home studios equipment staff/friends booking/rates for sale forum contact

Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Moderators: kerble, Electrical-Staff

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby numberthirty on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:28 pm

blackmarket wrote:I don't think anyone really cares. The institutions these men were fighting to uphold no doubt paled in comparison to what was going on in those camps. Perhaps getting a taste of one's own medicine?



War Crimes? Nah...

Look at what they were fighting for. We can do whatever we want to them. Totally fine.
154 wrote:Are you in Voivod or something?
User avatar
numberthirty
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 19548
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:28 am

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby numberthirty on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:31 pm

No shit. Bitch at place for being welfare state while ignoring that you waged a war against them less than two hundred years ago.
154 wrote:Are you in Voivod or something?
User avatar
numberthirty
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 19548
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:28 am

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:33 pm

numberthirty wrote:
blackmarket wrote:I don't think anyone really cares. The institutions these men were fighting to uphold no doubt paled in comparison to what was going on in those camps. Perhaps getting a taste of one's own medicine?



War Crimes? Nah...

Look at what they were fighting for. We can do whatever we want to them. Totally fine.


I wouldn't personally say it is totally fine. Others might. War crimes are terrible. But we have to prioritize. For myself this ranks pretty low on my List of Things to Care About.
User avatar
blackmarket
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:37 pm

numberthirty wrote:No shit. Bitch at place for being welfare state while ignoring that you waged a war against them less than two hundred years ago.


I know you aren't picking sides, but we have to remember who shot first. Just because your side, oh...I mean their side ultimately lost, it does not mean the federal government waged war on the South. If we can't be honest about reality, what do we have to talk about? The Southern sates fought against the Union and got their asses handed to them. A completely different thing from what you are talking about.
Last edited by blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
blackmarket
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:42 pm

Steve V. wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
Steve V. wrote:
jimmy two hands wrote:
Gramsci wrote:And WTF is with all the Confederate Flags?!?!? "As a foreigner" what I don't get is that surely it should be regarded as treason to fly one of those right? They fucking lost a Civil War


The South has a lot of whiney loser babies who are still pissed 150 years after the fact that they are no longer allowed to own human beings. And America in general, north and south, has a bunch of assholes who like to fly the treason flag to show their support of a racial caste system.


Could also be that a Southerner is proud to have come from a bloodline that dealt with a complete savaging on behalf of Union troops and rebuilt their economy/society while also contributing to the American arts canon.


The southern United States did not rise, and even today, does not survive by it's own hand. It has never really learned to exist and be self-sustaining without that olde-tyme subsidy of slaved, human labor. The largest welfare states (states that receive more money from the federal government than they pay to it), exist in the South. This fits the trend. In its politics, we can see a habit that veers toward serfdom. For all it's posturing as a "rebel" stronghold, time, and time again, we see Southern culture pay fealty to wealth and power.


I don't know, I don't see this "posturing" you speak of.


You have never seen Southern culture portrayed as rebellious? You have never heard of this Confederate battle flag Southerners hold so dearly as being called a "rebel flag"...an outlaw symbol of liberty? I find that all very hard to believe.
User avatar
blackmarket
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby numberthirty on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:43 pm

blackmarket wrote:I wouldn't personally say it is totally fine. Others might. War crimes are terrible. But we have to prioritize. For myself this ranks pretty low on my List of Things to Care About.


War crimes? Eh, not that high on my list of things to care about...

You're going to be a hero to a lot of kids.
154 wrote:Are you in Voivod or something?
User avatar
numberthirty
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 19548
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:28 am

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:48 pm

Steve V. wrote:
numberthirty wrote:No shit. Bitch at place for being welfare state while ignoring that you waged a war against them less than two hundred years ago.


Right.

This whole "let's shit on the South" thing is fucking weak and offensive. It's a lot of condescending broad-strokes and I hope many of you are embarrassed by your candor.

Let's talk about how fucked up where you live is and let's denigrate the people you know and let's pile on about your history. Come on Chicago/New York/Canada/Spain/Milwaukee, let's look at some figures and call your dwelling place a ________ and your people _________s.

I much prefer making fun of your music tastes than saying you're something you're not based on where you live.

Blackmarket, from the Raab Collection:

On Friday, April 12, 1861, Confederate forces opened fire on Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor, initiating hostilities between the North and South. Lincoln immediately began moving to meet the crisis head on. The U.S. Army had less than 800 officers and only some 14,000 enlisted men, yet the federal government needed to mobilize for war. The only law in existence permitting the raising of additional troops was the Militia Act of 1792, which empowered the president to call out the militia to suppress insurrection. Using this law, on April 15, Lincoln issued a proclamation declaring that an insurrection existed, called out 75,000 men to put it down, and convened a special session of Congress for July 4.

On April 19, Lincoln issued his proclamation blockading Southern ports. It provided that "a competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit of vessels" from the ports of the states in rebellion. Then, to make the proclamation official, he signed this document, authorizing "the Secretary of State to affix the Seal of the United States to a Proclamation setting on foot a Blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas." The seal was affixed to the blockade proclamation, which was announced that day. It was a de facto declaration of war by the Union against the Confederacy.


Ahhhh...I see! War only happens when it is declared! Very good.

I don't think the world operates as you think it does. The U.S. has been at war more or less continuously for most of its existence. How many times have we officially declared it?
Last edited by blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
blackmarket
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:50 pm

numberthirty wrote:
blackmarket wrote:I wouldn't personally say it is totally fine. Others might. War crimes are terrible. But we have to prioritize. For myself this ranks pretty low on my List of Things to Care About.


War crimes? Eh, not that high on my list of things to care about...


Soooooo many war crimes. So little time. *shrugs*
User avatar
blackmarket
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby blackmarket on Tue Jul 28, 2015 3:55 pm

Steve V. wrote:
blackmarket wrote:
Ahhhh...I see! War only happens when it is declared! Very good.

I don't think the world operates as you think it does. The U.S. has been at war more or less constantly for most of it's existence. How many times have we officially declared it?


Well, you said, previously:

blackmarket wrote:
I know you aren't picking sides, but we have to remember who shot first. Just because your side, oh...I mean their side ultimately lost, it does not mean the federal government waged war on the South. If we can't be honest about reality, what do we have to talk about? The Southern sates fought against the Union and got their asses handed to them. A completely different thing from what you are talking about.


When, in fact, it was The North declaring war on The South.


Yes, The Great War of Northern Aggression, and all that. I've heard it before. Still bullshit.

I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who apparently has been brainwashed by Southern mythology more less since birth.
User avatar
blackmarket
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby numberthirty on Tue Jul 28, 2015 5:17 pm

blackmarket wrote:The U.S. has been at war more or less continuously for most of its existence. How many times have we officially declared it?




blackmarket wrote:Yes, The Great War of Northern Aggression, and all that. I've heard it before. Still bullshit.

I am not going to waste my time arguing with someone who apparently has been brainwashed by Southern mythology more less since birth.


Points out that US has "declared" war a bunch of times without actually doing so. Right after doing so, explains that there's no damn way this could have happened during The Civil War.

:smt021
154 wrote:Are you in Voivod or something?
User avatar
numberthirty
King Shit of Fuck Mountain
 
Posts: 19548
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2005 3:28 am

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby Auntie Ovipositor on Tue Jul 28, 2015 6:32 pm

Steve V. wrote:Maybe they have pride in the courage it took their ancestors to stand up to a force they saw as oppressive by what they felt was inconsiderate governing. Whether it was right or wrong depends from person-to-person.

And herein lies the problem. Taking pride in fighting for something that is by any measure morally reprehensible requires a lot of fancy footwork to get around the cognitive dissonance. This is like saying something is a matter of opinion when it is a matter of fact.

The Civil War wasn't about states' rights generally, it was about one specific states' right: that of owning other human beings. Pretending that it was about anything else or trying to deflect that basic fundamental fact in order to celebrate some minutia about your auntie's cousin-in-law's grandfather who was a brave man is like pointing out that Hitler had some good ideas. It's true, but it sorta ignores the larger point casting a shadow over it.

Don't get me wrong - I understand that painting the Civil War as Good vs Evil is dishonest and inaccurate. It was mostly evil in it's execution by both sides, because it was a war. I don't think anyone comes out of something so brutal and destructive looking anything but horrible. But it was not fought over nothing, and that matters.
The Loyalists are a rock band from Oakland, California
User avatar
Auntie Ovipositor
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2918
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:52 pm
Location: Oakland, baby

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby Ben Abraham on Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:28 am

Steve V. wrote:Maybe they have pride in the courage it took their ancestors to stand up to a force they saw as oppressive by what they felt was inconsiderate governing. Whether it was right or wrong depends from person-to-person.


Slavery was/is a pretty oppressive force. I agree in that there is a certain pride in people had the courage to fight against it.
Ben Abraham
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
World's Ideal Leader w/ VersatileTalents
 
Posts: 3902
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:16 am
Location: New York City

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby Gramsci on Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:15 pm

Interesting stuff. I've always been interested in the "States' Rights" verses/blended with "We want to keep owning other people"

I'm sad to say every time I come to the South, every horrible cliche gets dangled in front of me. Also the polar opposite... To me the South seems a sea of shit with little islands of rational people that band together in places like Austin (I know Texas is not technically "The South") East Village Atlanta, Decatur etc... But I've seen "it all" again this trip, Confederate Flags, the neighbour trying to lend me the Lost Behind dvd pack and a book called The Islamic Antichrist, the white flight horror of Seaside... big list.

Luckily most Americans are normal, regular folks, just seems a few very very loud loonies fuck it up for everyone else...
Last edited by Gramsci on Wed Jul 29, 2015 10:52 pm, edited 2 times in total.
clocker bob may 30, 2006 wrote:I think the possibility of interbreeding between an earthly species and an extraterrestrial species is as believable as any other explanation for the existence of George W. Bush.
User avatar
Gramsci
World's Greatest Writer
World's Greatest Writer
 
Posts: 10317
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 8:43 am
Location: The People's Republic

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby ldopa_chicago on Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:16 pm

Gramsci wrote:Interesting stuff. I've always been interested in the "States' Rights" verses/blended with "We want to keep owning other people"

This is an interesting topic because the vast majority of southerns did not own slaves because they could not afford slaves because they were poor as fuck. The Civil War was not started over the right to own slaves. That part came later. This was ultimately a battle for or against a centralized governing body. Ironically Grant (Union) owned slaves and Lee (Confederacy) found the practice abominable.

I think it's pretty fucking gauche for any northerner to talk shit about the "racist south." Especially if you live in say, Chicago, Milwaukee, DC, or any other purposely segregated northern metropolis. If you think the segregation in those places, which persists today, happened "naturally" or by accident, I've got a stack of books I'd like you to talk to.

The point is that sanctimonious south-bashing isn't just misdirected, it actually helps keep systemic racism in play by implying that because racism is often less overt in the north, it is somehow less pervasive or less destructive. Thus it doesn't get addressed or dealt with.

Chicago born & raised. Come at me, bro.
jimmy two hands wrote:Jam econo for fuck's sake.

I play guitar and act tougher than I am in Fake Limbs.
I played bass in Burn Permits.
User avatar
ldopa_chicago
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby Ranxerox on Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:21 pm

Auntie Ovipositor wrote: The Civil War wasn't about states' rights generally, it was about one specific states' right: that of owning other human beings.


The Civil War was primarily the result of the politics of the power of the slave holding class beginning to founder on the shoals of the circumstances connected with the nation's growth and the 'overdue bill' that had hovered over the nation's existence since an inception that had put off the fundamental rift that existed between the nation's stated values and goals in re human rights and the need to include political entities (colonies/states) that had economies based in slavery. The North was torn throughout as their reliance on slavery was never the same as that found in the South while they politically and economically hooked into Southern slavery with 'reservations,' let's say.

In the end, as new states were added the South felt that they needed ongoing concessions that would allow the spread of slavery as a way to bulwark against the degradation of their share of the nation's power structure. There was a need to maintain congressional seats beholden to slave-owning power. Had the South and those beholden to the nation's various political and legal conceits aimed at smoothing over the above-noted 'overdue bill' been willing to allow the addition of non-slaveholding states without concomitant demands of some sort of balance in the growth of 'slave states' it is likely no war would have occurred. This means, of course, that slavery was not dying of its own bloat and evil, but was instead seen as a fundamental necessity in the South and a growth product for the then foreseeable future (indeed, after the war quashed any need to continue to cowtow politically to the South by adding a slave state each time a non-slave state came online, the feds abandoned the project of 'equality' in the South pretty quickly and allowed business-as-usual to strangle Reconstruction).

States' Rights is just one of various post-bellum conceits used to try to isolate individual human rights based in egalitarianism away from the conversation of how we try to deal with federal- and state-level rights. It is a clumsy and odious sleight of hand that only works because powerful people profit from ignoring the equal protection clause. If the play of ignoring the equal protection clause gets removed from the Jenga pile family of defenses to which 'States' Rights' belongs, those arguments don't bear much weight and you have longstanding cultural/political/legal practices that get swept aside in a single motion based on con law, i.e., the recent SC decision in re gay marriage. Once you decide that a group of people are human and deserve protection, there is no state right to protect, really, as such is clearly superseded by the EP clause.
Ranxerox
penguinologist
penguinologist
 
Posts: 1843
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 8:15 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby gjp on Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:36 pm

ldopa_chicago wrote:The Civil War was not started over the right to own slaves. That part came later.

I don't know. The Cornerstone Address was given a few weeks prior to the start of the war and VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, stated pretty clearly why the South was succeeding.

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

EDIT: Felt that I should mention that I agree with a lot of what you said about modern day racism and the South-bashing, but just not on the "that part came later" thing.
Last edited by gjp on Wed Jul 29, 2015 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
gjp
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
Perfect Picture of Wisdom and Boldness
 
Posts: 3017
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:51 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby scntfc on Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:55 pm

gjp wrote:
ldopa_chicago wrote:The Civil War was not started over the right to own slaves. That part came later.

I don't know. The Cornerstone Address was given a few weeks prior to the start of the war and VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, stated pretty clearly why the South was succeeding.

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."


also, go to this page and command-f (or whatever it is on windows machines) the word "slave".

the "it wasn't about slavery" confederate apologists are demonstrably wrong.
User avatar
scntfc
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
Best leader Who Realized Human Wisdom
 
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 5:09 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby blackmarket on Wed Jul 29, 2015 5:59 pm

Yeah. Dopa doesn't have clue. The disagreement on whether a state should be allowed to slave humans is written all over sucession declarations. It is explicitly talked about and is given as a prominent reason for leaving the Union.

Here is South Carolina:
Avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Mississippi:
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

We have to expect Southern revisionism. Laugh it off.
User avatar
blackmarket
"kick a ginger day" victim
"kick a ginger day" victim
 
Posts: 1244
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:14 pm

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby ldopa_chicago on Wed Jul 29, 2015 8:50 pm

blackmarket wrote:Yeah. Dopa doesn't have clue. The disagreement on whether a state should be allowed to slave humans is written all over sucession declarations. It is explicitly talked about and is given as a prominent reason for leaving the Union.

Here is South Carolina:
Avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Mississippi:
avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

We have to expect Southern revisionism. Laugh it off.

Southern revisionism? You misunderstand. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the South's decision to succeed. I'm saying that it had little to nothing to do with the North's intentions with regard to the Civil War. My interest is in undermining the Northern sense of moral superiority, not in excusing the perpetuation of slavery or "southern revisionism".
jimmy two hands wrote:Jam econo for fuck's sake.

I play guitar and act tougher than I am in Fake Limbs.
I played bass in Burn Permits.
User avatar
ldopa_chicago
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
Leader with Extraordinary Personality
 
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Tell me about the post-racist New South again

Postby greg on Wed Jul 29, 2015 9:15 pm

ldopa_chicago wrote:Southern revisionism? You misunderstand. Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the South's decision to succeed. I'm saying that it had little to nothing to do with the North's intentions with regard to the Civil War. My interest is in undermining the Northern sense of moral superiority, not in excusing the perpetuation of slavery or "southern revisionism".


The North's/Lincoln's stated objective was to keep the Union together, sure. Focusing on this irrelevant point isn't that useful since ultimately the reason the war happened is still clear.
It's weird how contemporaries debate what the underlining causes were, and second guess the intensions of that time. It's completely unambiguous to anyone in charge or talking about it during that era. If people in the rest of the country were totally cool with slavery, there wouldn't have been succession, or a war.
User avatar
greg
Master Of The Computer
Master Of The Computer
 
Posts: 4942
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 7:26 pm
Location: Chicago

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 12 guests