the room. If you choose to ignore it, that's not my problem.
I want the actual rancid goods to be displayed instead of the pretty packaging.
Quote:
You want folks to listen to you, and your point of view, try a more subtle, or polite approach.
When I want your advice on social graces I will absolutely let you know. Really. Sit by the phone.
Quote:
Even if you think your opponents are scum, children, or damned, telling them that to their face won't convince them of the rightness of your arguments.
Never described anyone living as scum or damned so drop it.
Quote:
It will only give them cause to assume that you are full of crap, irrational, and thus not worthy of consideration.
Irrational? I'm, if anything, hyper-rational. It's been a trouble to me my whole life.
Quote:
Style does matter.
To you. Not to me.
Quote:
You are not going to convince Browncoat1 or anyone in the audience by behaving badly.
Badly according to who? Last I checked we were all equals here. You're in no position whatsoever to lecture me on my behaviour. I haven't used profanity. I haven't even directly insulted anyone. Only their stupid arguments, lack of information and odious positions. That's allowed.
Quote:
You don't need to, either. Insulting your opponent in the manner you have been doing, is not only ineffective but counterproductive. It not only won't accomplish what you want, (unless all you want is to tNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As neither an American nor a student of American history I do not want to wade into this debate. I only wish to say that the points brought up by Redjack, Ghoulman, Bourne and others were delivered in a manner that showed respect to the person with dissenting opinion and a desire to bring to light relevant information.
Draken, your previous post was counter productive to the point you were trying to make, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse Redjack of, only you provide ample examples of your lack of skill in debating and show none for Redjack’s. The only examples you give for Redjack’s insulting behavior seem to be blantently false. A cannot find any example of him referring to any other posters as “scum” or “children”.
Please don’t take this as a flame, because it is not, it’s just that the tone of your post was that of a personal attack on Redjack, not his arguments.
edited to add "and others"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oops, sorry Redjack, I should of known you would of responded to that post more succinctly then I am capable of.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
I myself am a southerner. Born in West Virginia. Lived between W Va., Virginia and Georgia for long chunks of my life. Small ess because I'm an American. I get the whole country not only one little region.
I like the Waffle House and Po' Folks and sweet tea instead of soda.
I consider myself American, but I am also Southern. I guess it is a bit of the same torn loyalties men faced during the war; fight for your country against your home state, neighbors, family and friends, or side w/ your state and fight against your country. Not an easy decision for most I am sure.
Never been much on the Waffle House. Po' Folks is okay. Give me sweet tea any day of the week.
Quote:
Don't bother. The decent man would have opened the doors.
I agree, to a point. A soldier is honor bound to their duty and cause. One could not simply let more than 10,000 enemy prisoners loose in the South. The whole purpose of prisons was to keep those soldiers out of the fight.
Odd how you did not acknowledge the much higher death rate of Confederate soldiers in Union prisons. The Union had more resources, food and medicine than the South, yet the Confederate death rate was far higher than the CSA prisons.
On the point of Andersonville, I do not understand why all communications from the Confederate Congress, Wirz, and Union prisoners themselves were refused by Lincoln and the Union. The prisoner exchange was stopped by Lincoln and all letters asking for the exchange to continue went unanswered. Wirz event sent a group of Union prisoners on Parole to Washington to appeal to Lincoln were sent back without Lincoln so much as talking to them.
Guess Lincoln and his staff were not decent men.
Quote:[/quotes]
Post the war there were no Confederates. That would have been treason.
Depends on your definition of treason & which side you were on. For the sake of keeping peace, let's call them ex-Confederates.
Quote:
Southern states have given us our best authors. (Mark Twain, not Shakespeare, is IMHO, the greatest writer in the English language.) Many of our finest statesmen and women and not a few artists, musicians and scientists.
And, of course, there's Jazz. .
The South, and Southerners have made many contributions to our country, and our society, as you point out. At least we can agree on that much.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
^^^ well, I can agree that imho the Confederacy was in the wrong. That is, they were making a clearly illegal and greedy grab at ... well, everything.
Big of you. Considering it's true.Quote:
The rhetoric of the time (no, I don't know much about it) certainly shows the South to be the aggressor. The so called 'War of Northern Aggresion' is a cliche' as propoganda.
You should really check both the official rhetoric and, more importantly, the PRIVATE communications of Confederates at the time.
You have no idea how frustrating it is to try to sustain debate with folks who don't know the facts and don't wish to seek them out. Only yourself and one other seem to have even a tangential grasp of the events in question. Yet those who take the proConfederate side (did I say Yikes about that yet?) continue to flap their metaphoric gums.
Please.
As I said, it would be irritating if it wasn't so disappointing and sad.Quote:
However... I believe everyone is taking your absolute position of 'the Confederates are scum! Evil!' with all the seriousness it deserves. Of course, any absolute is a failure to recognise the subtle fact that life isn't like that. Not by a long shot. Colouring your comments with 'rabid ugly dog' and the like only makes you appear unretractable.
I think it was "rabid ugly animal." I like dogs.Quote:
Which you keep insisting too! Please, you keep telling us how knowledgeable you are about the subject yet insist on refering to the Confederacy as the very earthly embodyment of Hell itself.
Never did that. The only comparisson I drew was between the South and Hitler's Germany. Which is totally analogous ...
Never? (Ghoulman counts the number of times REDJACK refered to the Confederacy as 'EVIL'... toooo many!) Well I think you're definition of 'evil' is about as sophisticated as George Dubya Bushs'.
Don't mean to gang up on ya REDJACK but you're language is confusing. You can't call the Confederacy 'evil' as it implies (or at least people will infer) the PEOPLE are evil too. And then you called them Nazis.
It's not an argument. You have an absolute position and keep trying to justify this position. Well, with launguage like that I think you're confusing people and colouring facts with your point of view.
Comparing 19th century Southern U.S people to Nazis is certainly a colourful image, but hardly accurate.
Man, we are ganging up. Sorry REDJACK. I don't have time to sift through all of this so I hope I'm not stating old news.
I dislike this forum software... get some UBB for frell sake!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And just when I thought this was going to get civil and mature, the snide comments start up again.
Drakon, you are wasting your time. I will not waste more of mine w/ someone who insists on being rude.
"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
Never? (Ghoulman counts the number of times REDJACK refered to the Confederacy as 'EVIL'... toooo many!)
I never refered to my opponents or anyone living as evil. Not once ever. The Confedracy and the South of the time was evil. That is not in dispute. I can never count it too many times.
Quote:
Well I think you're definition of 'evil' is about as sophisticated as George Dubya Bushs'.
Heh. That punk couldn't tie me in a game of tic-tac-toe much less win. Talk about insulting. As if.
Quote:
Don't mean to gang up on ya REDJACK but you're language is confusing.
Not really. If you're confused, I suggest reading aloud. It will help.
Quote:
You can't call the Confederacy 'evil' as it implies (or at least people will infer) the PEOPLE are evil too. And then you called them Nazis.
The Confedracy was, for white men, a democracy. It maintained its existance on the degredation, rape, torture and murder of literally millions of people over centuries. It determined its victims solely on the basis of skin color. The Confederacy was evil by any objective measure. You do the math. I'm not being too confusing now, am I?
Quote:
It's not an argument.
Not so far anyway.
Quote:
You have an absolute position and keep trying to justify this position.
No. I "justify" nothing. I state facts which, btw, have yet to be refuted.
Quote:
Comparing 19th century Southern U.S people to Nazis is certainly a colourful image, but hardly accurate.
Actually as far as the analogy went, it's exactly spot on. Yes, the conditions that lead Germany to war were dissimilar, but the mindset of the two nations is nearly identical. Again, if you read the writings of the people in question, you'll find them chillingly similar.
Unless of course one agrees with them. In that event there would be no chill.
Quote:
Man, we are ganging up.
Please. A lot of people holding a stupid belief doesn't give the belief any more validity. It just means a lot of people can't sift the data properly. "Gang up" to your heart's content.
But go crack a book or two as well.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
... go se, I'm home with the 56K and MAN the DL is harsh! This thread is tooooo long! I hate this forum software. Did I meantion that? UBB please!
Please, don't take my flip GWB joke as anything but a little jab.
I'm not sure I'm on to just what the arguement is, as I say; I'm still confused.
I guess my thing here is that calling the Confederacy 'evil' as defined by the Nazis... can't be particularly justified. Apples and oranges as evil goes. Just an opinion.
And it might be safe to say that throwing around the word 'evil' to describe any arguement about a particular people is inflammatory. You can get away with evil when talking about Nazis but it's not a word I've ever heard so directly aimmed at 'the Confederacy'.
... still, in regard with how the South made it's living off the blood of millions for a few centuries, well yea! That's evil, no doubt. Right up there with the Nazis though different imho. I don't directly associate 'the Confederacy' with the South in this issue. I thought we were on about the Civil War not the history of Southern slavery (easily one of the most horrific crimes anywhere, anytime. Up there with the Holocaust, the Inquisition, etc.)
Perhaps what I mean to say is that I might agree that the Confederacy was 'evil' in some sense, certainly they were an illegal government, a junte as it where. But do you mean to say that the Southern folk were somehow 'evil' sociologically as opposed to being more or less as 'evil' as anyone else at the time. I don't know much about it but I wonder if I can infer you mean that since slavery was so large a part of everyones life that the cruelty created a culture of evil? How deep are ya goin' here partner?
See... this is what I'm missing here.
Anyho', start a new thread... I can't DL this! Im out, have a nice week-end! Shiny!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You're being rude. This site is hand coded by a genius named Haken who works really hard and this is a great site. So maybe a polite suggestion to Haken is in order, he welcomes your opinion. But if you hate it so much maybe you shouldn't come here or at least stop saying you hate his site every time you post.
Originally posted by Ghoulman:
... go se, I'm home with the 56K and MAN the DL is harsh! This thread is tooooo long! I hate this forum software. Did I meantion that? UBB please!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Dog won't bark no more, if you stop waving the meat in front of him. It's no persuading or arguing with folks who:
1. calls you unread, unintelligent, and apparently feels the need to *remind* you aboot that at every turn of the game.
2. self-professes to be well-read and intelligent. Really? well-read and intelligent don't feel the need to overcompensate and scream that out every second of the day. The only thing it does demonstrate is how egomanical folks can be.
Otto: "Well, Monkey don't read Philosphy".
Wanda: [looks at Otto holding a book] "Really?"
Stop responding to it and it will go home and bark at himself.
Hitler himself used the same type of strategy in convincing himself and his friends very much the same things. He barks and repeats exactly the same flawed opinion and offers it as "Analysis", "Fact", and "Data". Claiming that the presumed target is "Evil". Filling the room with Hatred. Barking and Barking the exact same irrelevance and Polarizing the conversation to wear you down until you are too tired to oppose. It works well when folks are already at a lost, struggling to survive and needs something, somewhere, whatever that might "make sense" to blame. People like that are already completely convinced that their delusion gradeur is true and believes that if they bark at you long enough and hard enough, you will see it too - you see, precisely because you are "insignificant, stupid, and can't form a logical argument if it could save you. Oh but it's not your fault, it's their fault". ho hum.
Converse with him, interact with him and you give him a platform to preach. Listen to him and you aid him in his foolish irrelevent cause. Pry him and you draw him out and let him infect you with his hatred. Bah. It's always the same stream of nonsense.
Why talk with him, we can just post to each other using the same set of words on replay. I'll start:
"They are Evil"
"Just like the Nazis"
"Go read some books"
"I am ultra-intelligent, well read, and you are not"
"I offer only exact data and fact, you offer stupid uneducated opinion"
"My, look who didn't hit the library in their entire live"
I think that about sum up the entire conversation so far.
Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Succatash wrote:
You're being rude. This site is hand coded by a genius named Haken who works really hard and this is a great site. So maybe a polite suggestion to Haken is in order, he welcomes your opinion. But if you hate it so much maybe you shouldn't come here or at least stop saying you hate his site every time you post. Point taken.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
The Dog won't bark no more, if you stop waving the meat in front of him. blah blah blah blah blah blah scream that out every second of the day. The only thing it does demonstrate is how egomanical folks can be.
Who's screaming. Most of my sentances end in periods. See?
Quote:
Hitler himself used the same type of strategy in convincing himself and his friends very much the same things.
I'm Hitler because I likened the pre-war ( pre mid-20th century really) South and the Confederacy to the Nazis?
Yikes, dude.
Hitler would have LOVED Old Dixie.
Quote:
He barks and repeats exactly the same flawed opinion and offers it as "Analysis", "Fact", and "Data". Claiming that the presumed target is "Evil". Filling the room with Hatred.
Should we love the Confederacy? Embrace its ideals or even justify them?
I'm serious. I've asked for a list. Nothing has come forth.
Quote:
Barking and Barking the exact same irrelevance and Polarizing the conversation to wear you down until you are too tired to oppose.
I know you won't agree wiht me. But somebody has to put the actual truth out amongst all the rubbish.
Quote:
...It works well when folks are already at a lost, struggling to survive and needs something, somewhere, whatever that might "make sense" to blame. blah blah blah People like that are already completely convinced that their delusion gradeur is true and believes that if they bark at you long enough and hard enough, you will see it too - you see, precisely because you are "insignificant, stupid, and can't form a logical argument if it could save you. Oh but it's not your fault, it's their fault".
Not exactly sure what all that meant but...
I never said anyone was insignificant. I never said anyone was stupid. I said some of the notions were stupid. They are.
Quote:
Converse with him, interact with him and you give him a platform to preach. Listen to him and you aid him in his foolish irrelevent cause.
Foolish? Maybe. Irrelevant? I can't think of anything more relevant to the enjoyment of FIREFLY than a real understanding of the backdrop.
Quote:
Pry him and you draw him out and let him infect you with his hatred.
I don't hate anybody. Waste of time.
Quote:
Why talk with him, we can just post to each other using the same set of words on replay. I'll start:
"They are Evil"
"Just like the Nazis"
"Go read some books"
"I am ultra-intelligent, well read, and you are not"
"I offer only exact data and fact, you offer stupid uneducated opinion"
"My, look who didn't hit the library in their entire live"
I think thsat about sum up the conversation so far.
That would be fine, I guess if you also post
"Ignorance is best."
"Don't confuse me with the facts"
and
"Shut up. I think the Confederates should have WON."
You know, just so the opposition gets their points heard. It's all about being fair and balanced, right?
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
I consider myself American, but I am also Southern. I guess it is a bit of the same torn loyalties men faced during the war; fight for your country against your home state, neighbors, family and friends, or side w/ your state and fight against your country. Not an easy decision for most I am sure.
edited
A soldier is honor bound to their duty and cause. One could not simply let more than 10,000 enemy prisoners loose in the South. The whole purpose of prisons was to keep those soldiers out of the fight.
Given their condition at the time it would have made better strategic sense to release them than to keep them. An influx of 10,000 terribly wounded and malnourished men would have drained Union reserves massively.
Quote:
Odd how you did not acknowledge the much higher death rate of Confederate soldiers in Union prisons. The Union had more resources, food and medicine than the South, yet the Confederate death rate was far higher than the CSA prisons.
My feeling on this is this:
First off, I have no specific data about the inner workings of Union POW camps. Since everyone– despite political leaning– acknowledges Andersonville as the most egregious camp, we can assume that other factors than torture and neglect are the result of the slightly higher percentage of Condederate POW deaths.
What are those other factors? Well.
The rebel army was, as you said, poorer than the American army, and had fewer men, yet was attempting to accomplish essentially the same task.
This means that the rebels were forced to fight longer once wounded and to stay in the feild with fewer supplies either medical or nutritional.
I would guess that the basic condition of a rebel soldier arriving at an American camp was worse than his American counterpart.
That would account for the slightly higher death rate.
But it's just a guess.
Quote:
On the point of Andersonville, I do not understand why all communications from the Confederate Congress, Wirz, and Union prisoners themselves were refused by Lincoln and the Union. The prisoner exchange was stopped by Lincoln and all letters asking for the exchange to continue went unanswered. Wirz event sent a group of Union prisoners on Parole to Washington to appeal to Lincoln were sent back without Lincoln so much as talking to them.
Dunno. My guess is, by that stage of the war, all Lincoln wanted to hear from the South was an unconditional surrender.
Quote:
Guess Lincoln and his staff were not decent men.
Never said Lincoln was a saint. But he was infinitely closer to being one than ANY of the Confederates. Demonstrably.
Quote:
Depends on your definition of treason & which side you were on.
No. Depends on your stated affiliation and the country you live in. And what you're willing to do about the affiliation.
Quote:
For the sake of keeping peace, let's call them ex-Confederates.
Fair enough.
Quote:
The South, and Southerners have made many contributions to our country, and our society, as you point out. At least we can agree on that much.
Hey. I'm a big fan of Americans. That's my point.
I'm bowing out now. I think the horse is well dead.
I do hope some who read this "debate" will be inspired to actually look into the history of the Confedracy and the Pre-War South. I hope that they will have the presence of mind and decency of spirit to call the thing what it was.
Not sorry about the ruffled feathers but, then, you know that.
And I love FIREFLY.
The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME