Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
jb2000
That is a very well thought out interesting post.
Do you really believe that Lincoln, Grant, and most yankees were in the war to promote the rights of black people? Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union without freeing any slaves, he would do it. His opinion was the solution was to export them all somewhere else. Grant owned slaves till well after the war ended.
IMHO it was all about preserving the Union, slavery was just a side issue used by the north to gain favor in the world because slavery's days were over almost everywhere else. From what I have read most northerners could not care one way or another. The whole country was racist for years to come. Slavery's days were numbered war or no war.
|
No, I don't believe that Lincoln et al were in it to save blacks from slavery any more than I believe the Iraq invasion was a humanitarian crusade to free the Iraqis from their master. It's not really a question of that.
Slavery did become the overriding issue of that conflict, and ultimately, once it became a real war, it was postered as their 'good-guy' cause, again, much as the liberation was highlighted in Iraq once it became clear the WMDs and terrorism ties were a lot muddier than portrayed.
It is certainly true that there was no lack of racism in either north or south. One can easily see lynchings and think of Mississippi or Alabama, but more often than not when you check the location you get Indiana, Michingan, Pennsylvania, etc. And again, there is validity to the argument that economics would have ended slavery shortly after the war regardless.
Ultimately, I do condone and respect the right of self-determination that gives people the right to seek independence from governance that does not serve their needs or which violates their rights. However, I do not condone doing so through violent means before fully exhausting all legal and non-violent means to achieve that end, and ensuring that the rights of involved citizens are respected at all steps along the way. Impatience or the desire of leaders to 'sieze the moment' and exploit temporary sways of popular desire are not good enough excuses to violate the above path.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
I despise the hate groups like the KKK using the CSA battle flag for a symbol of hate. I am saddened that civil rights groups let them dictate how the symbol is perceived.
|
I am saddened by the fact that the ancient, widely used and respected symbol of the swastika was so tainted by the Nazis, but that doesn't mean I just ignore it and plaster it on World War II memorials to fallen German soldiers.
The destruction, coopting, and subverting of symbology is one of the negative effects of such groups and activities. I do have sympathy for wanting to not surrender things to these groups, but certain symbols, like it or not, have been so tainted. As such, if we continue to allow those symbols to have places of honor, then while we may have articulated rationales for saying why it is okay to use the symbol, for many it serves as a way to retain a sense of relevance for their ideology while being able to duck investigation by hiding behind our rationales when convenient. I.E., a person puts the Conf. Flag on their car as a strong symbol to people on both sides of the issue of his feelings, but is able to cop that they are just honoring the fallen soldiers when in an uncomfortable position (i.e. around people that he doesn't want thinking he's a racist). I am not at all saying we should limit what people can say on their cars, but as long as we enshrine these symbols in our public places and in places of honor within the community, we continue to provide the cover for those types to continue their broadcasts.