dagblog - Comments for "A Radical Conservative Perspective: America Would be Better Off Without Black People"

Like in "Animal Crackers".

Desider — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:04:58 +0000

Like in "Animal Crackers". Made respectable by the Marx Brothers.

Also Randy Newman (lyrics for "We're Rednecks")

The Canadian situation has

quinn esq — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:18:25 +0000

In reply to As for your position on the

The Canadian situation has obviously shaped my thoughts and feelings on this. At 16, I was ready to fight to keep the country together. By 36, not a chance. I'd just lament the loss of all Quebec brings. But emotionally, it's a big freight train, and incredibly interesting to work through. Imagine, in 1995, Quebec had a referendum, and we all followed it 24/7. The vote eventually had a 94% turnout. And the stay in Canada side won by 50.4 to 49.6%, with the vote count only coming to a lead late. Within Quebec, the Northern Cree voted 94% against leaving, as did the Anglos and the immigrants (by about 80/20.) It was an amazing thing. And the process of working through my stance on that has probably established my principles on the 1860 version of events. As for the personal stuff, I guess this issue just runs hot for people. A b or c, I donno. Thanks for chatting. I think I'll go fight the Libyan civil war now. ;-)

As for your position on the

Verified Atheist — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:20:34 +0000

In reply to TMac thinks anyone she

As for your position on the Civil War, it almost exactly mirrors my own. Just to be clear, I'm also in agreement on substance with Desider that there were a lot of other factors besides "just" slavery involved in the Civil War. I'd even go so far as to say that the vast majority of Southern soldiers did not consider slavery to be one of the things they were fighting for. Possibly true for the Northern soldiers, but not as resoundingly. Similarly, I don't think it's fair to say (not that anyone is saying it) that our soldiers today consider oil to be one of the things they are fighting for.

As for my position on TMac, I found myself in one of two positions. Either (a) she was so far off the deep-end that she shouldn't logically be able to operate a computer (something I don't think is true), or (b) she's not saying exactly what we think she means. I went with (b). Maybe you found and Desider found a (c), but it seemed to me that y'all went with (a). Or, maybe y'all also went with (b), but were just arguing that point in a manner lost on me. It's entirely possible. As I've said before, I don't find my opinion particular valuable on this topic, but for some reason (that I'm now regretting) I chose to weigh in.

What you touch on is a big

Desider — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 06:18:22 +0000

In reply to TMac thinks anyone she

What you touch on is a big lesson for today's war.

150 years later we can't even quite agree whether the Civil War was fought to end slavery or to keep the union together.

In Libya, we're "protecting civilians" but in a way that "supports the rebels" (clearing any enemy vehicles and personnel from their path) and ensuring "regime change" (and probably "protecting the oil" as well).

Which is it? Which did the UN sign on for? Russians are already complaining that helping the rebels wasn't the prime purpose, nor retaking Qaddafi's hometown, much less regime change.

And I firmly agree with Quinn on his analysis of this equation.

I think people have the right to secede from whatever union, whether marriage or countries, and typically there are costs for this, as laid out wonderfully in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,^[72] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What this wonder clause gives is the justification for the South seceding, to address the wrongs it felt it had suffered.

And it provides the justification for the North objecting and waging war, to assist blacks in the wrongs that they not only "felt" but most objectively and assuredly did suffer, and would continue to suffer.

Of course the North was a player in this arrangement, making loads of money off of cotton labor through textile mills and exports to Bristol. But even a partner in murder can come clean and say, "I can kill no more, I'm throwing my lot in with the victim".

Which of course the North didn't quite do. Even the Emancipation Proclamation, a couple years late, was a ripoff of the British effort in 1812 to get US slaves to revolt and take up freedom in Bermuda, even while the British maintained slavery in Jamaica. All ironies become possible in wartime.

But to play the simplified history game, I think I'd be a fool to say "the North only fought the war to keep the union together". That was Lincoln's line, and I believe that about as much as I believe Obama's speech the other night - i.e. "whatever", roll of eyes.

My guess without looking at the records is that many of the Northerners fighting in the war were not just fighting to keep the union together, but fighting to liberate black people. I don't think John Brown cared about the union - he cared about the immorality of slavery.

And in any case, the South did secede peacefully - even convened legislatures to vote on it. And the North did attack (to retain a piece of rock in a Southern port hundreds of miles away - like our trick holding on to Guantanamo or the British keeping Gibraltar or the Russians holding Kaliningrad....). That was aggression. Justified if it's to free the slaves. Unjustified if it's just they didn't like the battered wife trying to walk out the door. "Hey, I'm not finished talking to you..."

And funny, that's the kind of tone I usually hear when people talk about the war.

I believe people have the

jollyroger — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:38:49 +0000

In reply to TMac thinks anyone she

I believe people have the right to leave political arrangements, and when they do, if they really want to go, they have that right

Mais biensure-tu es Canadien--vive le bloc! (Down here, we run things differently...)

TMac thinks anyone she

quinn esq — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:18:22 +0000

In reply to My "side" is that they're

TMac thinks anyone she disagrees with is a TeaBagger, and treats them as such. She's doing it again here, with Des, and with her slavery comments. As for Des, if you've followed along a bit, he's intellectually stimulating, and even when hellaciously wrong, his self-control and manners are many times better than most peoples, certainly mine.

As for Northern Aggression, I decided during the TPM wars on this that it was not a good topic to discuss with most Americans, simply because they see it in terms of specific battles and Lincoln and so on, and are so emotionally engaged. Which is fine. But it means they often have an awful time pulling apart the issues of secession... and slavery. As though the two were always and everywhere the same question. For Canadians, used to thinking about Quebec, this is baffling.

So, Northern Aggression. My view is, if push came to shove, I'd support the Civil War being fought. But only on the grounds that it was intended to end slavery. If it was to be fought, with hundreds of thousands killed, solely (solely)(SOLELY)(solely) to maintain the Union, I regard that as immoral. I believe people have the right to leave political arrangements, and when they do, if they really want to go, they have that right... NO MATTER what previous political documents have been signed. This strikes me as a sensible position, as pretty much every single nation I can think of has gone through this same step - e.g. the US States had within the previous century actually broken away from Britain and its political bonds.

For me, this changes my perspective on who committed violence against who during the run-up to the Civil War. e.g. If Quebec left Canada today, and Canada not only refused to leave forts within Quebec's bounds, but began to resupply and send in reinforcements, it would be very difficult for me to see these as purely peaceable acts, rather than as acts of war.

In the actual case, it seems the outgoing US President thought the Feds did not have the legal or constitutional right to compel the States to remain in the Union by force. Lincoln thought differently. I disagree on the preserving the Union bit. But I agree with the ending slavery bit. But some in the US actually think - even with slavery as my only justification for fighting - that I must therefore be against Lincoln and the Union, and thus... pro-slavery. There was an extended fight about this as TPM, with people actually throwing those charges.

So to hear TMac doing the same today, and not one person calling her on it, says to me that liberal Americans still have problems sorting this stuff out. Can''t see the relevance? Try this. Imagine if I disagreed with someone on issues of sexism here at Dag, and followed it by saying, "it was as though you, yourself have raped and you feel really guilty about it." Now, personally,I'd argue having a slave and raping are both pretty low moral acts, right? So... precisely how long before everyone was having a big to-do about whether I should be banned for the rape comment? Ten seconds? Which means there's something wrong, that this should happen, again, at a site where there are so many self-proclaimed defenders of civil rights and who are all rah-rah fighting the Civl War now... but who give people a pass to behave like that.

I just personally find it to be spineless, and rather pathetic.

What Quinn said below; I

we are stardust — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:08:55 +0000

In reply to Putting this at bottom:I'm

What Quinn said below; I admit that as soon as some asshat demands, "Define 'slavery period' or something, I bail. I read it as faux-intellectual discussion. And I hate faux-intellectualism. ;o)

And I remember now that Tmacarthy is a 'she', not a 'he/she'. But I was in the process of drawing a hot bath, and didn't rush back to correct it.

Q addressed 'war of northern aggression', I assume. I also get tripped up on time-stamps and who said what things on a thread with many comments. When I get it wrong, I just blame Obey.

My "side" is that they're

Verified Atheist — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:07:43 +0000

In reply to VA. If you're to support a

My "side" is that they're both wrong. Re-read what Des said when he quoted her. The part that I'm saying was implicitly defensive of the phrase is the following:

TMccarthy has trouble with the phrase, "The War of Northern Aggression", even though, surprise, the South left peacefully and the North attacked. (Lincoln and Qaddhafi sitting in a tree....?)

Doesn't that sound defensive of the phrase to you? And, yeah, I'll cop being guilty of trying to mediate AND to failing at it miserably. As for me being "sure" that TMac has a more sensible POV, I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong. As I said, there are trivial examples that would demonstrate that. For example, surely the Civil War would not still have happened if the North was quite confident they couldn't win (and one can dream up hundreds of trivial scenarios under which that would be true).

As for #3, I think you're reading into what she wrote something that's not there. Still, it wasn't a nice thing to say, which takes me back to the beginning. They're both wrong. Des is just more in control of his emotions, as I think he's just playing around, whereas TMac clearly takes it very personally.

VA. If you're to support a

quinn esq — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 02:00:37 +0000

In reply to A Radical Conservative Perspective: America Would be Better Off Without Black People

VA. If you're to support a "side," then do it. If you're going to mediate, don't be an asshole about it.

1. It wasTMac who first used the phrase Northern Aggression, and then Des quoted her - using a block quote. Go on, scroll up and look. You were wrong.

2. It's great that you're "sure" TMac has a more sensible point of view. Nowhere, however, has she said what you'd like her to say. She just keeps saying, "slavery, period" - and shitting on people who say "slavery, primarily." So stop saying you're sure she must think it.

3. There is nothing comparable to her comments about owned or have owned slaves. So, no, not at all comparable.

Putting this at bottom:I'm

Verified Atheist — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 01:58:20 +0000

In reply to A Radical Conservative Perspective: America Would be Better Off Without Black People

Putting this at bottom:

I'm guessing you think that I chose the "sensitive reader's" side, despite suggesting that the reader was being sensitive. In reality, whereas I was kinda starting from the position that both sides were right, I ended with the position that both sides were wrong. I also went to pains to say that my own opinion ain't worth squat.

You say that "slavery period" doesn't leave any wiggle-room, which makes me think you haven't played many semantics games, because I can guarantee you that if you started pressing you'd find the "sensitive reader" wiggling quite a bit. And, as I already indicated, I would not use that phrase myself, because my semantic interpretation of that phrase would make it quite silly indeed.

That said, while you seem willing to condemn "slavery period", you don't seem to have an opinion on the "War of Northern Aggression" phrase. (I will note that Desider's use of that phrase while not explicitly supportive of it, was implicitly defensive of it.)