Tempers-flare-over-removal-of-confederate-statues-in-New-Orleans

2456789

Replies

  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,099 Senior Member
    Joe McCarthy had his flaws, but his stand on communism and the infiltration of government, public education, the entertainment and news industry was exactly right.

    WORD
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,958 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Even if the Confederacy was fighting for slavery (and some were) it is a disgrace to try to erase the past. For better or worse, there are lessons to be learned. We need to see history for what it was-- warts and all.

    :that::agree:

    It's plain and simple, not to be overthunk!!! At this stage in history, everybody and his dog knows what happened back then. We haven't forgot yet. This reminds me of a kid in a bed pulling the blanket over his head to hide from the spooks at night! That's ok in a kids world of make believe, but in an adult world it's plain flat out STUPID!

    Like what Jerm said, there's lessons to be learned. If we don't face history there's more chance we will repeat it's mistakes down the line.

    What do these idiots want to do, go back 10,000 years and write a fairy tail to read to our precious babies at night? This is STUPID!!! Tell it like it happened and the world will learn lessons that might prevent people doing it again down the line!!!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    If by brainwashed you mean united by a common desire to preserve their way of life and keep a modicum of independence from a tyrannical central government trying to do a huger power grab, then I'd say yes...
    Yes. Or at least that is the line that they fed them. Most people won't get themselves maimed and killed fighting to protect the interests of the elite so they have to tell them something else. It was the exact same way for the Union... Why on earth would the Republicans want to keep their political competitors, the Democrats in the Union? Like today, do you really think if both coasts dropped off the political map, Republicans would be clamoring to keep the Chuck Schumers and Nancy Pelosis in the fold? The answer is that northern manufacturing interests would then need to compete against the UK and Europe to market their goods to the south. They would also have to deal with importing (and paying tariffs) raw materials from the south that would have otherwise been interstate commerce.

    The north was sending their sons and husbands to fight and die for the economic interests of the northern elite and the south was sending their sons and husbands to fight and die for the economic interests (which included slavery) of the southern elite. Nothing more. I don't buy that "free the slaves" righteous cause crap either-- that is also a lie. While there was an abolitionist movement, the war was about protecting the economic interests of the elite on both sides.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,853 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Yes. Or at least that is the line that they fed them. Most people won't get themselves maimed and killed fighting to protect the interests of the elite so they have to tell them something else. It was the exact same way for the Union... Why on earth would the Republicans want to keep their political competitors, the Democrats in the Union? Like today, do you really think if both coasts dropped off the political map, Republicans would be clamoring to keep the Chuck Schumers and Nancy Pelosis in the fold? The answer is that northern manufacturing interests would then need to compete against the UK and Europe to market their goods to the south. They would also have to deal with importing (and paying tariffs) raw materials from the south that would have otherwise been interstate commerce.

    The north was sending their sons and husbands to fight and die for the economic interests of the northern elite and the south was sending their sons and husbands to fight and die for the economic interests (which included slavery) of the southern elite. Nothing more. I don't buy that "free the slaves" righteous cause crap either-- that is also a lie. While there was an abolitionist movement, the war was about protecting the economic interests of the elite on both sides.

    Makes you wonder who the real slaves were? Also, seems Lincoln and the civil war weren't nearly as effective at eradicating it as history would like us to believe...
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,958 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Yes. Or at least that is the line that they fed them. Most people won't get themselves maimed and killed fighting to protect the interests of the elite so they have to tell them something else. It was the exact same way for the Union... Why on earth would the Republicans want to keep their political competitors, the Democrats in the Union? Like today, do you really think if both coasts dropped off the political map, Republicans would be clamoring to keep the Chuck Schumers and Nancy Pelosis in the fold? The answer is that northern manufacturing interests would then need to compete against the UK and Europe to market their goods to the south. They would also have to deal with importing (and paying tariffs) raw materials from the south that would have otherwise been interstate commerce.

    The north was sending their sons and husbands to fight and die for the economic interests of the northern elite and the south was sending their sons and husbands to fight and die for the economic interests (which included slavery) of the southern elite. Nothing more. I don't buy that "free the slaves" righteous cause crap either-- that is also a lie. While there was an abolitionist movement, the war was about protecting the economic interests of the elite on both sides.

    There were several reasons for the war and depending on an individual's status or station in life and how he was affected by different things affected his reasons whether he was for or against the war and why. Some believed in slavery, some didn't but didn't want the north dictating to the Southern states what to do about it. Slavery had a lot to do with the war for several reasons, some economic and some moral.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    There were several reasons for the war and depending on an individual's status or station in life and how he was affected by different things affected his reasons whether he was for or against the war and why. Some believed in slavery, some didn't but didn't want the north dictating to the Southern states what to do about it. Slavery had a lot to do with the war for several reasons, some economic and some moral.
    Moral reasons are valid, but it was not the driver of armed conflict. The war was pursued (by the north against the south) purely for economic reasons. They could have just as easily parted ways and been peaceful neighbors with the south, but northern economic interests were at stake. This is some interesting reading that goes more into depth about the subject...
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-011-9772-4
  • earlyearly Senior Member Posts: 4,950 Senior Member
    If one reads biographies of Washington and Jefferson you can see the seeds being planted with the Old Virginia planter class etc.. To distill peoples motivations into oblique generalisations is a disservice to an entire populace in time. The geographic locations of most of the battles, individual economic circumstance, and social context as well as technological context weave a much more complexed mosaic of individual motivation.
    My thoughts are generally clear. My typing, not so much.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    And even non-owners livelihood still depended on the trickle down effect of that economy. The blacksmith, the lawyers, the hotel owners, the barber, the doctors, the livery owners, the carpenters and the general store owners all had a vested interest in preserving a healthy working economy. We all seem to forget how many mouths are attached to the nipples of these folks you and others call the "elites". EXACTLY the same as today...
    Also keep in mind that some slaves were carpenters, shop keepers, blacksmiths, and barbers as well-- there were 4 million slaves to 5.5 million white people. They were a HUGE part of the economy, yet 2/3 of the population didn't own them-- those with wealth did. I am not saying that the elites of society is a bad thing either-- elitist theory is only a lens to look through, or a filter, in a effort to find the truth. And while abolitionists were preaching about the evils of slavery, a different form of slavery was being practiced in the factories of the north, but it wasn't called that. Same thing when it no longer existed in the south-- it was called "share cropping" then.
  • RugerFanRugerFan Senior Member Posts: 1,851 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    Agreed, and at the end of the day, ALL wars are fought over power and money (order interchangeable). The fact is the North could have not survived without the South (not sure the reverse is true), the same way today's New York and California could not survive the mess they have created without the support of the whole country.

    Anyway, as far as I can tell, it was not just the large landowners that owned slaves, plenty of small operations owned a handful of them as well as indentured servants (my own great-grandparents had plenty of both). And even non-owners livelihood still depended on the trickle down effect of that economy. The blacksmith, the lawyers, the hotel owners, the barber, the doctors, the livery owners, the carpenters and the general store owners all had a vested interest in preserving a healthy working economy. We all seem to forget how many mouths are attached to the nipples of these folks you and others call the "elites". EXACTLY the same as today...

    BTW I'm not condoning or justifying slavery in any way, it's a horrible proposition any way you look at it. BUT I'm also not dumb enough to believe it was all as one sided and black and white as my history class in High School made it out to be, so I try to find a logical approach at my own understanding of what went on during that period of time and as usual I find myself believing that truth is just a matter of perspective...

    30% of the white population in MS owned slaves. Of that 30%, 70% owned 5 or less. There were very few of the stereotypical large plantations, with the big white mansion. Native Americans also owned slaves.
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,230 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I love your penchant for vilifying those who have accomplished much and feed the financial needs of many with their financial success. Exactly the same tired mantra of the 60's hippies revisited by the Millennials as original thought and as absurd/naive today as it was 50+ years ago...

    Coincidentally, aren't today's Millennials the progeny of the hippies of the 60's? The timing seems about right.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Yep, and the 60's hippies were the unholy spawn of the "greatest generation" parents who decided "My kids aren't ever going to have as hard a life as I did in the Depression"- - - -so they spoiled the little brats. I grew up around a bunch of the worthless little turds! Thank the Lord not all of us had that kind of a pampered upbringing!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Starting in 1808, the importation of slaves was banned. We had to breed our own slaves at home after that.
    Interesting follow up on this... the census of 1810 counted 1.1 million slaves in the country. The 1860 census counted almost 4 million. In addition, the average life expectancy in the country was 44 years old around 1850. This tells me that by the time of the Civil War, the vast majority of slaves by far were born inside our own country and that the population of slaves was over 4 times higher than when importation was banned in 1808, but no doubt, some were smuggled in illegally.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,853 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I love your penchant for vilifying those who have accomplished much and feed the financial needs of many with their financial success. Exactly the same tired mantra of the 60's hippies revisited by the Millennials as original thought and as absurd/naive today as it was 50+ years ago...

    Of course it's nothing new. No one is saying it's new. Same has been going on since man figured out he could own the land and could force others to work it for him in exchange for just enough of the fruits of their labor to survive. I have no problem with businesses and businesses owners who pay fair wages and provide fair working conditions earning a tidy profit. I also have zero problem with wealth amassed through innovation or by doing something better, smarter, cheaper, faster than the other guy. However, a small fraction of the accumulated wealth in this world has been amassed that way. A significant wealth in the world has been ammassed on the backs of slaves, serfs, indentured servants, sweats shop workers, etc., through fraud, graft, corruption, monopoly etc., Or by taking it or the resources required at the point of a sword or barrel of a gun.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,270 Senior Member
    Where all this goes awry is when people start applying modern day morals and standards to historical events. Different time with a different way of thinking, and for folks to get all wound up about something that occurred a couple of hundred years ago displays a staggering level of ignorance. The true value of history lies only in what we can learn from it.
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,853 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Where all this goes awry is when people start applying modern day morals and standards to historical events. Different time with a different way of thinking, and for folks to get all wound up about something that occurred a couple of hundred years ago displays a staggering level of ignorance. The true value of history lies only in what we can learn from it.
    The one law of history that stands to this day is "might makes right".
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    Isn't that a pretty common characteristic of people too lazy to have any independent thought? They let their professors and other Alinski devotees mold their incredibly tiny minds in their own image, and then board buses to become part of the flash mobs who destroy the very places they nest in huge numbers.

    The whole bunch is not worth the powder and shot to put them down!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,958 Senior Member
    Joe McCarthy had his flaws, but his stand on communism and the infiltration of government, public education, the entertainment and news industry was exactly right.

    Yep, they shut him up and look what we have now?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    My grandmother ran a coal and ice delivery business in a similar fashion in Nashville Tennessee in the 1930's. Most of her employees could not afford to buy a pack of cigarettes for 15 cents, but they could manage to scratch up a few pennies to buy single smokes from her at a penny apiece. A 5 cent profit on a pack of 20- - - - -it wasn't a huge amount, but it did add a little to the cash flow every day! Dirty rotten capitalists! Their work crew was multi-racial, BTW.

    She and her husband ran restaurants, trucked beer from Milwaukee and St. Louis to Nashville, owned a used car dealership, and even pulled up stakes and moved to Florida when Dad was in USAF training there. They bought a trailer park and rented housing to the married airmen at an air base near Tampa until the end of the war.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,958 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    Moral reasons are valid, but it was not the driver of armed conflict. The war was pursued (by the north against the south) purely for economic reasons. They could have just as easily parted ways and been peaceful neighbors with the south, but northern economic interests were at stake. This is some interesting reading that goes more into depth about the subject...
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11127-011-9772-4

    You missed my point because I failed to emphasize it. Yes, the rich have more stroke than the common folk, always have always will. But there's power in the masses. If you ever get the masses together on something it can overcome the power of money. The way I look at it the effluent needed the masses on its side. Getting the commoners fired up over the slavery issue was a way of getting people on their side. On the North's side, they needed the common folk to be against slavery. On the South's side they needed the common folk to be pissed off at those in power in the North for meddling in the South's business. If the common people don't buy into any large scale operation, it's hard to get it done.

    I liken this to WWII in that before Pearl Harbor the average American leaned toward being an isolationist and was against any overseas involvement. Pearl Harbor pissed off the common folk and got them into the war. Same with slavery on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, for opposite reasons of course.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,270 Senior Member
    The one law of history that stands to this day is "might makes right".

    Thermopylae, Masada,The Buffalo Wallow Fight, Adobe Walls..plenty of examples in history where ,ultimately, "might" didn't mean squat...
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    Snake-- I see what you are saying. Then, and just like now, they get the masses worked up into a frenzy. In the south-- there were going to be black men sleeping with their white daughters, law and order was going to break down with the unconstrained black race on the loose and the end of the good and moral life as they knew it would cease to exist. In the churches, it was considered un-Christian and against the Bible to be against slavery. In the north, they had the big moral crusade going with abolitionists, while at the same time there were children working in the factories up the road in appalling conditions. In the churches, it was considered to be un-Christian and against the Bible to be for slavery.

    In the end, it was all just fluff to get the masses to go along with the moneyed interest's agenda. Just like now.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,099 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    My grandmother ran a coal and ice delivery business in a similar fashion in Nashville Tennessee in the 1930's...
    My great grandfather owned an ice plant in Elkton, KY that burned down in the mid to late 30s.
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,853 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Thermopylae, Masada,The Buffalo Wallow Fight, Adobe Walls..plenty of examples in history where ,ultimately, "might" didn't mean squat...
    Sure plenty of examples in history of those with less power/might rising up successfully (at least temporarily) against those with more power might, but those examples are rare relative to the number of examples of the group with more power crushing those with less (look no further than the civil war for a perfect example of that!).

    I did find it interesting that you included an incident where a few well armed Texans held off a large Indian assault. The broader conflict however is a pretty perfect example of my point. Pretty much any land of value in the country was taken by force or through lopsided treaties from the "weaker" people who held it before. History is largely a series of clashes between different groups of people with the strongest/most powerful taking what they want.

    Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    The one law of history that stands to this day is "might makes right".
    I may be wrong, but I am wondering out loud if slavery/serfdom/forced work was almost a necessary economic system back in the day. I am not saying that it is right at all, but I am speculating that until only recently in humanity, we have had the technology in industry and agriculture to actually sustain ourselves beyond a level where a portion of society doesn't have to live in servitude. Life was hard and brutal back then! Was it really a better way (forced work under the threat of violence) for people to pool their resources to survive?

    I read something the other day stating that an American in poverty today has a better lifestyle-- diet, heath, transportation, and communications than a billionaire 100 years ago.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,958 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    This "significant" amount pales comparison the the amount of wealth that has been made through hard work. And yet the geralizations are slung with wild abandon and the left continues their campaign to demonize anyone in the top 2% of income earners aided by the tired Hollywood stereotypes that get shoved down our throats every day.

    Look at he new lineup or sitcoms this year. American Mom depicts every person in a town in CT in which I have a lot of friends as mindless morons with too much money. The Mick charicatures people with money as mindless buffoons and criminals. Every movie about the South shows slaveowners torturing their slaves. And unfurtunately most Americans take their clues on life from the boob tube. It's a well organized propaganda machine and every time you go along with the program by generalizing you are part of the problem...

    AMEN AMEN AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If Joseph Goebles would have had a modern TV network!!! Wow! Hitler would have ruled the world by now.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,853 Senior Member
    Jermanator wrote: »
    I may be wrong, but I am wondering out loud if slavery/serfdom/forced work was almost a necessary economic system back in the day. I am not saying that it is right at all, but I am speculating that until only recently in humanity, we have had the technology in industry and agriculture to actually sustain ourselves beyond a level where a portion of society doesn't have to live in servitude. Life was hard and brutal back then! Was it really a better way (forced work under the threat of violence) for people to pool their resources to survive?

    I read something the other day stating that an American in poverty today has a better lifestyle-- diet, heath, transportation, and communications than a billionaire 100 years ago.

    It's an interesting question. In a way yes, sort of. At least in areas where most of the land was owned by a small number of individuals. Which was a large chunk of Europe and some of the new colonies (basically massive tracts of land handed over to wealthy Europeans for various reasons). However in other parts of the colonies there was new land for individuals to claim and start up on your own, which was of course was the appeal. Instead of having to be a serf beholding to the benevolence of a lord or baron who would allow you to work his land in exchange for a fraction of the crop, you could leave for an opportunity to own your own slice of land. Same with the western expansion in the US. Basically as the land filled up, you had to go further and further west for a place to claim and farm as your own. Much of the American ideal of individuality comes from this type of spirit where individuals own and farm their own land and get to keep the spoils of their own efforts. But then the reason it was so special is that wasn't how it was most other places in the world that had been "civilized" for centuries. In short, yes subsistence agriculture was the necessary life for most individuals for much of human history, but nothing says it had to be in such a manner than a small number of nobles controlled all or most of the land and thus were able to control or "enslave" (in the broader sense) most of the population, that just seemed to be the "equilibrium" solution that evolved in many places in the world and even in the US the pendulum has largely swung back in that direction with major agricultural corporations buying up and consolidating massive swaths of farm land. The only difference is that now they don't require but a fraction of the labor (although much of the labor they do use is still glorified slave labor in the form of illegal aliens with few if any rights).
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    That leaves a whole bunch more people available to pontificate about how things should be- - - -mostly ones who have done little, if anything of any real value to earn the right to gripe about the methods of the people who actually produce goods and services.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,380 Senior Member
    The only difference is that now they don't require but a fraction of the labor (although much of the labor they do use is still glorified slave labor in the form of illegal aliens with few if any rights).
    I wouldn't call it so much that now as I would a lack of our legislators to create something that resembles the economic reality. Most of the immigrants (unless they are pimped out like indentured servants by coyotes) are paid at least a minimum wage and typically more-- it is just we can't find enough Americans that want to do the work for that price. Typically, the workers are treated fair enough. Mexico supplies us with willing workers and we have employers that are more than willing to hire them. Where we get problems is that there is a black market created by our current system which subjects people to abuse and exploitation. That part needs to change with a transparent guest worker program-- a dumbass wall won't fix that.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 20,099 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    That leaves a whole bunch more people available to pontificate about how things should be- - - -mostly ones who have done little, if anything of any real value to earn the right to gripe about the methods of the people who actually produce goods and services.
    Jerry

    Its all in Ayn Rand!
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 26,222 Senior Member
    Here's a little 'factoid' that most people North of the Mason/Dixon line, and West of the Mississippi don't know because they were too tired to learn about it and ain't got rested yet. Sharecropping has been AND STILL IS a way of life in a lot of the South. It differs from the 1800's to 1950's sharecropping, but is essentially the same as to outcome; the sharing of the crop. Large agricultural family owned farms hire local farmers to share crop some of the crops and the sharecropper farmers get a percentage of the harvest. The family farms earn a bit less, and the sharecroppers earn a bit more under the system, but both benefit. The subsistence farmer becomes better off financially and is able to better support his family in all things.

    What happened in the 1960's to change the sharecropper dynamic? I'm not a history professor, and I sure as hell ain't about to write a novella length post on it. If you don't know what happened in the 1960's then you're gonna have to do some heavy reading on societal changes, farm 'policy' from up yonder in Washington, D.C., and changes in the South from the 1960's through the 1970's. And if you don't believe that sharecropping still exists, then you're dreaming in the land of unicorns farting rainbows.
    If the U.S. Congress was put in charge of the Sahara Desert, there would be a shortage of sand in under six months.



Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.