|
DariusLikewise posted:Canada is one of the most racist countries in the world This sounds like just as sweeping a claim as "racism is not tolerated in Canada at all". I don't argue against Canada having a big problem with racism particularly against indigenous peoples, but I'm curious as to how people judge any country to be the most racist other than "all countries have big problems with racism so technically it counts as one of the most  "
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
I think it says a lot that honestly I'd honestly find being called "idiot" more offensive than "cracker". Like, I can't even think of what stereotype someone would even use as a racial slur against me for being white. It's inconceivable to me. What does it even mean to be racist against a white person? We what, have an innate desire to conquer everyone else and economically exploit other peoples? That feels too abstract. I think the last time I was overhearing a conversation about this or someone said something along those lines to me I vaguely recall deadpanning "Oh no, you've accurately identified that I am white and thus won't ever be shot for speeding. Whatever shall I do that you have pointed this out? Oh nooooooo..." It's fascinating because the people that buy into the idea of anti white racism have to come up with elaborate generational conspiracy theories about non whites coming in to seduce us like some kind of Zap Brannigan troll logic that is also inherently boastful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think it says a lot that honestly I'd honestly find being called "idiot" more offensive than "cracker". Like, I can't even think of what stereotype someone would even use as a racial slur against me for being white. I was raised with "cracker" usually being a slur for a white redneck, but recently I've only seen it being thrown in as a way of being extra hurtful. While I definitely don't agree with the whole "all racial prejudice is equally bad" thing, I do think it reflects really poorly on you if you start using slurs against someone regardless of what that slur is. It's just an attempt to hurt them for the sake of being an rear end in a top hat at that point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:No offense, but this statement kind of bugs me. It makes it sound like racism is a binary state that can be easily tested. Prejudices exist on a spectrum, and no one is completely free of them. Lincoln no doubt said things that would be racist by today's standards, but he was probably less racist than the average white person of his time. If anything, we should be inspired that a flawed man like Lincoln was able to do great things despite his own prejudices. Liberals spend too much time looking for heroes and then inevitably feeling betrayed when they can't live up to the hype. It's not enough for our leaders to enact change. They also have to be saints.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's inconceivable to me. What does it even mean to be racist against a white person? That's why when you look at the demographics of CEOs, HR departments, political representatives, old money, dinner clubs, private schools, etc. it becomes rapidly obvious why anti-white racism doesn't present nearly as much of a problem as other Western construct racisms. It's possible for a group/structure to act in that way to a white person because of their race, but they can far more easily find another group. And that group is far less likely to be the main employer or political organization in their area.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Honestly, I'd like to be called "honky" regularly, it's a fun word that's fun to say.ModernMajorGeneral posted:This sounds like just as sweeping a claim as "racism is not tolerated in Canada at all". I don't argue against Canada having a big problem with racism particularly against indigenous peoples, but I'm curious as to how people judge any country to be the most racist other than "all countries have big problems with racism so technically it counts as one of the most In general you'll encounter outright racism openly in all parts of Canada more than you'll do in America, all of Canada is The Southern United States But North (speaking as a second generation American by way of CaNADA). If you're going to split every statement into small enough artifacts nothing will be objectively true ever, "People from Boston have stupid accents" "Well on the corner of Baseball and Baked Beans street lives a guy named Jeff Jeffson WHO HAS NO ACCENT AT ALL!!!!". We aren't discussing policy or making rules here, we're bullshit to make the work day go faster: the South is full of rednecks, the North is full of jerks and gays, Hollywood is full of waiters that want to be actors, Australia? MURDER BEASTS. loving. EVERYWHERE. Blahblahblah let it loving be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think it says a lot that honestly I'd honestly find being called "idiot" more offensive than "cracker". Like, I can't even think of what stereotype someone would even use as a racial slur against me for being white. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cuQTGKD01M
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:Honestly, I'd like to be called "honky" regularly, it's a fun word that's fun to say. Proof that Skeeter was black HONK(Y) HONK(Y).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:It's fascinating because the people that buy into the idea of anti white racism have to come up with elaborate generational conspiracy theories about non whites coming in to seduce us like some kind of Zap Brannigan troll logic that is also inherently boastful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Chimera-gui posted:I don't deny that he was better about it than most at the time but the reason I brought up the fact that he had racist beliefs was because the Right love to pretend that he didn't have them outright to deflect accusations for racism rightly directed towards them. I agree with that, and I much prefer the statement "he had racist beliefs" rather than your original "he was racist." In general, I always push back whenever someone refers to racism as a state of being rather than a description of one's actions. The reason is because if people see it that way, then they fight against the label and refuse to acknowledge their mistakes. That's how we get people expressing horrible ideas and yet insisting they're "not a racist" because they aren't literally lynching someone at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Shangri-Law School posted:If anything, we should be inspired that a flawed man like Lincoln was able to do great things despite his own prejudices. Liberals spend too much time looking for heroes and then inevitably feeling betrayed when they can't live up to the hype. It's not enough for our leaders to enact change. They also have to be saints. Lincoln's primary goal was keeping the nation together. He would have let slavery continue to exist if the South hadn't seceded.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Lincoln's primary goal was keeping the nation together. He would have let slavery continue to exist if the South hadn't seceded. My understanding of all I've read about Lincoln is that he felt like he did not have the right to force states to abolish it, but he himself was firmly against slavery.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
Dalael posted:My understanding of all I've read about Lincoln is that he felt like he did not have the right to force states to abolish it, but he himself was firmly against slavery. Kinda sounds like a limp dicked liberal c. 2016.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
Dalael posted:My understanding of all I've read about Lincoln is that he felt like he did not have the right to force states to abolish it, but he himself was firmly against slavery. Yup. But consider that he wasn't against it enough to ban it if it meant that the South would stick around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:30
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:Lincoln's primary goal was keeping the nation together. He would have let slavery continue to exist if the South hadn't seceded. I think Lincoln thought that, as long as slavery wasn't allowed to spread past its current boundaries, it would eventually die a natural death. He wouldn't push for immediate abolition because there wasn't enough public support and it would probably have caused the slave-holding loyal states to secede, but he made sure that it couldn't get any stronger than it already was.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
Okay, I'm a Canadian so I don't have the American Civil War drilled into me nearly as much as some of y'all, and this has always kind of confused me. We all agree that the main cause of the Civil War was slavery, I mean, even the actual confederates wrote that. If Lincoln wasn't abolishing slavery, why did they secede? If he cared more about keeping the country together than abolishing slavery, then what'd he do to provoke them into starting a war in the first place? Like, I've always seen a ton of seemingly contradictory information about the Civil War and I don't even know what.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
They thought that he wouldn't allow any new slave states, and were worried they'd be outnumbered in Congress. Also a little bit of #notmypresident.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
The Republican Party was very much an anti-slavery party. However, it was not necessarily an abolitionist party. Does that make sense? For example, it was founded by anti-slavery Whigs and Free Soilers to fight the expansion of slavery into the territories, specifically the Kansas-Nebraska Act. So, they wanted to prevent the spread of slavery but not necessarily to go after slavery in the South directly. That ties into their second plank, which was economic modernization. Economic modernization, they felt, would make slavery obsolete so it would die a natural death. Lincoln was very public about hating the Kansas-Nebraska Act. In the polarized environment of slave states vs non-slave states adding a lot of new non-slave states would have robbed the slave states of their power in the federal government. Lincoln's election meant that the writing was on the wall and the Southern way of life would soon be made obsolete by federal decree, one way or another. So they were proactive and fought when they were still relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
Have people found it safe to assume that anybody doing the "the US is a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic" are cryptically trying to say that only landowning whites are legal participants? They all seem to ignore the entire accumulation of law and knowledge that happened after the ink was dry on the original documents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Southern states were also angry the federal government was not enforcing the federal fugitive slave laws hard enough in northern states that were passing "personal liberty laws" (laws that gave escaped slaves rights to trials and/or forbade state authorities from cooperating in handing them over). Yes, the South was explicitly AGAINST "states' rights" in the runup to the civil war.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
MasterSlowPoke posted:They thought that he wouldn't allow any new slave states, and were worried they'd be outnumbered in Congress. Also a little bit of #notmypresident. That's part of it. The thing of it is that the South actually voted to secede and put the machinery in motion before Lincoln even took office. That all started in January; Lincoln took office in March. His election was basically what sparked the South to leave. Slavery was obviously the issue but there was some serious contention over it. The South was basically trying to force slavery on the North while all this was going on. The issue of slavery was very seriously tearing the nation apart. The North wanted nothing to do with it which is why slavery was getting banned in Northern states one by one. The South was challenging that by doing things like arguing that a slave didn't automatically become free if he was taken to a free state. Obviously if that was true then every state was de facto a slave state. The South was also worried that, as America expanded, slavery would be default banned in new states, which would eventually outnumber the South. The South basically saw the writing on the wall; slavery was on the way out whether they liked it or not. Attitudes toward slavery were becoming increasingly hostile and the nation elected a president who was against it. However, notice that they didn't even give the guy a chance. They seceded before he even took office. Lincoln obviously didn't like slavery. However he would not have banned it outright to keep the nation together. The issue was that there were motions in place to ban slavery in new territories by default and not admit new slave states. The North was of course more populous and could eventually just vote the issue out. The South decided to take their chances, secede, and start spreading slavery. Their plan was basically to fortify the border and fight a defensive war until the North lost interest and went home. Then they'd use their slave economy to conquer new territories and make them more slave states. It didn't end well for the South.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Choadmaster posted:Southern states were also angry the federal government was not enforcing the federal fugitive slave laws hard enough in northern states that were passing "personal liberty laws" (laws that gave escaped slaves rights to trials and/or forbade state authorities from cooperating in handing them over). If I recall correctly, they also weren't particularly concerned whether their slave hunters were trying to bring back actual slaves or not. More than one black person who was actually born free in the north ended up kidnapped. I mean, really, the South loved states' rights, it's just they only loved their states' rights.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:If I recall correctly, they also weren't particularly concerned whether their slave hunters were trying to bring back actual slaves or not. More than one black person who was actually born free in the north ended up kidnapped. That was actually one of the reasons the North was increasingly hating slavery. The Southern courts very heavily favored the slave owners on literally everything. If a slave owner was missing a slave (and sometimes even if he wasn't) and a black guy got hauled in front of him he'd say "yup, totally mine!" Freed black people were supposed to have paperwork with them but who would carry that everywhere? That paperwork would also sometimes just mysteriously vanish (damnedest thing!) or because the black person wasn't literate they couldn't read it. No matter what bullshit happened a Southern court would just rubber stamp it and go on to the next one. Northern courts were, of course, quite different. The South wanted to force Northern courts to behave like Southern ones. The South would never stop until all black people were slaves and the whole world was a slave state. There were quite a few people going "lol, nah. Not OK." ToxicSlurpee fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Jan 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:05
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Have people found it safe to assume that anybody doing the "the US is a constitutional republic, not a democratic republic" are cryptically trying to say that only landowning whites are legal participants? They all seem to ignore the entire accumulation of law and knowledge that happened after the ink was dry on the original documents. Anyone who pulls the "we're a Republic not a democracy" is a loving idiot who thinks that learning a few lovely definitions is a substitute for thinking critically about how government works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:The South decided to take their chances, secede, and start spreading slavery. Their plan was basically to fortify the border and fight a defensive war until the North lost interest and went home. Then they'd use their slave economy to conquer new territories and make them more slave states. I thought part of the reason the South lost as bad as they did was that they didn't fight defensively but instead went on the offense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:12
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Anyone who pulls the "we're a Republic not a democracy" is a loving idiot who thinks that learning a few lovely definitions is a substitute for thinking critically about how government works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:18
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:If I recall correctly, they also weren't particularly concerned whether their slave hunters were trying to bring back actual slaves or not. More than one black person who was actually born free in the north ended up kidnapped. I wouldn't even go that far. Jefferson Davis at some point during the war denounced states' rights, saying the Confederacy needed to be united to win. At least, I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, but I don't know the source. Asiina posted:I thought part of the reason the South lost as bad as they did was that they didn't fight defensively but instead went on the offense. They thought they needed to win at least one battle on enemy territory to bring the war to an end. They tried with Antietam and narrowly lost, then they tried again with Gettysburg and were annihilated. But they kept going for another two years even after that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:19
|
|
|
Asiina posted:I thought part of the reason the South lost as bad as they did was that they didn't fight defensively but instead went on the offense. If memory serves when it became apparent how blisteringly incompetent most of the North's generals were they also became more aggressive, including what was said before. Even so they had zero intention on actually conquering the North or being America. Their primary plan was to just welp out and do their thing. Fact is however the South had zero hope of actually winning the war. It was pure numbers; the North was going to stomp their faces in pretty much no matter what.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:I wouldn't even go that far. Jefferson Davis at some point during the war denounced states' rights, saying the Confederacy needed to be united to win. At least, I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, but I don't know the source. I don't know about Jefferson Davis, but at the very least the Confederate constitution prohibited any state from making slavery illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:44
|
|
|
Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers has this awesome chapter on the US Civil War and goes on about how New York State alone had more pig iron production than the entirety of the South combined; the North's economic advantage was probably about as overwhelming and stack as the United States's was against Japan.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
kartikeya posted:If I recall correctly, they also weren't particularly concerned whether their slave hunters were trying to bring back actual slaves or not. More than one black person who was actually born free in the north ended up kidnapped. Slavery was written into the constitution of the Confederacy and in many of the states that seceded, i.e. you HAD to be a slaveholding state if you wanted to join them. States' Rights is just a fig leaf for what the war was about, which was the subjugation of brown people and turning them into chattel property for the economic benefit of a small segment of society. It wasn't even a particularly good fig leaf. ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves when it became apparent how blisteringly incompetent most of the North's generals were they also became more aggressive, including what was said before. Even so they had zero intention on actually conquering the North or being America. Their primary plan was to just welp out and do their thing. The South had... lots of crops and a huge population of largely hostile or indifferent slaves to keep control of? If they didn't win immediately it was not going to end well for them at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Rocko Bonaparte posted:Well, yes, but is that as far as the rabbit hole goes? I have tended to assume people are just trying to wrap themselves up in a poor interpretation of semantics to serve this notion that we should run the US like it's the 1700s. I'm starting to wonder if some of these people are just on the spectrum in some way--the old malice/incompetence thing. Most of them don't even know what the words mean, they just heard a clever person say something similar at some point, so now they say it to sound clever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:35
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:If memory serves when it became apparent how blisteringly incompetent most of the North's generals were they also became more aggressive, including what was said before. Even so they had zero intention on actually conquering the North or being America. Their primary plan was to just welp out and do their thing. There were basically two related hopes for the South. First, there was the possibility that they could drag the war out so long that the U.S. citizens would get exhausted and give up, a la Vietnam. That's a big reason why Lincoln calling for immediate emancipation would have been a mistake- that early on, people wouldn't have supported a war for "negroes," and it would have likely caused Maryland and other loyal slave states to secede. Second, European powers would have loved to start meddling in the Americas, and splitting the United States into two separate, hostile nations would make that much easier, especially if the Confederacy was a client state. Most European powers had already abolished slavery, but they might still have joined the war on the side of the Confederacy if it was in their interest. The latter chance was shot in 1862, when the U.S. won a big battle at Antietam and then issued the Emancipation Proclamation. People like to point out that it was a war measure and didn't actually free the slaves, but its point was to declare that the war was unequivocally over slavery, which made Europe much less likely to endorse the CSA. And even after all that, it still might have ended differently if Lincoln hadn't been reelected. McClellan was incredibly passive as a general, and as a president he might have sued for peace and left the CSA independent despite them being utterly beaten militarily. That was probably Lee's last hope, as it was only a few months after Lincoln's reelection that he surrendered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:37
|
|
|
Jurgan posted:I wouldn't even go that far. Jefferson Davis at some point during the war denounced states' rights, saying the Confederacy needed to be united to win. At least, I'm pretty sure I read that somewhere, but I don't know the source He was actually lamenting the issues that arose with a confederation fighting a war. The Confederate States were each incredibly sovereign. So much so that the Confederacy couldn't really force them to send money, troops, supplies, etc. As you can imagine, when it came time to put up or shut up, a lot of them suffered sticker shock.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 04:49
|
|
|
Shadin posted:He was actually lamenting the issues that arose with a confederation fighting a war. The Confederate States were each incredibly sovereign. So much so that the Confederacy couldn't really force them to send money, troops, supplies, etc. As you can imagine, when it came time to put up or shut up, a lot of them suffered sticker shock. The South basically looked at every dumb thing America did and decided to quit doing because it was dumb and said "let's do all those things all over again." They just plain weren't getting on with the times; this was when the Industrial Revolution was in full swing. Factories and railroads were the hot new poo poo. Cities were booming and if you wanted to accomplish basically anything important you had to have factories. The South just went "lol nah, let's grow more cotton. Monoculture plantations and slavery everywhere, hell yeah!" The North had so much more when it came to materiel, infrastructure, and manpower that they could easily just attrition the south to death. Which is basically what Sherman did. Aside from the fact that the North took the fight to the South something fierce they South just plain didn't have the resources to fix their infrastructure. It was like they forgot that the industrial support of the North was what made fancy things like railroads possible in the first place. Lose your connection to Pittsburgh and lol no steel for you, boyo!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Strom Cuzewon posted:Anyone who pulls the "we're a Republic not a democracy" is a loving idiot who thinks that learning a few lovely definitions is a substitute for thinking critically about how government works. Quite. Do you know where else is a republic? China. (I would have said North Korea in the past, but that's basically a thanatocratic communist monarchy)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 07:35
|
|
|
Here is a good summary of things that led to the civil war: http://www.shmoop.com/causes-of-civil-war/timeline.html TinTower posted:Quite. The PRC technically meets the definitions those sorts are using, including election.  thanatocratic
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
TinTower posted:Quite. North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 07:54
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic You could argue that it's as much a republic as the Nazis were Socialist. China is a republic no matter how you slice it; unless you want to insist that a republic must be democratic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 07:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Here is a good summary of things that led to the civil war: I'm not sure how accurate that is. It has Pierce getting elected twice, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2017 08:58
|
|