Confirmation bias can be tough to overcome for all of us.
If This Is True All References To Abe Lincoln Must Be Scrubbed From Our History
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
Confirmation bias can be tough to overcome for all of us.
Regardless,slavery was legal at the start of the war and up to the passing of the 13th amendment.
Context of the times, context of the times and context of the times! No one, through statue removal, book burning, statue destroying, writting biased history books and on and on can change what the times were like over 200, 150 even 100 years ago. All us enlightened folks, looking back can understand now what few could understand then.
Slaves were simply considered less human than everyone else (especially their African brethren who were capturing them and selling them), was it right well of course not, but the world has evolved yugly since those days and the movement now is not to correct one dam wrong from back then. It's more identity and cultural politics to draw people to sides, many of whom haven't picked up any history books for fear of cutting into their Facebook or gaming time. Others see the US as an evil destructive force that got great by climbing on the heads of slaves, Mexicans, Indians, Irish and anyone else who got in the way. To bad people cant see greatness with its inherent flaws instead of flaws with no claim to greatness.
Context of the times, context of the times and context of the times! No one, through statue removal, book burning, statue destroying, writting biased history books and on and on can change what the times were like over 200, 150 even 100 years ago. All us enlightened folks, looking back can understand now what few could understand then.
Slaves were simply considered less human than everyone else (especially their African brethren who were capturing them and selling them), was it right well of course not, but the world has evolved yugly since those days and the movement now is not to correct one dam wrong from back then. It's more identity and cultural politics to draw people to sides, many of whom haven't picked up any history books for fear of cutting into their Facebook or gaming time. Others see the US as an evil destructive force that got great by climbing on the heads of slaves, Mexicans, Indians, Irish and anyone else who got in the way. To bad people cant see greatness with its inherent flaws instead of flaws with no claim to greatness.
If the North was so humanitarian in nature, why wasn't there more of an uproar over the genocidal treatment of Native Americans?
Speaking of confirmation bias I made it up until the thesis that the north was for corporate welfare and the south wasn't and then gave up. Amazing how these libertarians bitch about inaccurate history and then start in on the welfare narrative as a cause of the civil war. Not a peep about the sorry mf's that enslaved, it's the guy that ended it that's the tyrant.
IT's about what I thought. If I had a dime for every time some libertarian says something that's blatantly false like he's really introducing some hard truth I could buy a... used lamp, probably. I've heard it a bunch.
It's basically gaslighting applied to history. Say blatantly untrue things, mix in a little bit of truth to confuse everyone and then the feeble minded follow the most dramatic and entertaining narrative.
No kidding Bitter Creek, or further to that point why didn't the benovalent North start a war in 1856 or 1857?
Sounds like modern Democrats, except the mix in a little truth part.
Now wait a minute. The South was Democrats. No wonder history makes your leg tingle.
Here's an interesting take. More hair splitting from those lying bastard libertarians.
https://mises.org/blog/southern-secession-was-one-thing-—-and-war-prevent-it-was-another
https://mises.org/blog/southern-secession-was-one-thing-—-and-war-prevent-it-was-another
Yup. So? What's the purpose of the hair splitting over reasons for secession? No slavery, no civil war.
Let's look at this "The south was the victim. The North should've just let it go" bullshit from another angle. If the south said, "You know, we really shouldn't rape, murder, enslave and exploit in every imaginable way a race of people. You're all free." and turned them loose. Would there have been a civil war?
The real hoot was earlier, the comments about the North being financially motivated, like that's a bad thing. THE SOUTH WASN'T?!? There's a pretty obvious distinction between, "I want to make money" and "I want to make money with slavery."
You do know the northern states were very fond of threatening secession right? They almost seceded when Jefferson was elected.
In the end Lincoln was a catalyst for positive change, change some still feel the need to denigrate.
As to statues, take em all down or not. Don't care so much about the symbolism, but at least admit the economic foundations of this prosperous nation were built at least partially on the backs of enslaved people.
While your at it stop with the post racism bullshit. Racism is alive and well in the United States of America.
As to statues, take em all down or not. Don't care so much about the symbolism, but at least admit the economic foundations of this prosperous nation were built at least partially on the backs of enslaved people.
While your at it stop with the post racism bullshit. Racism is alive and well in the United States of America.
Lincoln was a Republican. Oops.
Stop with the bullshit that racism is a 2017 problem. See how that works?
The fact that you decided to live in the whitest city in the US while lecturing the rest of us on racism hasn't gone unnoticed. Oops.
What the **** does that have to do with anything... ah yes, your binary brain needs to classify the world into simplistic black and white categories. Forgot who I was talking to for a moment, carry on...
Your jealous, dully noted... at least willing to acknowledge the state of affairs. You should try crawling out of your hole.
I don't live in Portland. Have any real argument against the whitest city claim or just more sloshing of the tank when you hear the truth?
Nothing. Lincoln was a Republican. The Democrats of the South hated him and loved slavery. The dreaded statues are those the Democrats erected to remind us of that.
Feeling guilty?
Good point. The Union should not have created a gov't where it was not only allowed, but blatantly endorsed.
Please get back to the original intention of the post. Should America tear down the Lincoln Memorial, destroy all Lincoln statuary, rename all Lincoln schools, scrub Lincoln's name from the history books? Should the obviously virulently racist Abe Libcoln be the recipient of the same standard as the equally racist politicians and generals and Rebel soldiers? Please address this most important issue! The survival of the country is at risk!
I'm reading back and forth and have no real opinion on whether Abe was trying to save the union, free the slaves, or just spite the Southern states who were leaving. And frankly, don't really care. But this thread scares me. If this is how we look back at our history and judge, how will we be judged based on societal changes of our current generation? Will we degrade the last 30 years of presidents (R & D) because of the support for "Don't ask, Don't tell"? I have no doubt that our behaviors which are acceptable and normal for today's society may be looked upon with disdain in 150 years. Does that mean that everything good that society may have done should just be discarded because we supported policies that aren't deemed acceptable 150 years from now? This is exactly what we are doing in judging our forefathers in this manner.
Excellent point. I sabotaged the articles for my own selfish reasons. The point of the DiLorenzo article was mainly directed at getting history right. Lincoln was a human being with all the flaws that entails. And yet he is taught in history books as if he was a mystical, godlike creature, deserving of reverence and awe. We are not taught that he single handedly (and unconstitutionally) suspended habeous corpus, imprisoned as many as 10,000 of his own citizens for disagreeing with his orders, unconstitutionally drafted up to 400,000 young men to fight his war (ironically making slaves out of them to go fight against slavery), had dissidents deported, and numerous other actions against what was supposed to be a free society. All we have been taught is that he single handedly freed the slaves. His actions as president were more in keeping with the actions of a dictator, and they were actions that have been followed by more and more (and more excessive) dictatorial actions by successive presidents, leading us to the calamitous ignoramus president we now suffer under. DiLorenzo thinks getting history right is crucial if we want to remain a free people, and I agree with him, notwithstanding sys's determination that he is lying. I regret starting the post because it became a pissing match to see who could prove who knew more about history. The idea was to try and get people to consider how important their individual liberty is.
100% correct.
The founders were coming off of 100s of years, where being a slave was just a class of people. Some people were born into elite lives, some were peasants, and so forth. To demonize the CSA as if they invented that economy and society out of thin air and that no other culture had anything to do with it and no other culture ever suffered under those circumstances is just a lie to infuse today's political climate with some destructive energy.
For what? There is a difference between feeling guilty and acknowledging reality - a reality that I benefit from admittedly.
To me feeling guilty is useless, actively working to change the circumstances where you have influence is much more important.
What precisely would a response be? You have an questionable fact in hand that you like to repeat constantly that has nothing to do with the argument being made. Do I really need to respond to that?
This is your own perception. What about the reality of whites living in complete shambles. Where did their privilege go?
Sorry, did I attribute my own privilege with that of all caucasians ITT or elsewhere?
Binary thinking, again considering the source not much to say here other than carry on with your simple view of the world...The Democrats had the KKK back then and they have antifa now. Some things never change.
Then please, explain
What is that reality? Because I'd bet I'm not the only one here who understood it the way I did.
I mentor at risk youth. Have for 15 years. Many are black and Hispanic kids, but plenty of the white kids too. I know you are a charitable guy yourself.
I don't think you're racist. I just give you shit because Portland is probably much less diverse than my own family per capita. One brother in law is married to a black woman. The other is married to a Hispanic woman. My sister in law is married to a guy who is Hawaiian and black and owns an Asian food restaurant. My wife is the only one who married a cracker. I don't seriously think you chose Portland because of its lack of racial diversity.
I've always seen actual racism as a means of enforcing bigotry, promoting racial inequality as a matter of action to subjugate, like in the day when it was law or as good as law. Presently, "racism" and "bigotry" seem to have become a routine part of the political dialogue even though racism as enforcement of bigotry has been long gone. Slinging the word around casually, like calling someone a racist and bigot solely for voting for Trump, is what has me shrugging my shoulders these days. Those words are being used against people who simply share different political beliefs. Although politically useful, it's practically useless. The real issues get drowned out in a sea of bullshit when applied that way.
Are there still racists and bigots? Of course, and it isn't just whites. Are they a majority of anyone? Not in my perception. There are clowns of all colors that behave irresponsibly. Nobody will ever be able to erase negative feelings some people have toward other races, religions, sexual orientations, rival sports team fans, nationality, sex, etc. It's always been a part of being human and will likely always be part of our existence. Some people just have to have a villain to dislike, whether it's a rival gang or another religion. Does that mean we should accept it? No, but you and I also cannot control what people think. We can and should always continue to aggressively protect against racism as enforcement of bigotry, but being a Republican or a Trump voter does not automatically make someone a racist or a bigot. That's a purely political message that I will never accept.
Of all the stories and inquiries surrounding the complete deconstruction of a race, you choose to push a narrative sympathetic to the perpetrator. I don't understand why conservatives put so much energy into defending evil. You could just as easily say, "We should once and for all demand monuments to black victims." nOPE --
You have this thesis that we shouldn't have fought it. How could you prevent it? Imagine the abortion issue (MURDER!!) on steroids. A big part of the country making its money with slavery? You haven't talked about how strong the abolitionist movement was, either. It was just too brutal to exist, and that's what it not existing had to look like. Those moneyed southerners were obsessive about it. More libertarian awful ideas, like privatizing roads.
Jesus H. Christ I don't know anyone that is more racially divisive than you. It's constant.
Uh huh. Because I'm a big meanie that brings up gang violence? Poor little guy. It's too bad I don't give a single shit what you think.
In part. Mainly because you constantly agitate racial shit. I've never met someone that's as obsessed as you over it. You can't get enough of it, white Al Sharpton.
Edit: The assistant professor of sociology at Eastern Maine Tech U. said in a committee meeting that they should assess money against white kids. You better get on top of it and make sure everyone is whipped up over it.
LOL the most cringeworthy but still entertaining thing in the world is when a wingnut parrots a talking point but it doesn't fit the context of the conversation, e.g.:
I think this beer is a little flat.
AHA!! The white guilt must be tearing you up, ha ha!
You are in your own world. No one has defended the institution of slavery here. No one. I've provided a thought process about how I believe it could have been handled better and possibility have avoided 2% of an entire population being killed. Does it completely escape you that most western nations ended slavery peacefully?
Lysander Spooner was an ardent abolitionist and was vehemently against the war. Did he "defend evil?"
My goodness man, step outside of the hysteria bubble for some fresh air every now and again.
I'm not hysterical and nothing is directed at you. It's directed at Racey McRaceBaiter.
That war was inevitable. Whether it was two countries or a civil war, it was going to happen. The South was rabid. They burned down newspapers that published pro-abolitionist sentiments. Literally, couldn't talk about it. The House had a gag rule against speaking about slavery. Think about that. They lost their shit if it was even brought up, like North Korea does when someone criticiizes Dear Leader. The North was constantly poking at it and there was never going to be peace. You have so understated the attitude and commitment to brutatlity that the south had that I hesitate to engage in the conversation. Blaming Lincoln in the face of that tyranny and obsession is inexplicable to me.
I thought we were just throwing out random, interesting stuff. What does you statement about northern threats of secession have to do with what I said?
A Lysander Spooner reference! If you were here I'd buy you a drink!
No, they just bitch about the people that actually ended it.
Edit: And bitch about bringing down the honors erected to it.
