linky love
What about the New York city overseas gun and explosive clubs that used to abound in Ireland before 9-11? I know all the ordinance is safely enclosed in concrete (alongside saddams WMDs) in a nice sandy dessert what a load of horseshit. I dont suppose it is anything to do with the second referendum on subservience to the EU is it??? (the voters got the wrong answer the first time)
I still want to be told at what point would we have been better off joining in with Hitler in 39?
(sorry, the sight of untire countries holding their ankles and taking it from the commies really bites me!)Posted by Chris Edwards
07/08/2009 at 05:40 PM
Unfortunately, I must say that Fallon failed to make the point that the Confederate battle flag somehow ISN’T tied to sedition and treason. Granted, you can make the point that those two were hardly unique in American history, but that fails to shift the point.
And furthermore, I must make the point that I for one am SICK of the demonization of the Union and the lauding of the Confederacy. Perhaps that is because I am a White Westerner, but I get tired of it.
The simple fact is that, in a democratic republic, the minority must accede to the will of the majority so long as such demands do not infringe upon one’s sacred rights.
The North did not do this. While Lincoln was far more of a hardliner than, say, Buchanan, he was certainly less of one than the SOUTHERN HERO Zachary Taylor, who threatened to literally arrest the Southern delegates during that year’s compromise, and whose death thankfully averted an early civil war.
At virtually every step of the process towards war during the Buchanan-Lincoln tenure, the South’s behavior can only be condemned as not merely treasonous but also simply immoral and undemocratic (I mean Democratic in the classical sense, and partially because the Southern Dems openly purged their ranks of the historically more moderate Northerners).
If we insist on ignoring the patently necessary question of whether it was moral or just to own another human being at all on the (justified) grounds that it was literally their lifeblood and a centuries-old tradition, we must point out that the revolt against Northern “tyranny” was not in reaction to actual tyranny.
For decades before the civil war, the South consciously used open threats to secede as a way to blackmail the rest of the country to vote for “their man.” This is particularly evident in the elections of Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan (both of whom were appalled by the strategies their Southern base used), and was attempted in the 1860 election but was thwarted by the Democrat split and the growing strength of the Republican party.
This should strike ANYONE as patently anti-Democratic and a strike against the very structure of Republican law. Remember one of the idiots talking about how he believed we would march on Ohio and the White House in armed revolt if we lost 2004?
Imagine for a second if that threat were actually TRUE, and repeatedly stated, over and over and over again on most major election years on and off for a couple decades.
That was the South’s basic strategy in the leadup to 1861.
And after Lincoln won, did they bother to wait and see in good faith before marching to revolt against a infringement of their liberties?
No.
After the vote counting was done, several cities in the South were torn between mourning and OPEN CELEBRATION THAT THEY FINALLY HAD AN EXCUSE TO REVOLT (Atlanta and the “deep grey “ cities in Virginia were particularly infamous for this)!
In short, the great infringement of “Federal Tyranny” that the Southern apologists speak of is… that a guy from the other party got elected.
THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND: if ALL regions in ALL Republics followed such a rule, we would be very much like Africa or some other third world country, were each petty party leader uses any reverse at the polls, no matter how minor, to rise up in arms.
And remember that it was ultimately the SOUTH that fired the first shots of the Civil War after a Union attempt to patently resupply a besieged post MUCH LIKE SIMILAR SOUTHERN DEMANDS EARLIER was met by a storming of said post.
The bottom line is that, through its patently treasonous and openly undemocratic secession, the South attempted to blackmail the rest of the country to follow its path of face war. What parallel does the North have to this? The actions of a few Abolitionist kooks who- in spite of disturbing levels of public support- were never the majority, or even close to it?
I am sick and tired of this attempt to whitewash the CSA based on minor technicalities of various degrees of accuracy (yes, it is true that Lincoln did not go to war to abolish slavery. That CSA supporters use this fact without considering how much it cuts into their central arguments of Lincoln and his followers seeking forced emancipation as justification shows how little thought they give to this issue in the greater situation). The bottom line is that the CSA- like Franco and the Spanish Far Left in the Civil War- both revolted against a duly elected government for no greater reason than they didn’t get their way at the ballot boxes.
However, it must be noted that there are a few extenuating circumstances: for one, I must note that Franco’s Nationalists and his Loyalist enemies were far less Democratic than even the CSA was. But, at the same time, I must note that at least Franco and the Loyalists had an excuse: they had seen armed revolts by fringe groups trying to undue the results of the ballot box before, something that had no large-scale parallel in American history before 1861.
No, I do not have a problem with the Stars and Bars or your Grey Uniforms or your “Good Old Boys” routine.
But please stop trying to draw a moral equivalence between the CSA and the Union. There isn’t one, and even if you were to rewrite all the history books tomorrow to reflect such biases, there still wouldn’t be one. I can accept that the CSA’s cause was not entirely racist- and the ranks of the common solider certainly were not motivated by such-, but it was inherently undemocratic.
Oh yes, and consider: before the Civil War, the Stars and Strips oversaw an American raid on Derne that freed hundreds of slaves from the claws of the Pasha of Tripoli, Yusef Karamanli. These slaves were of all colors: white Europeans captured by roving galleys in the Med, Blacks taken by slavers deep in the desert, and Arabs who were simply pressed into slavery out of the sheer greed of the slavers.
WHAT HAS THE STARS AND BARS DONE THAT REMOTELY EQUALS THIS OR THE MANY OTHER FEATS THE STARS AND STRIPS HAS STRUCK AGAINST RACISM AND TYRANNY IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM?
I don’t think we’ll find an answer to that.
Chris Edwards:
I still want to be told at what point would we have been better off joining in with Hitler in 39?
Obviously, you haven’t been keeping up on reading your Pat Buchanan, with his knowledge of history that so far surpasses that of we mere morals.
Posted by Turtler
07/09/2009 at 09:07 PM
In the latter case, “the Stars and Stripes” allied itself with the Inquisition.
That seems kind of harsh, especially since the Inquisition was long over.
I must make the point that I for one am SICK of the demonization of the Union and the lauding of the Confederacy. Perhaps that is because I am a White Westerner, but I get tired of it.
Well said mostly Turtler but I must admit that I’m originally a northerner and white as well AND am honestly very tired of the lambasting of the South. It’s over. But the libs keep finding ways of bringing it back with attacks on a proud battle flag and not only proud, but infinitely better looking in design then almost any flag in the world. Including our own Stars and Stripes.
It’s a matter of art and beauty (not politics) where beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Me.The same might be said for the Swastika as matter of design, if one puts aside what it became in the hands of the hated Nazis. But I realize this isn’t about art so I’ll drop it there.
WHAT HAS THE STARS AND BARS DONE THAT REMOTELY EQUALS THIS OR THE MANY OTHER FEATS THE STARS AND STRIPS HAS STRUCK AGAINST RACISM AND TYRANNY IN THE NAME OF FREEDOM?
Now Turtler. That’s an unfair question. The answer is zero because it had so few years of life.
It never grew to the point where it could achieve the lofty goals you credit to the Stars and Stripes.In the latter case, “the Stars and Stripes” allied itself with the Inquisition.
That seems kind of harsh, especially since the Inquisition was long over.
Um, no.
The Inquisition lasted until 1834-35.
“After about 1700 it was a feeble shadow of its former self but limped on for over another hundred years until 1835 when it was suppressed for the last time. The various other Inquisitions of Sicily, the New World and Venice disappeared in the decades around 1800, finally killed off by the Napoleonic Wars.”
http://www.bede.org.uk/inquisition.htm
I didn’t know that either. I thought it was done by 1690, maybe even before then.
*************************
I like the US flag. Very few other flags look anything like it, and I’m pretty sure those that do were designed long after we designed ours. I like the British flags too, the simple Cross of St. George and the Union Jack. Tri-color flags are just so ... generic.
*************************
Turtler, I put that CSA link in with you in mind. Thanks for a detailed and thought out response. Now, who wants to draw the parallels between the strategies a) used by the South prior to 1860, and b) used by modern CSA “moral equivalencers” to other current debates? A lot of it is from the exact same playbooks.
*************************
Chris, I don’t quite get your Hitler comment. Join with them against the rest of Europe, or just with Operation Barbarossa to wipe out the Reds? Which is what Patton wanted to do in 1945 I think, right?
Pieper:
Well said mostly Turtler but I must admit that I’m originally a northerner and white as well AND am honestly very tired of the lambasting of the South. It’s over.
THIS is precisely my point: the Civil War occured over a century ago, and unlike the Crimean War (which has been continuously examined since it happened primarily due to strategic/geopolitical reasons, in other words how should we fight the Russians in the modern era), it is mainly dredged up nowerdays by somebody either seeking to
A. Whine about the abuses of the Antebellum South and how this somehow demands modern reparations.
or
B. Rant about how the South was somehow “right.”
I myself and sick of it, in no small part because I would think that, because it is at least far better known in the US, that people would sooner or later recognize what should be evident firsthand: that the Civil War WAS the reparation that is deserved, and that the South was far more oppressive to the rest of the Union than vice versa due to its blackmail and increasingly bombastic rhetoric.
But, alas, some never learn.
But the libs keep finding ways of bringing it back with attacks on a proud battle flag and not only proud, but infinitely better looking in design then almost any flag in the world. Including our own Stars and Stripes.
A. It isn’t only the Libs who find justification to bring it back, we also have neo-Confederates like the author who seek to erase or sanitize the sordid history of the antebellum South by obfuscating the issue, smearing those who do not deserve it, and in general trying to alter the immortal past tofit their agendas. All of which merely spread more falsehoods and only make and objective, wars-and-gold-and-all look at the period and its players far more difficult.
B. May I point out that cosmetic taste or judgment in what is a “better design” is ultimately subjective?
Now Turtler. That’s an unfair question. The answer is zero because it had so few years of life.
It never grew to the point where it could achieve the lofty goals you credit to the Stars and Stripes.PERCISELY. THAT IS MY POINT!
Is it unfair? Somewhat, I must admit, and it probably does some damage towards the Southern dead who had no fault in it.
But if it is an unjust point, it was only to counter a greater injustice: the idea that the Stars and Strips is “Just as racist/treasonous/etc.” as the Stars and Bars.
For the reasons I stated above, it isn’t. And because of one key fact that is often overlooked that you touched upon:
the Stars and Stripes has been, in one form or another, the symbol of this Republic almost since its inception. In the time between then and now, it has overseen some of the vilest crimes committed, from several of the Indian Wars to the Trail of Tears to other, lesser but equally ugly crimes such as May Lai or the POW camp at Detroit (yes, I probably sound like a Liberul complaining, but the reason is because these things actually happened, and one cannot ignore them).
But it has also overseen far greater victories in the name of Liberty, from the Meuse-Argonne to the streets of Baghdad, from the freeing of large portions of Europe’s oppressed to the minor things, like those slaves at Derne.
What does the Stars and Bars have to compare? It is far less on all accounts, to be sure. It was certainly a noble banner when led by the honorable Lee and Jackson at the head of armies that were largely blameless for the conflagration that occured.
But what great emancipations or liberations did it lead? What reform? What happened?
And, in the meantime, we have to recognize that it flew while those under its commands cruelly murdered Black Union soldiers under false justification (a few of the Black units the Confederates massacred after its surrender actually had NOT A SINGLE SLAVE OR EXSLAVE AMONGST THEM), that it flew as a banner of the South’s treason against the rest of the Republic- perhaps like the Stars and Stripes did in 1779, but does that change the point?- or that it oversaw the “killing fields” of Andersonville prison.
Yes, it was a vastly shorter life, but it was also one far more marred by the acitons of its bearers than that of the Stars and Stripes.
But, above all, the quote you mention was a rhetorical challenge to the author of said link to back up his accusation with proof, whether he ever will- or if he even will see this challenge- or not.
I am all to happy to bury the bast, only to dig it up from reminiscing or remembering memories and family ties long gone.
But when some choose instead to dig history up for no more noble reason than twisting it to fit their petty little schemes, to erase the crimes of one party while unfairly blackening that of another, I am obliged to shoot back.
So, even if it is an unfair question, I am obliged to ask it.
So, to the author of that piece, what is the answer?
Drew:
Turtler, I put that CSA link in with you in mind. Thanks for a detailed and thought out response. Now, who wants to draw the parallels between the strategies a) used by the South prior to 1860, and b) used by modern CSA “moral equivalencers” to other current debates? A lot of it is from the exact same playbooks.
Thank you for the bone, than.
Anyway, as for the strategies, I think one of the clearest indications is the attempts to contrast the South and the North by “Historical ****ing Contests.” Ie: So what if we whip, starve, and occasionally shoot our slaves? They are our property, and hell, some of my best friends are my slaves! (both more common and more justified than you may think: there were Simon Legrees in the Antebellum, but the South’s “peculiar institution” did have a peculiar habit of doing that) And take a look at how the North treats its factory workers, and they aren’t even property (a somewhat justified case, though still hurt by the fact that the workers had a CHOICE of working there or not)! And besides, wasn’t the North founded by rich religious whackjobs? (true, but also ultimately irrelevant to the discussion or even bordering on Ad Hominem by relation).
You see that a LOT in not only the “South will Rise Again” crowd, but also with the Libs (how many times have I heard the tripe that the murder of Western citizens is justified by some nebulous history of Imperialism committed by those long dead who often IMPROVED the region and the lives of its inhabitants about as often as they abused or exploited them? To see how ridiculous this is, does ANYBODY think that detonating a nuke in Mecca in “revenge” for 9/11, thus blowing not only Islam’s holiest sight and some Saudi scumbags but also relatively innocent pilgrims and Western businessmen into atoms?).
Secondly, guilt by association, like the Inquisition bit (after all, how many of even the RADICAL Abolitionists would have had ties to the Inquisition?). For both the SWRAers and the Libs, you can practically fill in the blanks.
And, finally, we have the “Democracy for thy but not for thee” mentality that can both excuse decades of political blackmail as legitimate speech and switch Diebold from a conspiratorial group to an honest dealer based only on he outcome of the election, and the idea that MY vote has the right to negate or override everybody else’s (which is pretty much what started the Civil War in the first place).
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg!
Posted by Turtler
07/10/2009 at 03:25 PM
07/10/2009 at 07:15 AM
Next entry: Shake the tree, and the nuts fall out
Previous entry: Williams on Reparations