A Confederate Statue Continues To Stir Unrest At UNC-Chapel Hill

Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#3
A large majority of Confederate (you know, the traitors that lost) statues were built in the 20th century during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement for the express purpose of intimidation of black people, and the lionizing of white supremacy.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which compiled a list of these monuments last year, these monuments are spread over 31 states plus the District of Columbia—far exceeding the 11 Confederate states that seceded at the outset of the Civil War.

Most of these monuments did not go up immediately after the war’s end in 1865. During that time, commemorative markers of the Civil War tended to be memorials that mourned soldiers who had died, says Mark Elliott, a history professor at University of North Carolina, Greensboro.

Eventually they started to build [Confederate] monuments,” he says. “The vast majority of them were built between the 1890s and 1950s, which matches up exactly with the era of Jim Crow segregation.” According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.

Lee himself never wanted such monuments built.

"I think it wiser," the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, "…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered."

As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."

The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.

"Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker," Horn said. "He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive."

There are thousands of confederate symbols in public spaces. Street names are named after these men that fought to keep the right to own slaves against their own country’s will. We have the internet.

We do not need all these poorly made, dime a dozen ugly statues that only serve the purpose of driving American’s further apart.
 
Oct 21, 2018
273
169
170
#4
Most of those specific statues were built not as mere historical reminders but as intentional signs of a reborn Confederate apologist movement that wanted to glorify the losing side of the war. Which was the side that fought for slavery.

It's rather telling that the article above includes this line:

Silent Sam was erected in 1913 to honor students who died fighting for the Confederacy. The monument was dedicated at the time with a speech praising the assault of a black woman.
If there are any unique Confederate monuments with real artistic or historical value, then maybe you could take them to a museum. But as described above, many of them are cheap copies that were mass produced and installed in the name of a shameful cause.
 
Last edited:

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,144
183
1,000
#6
The place I went to high school has "Rebels" as the team name, a stylized southern gentleman as a mascot and confederate flags on the high school sign out by the highway. Every time I drive by I expect to see all of that swept away but it isn't, which makes me happy.

You can talk about what those symbols represent but whatever you come up with good/bad won't be what those symbols represent to those of us who went to school there.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#8
The place I went to high school has "Rebels" as the team name, a stylized southern gentleman as a mascot and confederate flags on the high school sign out by the highway. Every time I drive by I expect to see all of that swept away but it isn't, which makes me happy.

You can talk about what those symbols represent but whatever you come up with good/bad won't be what those symbols represent to those of us who went to school there.
What’s the school’s black population?
 
Jan 26, 2009
5,599
139
670
37
#9
Likes: NahaNago
Dec 3, 2018
217
250
140
#10
A large majority of Confederate (you know, the traitors that lost) statues were built in the 20th century during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement for the express purpose of intimidation of black people, and the lionizing of white supremacy.
*sigh*

No they weren't. They were built at the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War which just happened to coincide with civil rights movements that, decades later, people then decided must've meant they were built because of the civil rights movements. You've been lied to by a progressive educational agenda that thinks that history is just a parade of minority oppression. Here's that racist FDR dedicating a Civil War monument in 1938, when Civil War vets - both North and South - sat together in brotherhood to remember their fallen comrades.

As for the traitor comment, no, god damn it, the South were not traitors. The United States were originally founded with the intention that states would largely govern themselves, with the federal government being minimal. There was never anywhere in the constitution where it said that states could not secede from the US, and in fact, given what was written by people like Thomas Jefferson, the idea that states could and should secede was a fundamental part of how the government was designed. However, others didn't like the idea of codifying secession into the Constitution, so they kind of left that part blank and hoped nobody would notice. The South broke no laws seceding, and the origins of the Civil War more belong to the Nullification Crisis a few decades earlier than abolitionism.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which compiled a list of these monuments last year, these monuments are spread over 31 states plus the District of Columbia—far exceeding the 11 Confederate states that seceded at the outset of the Civil War.
The SPLC is fucking nuts and has been nuts for a long time.

There are thousands of confederate symbols in public spaces. Street names are named after these men that fought to keep the right to own slaves against their own country’s will. We have the internet.
The idea that the Civil War was about slavery is revisionist history that goes back to the 1960s. Before that, opinions on what the Civil War was about is very, very different. Yes, slavery was involved, but I'd wager you have a very warped sense of what the South (and slavery) was like before the war. For instance, did you know that the South had more freed men than the North? Or that black men owned slaves as well (and in at least one case, was a more abusive owner than any white owner)? A decade before the Civil War, there were only about 2,000 abolitionists nationwide - yes, Lincoln was an abolitionist, but it was not the dominant sentiment at the time. And when Lincoln "freed the slaves", he didn't actually free any slaves? And if you really want to have you mind blown, look at the steps Lincoln took at the time, imprisoning state governments, suspending habeus corpus, and even ordering his troops to bombard a Northern city that he was afraid was going to vote to secede. "Sic semper tyrannis" doesn't mean, "Gosh, I wish we still enslaved black people".

The Civil War is a truly fascinating time, filled with heroes and villains (though not the ones you think), where truths were more gray than black or white. It is truly a shame that the modern education system has reduced this fascinating time into a cartoon of good vs evil, when it was anything but.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#11
*sigh*

No they weren't. They were built at the 50th and 100th anniversaries of the Civil War which just happened to coincide with civil rights movements that, decades later, people then decided must've meant they were built because of the civil rights movements. You've been lied to by a progressive educational agenda that thinks that history is just a parade of minority oppression. Here's that racist FDR dedicating a Civil War monument in 1938, when Civil War vets - both North and South - sat together in brotherhood to remember their fallen comrades.

As for the traitor comment, no, god damn it, the South were not traitors. The United States were originally founded with the intention that states would largely govern themselves, with the federal government being minimal. There was never anywhere in the constitution where it said that states could not secede from the US, and in fact, given what was written by people like Thomas Jefferson, the idea that states could and should secede was a fundamental part of how the government was designed. However, others didn't like the idea of codifying secession into the Constitution, so they kind of left that part blank and hoped nobody would notice. The South broke no laws seceding, and the origins of the Civil War more belong to the Nullification Crisis a few decades earlier than abolitionism.

The SPLC is fucking nuts and has been nuts for a long time.

The idea that the Civil War was about slavery is revisionist history that goes back to the 1960s. Before that, opinions on what the Civil War was about is very, very different. Yes, slavery was involved, but I'd wager you have a very warped sense of what the South (and slavery) was like before the war. For instance, did you know that the South had more freed men than the North? Or that black men owned slaves as well (and in at least one case, was a more abusive owner than any white owner)? A decade before the Civil War, there were only about 2,000 abolitionists nationwide - yes, Lincoln was an abolitionist, but it was not the dominant sentiment at the time. And when Lincoln "freed the slaves", he didn't actually free any slaves? And if you really want to have you mind blown, look at the steps Lincoln took at the time, imprisoning state governments, suspending habeus corpus, and even ordering his troops to bombard a Northern city that he was afraid was going to vote to secede. "Sic semper tyrannis" doesn't mean, "Gosh, I wish we still enslaved black people".

The Civil War is a truly fascinating time, filled with heroes and villains (though not the ones you think), where truths were more gray than black or white. It is truly a shame that the modern education system has reduced this fascinating time into a cartoon of good vs evil, when it was anything but.
I like how you have to assume I didn’t know black people owned slaves to help your argument, ( when in actuality I wrote an entire final term paper on the subject of black people owning slaves). I wrote extensively about towns in the south that had populations of free blacks. Or that I didn’t know Lincoln was a white supremacist too. America is a white supremacist country. I know all this information.

Fuck anyone that supports and defends the confederacy.

It WAS about slaves. Anyone who says otherwise is incredibly ignorant, or incredibly disingenuous.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

“In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

You are defending the confederacy. Get help.

The only person who said anything about good vs evil is you. Maybe they weren’t traitors. But it was still an awful institution. Don’t worry, I can still hate the hypocrisy and racism of the north while also saying all traces of the confederacy should have been destroyed and banned.

Now it’s too late and black people are forced to relive the memories in all areas of society because people are too lazy to come up with new street names. Woo.
 
Last edited:
Dec 22, 2010
1,909
265
525
#13
My comment was historically incorrect. Traitor is not the proper term as it is not a label bequeathed to anyone except those under certain provisions.

From the Constitution, Article III, Section III:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
By a matter of constitutional formality they were not traitors, more like sore losers.

Union General George Henry Thomas:
The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them.
 
Likes: SaviourMK2
Apr 25, 2009
5,295
4,676
700
Australia
#14
I like how you have to assume I didn’t know black people owned slaves to help your argument, ( when in actuality I wrote an entire final term paper on the subject of black people owning slaves). I wrote extensively about towns in the south that had populations of free blacks. Or that I didn’t know Lincoln was a white supremacist too. America is a white supremacist country. I know all this information.

Fuck anyone that supports and defends the confederacy.

It WAS about slaves. Anyone who says otherwise is incredibly ignorant, or incredibly disingenuous.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”

On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to the New York Tribune that included the following passage: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”

“In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”

You are defending the confederacy. Get help.

The only person who said anything about good vs evil is you. Maybe they weren’t traitors. But it was still an awful institution. Don’t worry, I can still hate the hypocrisy and racism of the north while also saying all traces of the confederacy should have been destroyed and banned.

Now it’s too late and black people are forced to relive the memories in all areas of society because people are too lazy to come up with new street names. Woo.
No one cares what you wrote in a high school essay; we care what you read.

Anyone considering citing the SPLC should be aware of their recent history: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.d92ebec071a8
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#15
“Yeah, okay so confederate statues have been built in every decade since the civil war, with the biggest spikes being times of great progress for blacks many decades after the war ended. But that’s just a coincidence, and America does not at all have a culture of oppression and intimidating of black Americans. Also I bet you didn’t know Lincoln didn’t even want to free the slaves, and blacks owned slaves too! Boom! Another original genius non-NPC argument. Checkmate lib.”
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#16
No one cares what you wrote in a high school essay; we care what you read.

Anyone considering citing the SPLC should be aware of their recent history: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...1dd6a09b549_story.html?utm_term=.d92ebec071a8
My image of when the statues were built was not the SPLC, and those quotes are direct from confederate states declarations and the confederate constitution. Are you going to ignore those because I posted one place you discount?

And it was a college paper. he should make better arguments than “I bet you didn’t know blacks owned slaves too, lib!”
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,295
4,676
700
Australia
#17
My image of when the statues were built was not the SPLC, and those quotes are direct from confederate states declarations and the confederate constitution. Are you going to ignore those because I posted one place you discount?

And it was a college paper. he should make better arguments than “I bet you didn’t know blacks owned slaves too, lib!”
I don’t know American history well enough to refute the rest of your arguments, but I know the SPLC’s recent history well enough that it makes me question the rest of your post if you’re relying on them as an authority.

What course was the paper for?
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#18
I don’t know American history well enough to refute the rest of your arguments, but I know the SPLC’s recent history well enough that it makes me question the rest of your post if you’re relying on them as an authority.

What course was the paper for?
African American History and Culture. I heavily researched three books about Miscegenation during Slavery and the occasional times when white slave owning fathers would bequeath their wealth (and slaves) to their black children, in a time where several states had laws saying that if the mother was a slave, the children were automatically slaves too.
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,295
4,676
700
Australia
#19
African American History and Culture. I heavily researched three books about Miscegenation during Slavery and the occasional times when white slave owning fathers would bequeath their wealth (and slaves) to their black children, in a time where several states had laws saying that if the mother was a slave, the children were automatically slaves too.
Is this part of an African Studies degree? I don’t understand why that needs to be a standalone course. Shouldn’t it just be part of American history?
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
35,635
11
1,120
#22
Is this part of an African Studies degree? I don’t understand why that needs to be a standalone course. Shouldn’t it just be part of American history?
You do know what college courses in the US are like right? They can be a lot more specific than a general American History or World History course.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#23
It’s an honest question. I’ve never seen the need for segregation in regards to history education. All it does is make people look at history through a particular lens and blinds them to other perspectives.
Yes I’m sure they would be able to fit all of American history, including the important history of African Americans such as the entire 240 years of slavery, 80 years of Jim Crow, Tulsa race riots, the civil rights movement, AND the history of all other cultures in America, and both world wars, the revolutionary war, the Vietnam war, into a single semester of one class adequately.
 
Dec 3, 2018
217
250
140
#24
I like how you have to assume I didn’t know black people owned slaves to help your argument, ( when in actuality I wrote an entire final term paper on the subject of black people owning slaves). I wrote extensively about towns in the south that had populations of free blacks. Or that I didn’t know Lincoln was a white supremacist too. America is a white supremacist country. I know all this information.
But thats not what I said. I didn't say Lincoln was a white supremacist. I said he didn't free any slaves and that he was a tyrant. And my point about black people owning slaves is that the Civil War wasn't about racism. If it were, Lincoln would've actually freed the slaves and slavery would've been purely based on racism, when it wasn't (white men were slaves as well, and Native Americans kept other tribes as slaves, legally). The vast, vast majority of slaves were black, but it isn't so simple that you can paint the entire Civil War or institution of slavery with a single brush stroke. It wasn't about black or white. It was gray. All of it. Like I said, it wasn't a cartoon. The heroes weren't heroes and the villains weren't heroes. They were both, simultaneously, and always were.

Fuck anyone that supports and defends the confederacy.
Fuck anyone who thinks history is black and white.

It WAS about slaves. Anyone who says otherwise is incredibly ignorant, or incredibly disingenuous.
No, it wasn't. South Carolina almost seceded from the Union decades earlier during the Nullification Crisis, which incidentally was ended through armed intervention by Andrew Jackson. It was always going to happen. The Civil War was started over a specific tariff that was being imposed over South industries that was devastating to the economy, and about the fact that the federal government had a majority of Northerners running it against the interests of the South. The South was also pretty damn upset that Lincoln was elected, considering that several Southern states didn't even have him on the ballot.

“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world,” proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. “Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.”
Slavery was very important in the South (and to the North, incidentally). A fun fact is that slavery was a dying institution that many people expected to not survive the century - and then the cotton gin was created. Suddenly, the US was a world leader in textiles, trading with all other countries and building an empire that is, honestly, why we are a world super power today. But to sustain that empire, they needed labor and lots of it.

Slavery was the solution they used, not because they were racist (though some were) but because they needed labor. And the next time you think you are better than them, use your iPhone there to look up what kind of labor built it and tell me you aren't benefiting from slave labor right now. The coffee you drink was probably harvested by child labor, and if it wasn't, then the lithium mines that produced your iPhone's battery were. Your iPhone was assembled by what are essentially indentured servants in a building that has nets around it because the workers kept throwing themselves off the roof and killing themselves.

That is the reality of slavery in the 1860s. It wasn't racism, it was business. And the fact that we still happily employ slave labor today (when we can get away with it) shows that business hasn't changed.

“In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.”
See? This is what I'm talking about. This is from the Confederate States Constitution, and all it is saying is that slavery is recognized by the government and that slaves you have in one state will be recognized as slaves if you travel to a different one. The constitution says a great many other things as well, like how taxes should be handled and when money from the treasury is allowed to be appropriated.

Ironically, the most racist part about this is that it specifies "negro" slavery, but the Confederate constitution also introduced a bunch of other limitations on slavery, such as constitutionally preventing slaves from coming over seas, or refusing to acknowledge slaves from non-Confederate states. See, they weren't interested in preserving slavery. They were interested in preserving the Confederacy, which relied on slavery - but they had no interest in recognizing or honoring other people's slaves.

You are defending the confederacy. Get help.
No, I'm defending perspective. War is too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.



Majority built when the NAACP was founded, and another spike during civil rights....

Yeah, totally a coincidence. Lmao.
When the NAACP was founded, it was like 10 (white) guys in a room that nobody gave a shit about. The NAACP didn't achieve any real power until a decade later with what was essentially a magazine subscription. The power and authority of the NAACP that we recognize today was largely achieved during the Civil Rights movement fifty years later. In 1909, nobody cared about the NAACP. But we can take this graph and connect two unrelated things and say one caused the other because... racism!

You know why all those Civil War monuments were created during that time period? That's when the last of the Civil War vets were dying, and their communities decided to honor their memories and struggle with them and their families. The Civil War ended in 1866, and 50 years later (a rather significant anniversary) was 1906, and if you'll notice, that's when the monuments started to take off.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#25
But thats not what I said. I didn't say Lincoln was a white supremacist. I said he didn't free any slaves and that he was a tyrant. And my point about black people owning slaves is that the Civil War wasn't about racism. If it were, Lincoln would've actually freed the slaves and slavery would've been purely based on racism, when it wasn't (white men were slaves as well, and Native Americans kept other tribes as slaves, legally). The vast, vast majority of slaves were black, but it isn't so simple that you can paint the entire Civil War or institution of slavery with a single brush stroke. It wasn't about black or white. It was gray. All of it. Like I said, it wasn't a cartoon. The heroes weren't heroes and the villains weren't heroes. They were both, simultaneously, and always were.

Fuck anyone who thinks history is black and white.

No, it wasn't. South Carolina almost seceded from the Union decades earlier during the Nullification Crisis, which incidentally was ended through armed intervention by Andrew Jackson. It was always going to happen. The Civil War was started over a specific tariff that was being imposed over South industries that was devastating to the economy, and about the fact that the federal government had a majority of Northerners running it against the interests of the South. The South was also pretty damn upset that Lincoln was elected, considering that several Southern states didn't even have him on the ballot.

Slavery was very important in the South (and to the North, incidentally). A fun fact is that slavery was a dying institution that many people expected to not survive the century - and then the cotton gin was created. Suddenly, the US was a world leader in textiles, trading with all other countries and building an empire that is, honestly, why we are a world super power today. But to sustain that empire, they needed labor and lots of it.

Slavery was the solution they used, not because they were racist (though some were) but because they needed labor. And the next time you think you are better than them, use your iPhone there to look up what kind of labor built it and tell me you aren't benefiting from slave labor right now. The coffee you drink was probably harvested by child labor, and if it wasn't, then the lithium mines that produced your iPhone's battery were. Your iPhone was assembled by what are essentially indentured servants in a building that has nets around it because the workers kept throwing themselves off the roof and killing themselves.

That is the reality of slavery in the 1860s. It wasn't racism, it was business. And the fact that we still happily employ slave labor today (when we can get away with it) shows that business hasn't changed.

See? This is what I'm talking about. This is from the Confederate States Constitution, and all it is saying is that slavery is recognized by the government and that slaves you have in one state will be recognized as slaves if you travel to a different one. The constitution says a great many other things as well, like how taxes should be handled and when money from the treasury is allowed to be appropriated.

Ironically, the most racist part about this is that it specifies "negro" slavery, but the Confederate constitution also introduced a bunch of other limitations on slavery, such as constitutionally preventing slaves from coming over seas, or refusing to acknowledge slaves from non-Confederate states. See, they weren't interested in preserving slavery. They were interested in preserving the Confederacy, which relied on slavery - but they had no interest in recognizing or honoring other people's slaves.

No, I'm defending perspective. War is too complicated to fit on a bumper sticker.


When the NAACP was founded, it was like 10 (white) guys in a room that nobody gave a shit about. The NAACP didn't achieve any real power until a decade later with what was essentially a magazine subscription. The power and authority of the NAACP that we recognize today was largely achieved during the Civil Rights movement fifty years later. In 1909, nobody cared about the NAACP. But we can take this graph and connect two unrelated things and say one caused the other because... racism!

You know why all those Civil War monuments were created during that time period? That's when the last of the Civil War vets were dying, and their communities decided to honor their memories and struggle with them and their families. The Civil War ended in 1866, and 50 years later (a rather significant anniversary) was 1906, and if you'll notice, that's when the monuments started to take off.
1. The tariff thing is bullshit.

“High tariffs had prompted the Nullification Controversy in 1831-33, when, after South Carolina demanded the right to nullify federal laws or secede in protest, President Andrew Jackson threatened force. No state joined the movement, and South Carolina backed down. Tariffs were not an issue in 1860, and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816.”

2. Your NAACP comments are irrelevant (but it was founded by white people!!) and more importantly bullshit.

The Race Riot of 1908 in Springfield, Illinois, the state capital and President Abraham Lincoln's hometown, was a catalyst showing the urgent need for an effective civil rights organization in the U.S. In the decades around the turn of the century, the rate of lynchings of blacks, particularly men, was at a high. Mary White Ovington, journalist William English Walling and Henry Moskowitz met in New York City in January 1909 to work on organizing for black civil rights.[17] They sent out solicitations for support to more than 60 prominent Americans, and set a meeting date for February 12, 1909. This was intended to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln, who emancipated enslaved African Americans. While the first large meeting did not take place until three months later, the February date is often cited as the founding date of the organization.

The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909, by a larger group including African Americans W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells, Archibald Grimké, Mary Church Terrell, and the previously named whites Henry Moskowitz, Mary White Ovington, William English Walling(the wealthy Socialist son of a former slave-holding family),[17][18] Florence Kelley, a social reformer and friend of Du Bois;[19] Oswald Garrison Villard, and Charles Edward Russell, a renowned muckraker and close friend of Walling. Russell helped plan the NAACP and had served as acting chairman of the National Negro Committee (1909), a forerunner to the NAACP.[20]

On May 30, 1909, the Niagara Movement conference took place at New York City's Henry Street Settlement House; they created an organization of more than 40, identifying as the National Negro Committee.[21] Among other founding members was Lillian Wald, a nurse who had founded the Henry Street Settlement where the conference took place.

And finally you are literally saying “ yes it’s true that the Confederate Constitution literally says that NEGRO slavery is what they are protecting, but it’s totally not about racism!”

Once again, I never once said anything was about good vs evil.

I’m going to ignore you forever now. Clearly the only thing you are interested in is gaslighting. Bye.
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,295
4,676
700
Australia
#26
Yes I’m sure they would be able to fit all of American history, including the important history of African Americans such as the entire 240 years of slavery, 80 years of Jim Crow, Tulsa race riots, the civil rights movement, AND the history of all other cultures in America, and both world wars, the revolutionary war, the Vietnam war, into a single semester of one class adequately.
So teach particular time periods from multiple perspectives. I don’t see what segregating history by race, gender, etc. accomplishes other than division.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#28
So teach particular time periods from multiple perspectives. I don’t see what segregating history by race, gender, etc. accomplishes other than division.
Because it’s literally impossible to fit all the important history into a single class.

“Just teach it all! You know, in 16 two hour classes once a week!”
 
Dec 22, 2010
1,909
265
525
#30
White people in America were indentured servants, not slaves. They were considered humans, not property, worked to their freedom over time (usually seven years) and their children were not automatically considered slaves. They could even petition for an early release due to mistreatment and were subject to different provisional laws than chattel slavery. Even at their lowest point, Europeans were still seen as distinguishably different from Africans.
 
Likes: luigimario
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#31
I didn’t say teach it all. I said segregate by time, not race or gender.

Good lord, you are insufferable.
So how should it be divided? Because to adequately cover all important perspectives for even a single decade wouldn’t fit into a single class, and you would then need multiple class periods for every decade of American history, and teachers to teach these classes, and it would result in over 40 separate classes.

I have been informed by a mod privately that I should report anyone who insults me so I’m going to report you now
 
Last edited:
Apr 25, 2009
5,295
4,676
700
Australia
#32
So how should it be divided? Because to adequately cover all important perspectives for even a single decade wouldn’t fit into a single class, and you would then need multiple class periods for every decade of American history, and teachers to teach these classes, and it would result in over 40 separate classes.

I have been informed by a mod privately that I should report anyone who insults me so I’m going to report you now
I assume by class you’re referring to a full credit course, not individual lessons. Either way, I’m not buying what you’re selling. I think segregating history education by identity groups does enormous damage to social cohesion and I think you’re looking really hard for reasons why teaching by time period couldn’t work rather than what could be done to make it work (hint: we divide maths classes up into A, B, C and so on if there is too much content for a single course).

Go ahead and report me. You’re the one behaving like a child. If you don’t want to be called insufferable, don’t be insufferable. (Way to prove me wrong btw 🙄).
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#33
I assume by class you’re referring to a full credit course, not individual lessons. Either way, I’m not buying what you’re selling. I think segregating history education by identity groups does enormous damage to social cohesion and I think you’re looking really hard for reasons why teaching by time period couldn’t work rather than what could be done to make it work (hint: we divide maths classes up into A, B, C and so on if there is too much content for a single course).

Go ahead and report me. You’re the one behaving like a child. If you don’t want to be called insufferable, don’t be insufferable. (Way to prove me wrong btw 🙄).
So basically insults me is totally ok. Got it. Reported. Keep it up.

And I’m telling you it would be literally impossible to divide up all of America history only by time. There is no way all important history could fit. You aren’t even American. How could you possibly think you could be well informed enough to speak about this?
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,295
4,676
700
Australia
#35
So basically insults me is totally ok. Got it. Reported. Keep it up.

And I’m telling you it would be literally impossible to divide up all of America history only by time. There is no way all important history could fit. You aren’t even American. How could you possibly think you could be well informed enough to speak about this?
I’m not, but if you’re a college student or young graduate, neither are you.

I have contributed to engineering syllabus though.
 
Dec 3, 2018
217
250
140
#36
1. The tariff thing is bullshit.
It's not bullshit, it's me confusing the Nullification Crisis cause with the Civil War because I was trying to belt out a post during a commercial break and went from memory. The Nullification Crisis was about the tariff.

2. Your NAACP comments are irrelevant (but it was founded by white people!!) and more importantly bullshit.

The Race Riot of 1908 in Springfield, Illinois, the state capital and President Abraham Lincoln's hometown, was a catalyst showing the urgent need for an effective civil rights organization in the U.S. In the decades around the turn of the century, the rate of lynchings of blacks, particularly men, was at a high. Mary White Ovington, journalist William English Walling and Henry Moskowitz met in New York City in January 1909 to work on organizing for black civil rights.[17] They sent out solicitations for support to more than 60 prominent Americans, and set a meeting date for February 12, 1909. This was intended to coincide with the 100th anniversary of the birth of President Abraham Lincoln, who emancipated enslaved African Americans. While the first large meeting did not take place until three months later, the February date is often cited as the founding date of the organization.

The NAACP was founded on February 12, 1909, by a larger group including African Americans W. E. B. Du Bois, Ida B. Wells, Archibald Grimké, Mary Church Terrell, and the previously named whites Henry Moskowitz, Mary White Ovington, William English Walling(the wealthy Socialist son of a former slave-holding family),[17][18] Florence Kelley, a social reformer and friend of Du Bois;[19] Oswald Garrison Villard, and Charles Edward Russell, a renowned muckraker and close friend of Walling. Russell helped plan the NAACP and had served as acting chairman of the National Negro Committee (1909), a forerunner to the NAACP.[20]

On May 30, 1909, the Niagara Movement conference took place at New York City's Henry Street Settlement House; they created an organization of more than 40, identifying as the National Negro Committee.[21] Among other founding members was Lillian Wald, a nurse who had founded the Henry Street Settlement where the conference took place.
This looks suspiciously like you are quoting a Wikipedia article at me. I was wrong. It wasn't 10 people in a room that nobody gave a shit about, it was 40.

Other than that, I don't see anything which indicates that the NAACP had any power or authority at its founding in 1909, and by your own chart, the number of monuments had been exponentially rising for a DECADE prior. The fact that the NAACP was founded and the fact that there were a bunch of Civil War monuments that same year is wholly unrelated - or, at least, you need something FAR more substantial than that chart to make such a claim. Correlation without causation is a hell of a thing.

And finally you are literally saying “ yes it’s true that the Confederate Constitution literally says that NEGRO slavery is what they are protecting, but it’s totally not about racism!”
I'm not sure that I'm "literally" saying that. The institution of slavery was not inherently racist, but in a fun bit of irony, by making it racist later, they actually ended up making the institution smaller. In addition to that, there were several other limitations placed in their constitution on slavery, with the end result that the North actually had broader slavery laws at the time.

I’m going to ignore you forever now. Clearly the only thing you are interested in is gaslighting. Bye.
Gaslighting? I'm actually reflecting the opinions of Civil War scholars back before the change in public perception that happened during the Civil Rights movement. If anything, you are the one who has been gaslighted (gaslit?) by a progressive education system that flanderized a complex situation into a civil rights issue.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#37
I’m not, but if you’re a college student or young graduate, neither are you.

I have contributed to engineering syllabus though.
I’m also not “selling” you anything anyway.

American society has well codified classes focused on racial minorities (as well as plenty of other things.)

You might as well say “well what’s the point of dividing up filmmaking classes like cinematography and editing and directing and writing? They are all important and segregating them just makes you think in only a certain perspective”

The simple fact is it’s not feasible what you’re suggesting
 
Apr 25, 2009
5,295
4,676
700
Australia
#40
I’m also not “selling” you anything anyway.

American society has well codified classes focused on racial minorities (as well as plenty of other things.)

You might as well say “well what’s the point of dividing up filmmaking classes like cinematography and editing and directing and writing? They are all important and segregating them just makes you think in only a certain perspective”

The simple fact is it’s not feasible what you’re suggesting
I thought the whole point of the various civil rights movements was to deconstruct the codified classes. I find it unbelievable that the historical victims of said class system are now the ones who want to maintain it.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#42
I thought the whole point of the various civil rights movements was to deconstruct the codified classes. I find it unbelievable that the historical victims of said class system are now the ones who want to maintain it.
The hierarchy of races codified and maintained by society will always exist. I prefer to be adequately taught my people’s history thanks.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#43
Heh, keep playing the victim. I stand by what I said and you can’t bully me into an apology by running crying to the teachers. You were the one behaving poorly and I told you the truth.
Hmm the “truth” that I’m insufferable huh? Reported.

I like that you are somehow able to say I’m “playing the victim” but also “bullying” you in the same thought.

I don’t want an apology.
 
Dec 3, 2018
217
250
140
#46
And I’m telling you it would be literally impossible to divide up all of America history only by time. There is no way all important history could fit. You aren’t even American. How could you possibly think you could be well informed enough to speak about this?
The discussion of how American history should be taught is an interesting subject. I think that by breaking specific subjects up and taking them out of history, you end up cherry picking information to deliver a specific narrative. For instance, if you wanted to cover Prohibition, you'd only focus on the laws, speak easy culture, and mob enforcement - but you'd be missing a lot of context of things that may have not direct contributed to it, but certainly influenced the events that led up to it. For instance, the true beginning of Prohibition starts maybe in the 1850s or so, but a class on Prohibition would probably start with the Temperance movement. It's going to give you a very different impression of history, I think.

To bring it back to this thread, if you start a class on the Civil War with Harper's Ferry, then you lose the perspective of all the political things that happened earlier. Like, you can not understand the Civil War without understanding the Nullification Crisis, and that happened in the 1830s. So how do you teach a class on the Civil War? Well, to my generation, you just stick us in front of the Ken Burns documentary for 11 hours, then follow it up with Denzel Washington... and I'm not sure that was the way to go.

On a side note, how come you won't talk to me anymore, but you are more than happy to trade insults with matt404au? It kind of makes me think that you a snubbing me not because I offended you.
 
Oct 21, 2018
273
169
170
#47
Denying that the American Civil War was about slavery? Somehow, I am not surprised.

Contemporary documentation from the original participants proves that many "Southern gentlemen" openly defended the institution of slavery and rallied behind it as the central reason behind their decision to split from the United States. Both before, during and after the war itself.

Anyone who denies this is, quite frankly, ignorant of all the declarations, speeches and remarks to that effect.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#48
Denying that the American Civil War was about slavery? Somehow, I am not surprised.

Contemporary documentation from the original participants proves that many "Southern gentlemen" openly defended the institution of slavery and rallied behind it as the central reason behind their decision to split from the United States. Both before, during and after the war itself.

Anyone who denies this is, quite frankly, ignorant of all the declarations, speeches and remarks to that effect.
Or intentionally ignoring them for some strange reason
 
Dec 3, 2018
217
250
140
#49
Denying that the American Civil War was about slavery? Somehow, I am not surprised.
I'm not denying that it was about slavery. I'm saying it wasn't just about slavery, and that our 21st century views on slavery have been warped by time and ideology to create a picture of slavery, and the South, that has no relation to how it really was. I also make a distinction between slavery and racism, since there were parts that were about slavery but not racism, and parts that were about racism but not slavery, so it's important to keep perspective. It was complicated.

And I think it is important to keep it complicated. The cartoon version we have about the Civil War is no doubt partly responsible for a lot of the polarization and hate that is going on today (on both sides). So when I see someone say the South were "traitors", that the war was just about slavery, or that Civil War monuments were erected purely because of racism, I feel compelled to correct them because that cartoon version of the past is causing these people to treat their fellow man with rather odious contempt.

The South were people. Not bad people. Not good people. Just people. And with that comes a lot of bad and good, a lot of heroes and villains, a lot of justice and injustice, and more than a few mistakes. The Civil War monuments were erected, in their time, largely to remember those people, but to remember them for the good, the heroes, and the justice, and not to glorify the bad. Using the least generous interpretation of this leads one to have a cartoon viewpoint about one's fellow man, to spout hate, and generally act like a complete asshole under the guise of meting out justice. With history constantly being rewritten, those monuments are the only living proof we have that, at one point, we didn't think the South was evil. They were meant to heal the divide, but the new generation seems interested only in making it worse.

Contemporary documentation from the original participants proves that many "Southern gentlemen" openly defended the institution of slavery and rallied behind it as the central reason behind their decision to split from the United States. Both before, during and after the war itself.
Antebellum South was not quite as racist as it would become through the war and immediately afterwards. The Civil War didn't start because of slavery, but over the years, that's what it became about.

Anyone who denies this is, quite frankly, ignorant of all the declarations, speeches and remarks to that effect.
One thing worth pointing out is that there were a lot of speeches made back then, and a lot more of them were about Northern oppression than slavery.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#50
I'm not denying that it was about slavery. I'm saying it wasn't just about slavery, and that our 21st century views on slavery have been warped by time and ideology to create a picture of slavery, and the South, that has no relation to how it really was. I also make a distinction between slavery and racism, since there were parts that were about slavery but not racism, and parts that were about racism but not slavery, so it's important to keep perspective. It was complicated.

And I think it is important to keep it complicated. The cartoon version we have about the Civil War is no doubt partly responsible for a lot of the polarization and hate that is going on today (on both sides). So when I see someone say the South were "traitors", that the war was just about slavery, or that Civil War monuments were erected purely because of racism, I feel compelled to correct them because that cartoon version of the past is causing these people to treat their fellow man with rather odious contempt.

The South were people. Not bad people. Not good people. Just people. And with that comes a lot of bad and good, a lot of heroes and villains, a lot of justice and injustice, and more than a few mistakes. The Civil War monuments were erected, in their time, largely to remember those people, but to remember them for the good, the heroes, and the justice, and not to glorify the bad. Using the least generous interpretation of this leads one to have a cartoon viewpoint about one's fellow man, to spout hate, and generally act like a complete asshole under the guise of meting out justice. With history constantly being rewritten, those monuments are the only living proof we have that, at one point, we didn't think the South was evil. They were meant to heal the divide, but the new generation seems interested only in making it worse.

Antebellum South was not quite as racist as it would become through the war and immediately afterwards. The Civil War didn't start because of slavery, but over the years, that's what it became about.


One thing worth pointing out is that there were a lot of speeches made back then, and a lot more of them were about Northern oppression than slavery.
Do you believe slavery in America was inherently racist?