[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593737]
Observers in Britain looked beyond the rhetoric of "preserve the Union" and saw what was really at stake. Charles Dickens views on the subject were typical:
Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.
The London press made this argument:
The war between the North and the South is a tariff war. The war is further, not for any principle, does not touch the question of slavery, and in fact turns on the Northern lust for sovereignty.
The South fought the war for essentially the same reason that the American colonies fought the Revolutionary War. The central grievance of the American colonies in the 18th century was the taxes imposed on them by Britain. Colonists particularly objected to the Stamp Act, which required them to purchase an official British stamp and place it on all documents in order for them to be valid. The colonists also objected to the import tariff that Britain placed on sugar and other goods (the Sugar Act).
also yes, because the declaration of independence said that was good.[/QUOTE]
Don't try to pretend that Britain was some innocent bystander that was aloof of all the political dealings going on behind the scenes. The issue of European intervention in the Civil War was a factor that affected the situation greatly until after Gettysburg. Britain was a massive Southern sympathizer, and it would not be surprising to me to find that the London Press article was published in 1861 or 1862, when many attempts to create popular support for the southern cause were pursued.
We didn't revolt because of the taxes themselves, but rather because we had no say about them ("no taxation without representation" ring a bell?) while the South, again, revolted because they didn't like having a Republican president.
The Declaration also states "all men are created equal" Somewhat in conflict with the idea of slavery, no?
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593772]It was, though. FDR wanted to intervene on the side of the Allies, but the American people weren't really willing to do so. Most of the actions the US took as far as dealing with the Japanese were to hopefully provoke them into declaring war.
We embargo'ed Japan because they were raping China. However, the goal wasn't just to embargo Japan, it was to provoke Japan into war so that we could justify a war against the Axis.
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
but I digress...[/QUOTE]
FDR conspiracy theories are a thing, I guess.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33593815]maybe i misunderstood. are you saying that people [i]should[/i] use nazi-looking swastikas in the current day and ignore the historical context and hurtful racial issues it brings back?
clear it up for me, please, because your arguments are all over the place. besides the fact that you've derailed the entire thread, you haven't even managed to derail it in a single direction
p.s. the lew rockwell link was comedy gold. i didn't think people still took that libertarian shill site seriously[/QUOTE]
I'm saying there's nothing wrong with using the swastika as long as you don't mean kill all jews by it
[QUOTE=Master X;33593806]
Also, I think you mean figuratively. :D
[/QUOTE]
Nanking :P
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593713]why don't you go educate yourself before asking whether Abraham Lincoln owned slaves or not instead of posting really wrong historical crap[/QUOTE]
What? I asked because I wasn't sure.
I didn't post any wrong historical "crap." Although, history is generally inherently biased in these kinds of situations.
Well maybe when I said that Lincoln started saying that stuff after he made the war about slavery I was wrong. I'm not sure. I would have to check when he said that stuff, but I'm not sure you've checked either. Though, I did mention that Lincoln's status as an abolitionist had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I wasn't trying to really get into that argument at all. That's why I asked about it, to educate myself. ;)
His status as an abolitionist doesn't change the fact that he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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."
Which is the only historical "crap" I posted. I also gave about 3,600 sources for it.
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593883]Nanking :P[/QUOTE]
Oh damn. Touché. xD
[QUOTE=CG-105;33593858]
FDR conspiracy theories are a thing, I guess.[/QUOTE]
It isn't just some theory. It is pretty obvious FDR wanted to fight the Japanese and the Germans, but didn't have the support of the American people. Look at shit like the lend-lease acts in China and Britain. Not to mention we were gearing for war since Germany invaded Poland.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593880]I'm saying there's nothing wrong with using the swastika as long as you don't mean kill all jews by it[/QUOTE]
try taking classes on pychology and sociology sometime since you think so much of your "education"
it will truly open some new perspectives on your libertarian fantasy land
in the meantime: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connotation[/url]
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593880]I'm saying there's nothing wrong with using the swastika as long as you don't mean kill all jews by it[/QUOTE]
but if you're using a non-nazi swastika then obviously you don't mean that. but you can't use a nazi swastika and claim that it doesn't symbolize genocidal hatred because the nazi swastika is the symbol of the nazi party that was founded on racism and hatred. the confederate flag is a symbol of the confederacy, the confederacy was founded on racism and slavery.
the n-word isn't a disparaging term for blacks, it's an endearing term for my white friends. i don't care how much you've been the victim of racial discrimination in your lifetime, stop being offended by it
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33593880]I'm saying there's nothing wrong with using the swastika as long as you don't mean kill all jews by it[/QUOTE]
But that's the symbolic meaning behind it. In symbolism it is all about what the observer interprets. That's why books and films with a lot of symbolic meaning are loved by a lot of people, it means something unique to the observer that they identify and interpret.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593891]It isn't just some theory. It is pretty obvious FDR wanted to fight the Japanese and the Germans, but didn't have the support of the American people. Look at shit like the lend-lease acts in China and Britain. Not to mention we were gearing for war since Germany invaded Poland.[/QUOTE]
Pitman Act as well.
[QUOTE=thisispain;33593732]how do you even know that? toleration is very different from not hating.[/QUOTE]
Well I guess I don't know. I just don't see a reason for someone to hate what is essentially a piece of property to them. Initially, they had no reason to hate them other than the odd bunch that hated just in racial spite. Reasons would arise for distrust and paranoia to rise against slaves, that's undeniable. But for them to hate their slaves outright for no reason is illogical and untrue. I can't form any real proof of that, of course.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593901]but if you're using a non-nazi swastika then obviously you don't mean that. but you can't use a nazi swastika and claim that it doesn't symbolize genocidal hatred because the nazi swastika is the symbol of the nazi party that was founded on racism and hatred. the confederate flag is a symbol of the confederacy, the confederacy was founded on racism and slavery.[/QUOTE]
And the American Flag is a symbol of rebellion and genocide.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;33593891]It isn't just some theory. It is pretty obvious FDR wanted to fight the Japanese and the Germans, but didn't have the support of the American people. Look at shit like the lend-lease acts in China and Britain. Not to mention we were gearing for war since Germany invaded Poland.[/QUOTE]
We were gearing up because we saw the Japanese navy as a threat and because we were producing things for the lend-lease act. I don't consider it a theory that FDR was in favor of fighting against the Axis powers, but I don't think the move to cut off oil to Japan was meant to incite an attack, but rather cripple Japan's fighting capabilities in a passive way that wouldn't anger our predominantly isolationist population.
/endofftopic
How the fuck did this digress into WW2 shit.
Way off topic
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593963]How the fuck did this digress into WW2 shit.
Way off topic[/QUOTE]
Godwin happened.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593941]And the American Flag is a symbol of rebellion and genocide.[/QUOTE]
nothing wrong with rebellion against tyranny. and the united states wasn't founded on the belief that genocide is a good thing, that just kinda happened. nazi germany was founded on the belief that genocide was a good thing and the confederacy was founded on the belief that slavery was a good thing.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33593914]the n-word isn't a disparaging term for blacks, it's an endearing term for my white friends. i don't care how much you've been the victim of racial discrimination in your lifetime, stop being offended by it[/QUOTE]
Ya, go up to a black dude and tell him Hey, dont get angry when I call you a nigger, that was so 150 years ago get over it.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593963]How the fuck did this digress into WW2 shit.
Way off topic[/QUOTE]
it never should have gone beyond the fact that the confederate flag has racist connotations in american society, but nerds always have to argue their poorly supported gospels on the internet
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593992]Ya, go up to a black dude and tell him Hey, dont get angry when I call you a nigger, that was so 150 years ago get over it.[/QUOTE]
holy shit... that is my point, are you dense?
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;33593990]the confederacy was founded on the belief that slavery was a good thing.[/QUOTE]
No, it was founded to preserve their particular way of life, slavery just happened to be apart of it.
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33593994]it never should have gone beyond the fact that the confederate flag has racist connotations in american society, but nerds always have to argue their poorly supported gospels on the internet
[editline]6th December 2011[/editline]
[b]holy shit... that is my point, are you dense?[/b][/QUOTE]
I think the idea is you would get most of your teeth punched out if you did.
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33593963]How the fuck did this digress into WW2 shit.
Way off topic[/QUOTE]
It's ended we won't talk about it anymore, because it is way off-topic.
I'll explain why I don't see the confederate flag as a racist sign though. It's pretty simple for me. I know people who display that flag and are not racist. Therefore I don't see it as a racist symbol anymore.
Sure there might be some extremist out there who display that flag and mean it to be racist, but I know 1 person who isn't racist and displays that flag, so I'm not going to judge anyone else I see displaying that flag as racist. Same goes for anything else really. I just don't like to pass judgment on someone until I know them.
[QUOTE=OvB;33594010]I think the idea is you would get most of your teeth punched out if you did.[/QUOTE]
yes, and deservingly so. the n-word has no place in modern society, just like the confederate flag doesn't
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33594006]No, it was founded to preserve their particular way of life, slavery just happened to be apart of it.[/QUOTE]
'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.'
[QUOTE=mrcsb;33593914]the n-word isn't a disparaging term for blacks. i don't care how much you've been the victim of racial discrimination in your lifetime, stop being offended by it[/QUOTE]
That's pretty much saying get over it. And to say that term is not disparaging to them is down right stupid
[QUOTE=OvB;33594010]I think the idea is you would get most of your teeth punched out if you did.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=-nesto-;33594027]That's pretty much saying get over it. And to say that term is not disparaging to them is down right stupid[/QUOTE]
Sarcasm for the purpose of proving a point is dead, I guess.
[QUOTE=OvB;33592624]
Skinheads ruin everything.[/QUOTE]
Skinheads even tarnished their own image :v:
Ugggg, now we're on the N word. I'd love to get my $0.02 in on this though.
I absolutely love that the N word is used so much nowadays, [i]because[/i] it's helping to remove the power from the word.
Nigger is a strong word, but I'll be a happy man when the day comes when a white, black, or any other race of man can say nigger or nigga and it be so commonplace that's it's not a super offensive word.
Cracker and cracka are both derogatory words, but they're not really powerful like the N word is.
And it's not just because black people are sensitive to the N word. It's because our society places such a taboo on the N word.
When any person can say something like the N word and it not be taken extremely offensively by a group of people, then it probably means that that group of people has a level of equality acceptable enough for the word to not offend.
[QUOTE=Master X;33594056]Ugggg, now we're on the N word. I'd love to get my $0.02 in on this though.
I absolutely love that the N word is used so much nowadays, [i]because[/i] it's helping to remove the power from the word.
Nigger is a strong word, but I'll be a happy man when the day comes when a white, black, or any other race of man can say nigger or nigga and it be so commonplace that's it's not a super offensive word.
Cracker and cracka are both derogatory words, but they're not really powerful like the N word is.
And it's not just because black people are sensitive to the N word. It's because our society places such a taboo on the N word.
When any person can say something like the N word and it not be taken extremely offensively by a group of people, then it probably means that that group of people has a level of equality acceptable enough for the word to not offend.[/QUOTE]
And what would you take it to mean if that were the case?
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33594241]And what would you take it to mean if that were the case?[/QUOTE]
Just a light offense, like "fuck yo couch." Words inherently have meaning and thus power, otherwise they would have no use (and probably not exist).
I hope it can become a word similar to cracker; which to most white people isn't really that offensive.
Preferably it will get to a point where if you say it, and mean it seriously, then you'll end up just making yourself look like a fool rather than insulting anyone at all.
The most powerful 3 words I can think of are probably fus ro dah.
Just look at the power it has.
[video=youtube;YOxVjbGvUpI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOxVjbGvUpI[/video]
This is an interesting read.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.