Representative Ilhan Omar: This Will Not Be The Country Of White People.

Schrödinger's cat

Gold Member
Dec 15, 2011
2,775
5,172
645
Advocating for public policy that removes barriers to success is not a rejection of individual responsibility or agency, now is it? Improving the system is not the same as being a victim, now is it?
It absolutely is.
The victim demands and petitions that the world to change to suit them. Claiming victimisation as the bargaining chip as to why others should change whilst they refuse to.
Even when the environment changes to suit them, this only teaches the victim to double-down on the victimhood position. Which we witness in the OP. A successful person, still claiming victimhood, despite the environment changing to benefit them.
It's a vicious cycle of a one-sided mentality. It is ethically corrupt and it is toxic.

Every individual has it in them to succeed in any environment.
Unless they, as an individual, choose to be a victim instead.
 
Last edited:

Texas Pride

Member
Feb 27, 2018
796
960
335
Texas
Dear Stupids,

Did any of you actually watch the clip? She's just saying that this country doesn't belong to any one group, it's a diverse nation and we need to co-exist.

She is not saying anything anti-white, she is saying this isn't an ethnostate that belongs to white people where the needs of minorities can be ignored or repressed.

Conservatives get so fucking triggered any time any person of color mentions race in any context. Get a grip, people.

When you start out your post by insulting people. I'd say you're the one who is fucking stupid for thinking that's an acceptable form of discourse. You're not reaching ANYONE with you're point of view even if you're right because you shit the bed from the first word. I'd say this is what happens when you have limited real life experience communicating with actual human beings instead of talking shit over the internet.
 

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
Dear Stupids,

Did any of you actually watch the clip? She's just saying that this country doesn't belong to any one group, it's a diverse nation and we need to co-exist.

She is not saying anything anti-white, she is saying this isn't an ethnostate that belongs to white people where the needs of minorities can be ignored or repressed.

Conservatives get so fucking triggered any time any person of color mentions race in any context. Get a grip, people.
We know she is an anti Semite. We know she is racist and has connections to the Muslim brotherhood. So when she says stuff like this of course it counts. Omar does not get flack for being Muslim but because she supports terrorist organisation and her Antisemitism as well as racism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
We know she is an anti Semite.
You act like that's a settled matter. She's an anti-zionist, but so am I and I'm Jewish. But let's not pretend she's Louis Farrakhan all of a sudden. I don't personally find her remarks to be anti-semitic at all. It's, at the very least, open to interpretation.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
You act like that's a settled matter. She's an anti-zionist, but so am I and I'm Jewish. But let's not pretend she's Louis Farrakhan all of a sudden. I don't personally find her remarks to be anti-semitic at all. It's, at the very least, open to interpretation.
Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar is scheduled to raise money in March with the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) only a week after she used an anti-Semitic trope to claim Israel has paid for GOP support.

Omar will be the keynote speaker at CAIR’s 4th Annual Valley Banquet on March 23 to discuss advancing justice and empowering Muslims, according to the organization’s invitation. Single tickets start at $55 per person and a table can cost upwards of $500.



If you raise funds for Hamas centered groups then YES you are an Anti Semite. Hamas is very open about wanting to cause a genocide of the Jewish people. She has more connection to these people than someone like Trump has to Nazis. And CAIR also have ties with the Muslim Brotherhood. A HIGHLY dangerous organisation

Despite its Hamas roots and terror ties, the most disturbing aspect of CAIR is its accomplishment of the Muslim Brotherhood’s precise aspiration for it. Thanks to its media savvy and the credulousness of government officials and press outlets, which have treated it as the “civil-rights” group it purports to be rather than the Islamist spearhead that it is, CAIR has been a constant thorn in the side of American national defense.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Democratic Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar is scheduled to raise money in March with the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) only a week after she used an anti-Semitic trope to claim Israel has paid for GOP support.

If you raise funds for Hamas centered groups then YES you are an Anti Semite.
Are you seriously claiming that CAIR is "Hamas-centered?" 22 years ago, a man who worked for CAIR was deported on suspicion of Hamas ties, but no evidence was found. That is the entirety of their "link"
to Hamas.

So because Omar spoke at a charity event, hosted by a PAC, associated with CAIR, who 22 years ago employed a guy who maybe or maybe didn't have ties to a group that supports terrorism, that makes her an anti-Semite.

Let's just agree to disagree on that one, buddy.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
Are you seriously claiming that CAIR is "Hamas-centered?" 22 years ago, a man who worked for CAIR was deported on suspicion of Hamas ties, but no evidence was found. That is the entirety of their "link"
to Hamas.

So because Omar spoke at a charity event, hosted by a PAC, associated with CAIR, who 22 years ago employed a guy who maybe or maybe didn't have ties to a group that supports terrorism, that makes her an anti-Semite.

Let's just agree to disagree on that one, buddy.
A senior official of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) who spoke last week at an event celebrating the election of three Muslim members of Congress is an avowed supporter of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
Jinan Shbat (who goes by “Jinan Deena” on Twitter), CAIR’s national outreach manager, tweeted her support for the Palestinian terrorist group in June, expressing her preference for Hamas over the Palestinian Authority, which governs the Palestinian areas of the disputed West Bank.


 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
9,754
16,724
690
USA
dunpachi.com
Not that my approval means anything either way, but thank you @HyGogg

We completely disagree on this topic, but thanks for putting in effort to explain your standpoints, to offer counterpoints to what others have said in here, and to continue explaining yourself instead of curling into a ball and dipping out of the thread. You and posters like you are what Politics board needs in order to produce good discussion.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
A senior official of the Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR) who spoke last week at an event celebrating the election of three Muslim members of Congress is an avowed supporter of the U.S.-designated terrorist group Hamas.
Jinan Shbat (who goes by “Jinan Deena” on Twitter), CAIR’s national outreach manager, tweeted her support for the Palestinian terrorist group in June, expressing her preference for Hamas over the Palestinian Authority, which governs the Palestinian areas of the disputed West Bank.


That might be an argument that Jinan Shbat is anti-Semitic (though I think it's probably important to frame it in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which in my opinion is a matter of lesser evils and has no "good guys."). It's a poor argument that CAIR as an organization is "Hamas-centered," that they "support terrorism," and an even worse one that Ilhan Omar supports those things.

If you want to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with every Muslim activist out there, you're going to get what you're looking for if you stretch enough. But I don't think your characterization of Omar is fair.
 
Last edited:

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Every individual has it in them to succeed in any environment.
Unless they, as an individual, choose to be a victim instead.
But every group that is systemically disadvantaged will have a lower rate of individuals succeeding.

These two ideas are not in conflict, as long as you understand that they are two separate conversations.
 

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
That might be an argument that Jinan Shbat is anti-Semitic (though I think it's probably important to frame it in the context of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which in my opinion is a matter of lesser evils and has no "good guys."). It's a poor argument that CAIR as an organization is "Hamas-centered," that they "support terrorism," and an even worse one that Ilhan Omar supports those things.

If you want to play six degrees of Kevin Bacon with every Muslim activist out there, you're going to get what you're looking for if you stretch enough. But I don't think your characterization of Omar is fair.
What else do you want? Her friendship with Linda sarasour a Highly anti semitic person who uses the ISIS sign in her speeches? Has also connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. Was recently condemned by the Womens March as Anti Semite and tweets shit like this?









Or her Connections to Thalib?




Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., a self-proclaimed liberal progressive, will speak alongside an extremist imam at an event hosted by the Michigan chapter of the terror-tied Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) next month. The Hamas-connected outfit is infamously known for being labeled an unindicted co-conspirator in the largest terrorism financing case in U.S. history.
On March 17, Rep. Tlaib will join Omar Suleiman, a Muslim Brotherhood-linked imam who has a long history of anti-LGBT, anti-woman, and anti-Semitic remarks, at the fundraising event in Detroit. Tickets will cost $50 per person, or $500 to reserve a table.
You want more? I can get you more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
You want more? I can get you more.
I really don't dude. I think her comments about Israel's use of lobbying and outsized political influence are fair, and I think he condemnation as an anti-Semite afterwards is evidence of that. I say all of this as a Jew, from an Orthodox family. If you want to be offended on my behalf, go ahead, I guess, but I'd rather just evaluate her at her word here.
 
Last edited:

Dunki

Gold Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,045
6,386
435
I really don't dude. I think her comments about Israel's use of lobbying and outsized political influence are fair, and I think he condemnation as an anti-Semite afterwards is evidence of that. I say all of this as a Jew, from an Orthodox family. If you want to be offended on my behalf, go ahead, I guess, but I'd rather just evaluate her at her word here.
Why should i be offended for you? I think she is highly anti semitic and this trio is known for their connections. Thalib and Sarasour were already condemned by a lot of democrats. Sarasour especially has basically destroyed the women's march movement Having these connections is not ok. Imagine a Republican had connections with the KKK. Oh wait that did happen and what did happen to him?

These double morals and standards are fucking ridiculous. and in a Time of a huge raise in Antisemitism on the left it is time to act accordingly. In Europe Jewish people are more afraid of the left wing than the right wing. According to a new survey it is like this:

Muslims.
Left Wing
Collegues
Right wing
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,718
4,339
510
I really don't dude. I think her comments about Israel's use of lobbying and outsized political influence are fair, and I think he condemnation as an anti-Semite afterwards is evidence of that. I say all of this as a Jew, from an Orthodox family. If you want to be offended on my behalf, go ahead, I guess, but I'd rather just evaluate her at her word here.
Yet she takes money from CAIR. How come she has no problem with CAIR lobbying, she even fundraises for them and speaks as a key note speaker? CAIR donates actual money to a lot of politicians but Omar seems to have no issues with CAIR lobbying.

And her comments are not fair because she boils down support for Israel to only being about money, when money is probably one of the least reasons why the US supports Israel. But not a word about CAIR money and support for Palestinians. If I use her logic then I would have to say she is bought by CAIR and pledges loyalty to Palestine because she took donations from CAIR and spouts almost word for word their anti-Israel propaganda.

And BTW being anti-Zionist is being antisemetic even if you are a Jew.

CAIR will be in trouble soon once the MB is officially declared a terrorist organization.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
Why should i be offended for you? I think she is highly anti semitic and this trio is known for their connections. Thalib and Sarasour were already condemned by a lot of democrats. Sarasour especially has basically destroyed the women's march movement Having these connections is not ok. Imagine a Republican had connections with the KKK.
.
If you're going three degrees of separation like that, we could tie every Republican to people who have said hideously racist things. But my point is that isn't really fair.

So look, I think I should stop and acknowledge that anti-Semitism in the Muslim community (including the Muslim activist community) is a real problem, and if you're a woman like Ilhan Omar who is a part of both of these communities, it's going to be tough to avoid ever being in the same room with anti-Semites. I respect that Omar has repeatedly publicly denounced anti-Semitism before and after this controversy, and I don't think she is the problem, even if there is a problem.

Likewise, there's a lot of Islamaphobia in the religious Jewish community. And if you're a part of that community (as I was -- I'm not religious anymore), you were probably friends or related to people who have said horribly Islamophobic things. I would not really want to be held accountable for all of those, and they don't reflect my beliefs or values.

In Europe Jewish people are more afraid of the left wing than the right wing. According to a new survey it is like this:

Muslims.
Left Wing
Collegues
Right wing
Well yeah, a lot of the Haredi (the Jews most vulnerable to hate) are staunchly right-wing and often deeply Islamaphobic themselves. I say this as someone from a Haredi family and who was a part of that community. That doesn't make that perception accurate, though.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
And BTW being anti-Zionist is being antisemetic even if you are a Jew.
Fuuuuuuuuck you, dude. Israel is a political entity, some 70 years old. The Jewish people have been around for thousands of years. We are not defined by a patch of land and the broken, racist political entity occupying it.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,718
4,339
510
Fuuuuuuuuck you, dude. Israel is a political entity, some 70 years old. The Jewish people have been around for thousands of years. We are not defined by a patch of land and the broken, racist political entity occupying it.
I said nothing of Israel, I said anti-zionsim.

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people are a nation and have a right to self determination. If you don't believe this then fuck off yourself.
 

HyGogg

Banned
Jan 11, 2016
937
450
240
I said nothing of Israel, I said anti-zionsim.

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people are a nation and have a right to self determination. If you don't believe this then fuck off yourself.
Many religious Jews believe that the nation was destroyed with the destruction of the second temple, and that only Moshiach (the messiah) can lead us back. These are anti-Zionist Jews, and they have been around for thousands of years now, most of the history of the religion. They even exist in Israel. Go to Mea Sharim (which you can't unless you can pass for Haredi) in Jerusalem some time. They've been living there for centuries, they are the most devout Jews you'll ever meet, and they're anti-Zionist.

Go fuck yourself with a steak fork, you ignorant cunt.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,718
4,339
510
Many religious Jews believe that the nation was destroyed with the destruction of the second temple, and that only the the Messiah can lead us back. These are anti-Zionist Jews, and they have been around for centuries. They even exist in Israel. Go to Mea Sharim (which you can't unless you can pass for Haredi) in Jerusalem some time. They've been living there for centuries, they are the most devout Jews you'll ever meet, and they're anti-Zionist.

Go fuck yourself with a steak fork, please.
They are pretty off from the main stream and I would still consider their position antisemetic.

Just to make clear I am separating Zionism from being against Israel. If you don't like Israel we can debate back and forth, but saying Jews don't have the right to consider themselves a nation and the right to self determination is anti-Jewish to me and may become the US position soon.

Though I do want to apologize to you for telling you to fuck off because I don't think that was proper of me. So look we disagree but lets keep it civil and reign in the language. I promise to do so and apologize for telling you to go fuck yourself. Lets be adults ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HeresJohnny

autoduelist

Gold Member
Aug 30, 2014
7,520
3,981
495
Interesting. We have @Aurelian , the aetheiest who was a former Christian and now HyGogg, our expert "well I used to be a Jew"
I'm a lifelong atheist about to send my kids to a catholic school because I live in a city that celebrates antifa and is more concerned with indoctrination than teaching [my kids' public school has less than 20% meeting state standards by their own admission].
 

LegendOfKage

Gold Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,187
3,005
400
An ethnostate? Probably a very small percentage. Tacit support of the existing structures that preserve privilege? A LOT.

What I hear overwhelmingly from conservatives is that, while they recognize racism is wrong, they get agitated when any person of color talks about it, and they definitely object to anybody doing anything about it. Which is not a very courageous position to take if you happen to be in the privileged group.


So, I'm glad you've said this, because I think the answer gets at something.

I think the main thing that distinguishes conservative thought from liberal thought in general is that conservatives think of things in individualist/anecdotal terms and liberals thing of them in collective/macro terms. This is why the more rural you are the more conservative you tend to be, while people in more densely populated areas are overwhelmingly liberal. You can apply this to social policy, economics, almost anything.

But to bring it back to your question here, the answer is this: Yes, individuals of all races express a degree of prejudice, and in individual interactions, these instances can be very damaging. HOWEVER, these instances of reverse racism do not create negative impacts on the majority substantial enough to balance out their privilege/advantages on a whole.

This is for a number of reasons:
1) In implicit bias studies, minorities do not show significant racial bias. Some individuals may, but some minorities are also positively biased toward whites and on average they are neutral, compared to whites who -- even among liberals -- have pronounced implicit bias, moreso than any other group. So while INDIVIDUAL people of color may be racist, whites are the only GROUP that actually is, on average, significantly biased.
2) Minorities are less likely to be in positions of power that allow someone to negatively impact them. They're less likely to be police, to be hiring managers, to be judges, etc, so negative bias is less likely to have strongly felt effects on a person.
3) Minorties are also less able to outweigh the bias of the minority just by virtue of being a (statistical) minority. There aren't enough of them.

So for, example, if you go for a job interview and a black hiring manager passes on you because he's biased, that sucks, and it's wrong, but the fact is that if you go on 10 job interviews, you're going to walk into 9 where bias gives you a positive advantage.

THAT SAID, if someone is the victim of hate related violence, or they happen to be in the position where a POC is in a power position to harm them or treat them unfairly then of course those effects are very real for that person. But these make for poor guidance when it comes to policy, or discussing the issues at large.
I read this last night, and I thought it's a strong example of how to represent your argument. There're a lot of this I agree with, and a bit I disagree with, but it could have started a good conversation. Then I saw the personal attacks in your follow up posts to other members, and realized you might be heading for a ban. It's a shame, because the above shows you could definitely be more than hot-takes and insults.
 
Last edited:

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
10,714
14,477
940
Australia
I read this last night, and I thought it's a strong example of how to represent your argument. There're a lot of this I agree with, and a bit I disagree with, but it could have started a good conversation. Then I saw the personal attacks in your follow up posts to other members, and realized you might be heading for a ban. It's a shame, because the above shows you could definitely be more than hot-takes and insults.
Really? It was mostly grade A bullshit supported by nothing but feelings. He was unironically advocating group-based equality of outcome measures to attempt to boost minorities from the top down. He was sneering at individualism and painting it as a rural conservative position. Not sure how you see any value in what he said. Is it because he could write well and form sentences?
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,064
3,644
250
Really? It was mostly grade A bullshit supported by nothing but feelings. He was unironically advocating group-based equality of outcome measures to attempt to boost minorities from the top down. He was sneering at individualism and painting it as a rural conservative position. Not sure how you see any value in what he said. Is it because he could write well and form sentences?
Some of what he said is true. He just covers it in so much shit, it becomes a hassle and a bother to get to the gist of it.

Hygogg didn't want to talk. He wanted to yell at "stupid" conservatives
 
Oct 26, 2018
2,468
1,816
240
It absolutely is.
The victim demands and petitions that the world to change to suit them. Claiming victimisation as the bargaining chip as to why others should change whilst they refuse to.
Even when the environment changes to suit them, this only teaches the victim to double-down on the victimhood position. Which we witness in the OP. A successful person, still claiming victimhood, despite the environment changing to benefit them.
It's a vicious cycle of a one-sided mentality. It is ethically corrupt and it is toxic.

Every individual has it in them to succeed in any environment.
Unless they, as an individual, choose to be a victim instead.
Yup. Canada and the US are similar. The avg annual wage for workers is about $50,000/yr, which is the same as $25/hr.

Unemployment is at record lows too. So for every crybaby saying they are stuck making $25,000/yr in a McJob, there is someone making $60,000+ to balance things out. The number of people making slave wages is actually a minority. Most people make a decent wage. And all the McJobs out there aren't supposed to be living wages to support a family.

Nobody on Earth has ever claimed cooking fries or selling shoes like Al Bundy would earn a worker enough support a family, house and car. These kinds of jobs are supposed to be transitional jobs for low skilled young people to make a buck. That's why you get so many high school/college kids doing these jobs PT. A 45 year old to be supporting a family and themselves stocking shelves is not the expectation for these kinds of roles. But some reason people try to make every job high paying where a guy strapping aleaf blower to his back should make as much as a chemist with a Bachelor of Science degree.

The only people that demand that are the ones at the bottom. Most people make enough to live a modest life. If someone is so begging for a decent wage and benefits, get a government job pushing paper. Millions of gov workers. Drive a bus and make $30/hr.
 
Last edited:

LegendOfKage

Gold Member
Mar 6, 2018
2,187
3,005
400
I read this last night, and I thought it's a strong example of how to represent your argument. There're a lot of this I agree with, and a bit I disagree with, but it could have started a good conversation. Then I saw the personal attacks in your follow up posts to other members, and realized you might be heading for a ban. It's a shame, because the above shows you could definitely be more than hot-takes and insults.
Really? It was mostly grade A bullshit supported by nothing but feelings. He was unironically advocating group-based equality of outcome measures to attempt to boost minorities from the top down. He was sneering at individualism and painting it as a rural conservative position. Not sure how you see any value in what he said. Is it because he could write well and form sentences?
That was very poorly written on my part. "There's a lot of this I agree with" was meant to refer to how the position is being argued, not position itself.

Although there are some parts that I did completely agree with. Mainly that conservatives are concerned with individualism, and that people of all races can express prejudice. There's also a lot there that I would challenge, though.
 

Acerac

Banned
May 20, 2007
10,222
582
950
If you feel this country does not have your best interest in mind, you are more than free to seek your luck in other countries.

I know myself would leave in a place I would believe I was undesired.
Must be nice to have the financial freedom to be able to leave countries on a whim.

Has little to do with what I was saying however, unless you are conceding that my point is correct and do not wish to talk about it. If you had felt this and just wanted me to shut up, your request that I leave the country makes sense, but I am kind of hoping there is more to it than you agreeing with me but not liking it.
 
Feb 15, 2018
1,073
660
230
United States
The fact white people fought to abolish it doesn't erase the fact that other white people fought to keep it. And it doesn't erase the fact that white people brought it here in the first place. You can't create a problem, solve the problem, and then take credit for solving it like you are some kind of saint. That's not how it works. Also you can't take credit for what others did and pretend you had anything to do with it.


I have seen some very strange and stupid counterarguments and statements regarding slavery in America but "White People ended it so you are welcome!" has never been one of them.
You're from Europe, aren't you. Poor southerners fought in the confederacy for cultural reasons and control. Only the richest people in the South owned slaves.

In other words, the elites are the problem, as usual.

If the union really wanted to end slavery without a war, they would have simply paid slave owners to set slaves free.

IIRC the UK was the first to abolish slavery, again white people.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: CurryPanda

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
36,067
727
1,245
You're from Europe, aren't you. Poor southerners fought in the confederacy for cultural reasons and control. Only the richest people in the South owned slaves.

In other words, the elites are the problem, as usual.

If the union really wanted to end slavery without a war, they would have simply paid slave owners to set slaves free.

IIRC the UK was the first to abolish slavery, again white people.
You apparently don't have a mighty fine grasp of U.S. history to be making such statements.

THEY TRIED TO PAY SLAVE OWNERS. Lincoln drafted legislation in Delaware for compensated emancipation, to be followed along with the remaining loyal but non free states, but Delaware rejected it. Compensated Emancipation was also proposed to the southern states, but already being in full rebellion, ignored all proposals. Lincoln himself tried Compensated Emancipation because he believed it would be cheaper than war.

Around 25% of households in the south had slaves. Poor non-slaving holding white southerners admired plantation owners and wanted to own slaves themselves. They were the temporarily embarrassed millionaire meme of their day. Confederate soldiers were optimistic about the institution of slavery surviving. Many soldiers had slaves and half of all military officers were slave owners.
 
Last edited:

StormCell

Member
Dec 11, 2018
432
340
170
Sorry but we (white people in America) don't get to take credit for ending slavery when a sizable chunk of the fucking country decided to fight a war rather than give up their slaves. Not to mention the fact that we profited off of it for as long as we did knowing full well it was wrong and most of the civilized world around us had outlawed it decades before us.


Also I do not defend Muslim countries. I am well aware of the human rights violations that occur in some of those places. But I do defend peaceful Muslims from islamophobic nonsense and hate that is caused by the actions of extremists.
This has become a tired subject. Look, the civil war happened for other reasons besides "just slavery." It was not a war that "just ended slavery." The conclusion of the war wasn't to "just free the slaves." So therefore, confederate soldiers weren't "just fighting to keep slavery legal." I know that's a popular thing to paint on the confederacy, and it's just lovely when people shit all over the confederate troops. I've even seen them labeled as outright terrorists, and that's highly offensive. The US was lagging behind Europe on slavery because of its developing economy, and once the north became an industrial hub, northern progressives just expected the entire nation to bite the bullet overnight. Think on that.

When we talk about the civil war, what we should really discuss is rapid political changes in a country that consists of ardent progressives and staunch conservatives.
 

Aurelian

my friends call me "Cunty"
Feb 22, 2009
823
585
845
Ottawa, Canada
This has become a tired subject. Look, the civil war happened for other reasons besides "just slavery." It was not a war that "just ended slavery." The conclusion of the war wasn't to "just free the slaves." So therefore, confederate soldiers weren't "just fighting to keep slavery legal." I know that's a popular thing to paint on the confederacy, and it's just lovely when people shit all over the confederate troops. I've even seen them labeled as outright terrorists, and that's highly offensive. The US was lagging behind Europe on slavery because of its developing economy, and once the north became an industrial hub, northern progressives just expected the entire nation to bite the bullet overnight. Think on that.

When we talk about the civil war, what we should really discuss is rapid political changes in a country that consists of ardent progressives and staunch conservatives.
Slavery wasn't the only reason, but it was a central reason -- numerous Confederate leaders (such as Georgia's Henry Benning) explicitly cited fear of the US abolishing slavery as the reason for secession. The vague economic and "state's rights" arguments mostly emerged after the war, when the Lost Cause camp tried to romanticize the Confederacy and portray the war as an "act of Northern aggression."
 

StormCell

Member
Dec 11, 2018
432
340
170
Slavery wasn't the only reason, but it was a central reason -- numerous Confederate leaders (such as Georgia's Henry Benning) explicitly cited fear of the US abolishing slavery as the reason for secession. The vague economic and "state's rights" arguments mostly emerged after the war, when the Lost Cause camp tried to romanticize the Confederacy and portray the war as an "act of Northern aggression."
EDIT: I don't see us as being in disagreement. Slavery was a symbol of lifestyle to a lot of Americans of the time.

And if we draw parallels to the present, in a hypothetical sense, what would we say we are fighting for?

For example, would we say we are fighting for the right to say offensive things?
 
Last edited:
Feb 15, 2018
1,073
660
230
United States
You apparently don't have a mighty fine grasp of U.S. history to be making such statements.

THEY TRIED TO PAY SLAVE OWNERS. Lincoln drafted legislation in Delaware for compensated emancipation, to be followed along with the remaining loyal but non free states, but Delaware rejected it. Compensated Emancipation was also proposed to the southern states, but already being in full rebellion, ignored all proposals. Lincoln himself tried Compensated Emancipation because he believed it would be cheaper than war.

Around 25% of households in the south had slaves. Poor non-slaving holding white southerners admired plantation owners and wanted to own slaves themselves. They were the temporarily embarrassed millionaire meme of their day. Confederate soldiers were optimistic about the institution of slavery surviving. Many soldiers had slaves and half of all military officers were slave owners.
They should have offered more money, couldn't have cost more than the war.

Going to need some proof of those numbers
 
Last edited:

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,897
3,521
1,090
Slavery wasn't the only reason, but it was a central reason -- numerous Confederate leaders (such as Georgia's Henry Benning) explicitly cited fear of the US abolishing slavery as the reason for secession. The vague economic and "state's rights" arguments mostly emerged after the war, when the Lost Cause camp tried to romanticize the Confederacy and portray the war as an "act of Northern aggression."
And most of the North saw the enslaved Africans as subhuman and wanted to ship them back to Africa.

Slavery was an issue in the Civil War, but not the moral question of it. The North cared more about the economics and power ending slavery would give them. Lincoln certainly did not give a shit about them. The North never had any true moral superiority on the issue - in the end, slaves were just tools to them as well, tools whose misery they built themselves off of and now wanted to discard.
 

#Phonepunk#

Gold Member
Sep 4, 2018
3,288
3,787
365
yes maybe the leaders say "this is worth going to war from" but leaders do that all the time. leaders may represent the public but they do not speak for all citizens. do we think all Americans were on board for the Iraq War? no. it had the largest protests in history against it. yet our leaders, both parties, signed on to it.

slaves were almost entirely owned by the very rich. most people in the south lived in poverty. most people in the south did not own slaves. so even if it all boils down to that, then like most wars, it is largely a case of the rich elites deciding to go to war to protect their business interests and everyone else having no choice but to do so.

finally, the north is not "blame free" in any of this, and all it takes is a cursory look of racial attitudes at the time and the ensuing Reconstruction/Jim Crow periods that occurred post-slavery. then there is the unfortunate fact that all through the civil war the north was paying handsomely for southern cotton, in fact they were the biggest buyers after the British. just like modern banks doing deals with terrorist harboring countries despite that being supposedly illegal, the same shit was going on during the civil war, even among the "morally right"
 
Last edited: