Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

On an unrelated note:

If you want to protest the Confederate flag because of it's somehow connection to "slavery" and "racism" (both false, but whatever), then perhaps you should be protesting the American flag...which was the flag flying on the ships which brought the slaves here.

Just a thought.


And no, the Confederates were acting defensively and we're occupied territory. Sort of like Iraq or Afghanistan now.

Yeah yeah yeah. As some one born and raised in the south...about as Southern as you can get really, the protestations that the Confederate flag doesn't represent a racist ideology. It may not mean that to every person, but its meaning has been purposefully tainted to become offensive to black people and other non-white, Protestant minorities. When I was in high school, a bunch of senior boys ran around with t-shirts air brushed with a confederate flag on the front emblazoned with "It's a white the you wouldn't understand" with KKK nicknames on the back like "Grand Wizard." They almost started a race war all because they didn't like the t-shirts the black kids wore that said "It's a black thing you wouldn't understand" and "A Black mind is a terrible thing to waste."
personally, I wish the south would stop wallowing in the "glory" of the civil war. It's over...we lost. Get over it already and move on!

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Yeah yeah yeah. As some one born and raised in the south...about as Southern as you can get really, the protestations that the Confederate flag doesn't represent a racist ideology. It may not mean that to every person, but its meaning has been purposefully tainted to become offensive to black people and other non-white, Protestant minorities. When I was in high school, a bunch of senior boys ran around with t-shirts air brushed with a confederate flag on the front emblazoned with "It's a white the you wouldn't understand" with KKK nicknames on the back like "Grand Wizard."

This isn't the Confederate Flag, itself. This is people's dumbness being added on.

Not every Black person is offended by the Confederate Flag. I, for one, am not.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

This isn't the Confederate Flag, itself. This is people's dumbness being added on.

Not every Black person is offended by the Confederate Flag. I, for one, am not.

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

There wasn't a state in the Confederacy that didn't include slavery or 'the right to own property' as one of it's reasons for secession from the Union.In fact, most of the Confederate states identified themselves as slave-holding states in thier letters of secession as to distinguish themselves from the North. If the Confederate flag represents the Confederacy, the the Confederate flag reperesents slavery.
Of course you have the right not to be offended. But understand you are in the shrinking minority especially after the recent comments by the governors of Miss. and Virginia.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

There wasn't a state in the Confederacy that didn't include slavery or 'the right to own property' as one of it's reasons for secession from the Union.In fact, most of the Confederate states identified themselves as slave-holding states in thier letters of secession as to distinguish themselves from the North. If the Confederate flag represents the Confederacy, the the Confederate flag reperesents slavery.
Of course you have the right not to be offended. But understand you are in the shrinking minority especially after the recent comments by the governors of Miss. and Virginia.

France and Great Britain also had slaves but, their flags didn't/don't represent slavery. I just think the Rebel flag represents violence. At least it does, now.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession.htm
http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp
http://www.constitution.org/csa/ordi...n.htm#Virginia

There wasn't a state in the Confederacy that didn't include slavery or 'the right to own property' as one of it's reasons for secession from the Union.In fact, most of the Confederate states identified themselves as slave-holding states in thier letters of secession as to distinguish themselves from the North. If the Confederate flag represents the Confederacy, the the Confederate flag reperesents slavery.
Of course you have the right not to be offended. But understand you are in the shrinking minority especially after the recent comments by the governors of Miss. and Virginia.

Glad you brought that up because I had to pull this link last week:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by girard

I am glad you brought that up, too. Slavery was practiced in Africa for centuries before it was practiced in America.

This is a common myth, though.

Slavery was practiced worldwide before the Americans did it. That didn't make everyone else right either. America gets the 'Bloodiest Hands" award because of the extremity, not because we did it.

American slavery was unique to modern times because of it totality, it's brutality, it's lenght and it's depth. No other race in modern times was killed and/or enslaved on sight, and subjugated to a systematical erasure of it's culture,history and religion. Not to mention the whole raping thing.

It has been well documented the differences between pre-colonial slavery and the Middle Passage. More than a few researchers have concluded that the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery simply could not fathom the level of brutuality that was to occur, simply becasue it hadn't happened since Biblical times.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is a common myth, though.

You're new here. Girard is nothing more than the latest incarnation of a guy who's been banned so many times we've all lost count. If the past is any indication, a mod will ban him and delete all of his posts before midnight.

It's best not to feed him.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

You're new here. Girard is nothing more than the latest incarnation of a guy who's been banned so many times we've all lost count. If the past is any indication, a mod will ban him and delete all of his posts before midnight.

It's best not to feed him.

Ahhh, duly noted..

Every board has one... ;-)

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is a common myth, though.

Slavery was practiced worldwide before the Americans did it. That didn't make everyone else right either. America gets the 'Bloodiest Hands" award because of the extremity, not because we did it.

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)

American slavery was unique to modern times because of it totality,

What does totality mean? Because there were alot of them? Not really. In the South, slaves consisted of perhaps 45% of the population...maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on your source.

But that's not a high percentage of the population whatsoever especially according to Encylcopaedia Brittanica's "Guide to Black History"

Among some of the various Islamic Berber Tuareg peoples of the Sahara and Sahel, slavery persisted at least until 1975. The proportions of slaves ranged from around 15 percent among the Adrar to perhaps 75 percent among the Gurma. In Senegambia, between 1300 and 1900, about a third of the population consisted of slaves. In Sierra Leone in the 19th century close to half the population was enslaved. In the Vai Paramount chiefdoms in the 19th century as much as three-quarters of the population consisted of slaves. Among the Ashanti and Yoruba a third were enslaved. In the 19th century over half the population consisted of slaves among the Duala of the Cameroon, the Ibo and other peoples of the lower Niger, the Kongo, and the Kasanje kingdom and Chokwe of Angola.

http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157

it's brutality,

Brutality? Nah, not really. It had it's bad spots, as slavery does but it's no where near as brutal as the Jews, during the Khmer Empire, or a few others. (Koreans in Japan)

it's lenght

I mentioned the Jews...the helots in Sparta I believe were enslaved much longer as well as about twenty other people's. The human race is cruel.

and it's depth.

I don't know what that means?

No other race in modern times was killed and/or enslaved on sight, and subjugated to a systematical erasure of it's culture,history and religion. Not to mention the whole raping thing.

Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool. I guess you have forgotten all of Central and South America. Perhaps, you should read Bartolome De Las Casas "Destruction of the Indies".

It has been well documented the differences between pre-colonial slavery and the Middle Passage. More than a few researchers have concluded that the Africans who sold other Africans into slavery simply could not fathom the level of brutuality that was to occur, simply becasue it hadn't happened since Biblical times.

Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

I would argue that America has bloodied hands for three reasons. It is politically viable for certain demogogues to "blood-up-the-hands", sort of the "bloody flag" theory. Secondly, it is more noticeable than most of the other slavery attempts in that the skin color is almost a signifier whereas in Russia with the serfs, Greece with the Helots, and Africa with the various slavery systems, the skin color is not a signifier of slavery (it's not really here, as we have African immigrants...but the majority are not recent African immigrants). Lastly, because rights weren't fully given and African-Americans had to work to gain them.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)


Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)...


Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool.

Let's see, you beleive American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery and you also deny the exsistence of race...
I suppose that is consistent, since part of the travesty of American slavery is the fact that a 'Race' or at the very least an indigenous group of people with a definable, distinct and unique phenotype were targeted. Your failure to acknowledge this let's you minimize thier suffering with a clean conscience. Race-based slavery started with the Africans, and is partly why it lasted so long and thoroughly. The inability of African slaves to escape and mingle with the enslaving population made it easier for the slavemasters to create a permanent 'subservient population' that had effects that are still felt today. The most noticeble contrast is to the Native Americans, who proved almost unenslaveable, as there was no way to tell the runaway Indian slaves from the free indignious population. Obviously, the American government came up with another soultion to that problem.. :-(

No where else, and I ask you to prove me wrong.

And perhaps you will be more careful on whom you call fool.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

This is going to sound worse than I intended, but perhaps you should.

No. You should. Never assume that you disagree with someone because that person is uninformed and needs to research.

[XODUS1914]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No. You should. Never assume that you disagree with someone because that person is uninformed and needs to research.

I didn't assume anything. While it's a common arguement and /or fact that slavery was an underlying cause for the Civil War, most Americans don't know that most of the Confederate States directly referenced that "pecuilar institution" in their letters of secession. In fact, most Americans in the Southern States have never even seen thier own states' letter, much less the rest of them. Ironically, the "Confederate Flag" as we know it, is not even the original Confederate flag, but that's another story.

But hey, if you don't think Haley Barbour's statement doesn't represent the views of most of the people who fly that flag nowadays, then I'll be more than happy to agree to disagree.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

I didn't assume anything.

Sure.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by XODUS1914

Ironically, the "Confederate Flag" as we know it, is not even the original Confederate flag, but that's another story.

Which has been discussed quite a few times here at GC.