Commandant of the Marine Corps bans all Confederate symbols

#251
#251
hog88 said:
Oh I think they knew how elected people would seek more and more power, what they failed to take into consideration is the citizens willingness to let them have it.
Click to expand...

That, too. It's still a popular thing among at least half the population despite all the evidence that federalism is a dumb play.
 
#252
#252
NCFisher said:
I'm moving nothing, but rather clearly demonstrating slavery was a national scourge and shame, that Southerners are tired of being fired upon over it. If we're to draw analogies with the Nazi flag/symbols, surely we must impugn our national flag and state flags throughout 31 states that protected the slave trading ships, the entire judicial system and legislature that birthed and enforced slavery, and public edifice built with much slave labor including the White House.

That's the conundrum and where the logic, even today, is taking us. Aside from the impracticality, is the danger in allowing ignorance to inform and direct us. So, yes; again - inform the ignorant instead of succumbing to them, whatever the basis of the ignorance. Emotion makes shite policy.

In fact, I think it was you I directed to the NPR/Marist poll showing not even a majority of black Americans supported removal of Confederate memorial. So, why do you attempt to speak for them, lump them monolithically, or attempt to convince them they should share your outrage?
Click to expand...

You have to wonder how many people know that NJ considered secession with the south for economic reasons, or that the first talk of secession in the early 1800s was the New England states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCFisher
#254
#254
NCFisher said:
People like you are the problem. You're handed bite-sized historical accounts of slavery in the North, the role the region played in the translatlantic trade, the proliferation of slavery in the country, and the black codes enacted to prevent freed slaves from settling north, and your response is "Not opening my mouth; prefer to not know and instead speak from ignorance". What it must be like to live life subjectively.

So, same challenge to you; demonstrate the bias or shut-up. You can formulate an argument, right?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m not going to waste my time on that. I’m just going to ridicule your argument of citing a website called “slave north” and the acting but hurt when you’re rightly mocked for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#255
#255
tvolsfan said:
Yeah, I’m not going to waste my time on that. I’m just going to ridicule your argument of citing a website called “slave north” and the acting but hurt when you’re rightly mocked for it.
Click to expand...

In other words, after looking over the site to find one thing you could make stick, you're saying "I made a rash, ignorant statement and will not compound it".
"But, I willfully choose to remain ignorant."

Yeah, I know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: toeflood, hog88 and AM64
#256
#256
NCFisher said:
In other words, after looking over the site to find one thing you could make stick, you're saying "I made a rash, ignorant statement and will not compound it".
"But, I willfully choose to remain ignorant."

Yeah, I know.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that you really wish this was true.
 
#257
#257
tvolsfan said:
I don't doubt that you really wish this was true.
Click to expand...

It's pretty apparent to people reading the exchange.
First, it's not "a website called slavenorth", that's the link name. The site is Slavery in the North because it discusses - surprise! - slavery in the North.

So, what tipped you that you bit off more than you could chew? Was it that the author is a fifty-year historian of CUNY, and not say, the Alabama Academy of the Confederate Arts? That in addition to his books on the war, his sources are other historians published by Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Cornell, Syracuse, Columbia, and Chicago university presses, and not KKK position papers?

For future reference, it helps to understand and identify what you're mocking so the audience says "hey, damn good mocking, bro!" instead of "dude...just chew your leg off and don't set traps for yourself".
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 37L1 and AM64
#258
#258
NCFisher said:
It's pretty apparent to people reading the exchange.
First, it's not "a website called slavenorth", that's the link name. The site is Slavery in the North because it discusses - surprise! - slavery in the North.

So, what tipped you that you bit off more than you could chew, little guy? Was it that the author is a fifty-year historian of CUNY, and not say, the Alabama Academy of the Confederate Arts? That in addition to his books on the war, his sources are other historians published by Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Cornell, Syracuse, Columbia, and Chicago university presses, and not KKK position papers?

For future reference, it helps to understand and identify what you're mocking so the audience says "hey, damn good mocking, bro!" instead of "dude...just chew your leg off and don't set traps for yourself".
Click to expand...
Look, I get that you want to believe I can’t handle this, but I’m not wasting my time digging through this site for the same reason I wouldn’t expect you to have to prove the bias of something you read on a site called “nevertrumpers.com.”

That said, here is a post on another forum that does just that.

You can clearly see how it’s perfect possible to take a quote from a source completely out of context and frame it to support an agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septic
#259
#259
tvolsfan said:
Look, I get that you want to believe I can’t handle this, but I’m not wasting my time digging through this site for the same reason I wouldn’t expect you to have to prove the bias of something you read on a site called “nevertrumpers.com.”

That said, here is a post on another forum that does just that.

You can clearly see how it’s perfect possible to take a quote from a source completely out of context and frame it to support an agenda.
Click to expand...

Well, I guess you got me there.
Just kidding!

The poster you reference begins with the false premise - "I'll start by addressing Slavenorth's condemnation of an Ohio college for being the first college in the country with a formal policy of race blind admissions"; it's so blatantly false, the only reason I do not label him a liar is that he makes a few seemingly objective posts later such as "The site is devoted to exposing the North's participation in slavery. Personally, I think there's a need for a site to do that honestly, objectively and without bias or distortion....Which is not to say that Ohio wasn't one of the most racist of the Northern states. It was."

So, I'll chalk it up to being a bit full of himself and not comprehending what is written.
----------------------------------------------
To begin, it's preposterous to claim Slavery in the North's author - Harper - of condemning Oberlin's policy to admit black's when his credentials at CUNY speak otherwise, and when Harper credits Oberlin "The college did survive integration, however, mostly because before 1860 only a token handful of blacks were admitted. In 1860, the figure for black students was 4 percent. Still, the school was shocklingly integrated by Northern standards."

So, your poster is way off base.
---------------------------------------------
Next, he attacks Harper's quote "In the 1830s, Oberlin College decided to open its doors to black students. As soon as the plan became known "panic and despair" seized students, faculty, and town residents. The chief proponent of the plan hastened to assure them that he had no intention to let the place "full up with filthy stupid negroes, but the controversy continued." as blatant mischaracterization and did not include a full quote:

Shipherd expressed deep disappointment at the trustees' previous decision--"surprising & grievous to my soul." "I did not desire you to hang out an abolition flag," he continued, "or fill up with filthy stupid negroes; but I did desire that you should say you would not reject promising youth who desire to prepare for usefulness because God had given them a darker hue than others." It was generally agreed, he pointed out, that emancipated Negroes ought to be educated in order to prepare them for the proper exercise of their freedom. He reminded the trustees that other institutions had admitted Negroes to full privileges: Western Reserve College, Princeton and even Lane Seminary. Students who were so pharisaical as to object to association with Negroes would not be forced into their company, and the danger of "amalgamation" (intermarriage between white and colored students) he declared to be wholly illusory. Besides, Shipherd held that the admission of students irrespective of color was eternally right and he would insist upon it for that reason despite any considerations of "worldly expediency."

Here's what Harper stated:
"In the 1830s, Oberlin College decided to open its doors to black students. As soon as the plan became known "panic and despair" seized students, faculty, and town residents. The chief proponent of the plan hastened to assure them that he had no intention to let the place "full up with filthy stupid negroes," but the controversy continued. The board of trustees tried to table the plan, but by now the abolitionists were aroused and would accept no retreat. In the end, in 1835, the trustees punted the decision to the faculty, which was assured of allowing black students to attend the school.

The move threatened the very existence of the college. From New England, the quarter from which much of the school's student body and money came, the college's financial agent wrote predicting disaster. "For as soon as your darkies begin to come in in any considerable numbers, unless they are completely separated ... the whites will begin to leave -- and at length your Institute will change colour. Why not have a black Institution, Dyed in the wool -- and let Oberlin be?"[4]

Harper, in fact, concisely laid out exactly what the poster said was the correct characterization. The policy was opposed and had been defeated by trustees, as the "chief proponent (founder John J. Shipherd) refers to, and wound up sending to faculty who passed it by one vote. His appeal that he was not flinging open the doors to "full up with filthy stupid negroes" but "promising youth who desire to prepare for usefulness because God had given them a darker hue than others." was Shipherd's attempt to mollify the opposition that Harper referred to. That Oberlin would be admitting not your average African, but just the promising ones.

Your boy needs to let some air out of his tires and roll a little slower because he proved Harper's point, FFS.
And you might want to do your own homework. I have.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and 37L1
#260
#260
tvolsfan said:
This post is especially silly when you consider that East Tennessee was pro-Union.
Click to expand...

Do you even Civil War...Check your history...in the first Tennessee succession vote, yes East TN voted against it. However, in the second succession vote East TN voted strongly in favor of succession and that voting segment pushed the state into joining the Confederacy.
 
#261
#261
Rasputin_Vol said:
Hypothetical question. Since the US fought a war against the CSA, they would be considered an enemy, right?

Would it be acceptable to have Union Jack symbols? Rising Sun? Mexican flags? Red, Black and Green flag?
Click to expand...

It depends on who’s offended.
 
#262
#262
DynaLo said:
Do you even Civil War...Check your history...in the first Tennessee succession vote, yes East TN voted against it. However, in the second succession vote East TN voted strongly in favor of succession and that voting segment pushed the state into joining the Confederacy.
Click to expand...
You're thinking of Middle Tennessee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Purple Tiger
#264
#264
NCFisher said:
Well, I guess you got me there.
Just kidding!

The poster you reference begins with the false premise - "I'll start by addressing Slavenorth's condemnation of an Ohio college for being the first college in the country with a formal policy of race blind admissions"; it's so blatantly false, the only reason I do not label him a liar is that he makes a few seemingly objective posts later such as "The site is devoted to exposing the North's participation in slavery. Personally, I think there's a need for a site to do that honestly, objectively and without bias or distortion....Which is not to say that Ohio wasn't one of the most racist of the Northern states. It was."

So, I'll chalk it up to being a bit full of himself and not comprehending what is written.
----------------------------------------------
To begin, it's preposterous to state Slavery in the North's author - Harper - of condemning Oberlin's policy to admit black's when his credentials at CUNY speak otherwise, and when Harper credits Oberlin "The college did survive integration, however, mostly because before 1860 only a token handful of blacks were admitted. In 1860, the figure for black students was 4 percent. Still, the school was shocklingly integrated by Northern standards."

So, your poster is way off base.
---------------------------------------------
Next, he attacks Harper's quote "In the 1830s, Oberlin College decided to open its doors to black students. As soon as the plan became known "panic and despair" seized students, faculty, and town residents. The chief proponent of the plan hastened to assure them that he had no intention to let the place "full up with filthy stupid negroes, but the controversy continued." as blatant mischaracterization and did not include a full quote:

Shipherd expressed deep disappointment at the trustees' previous decision--"surprising & grievous to my soul." "I did not desire you to hang out an abolition flag," he continued, "or fill up with filthy stupid negroes; but I did desire that you should say you would not reject promising youth who desire to prepare for usefulness because God had given them a darker hue than others." It was generally agreed, he pointed out, that emancipated Negroes ought to be educated in order to prepare them for the proper exercise of their freedom. He reminded the trustees that other institutions had admitted Negroes to full privileges: Western Reserve College, Princeton and even Lane Seminary. Students who were so pharisaical as to object to association with Negroes would not be forced into their company, and the danger of "amalgamation" (intermarriage between white and colored students) he declared to be wholly illusory. Besides, Shipherd held that the admission of students irrespective of color was eternally right and he would insist upon it for that reason despite any considerations of "worldly expediency."

Here's what Harper stated:
"In the 1830s, Oberlin College decided to open its doors to black students. As soon as the plan became known "panic and despair" seized students, faculty, and town residents. The chief proponent of the plan hastened to assure them that he had no intention to let the place "full up with filthy stupid negroes," but the controversy continued. The board of trustees tried to table the plan, but by now the abolitionists were aroused and would accept no retreat. In the end, in 1835, the trustees punted the decision to the faculty, which was assured of allowing black students to attend the school.

The move threatened the very existence of the college. From New England, the quarter from which much of the school's student body and money came, the college's financial agent wrote predicting disaster. "For as soon as your darkies begin to come in in any considerable numbers, unless they are completely separated ... the whites will begin to leave -- and at length your Institute will change colour. Why not have a black Institution, Dyed in the wool -- and let Oberlin be?"[4]

Harper, in fact, concisely laid out exactly what the poster said was the correct characterization. The policy was opposed and had been defeated by trustees, as the "chief proponent (founder John J. Shipherd) refers to, and wound up sending to faculty who passed it by one vote. His appeal that he was not flinging open the doors to "full up with filthy stupid negroes" but "promising youth who desire to prepare for usefulness because God had given them a darker hue than others." was Shipherd's attempt to mollify the opposition that Harper referred to. That Oberlin would be admitting not your average African, but just the promising ones.

Your boy needs to let some air out of his tires and roll a little slower because he proved Harper's point, FFS.
And you might want to do your own homework. I have.
Click to expand...
The point is the author of slave north clearly cited certain things while omitting others to make Ohio seem as bad as possible. Nobody has ever said that no racism existed in the north.

But you're clearly intent on getting the last word in defense of your lost cause myth, so have at it, I guess.
 
#265
#265
tvolsfan said:
The point is the author of slave north clearly cited certain things while omitting others to make Ohio seem as bad as possible. Nobody has ever said that no racism existed in the north.

But you're clearly intent on getting the last word in defense of your lost cause myth, so have at it, I guess.
Click to expand...

Because the author didn't set out to chronicle the history of Ohio, nor is there room to do so on one page. Hey - it was your poster who stated "Which is not to say that Ohio wasn't one of the most racist of the Northern states. It was."

tvolsfan said:
Nobody has ever said that no racism existed in the north.
Click to expand...

No, but most everyone doesn't know anything about it, either, and certainly not the slavery aspects, the important part.

I have no lost cause and that just a goofy way to say "Uncle!"
 
#266
#266
tvolsfan said:
You're thinking of Middle Tennessee.
Click to expand...

Actually, no I’m not. In the first vote, West and Middle Tn favored yes while East favored no. In the second vote that reversed with East Tn strongly favoring succession. I’d get you the actual number of votes per divide, but I’m not digging out my genealogy notes right now and going through it all.
 
#267
#267
tvolsfan said:
The point is the author of slave north clearly cited certain things while omitting others to make Ohio seem as bad as possible. Nobody has ever said that no racism existed in the north.

But you're clearly intent on getting the last word in defense of your lost cause myth, so have at it, I guess.
Click to expand...

You might want to read up on another similar topic to slavery - "indentured servitude". There were some pretty extreme examples of that, too, in the north.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DynaLo
#268
#268
AM64 said:
You might want to read up on another similar topic to slavery - "indentured servitude". There were some pretty extreme examples of that, too, in the north.
Click to expand...

Some people say a man is made outta mud
a poor man's made outta muscle and blood
muscle and blood and skin and bones
a mind that's a-weak and a back that's strong
you load sixteen tons, what do you get?
another day older and deeper in debt
saint peter don't you call me 'cause i can't go
i owe my soul to the company store
I was born one mornin' when the sun didn't shine
i picked up my shovel and i walked to the mine
i loaded sixteen tons of number nine coal
and the straw boss said "well, a-bless my soul"
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#269
#269
DynaLo said:
Actually, no I’m not. In the first vote, West and Middle Tn favored yes while East favored no. In the second vote that reversed with East Tn strongly favoring succession. I’d get you the actual number of votes per divide, but I’m not digging out my genealogy notes right now and going through it all.
Click to expand...
You may want to double check.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top