Confederacy: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  john-russell  •  2 weeks ago  •  147 comments

Confederacy: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

A couple years ago, but very timely today , again. 

You can skip to the 3:00 mark if you want and jump over Oliver's introductory comments. 


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  author  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

The great thing about John Oliver is that he is very serious and very funny at the same time. 

Some good laughs makes the medicine go down. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

He sucks unwatchable. Funny this guys comes from a country that colonized half the world and perpetuated slavery all over the world he should go back to where he came from.   

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.1  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago

Bazinga .... he should have some serious white guilt ..... bad bad limey!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago

LOL!  So John Oliver is guilty for perpetuating slavery?

Get a grip MUVA.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago

That sounds racist MUVA.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

No, he shouldn't.  

Now how about you?

Tell us how often you are a victim of your white privilege please.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago

He's very popular MUVA.  He is really rich too.  Jealous?

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.6  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.4    2 weeks ago
No, he shouldn't. 

Yes he should, according to progressive logic

Now how about you?

How about me what?

Tell us how often you are a victim of your white privilege please. 

Unlike many here, I don’t make myself a victim 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.7  Sparty On  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Yes, he’s very popular with asshats since he is an asshat

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.6    2 weeks ago

White arrogance isn't a virtue.  

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

Bazinga - cool dude!

Cowabunga!

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.7    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.11  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.5    2 weeks ago

Why I'm also rich.

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.13  Sparty On  replied to  MUVA @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

You’re black aren’t you?    How can you be rich since you’ve been repressed so badly.    Very confusing .....

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.14  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago
Funny this guys comes from a country that colonized half the world and perpetuated slavery all over the world he should go back to where he came from.   

Funny that you come from a country that enslaved African--Americans. (Do you also give a big "LOL" for how the country you come from actually enslaved human beings?)

Of, and lots not forget how the country you come from committed an ongoing and extremely brutal genocide against American Indians?

 
 
 
Krishna
1.1.16  Krishna  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.3    2 weeks ago
That sounds racist MUVA.  

Given the way the country MUVA comes from has enslaved, tortured, lynched, and otherwise committed horrendous crimes on their fellow human beings for years, many people would say that MUVA owes them an apology! 

(I, however, am reserving judgement as I have mixed feelings about playing the "You Owe ____ ____ _____ An Apology Card . . . at least on Social Media sites)

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.17  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.11    2 weeks ago

You could still be jealous of him.

I mean he speaks very well.

He is very intelligent.  

He gets his point across well.

He speaks in complete sentences.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.18  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1.1.16    2 weeks ago

Some of my family was captured and brought to american as slaves  from Liberia should they also apologize?Should my grand mother apologize because her house in fort smith Arkansan was burned to the ground by democratic party KKK members?   

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.19  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.17    2 weeks ago

No I'm not jealous of little leftist twit that looks like a turd  in glasses.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.20  MUVA  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.13    2 weeks ago

I'm the poor one in my family and I'm rich my family starting with my great grandfather fled the plantation it was and still is liberating.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.21  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @1.1.19    2 weeks ago

I'll take that as a YES.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.22  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.21    2 weeks ago

Ok take it any way you want.As a aside what are crabs going for up there this year around here they are around 20 dollars a dozen.

 
 
 
Suz
1.1.23  Suz  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago

I can't stand the guy.  He's irritating and smug.  Typical Brit. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
1.1.24  Sparty On  replied to  Suz @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

Yup a real tight ass like that Piers Morgan.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.25  Tessylo  replied to  Suz @1.1.23    2 weeks ago

Smug?

LOL!

I guess humor and intelligence are irritating to some folks.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.26  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.24    2 weeks ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.27  Dulay  replied to  MUVA @1.1    2 weeks ago
Funny this guys comes from a country that colonized half the world and perpetuated slavery all over the world he should go back to where he came from.   

Oliver is from England, a country that abolished slavery before the American Revolution. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.28  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.27    2 weeks ago
'Funny this guys comes from a country that colonized half the world and perpetuated slavery all over the world he should go back to where he came from.' 

'Oliver is from England, a country that abolished slavery before the American Revolution.'

giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47a559c52bc6978abfa7c3439d9ce5473f6349a56c&rid=giphy.gif

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @1.1.18    2 weeks ago
Liberia began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed black people would face better chances for freedom and prosperity in Africa than in the United States . [6] The country declared its independence on July 26, 1847. The U.S. did not recognize Liberia's independence until February 5, 1862, during the American Civil War . Between January 7, 1822, and the American Civil War, more than 15,000 freed and free-born black people who faced legislated limits in the U.S., and 3,198 Afro-Caribbeans , relocated to the settlement. [7] The settlers carried their culture and tradition with them. The Liberian constitution and flag were modeled after those of the U.S. On January 3, 1848, Joseph Jenkins Roberts , a wealthy, free-born African American from Virginia who settled in Liberia, was elected Liberia's first president after the people proclaimed independence. [7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia

So tell us again how some of your family was captured and brought to America as slaves?

 
 
 
sixpick
1.2  sixpick  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

The great thing about John Oliver is that he is very serious and very funny at the same time. 

Some good laughs makes the medicine go down. 

I'm not offended by his humor.  I'm just sad such humor is on the backs of good Americans, whether they're white, black or any other race for such a serious subject that is dividing our country.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  sixpick @1.2    2 weeks ago

That makes no sense sixpick.

WTF?

The 'president' is diving this country, not John Oliver.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
1.3  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @1    2 weeks ago

Getting old - try some new material.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.3.1  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @1.3    2 weeks ago

You said that in the - 'something to think about' thread - running out of material?

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

I love John Oliver!

You are correct John.  

 
 
 
devangelical
3  devangelical    2 weeks ago

heh, their heritage was fighting under the white supremacist flag of treason. mine was dropping them with a mini-ball and then sticking them with a bayonet as they tried to crawl away.

 
 
 
Krishna
3.1  Krishna  replied to  devangelical @3    2 weeks ago
fighting under the white supremacist flag of treason.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

(After all, there's a time and a place for everything...even treason against the United States of America).

(or.. is there?)

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

Confederate statues are last  years news.

the mob is now trying to destroy statutes of those who destroyed the confederacy. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.2  Sparty On  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 weeks ago

The confederacy issue is a smoke screen for a general hatred for the USA.    This isn’t going to end well for the anarchists 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.3  XDm9mm  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 weeks ago
he mob is now trying to destroy statutes of those who destroyed the confederacy. 

Hell, they're going after statutes that depict people even before the Confederacy existed.   It's AMERICA and what America represents that they despise and attack.  The Confederacy is simply a starting point.

 
 
 
Krishna
4.4  Krishna  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 weeks ago
Confederate statues are last  years news. the mob is now trying to destroy statutes of those who destroyed the confederacy. 

Yo, bro-- make up yer mind, LOL! jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

Is this story about " Last Year's News"...or people now trying...

"Last Year" is not "Now". 

(But then-- you already knew that . . . )

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  Sean Treacy @4    2 weeks ago

I will say this is getting out of control. Tearing down/defacing statues of Grant? Literally the guy who oversaw the destruction of the Confederacy, WTF? Columbus, meh fuck that guy. he was just out to make a buck and he wasn't even close to the first one here.

 
 
 
Sparty On
4.5.1  Sparty On  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4.5    2 weeks ago

Most of the people doing the tearing down don't even know who they are trashing and the one who do know don't give a shit.

A bigger menagerie of shitbirds you will not find ....

 
 
 
Tessylo
5  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

 
 
 
Krishna
5.1  Krishna  replied to  Tessylo @5    2 weeks ago

I've always like Monty Python-- never saw this one before but its got to be one of their best if not the single best one!

I literally LOL'd many times...this one is pure genius!

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  Krishna @5.1    2 weeks ago

Funny how it relates to now also 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

John Oliver, like most liberal thinkers, ignore that the Confederates were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life.  And Oliver has to ignore his own facts to make a racist political point.  While Oliver elevates polling to the same level as open warfare, the poll results show that Americans believe the Civil War was more complex than a poll and about more than just slavery.  

48 pct saying that the Civil War was mainly about state's rights doesn't mean those 48 pct don't think the Civil War was also about slavery.  Oliver is playing a charlatan's trick to support his own racial prejudices from a decidedly British point of view.  Oliver is pushing a political narrative that the Black population are victims of slavery.  But slavery ended 170 years ago.  The only way the Black population could still be a victim of slavery is for the Black population to still behave as slaves.

Are today's protests really a struggle for equality?  Or are today's protests more like a slave revolt?  Is the Black population demanding the equal right to represent themselves and govern themselves?  Or is the Black population demanding that the white population only give them what they want?

More white people have died fighting over slavery than the number of Black people who have ever been lynched.  White people destroyed more cities and property during the Civil War than all the race riots in the United States.  And white people have accomplished more for civil rights than all the Black civil rights activists combined.  A lot of white people have fought and died for civil rights throughout the history of the United States.  The Black population in the United States have been given everything that white people have died for.

The Mormons were harassed, abused, and lynched in the same manner that the Black population complains about.  Mormons didn't demand that the United States give them anything other than the right to represent themselves and govern themselves.  Mormons fought to defend their beliefs, values, and way of life.  

Comparing the history of Confederate slaves and the history of Mormons provides insight into the differences between demanding that equality be given a people and a people standing up and being equal. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 weeks ago

'John Oliver, like most liberal thinkers, ignore that the Confederates were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life.'

What beliefs, values, way of life?  THAT THEY WERE SUPERIOR TO BLACK PEOPLE?  WHITE SUPREMACY? 

Oh please give me a break.

They were willing to die to make people their property?

 WTF do Mormons have to do with this?

Everyone is a charlatan except those in the White Trash House?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @6.1    2 weeks ago
They were willing to die to make people their property?

Since you want to make the Civil War only about slavery then, yes, white Confederates were willing to die to protect owning slaves.   The white Confederates put their own lives at risk; they didn't put the lives of their slaves at risk.  The Confederates did not expect or require Confederate slaves to die defending slavery.

And all those white supremacists did not slaughter Confederate slaves when they were defeated.  The white supremacists did not destroy their property to prevent that property being captured by the enemy.  The white supremacists didn't treat slaves as things.

WTF do Mormons have to do with this?

Why is the Mormon history of discrimination, harassment, abuse, and lynching not relevant?  Is it because the Mormons were white people?

White people have experienced discrimination, too.  That's why white people have accomplished more for civil rights than any other race in the United States.  Civil rights for minorities is nothing new regardless of who that minority may be.  Civil rights isn't about race.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.1.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

Your true colors are flying . Congratulations. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.3  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Civil rights isn't about race.

...or gender, or sexual orientation, or religion, or age? It's only come about through the auspices of 'white people' in addressing discrimination because they have experienced it as well?

Please.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.1.2    2 weeks ago

We hear the dog whistles, LOUD AND CLEAR

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    2 weeks ago

THAT'S THE ONLY THING THE 'CIVIL WAR' WAS ABOUT 

SLAVERY

THE RIGHT TO OWN BLACK PEOPLE.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.1    2 weeks ago
Since you want to make the Civil War only about slavery then, yes, white Confederates were willing to die to protect owning slaves.    The white Confederates put their own lives at risk; they didn't put the lives of their slaves at risk.  The Confederates did not expect or require Confederate slaves to die defending slavery.
WHAT THE FUCK?

Those black folks had it so good.  They had a roof over their heads and three squares a day right?  

The girls and women being raped by their slave owners.

jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

Pffffft.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.6    2 weeks ago
Those black folks had it so good.  They had a roof over their heads and three squares a day right?   The girls and women being raped by their slave owners.

A lot of white Midwestern farmers were maimed and killed to end that way of life.  The Civil War wasn't only about the Confederacy.

Those white Midwestern farmers didn't subjugate the South; they destroyed the South.  And those white Midwestern farmers didn't accept a continuation of the institution of slavery.  The South would never rise again.  There wasn't a compromise.

The Democratic Party is responsible for the Civil War.  The Democratic Party defended a way of life based upon slavery and superiority of the white race.  And the Democratic Party has ensured that the only history of the Civil War that people know is the history of the Confederacy and the history of the Democratic Party.

That is a dishonest telling of history based upon prejudice and bigotry; the bigotry of the Democratic Party.  Democrat's can't be bigots; just look at everything the Democrats have given the Black population.  And the Black population is still subservient to the Democratic Party.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.7    2 weeks ago

Pffffffft.  .  

We're not talking about the white folks here.  

I'm having trouble hearing you through all the dog whistles.

jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_76_smiley_image.gif

QANon, is that you?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.1.9  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.7    2 weeks ago
That is a dishonest telling of history based upon prejudice and bigotry; the bigotry of the Democratic Party

The only dishonest telling of history is when the story is solely based on the partisan politics that buttress the partisan agenda of today, regardless of fact or context.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @6.1.7    2 weeks ago
Those white Midwestern farmers didn't subjugate the South; they destroyed the South. 

Really?

I still lots of cotton, rice, soybeans, milo, and corn grown right here in Arkansas. Rice is the number one crop here.

I do believe Iowa, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and all those states going straight up the middle of the country are still growing their crops, too

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 weeks ago
John Oliver, like most liberal thinkers, ignore that the Confederates were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life.

I don't ignore it, I recognize that their being "willing" to attack American Union soldiers and "willing to die" defending their assumed right to own other humans as cattle, prove their way of life as worthless, disgusting and vile.

"48 pct saying that the Civil War was mainly about state's rights doesn't mean those 48 pct don't think the Civil War was also about slavery"

What that proves is there are many terribly ignorant descendants of the confederacy who have been taught lies and a whitewashed version of the civil war. Either that or half of them are simply desperate to deflect and distract from the truth about the confederacy.

Or are today's protests more like a slave revolt?

If they look that way to you, then perhaps it's because some conservative Republicans who keep defending the confederacy keep treating black Americans as slaves.

Is the Black population demanding the equal right to represent themselves and govern themselves?

They are simply asking to be treated with the same respect, the same assumption of innocence, the benefit of the doubt that white Americans have had since our founding. Some, often descendants of confederates living in former confederate States, refuse to do that but instead give respect to the confederate monuments, the confederate flag and confederate ideology that once enslaved black Americans ancestors. And then, even after the losers got their asses kicked in the civil war, they spent the next 100 years spitefully discriminating against black Americans and passing vile stereotypes, fear and prejudices down to their descendants.

Or is the Black population demanding that the white population only give them what they want?

I don't think respect is too much to ask for. I don't think listening to them when they say "I can't breathe" is too much to ask. I don't think having empathy for and choosing to give aid to those who have suffered a several hundred year man made disaster orchestrated by worthless piece of shit racists (many of whom considered themselves conservative confederates) is too much to ask. I have no doubt though, that those harboring bitter hate and prejudice in their hearts are seething with rage about black Americans standing up for themselves and rejecting the status quo of inequity and thus likely do everything they can to defend the confederacy, the confederate flag, to deflect from any responsibility and refuse to see the blatant factual systemic racism currently found in almost every facet of American life. Some feel their fantasy "white culture" is under threat so instead of being able to empathize with unarmed black Americans unjustly killed in our streets. They see them through the lens of their prejudice and thus feel the cops actions must have been justified and that because, in their warped sick minds, blacks are inferior, then they are deserving of such callous violence and to be treated as animals. It's why many of these racists often refer to black Americans killed by police as "thugs" or work so hard researching any murdered unarmed black man background looking for any potential crime they can then justify the indiscriminate killing on, as if stealing a pack of cigarettes or trying to spend a fake bill in their minds carry the death penalty. Many white supremacists and racist confederate descendants call black Americans thugs, I call white supremacists and racist confederate descendants pieces of shit because they have proven by their prejudice and intolerance to be the only ones truly worthy of being prejudiced against.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2    2 weeks ago
I don't ignore it, I recognize that their being "willing" to attack American Union soldiers and "willing to die" defending their assumed right to own other humans as cattle, prove their way of life as worthless, disgusting and vile.

My ancestors were willing to die to end that way of life.  My ancestors didn't risk their lives to protect slavery or state's rights.  My ancestors only had a moral cause to fight for.  What pisses me off is that side the story (my side of the story) is simply ignored so political bigots can blatantly lie about civil rights.

More white Midwestern farmers died to give Confederate slaves their freedom than the number of Black people have died to keep their freedom.  Those white people were risking their lives for civil rights.  Confederate slaves did not rise up, throw off their yokes, and fight for their freedom.  Militant abolitionists, like John Brown, sought to achieve that end but Confederate slaves refused.  Why aren't Black people erecting statues of John Brown?  John Brown died for the freedom of Confederate slaves.  Is John Brown too white?  Or were Confederate slaves too cowardly? 

Which history are the political bigots ignoring?

They are simply asking to be treated with the same respect, the same assumption of innocence, the benefit of the doubt that white Americans have had since our founding. Some, often descendants of confederates living in former confederate States, refuse to do that but instead give respect to the confederate monuments, the confederate flag and confederate ideology that once enslaved black Americans ancestors. And then, even after the losers got their asses kicked in the civil war, they spent the next 100 years spitefully discriminating against black Americans and passing vile stereotypes, fear and prejudices down to their descendants.

Yes, that's a demand to be given something.  Given respect.  Given justice.  Given a place in history that has not been earned.

Confederate slaves did not fight for their freedom; my ancestors did that.  Confederate slaves did not earn their freedom; my ancestors gave them their freedom.  And Confederate slaves did not even fight to keep the freedom they were given.

That's the history of Confederate slavery that everyone wants to remove from the history books.  The political bigots always ignore the period of Reconstruction.  Jim Crow began well after the end of the Civil War; well after the Confederate slaves were given freedom, given the right to vote, given the right to represent themselves, and given the right to govern themselves.

Confederate slaves were given everything and did not invest any of themselves into keeping what had been given.  That, too, is part of history.  And the descendants of Confederate slaves are still asking and demanding they be given more.

My ancestors fought for civil rights.  What we are seeing today suggests my ancestors fought for nothing.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.2  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
Confederate slaves were given everything

yeah even whipping, rape and lynchings

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

I think this kind of fits.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.4  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.2    2 weeks ago

They had it so good.  

Pffffffft.  

Yeah, those uppity niggers.  

Don't know when they got it good.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
My ancestors were willing to die to end that way of life. 

Yeah, so was mine, as my great grandfather got off the boat and was immediately conscripted into the army, without understanding a word of English (he spoke only German). We have his diary and while he felt tricked by the US government, he felt badly for those slaves. 

Why aren't Black people erecting statues of John Brown?  John Brown died for the freedom of Confederate slaves.  Is John Brown too white?  Or were Confederate slaves too cowardly? 

They should erect statues to John Brown. And it has nothing to do with his color

Or were Confederate slaves too cowardly?

You mean the slaves that had overlords to brutally beat them till the flesh came off their backs. Yeah, they might have been a little nervous.

Confederate slaves did not fight for their freedom; my ancestors did that. Confederate slaves did not earn their freedom; my ancestors  gave  them their freedom.

Nerm, do your homework. They did fight. There were entire units of blacks that fought. https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/black-civil-war-soldiers

Jim Crow began well after the end of the Civil War; well after the Confederate slaves were given freedom, given the right to vote, given the right to represent themselves, and given the right to govern themselves.

What do you think Jim Crow was? Blacks were first given right and then had those same rights taken away in the south. That is exactly what Jim Crow was.

My ancestors fought for civil rights.  What we are seeing today suggests my ancestors fought for nothing.

Our ancestors fought to free the slaves. Civil rights they earned in the 1960's. These are two very different events. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.5    2 weeks ago
Yeah, so was mine, as my great grandfather got off the boat and was immediately conscripted into the army, without understanding a word of English (he spoke only German). We have his diary and while he felt tricked by the US government, he felt badly for those slaves. 

My ancestors had been here for a while.  Some before the Revolution.  And my ancestors weren't conscripted, they enlisted. Some more than once.  All my ancestors fought in the Civil War west of the Mississippi River.  That part of the war doesn't receive as much attention as the eastern glorification of the Rebellion.

On the frontier the Civil War was a very dirty war.

They should erect statues to John Brown. And it has nothing to do with his color

My question is why that hasn't happened?  John Brown moved to Kansas to fight against slavery.  Brown was a vicious, uncompromising fighter dedicated to destroying the institution of slavery.  I doubt there was anyone more anti-slavery than John Brown.

You mean the slaves that had overlords to brutally beat them till the flesh came off their backs. Yeah, they might have been a little nervous.

Yeah, I can see where a bullwhip would be more intimidating that minnie balls, bayonets, and canon shot.  You know, slaves weren't 90 lb weaklings.  Slaves were chosen for their strength and stamina.  Working cane breaks wasn't for weaklings; working the cane breaks killed even the strongest.  And slaves ran and hid to avoid whippings just as today's Black people run and hide to avoid arrest.  [Deleted]

You should read some of the slave narratives.  The behavior described in those narratives aren't too dissimilar from what can be observed [today.Deleted]

Nerm, do your homework. They did fight. There were entire units of blacks that fought.

Yes, I am aware of that.  But there were as many or more Confederate slaves as white Confederates in the South.  After the Civil War the Black population really was the majority in the South.  A few did fight.  But most Confederate slaves did not; they chose to remain slaves until the bitter end.

What do you think Jim Crow was? Blacks were first given right and then had those same rights taken away in the south. That is exactly what Jim Crow was.

Jim Crow was a direct result of freed slaves voting their former master back into power.  Read the history of the Red Shirts in South Carolina.  The Red Shirts were strictly political unlike the Ku Klux Klan.

Our ancestors fought to free the slaves. Civil rights they earned in the 1960's. These are two very different events. 

That's a very liberal and dishonest telling of history.  Diminishing and dismissing the history of Protestant Christian abolition and what white Midwestern farmers fought for only serves to hide that the Black population didn't really struggle for freedom.  The Black population was given freedom, given the right to vote, given the right to represent themselves, and given the right to govern themselves.  And the Black population did not fight to keep what they had been given.

The liberal and dishonest history of the Civil War completely ignores that the white majority of the United States was fighting for a moral cause that advanced civil rights.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.7  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.6    2 weeks ago
And slaves ran and hid to avoid whippings just as today's Black people run and hide to avoid arrest.  Slaves pilfered and stole as a normal part of life just as do today's Black people.

I think the moderators should put an end to this blatant racism on Newstalkers. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.8  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.7    2 weeks ago

'And slaves ran and hid to avoid whippings just as today's Black people run and hide to avoid arrest.  Slaves pilfered and stole as a normal part of life just as do today's Black people.'

Jesus, unreal.  

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.9  Ender  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.6    2 weeks ago
Slaves pilfered and stole as a normal part of life just as do today's Black people

Wow dude....

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.7    2 weeks ago

It's like when President Obama was talking about the tRump administration 'They're not even pretending now to be in charge'  

Like with this blatant racism - not couched or veiled - IT'S IN YOUR FACE STRAIGHT UP RACISM

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6.2.11  author  JohnRussell  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.6    2 weeks ago
Slaves pilfered and stole as a normal part of life

Nerm , is it your opinion that slaves needed to uphold and respect the property rights of their owners?  That is absurd. 

 
 
 
pat wilson
6.2.12  pat wilson  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.10    2 weeks ago

Unbelievable !!  We know a little more about members everyday. Ugh !

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.13  r.t..b...  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.7    2 weeks ago
I think the moderators should put an end to this blatant racism on Newstalkers. 

The commentary is deplorable but let it stand...it is finally out in the open and being in the open, reason and the exploration of historical accuracy will refute such commentary.

Better to see how some come to such convoluted conclusions given an agenda than let it foment in the darkness of ignorance and fear.  Face it, refute it, and never forget that the truth will out.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.14  Nerm_L  replied to  JohnRussell @6.2.11    2 weeks ago
Nerm , is it your opinion that slaves needed to uphold and respect the property rights of their owners?  That is absurd. 

Nope.  I'm sure the slave owners expected that while ignoring how slavery reduced people to that circumstance.

The point is that today's Black population aren't slaves and they do need to uphold and respect the property rights (and civil rights) of others.  Protecting the civil rights of the Black population depends upon protecting all civil rights for all people.  Civil rights doesn't have exceptions for history, race, or circumstance.

Equality isn't about assigning blame for circumstance or shifting responsibility onto others.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.6    2 weeks ago
And slaves ran and hid to avoid whippings just as today's Black people run and hide to avoid arrest.  Slaves pilfered and stole as a normal part of life just as do today's Black people.

Nerm, I am not sure if you realize that, that comment comes off sounding very bigoted. 

Yes, I am aware of that.  But there were as many or more Confederate slaves as white Confederates in the South.  After the Civil War the Black population really was the majority in the South.  A few did fight.  But most Confederate slaves did not; they chose to remain slaves until the bitter end.

That is totally wrong. First of all, there were more whites. Most whites in the south didn't own slaves. Only the rich plantation owners did. 

From the data we can see that there were almost 27 million white people, 4.5 million black people, and eighty thousand classed as 'other'.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1010196/population-us-1860-race-and-gender/

As for fighting:

The idea of enlisting blacks had been debated for some time. Arming enslaved workers was essentially a way of setting them free, since they could not realistically be sent back to plantations after they had fought. General Patrick Cleburne had suggested enlisting enslaved workers a year before, but few in the Confederate leadership considered the proposal, since slavery was the  foundation of Southern society . One politician asked, “What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?” Another suggested, “If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” Lee weighed in on the issue and asked the Confederate government for help. “We must decide whether slavery shall be extinguished by our enemies and the slaves be used against us, or use them ourselves.” Lee asked that the enslaved workers be freed as a condition of fighting, but the bill that passed the Confederate Congress on March 13, 1865, did not stipulate freedom for those who served.

The measure did nothing to stop the destruction of the Confederacy. Several thousand blacks were enlisted in the Rebel cause, but they could not begin to balance out the nearly 200,000 blacks who fought for the Union.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/confederacy-approves-black-soldiers

That is a lot more than just a few.

Our ancestors fought to free the slaves. Civil rights they earned in the 1960's. These are two very different events. 

That's a very liberal and dishonest telling of history.  Diminishing and dismissing the history of Protestant Christian abolition and what white Midwestern farmers fought for only serves to hide that the Black population didn't really struggle for freedom.  The Black population was given freedom, given the right to vote, given the right to represent themselves, and given the right to govern themselves.  And the Black population did not fight to keep what they had been given.

The liberal and dishonest history of the Civil War completely ignores that the white majority of the United States was fighting for a moral cause that advanced civil rights.

I'm not a liberal, so try again, Nerm, and don't make this personal to me. You are the one trying to diminish black people. And I didn't say that white people didn't help in the civil rights movement either. You just don't know your own history. Black at first did have those freedoms, and they were taken away from them down south by the Klan, something you refuse to acknowledge. Blacks were the minority population at the time. What were they supposed to do?

During Radical Reconstruction, which began with the passage of the Reconstruction Act of 1867, newly enfranchised blacks gained a voice in government for the first time in American history, winning election to southern state legislatures and even to the U.S. Congress. In less than a decade, however, reactionary forces–including the Ku Klux Klan–would reverse the changes wrought by Radical Reconstruction in a violent backlash that restored white supremacy in the South.

Reconstruction Comes to an End

After 1867, an increasing number of southern whites turned to violence in response to the revolutionary changes of Radical Reconstruction. The Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacist organizations targeted local Republican leaders, white and black, and other African Americans who challenged white authority. Though federal legislation passed during the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant in 1871 took aim at the Klan and others who attempted to interfere with black suffrage and other political rights, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South after the early 1870s as support for Reconstruction waned. Racism was still a potent force in both South and North, and Republicans became more conservative and less egalitarian as the decade continued. In 1874–after an economic depression plunged much of the South into poverty–the Democratic Party won control of the House of Representatives for the first time since the Civil War.

When Democrats waged a campaign of violence to take control of Mississippi in 1875, Grant refused to send federal troops, marking the end of federal support for Reconstruction-era state governments in the South. By 1876, only Florida , Louisiana and South Carolina were still in Republican hands. In the contested presidential election that year, Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes reached a compromise with Democrats in Congress: In exchange for certification of his election, he acknowledged Democratic control of the entire South. The Compromise of 1876 marked the end of Reconstruction as a distinct period, but the struggle to deal with the revolution ushered in by slavery’s eradication would continue in the South and elsewhere long after that date. A century later, the legacy of Reconstruction would be revived during the civil rights movement of the 1960s, as African Americans fought for the political, economic and social equality that had long been denied them.

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/reconstruction

Now please notice that I am not saying that you are being a dishonest conservative. Leave the personal commentary out of the discussion, please. 

 
 
 
Kavika
6.2.16  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
Why aren't Black people erecting statues of John Brown? 

Most of your comment is a fine display of BS or ignorance, take your pick.

BTW, in 1911 the blacks in KC Kansas paid for a monument/statue to be build to recognize John Brown. You might want to look up that part of history which you must have missed. 

512

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.17  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.14    2 weeks ago
Equality isn't about assigning blame for circumstance

Which is exactly what you have done with every attempt to justify your historically inaccurate and willfully ignorant essays, placing blame squarely on the oppressed while dismissing all the factors that led to the oppression. Disingenuous at best...purely partisan justification at it's worse.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.18  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.15    2 weeks ago
Nerm, I am not sure if you realize that, that comment comes off sounding very bigoted. 

Maybe so.  Have you read any of the Slave Narratives?  Some are available online.

Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938

Here are some of the narratives available from the Library of Congress:  Collection Items

Some of the Slave Narratives can also be downloaded from Project Gutenberg: Slave Narratives

These aren't second hand stories or descriptions of slavery through academic filters.  The people telling these stories were slaves.  These are stories of slavery in the raw; unfiltered and not politicized.  They won't fit into any political agenda.  The narratives are real history.

Read some of the narratives and draw your own conclusions.  I've provided the links so there aren't any excuses to avoid reading an unvarnished history of slavery.  No, I haven't read all the narratives but I do continue reading from time to time.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
Why aren't Black people erecting statues of John Brown?

KSKANjohnbrown_donna1.jpg

He also has his own museum.

" The  John Brown Museum , also known as the  John Brown Museum State Historic Site "

"Given respect.  Given justice.  Given a place in history that has not been earned."

Wow. Just wow. Good on you for just assuming the job of arbiter as to whether black Americans have "earned" a place in history. /s That is truly one of the most ignorant callous and frankly ridiculous things I've ever seen someone say, and considering I read conservative Republican posts here all the time that's saying something.

"Confederate slaves did not fight for their freedom; my ancestors did that"

"The Second Confiscation and Militia Act of July 17, 1862, was the first step toward the enlistment of African Americans in the Union Army. It did not explicitly invite blacks to join the fight, but it did authorize the president “to employ as many persons of African descent as he may deem necessary and proper for the suppression of this rebellion…in such manner as he may judge best for the public welfare.”

"Some blacks took this as their cue to begin forming infantry units of their own. African Americans from   New Orleans   formed three National Guard units: the First, Second and Third   Louisiana   Native Guard. (These became the 73rd, 74th and 75th United States Colored Infantry.) The First   Kansas   Colored Infantry (later the 79th United States Colored Infantry) fought in the October 1862 skirmish at Island Mound,   Missouri. And the First   South Carolina   Infantry, African Descent (later the 33rd United States Colored Infantry) went on its first expedition in November 1862. These unofficial regiments were officially mustered into service in January 1863."

" Early in February 1863, the abolitionist Governor John A. Andrew of  Massachusetts  issued the Civil War’s first official call for black soldiers. More than 1,000 men responded."

https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/black-civil-war-soldiers

The more you know.

" Jim Crow began well after the end of the Civil War; well after the Confederate slaves were given freedom, given the right to vote, given the right to represent themselves, and given the right to govern themselves."

"The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (1868) granted African Americans the rights of citizenship. However, this did not always translate into the ability to vote. Black voters were systematically turned away from state polling places. To combat this problem, Congress passed the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870. It says: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Yet (mostly Southern) states still found ways to circumvent the Constitution and prevent blacks from voting. Poll taxes, literacy tests, fraud and intimidation all turned African Americans away from the polls. Until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1915, many states used the "grandfather clause " to keep descendents of slaves out of elections. The clause said you could not vote unless your grandfather had voted -- an impossibility for most people whose ancestors were slaves.

This unfair treatment was debated on the street, in the Congress and in the press. A full fifty years after the Fifteenth Amendment passed, black Americans still found it difficult to vote, especially in the South ."

https://www.loc.gov/teachers/classroommaterials/presentationsandactivities/presentations/elections/voting-rights-african-americans.html

"Confederate slaves were given everything and did not invest any of themselves into keeping what had been given" "the descendants of Confederate slaves are still asking and demanding they be given more"

I didn't know we were playing "What lies have white supremacists come up with to justify their hate of blacks" game, but you're really adept at it. But you don't have to say anymore, you defend the confederate flag, you defend the confederacy, you believe blacks haven't earned respect or their "place" in history, and you apparently believe the black Americans of today are just complaining for nothing demanding things they haven't earned. Well I'm glad to say I feel the exact opposite, and thankfully so do the majority of Americans. Perhaps that's why you sound so angry and bitter about black Americans standing up for their rights. I can only feel sad for you.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.20  Nerm_L  replied to  Kavika @6.2.16    2 weeks ago
BTW, in 1911 the blacks in KC Kansas paid for a monument/statue to be build to recognize John Brown. You might want to look up that part of history which you must have missed. 

Yes.  There is also a statue at the John Brown State Historic Site near Lake Placid, NY.

Thanks for helping post some of the history of abolition.  (BTW, I knew there had been a few statues memorializing John Brown erected.  Proving me wrong serves as a hands-on way to encourage learning about history.)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.21  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.18    2 weeks ago

Nerm,

I used to use these as a teaching tool, when I taught 4th and 5th grade, so I do know about these. They are painful to read. In fact, they kind of prove my point that there was no easy route out of slavery. My question is did you read them?

John W. Fields, Age 89

snvoices0101.jpg John W. Fields

"In most of us colored folks was the great desire to [be] able to read and write. We took advantage of every opportunity to educate ourselves. The greater part of the plantation owners were very harsh if we were caught trying to learn or write. It was the law that if a white man was caught trying to educate a negro slave, he was liable to prosecution entailing a fine of fifty dollars and a jail sentence. We were never allowed to go to town and it was not until after I ran away that I knew that they sold anything but slaves, tobacco, and wiskey. Our ignorance was the greatest hold the South had on us. We knew we could run away, but what then? An offender guilty of this crime was subjected to very harsh punishment."

Sarah Frances Shaw Graves, Age 87

"I was never sold. My mama was sold only once, but she was hired out many times. Yes'm when a slave was allotted, somebody made a down payment and gave a mortgage for the rest. A chattel mortgage. . . ."

"Allotments made a lot of grief for the slaves," Aunt Sally asserted. "We left my papa in Kentucky, 'cause he was allotted to another man. My papa never knew where my mama went, an' my mama never knew where papa went." Aunt Sally paused a moment, then went on bitterly. "They never wanted mama to know, 'cause they knowed she would never marry so long she knew where he was. Our master wanted her to marry again and raise more children to be slaves. They never wanted mama to know where papa was, an' she never did," sighed Aunt Sally.

Tempie Cummins, Age Unknown

snvoices0601.jpg Tempie Cummins

"The white chillun tries teach me to read and write but I didn' larn much, 'cause I allus workin'. Mother was workin' in the house, and she cooked too. She say she used to hide in the chimney corner and listen to what the white folks say. When freedom was 'clared, marster wouldn' tell 'em, but mother she hear him tellin' mistus that the slaves was free but they didn' know it and he's not gwineter tell 'em till he makes another crop or two. When mother hear that she say she slip out the chimney corner and crack her heels together four times and shouts, 'I's free, I's free.' Then she runs to the field, 'gainst marster's will and tol' all the other slaves and they quit work. Then she run away and in the night she slip into a big ravine near the house and have them bring me to her. Marster, he come out with his gun and shot at mother but she run down the ravine and gits away with me.

This is just a fraction of what was collected. I picked ones where the English was more standard. So saying that slaves didn't try to better themselves, get away or fight back is not reality. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.22  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.15    2 weeks ago
That is totally wrong. First of all, there were more whites. Most whites in the south didn't own slaves. Only the rich plantation owners did. 

You mean slavery was not as widespread as has been depicted?  You mean a lot of white people who didn't own slaves fought to protect slavery?  Hmm ... seems rather contradictory to the political narrative.

Unfortunately you didn't cite any facts to prove me wrong.  So, I guess I'll have to.  According to the National Park Service:

The Civil War: Facts

 " The population of the Union was 18.5 million.  In the Confederacy, the population was listed as 5.5 million free and 3.5 million enslaved. In the Border States there were 2.5 million free inhabitants and 500,000 enslaved people."

And this:

"Enlistment strength for the Union Army is 2,672,341 which can be broken down as:

·         2,489,836 white soldiers

·         178,975 African American soldiers

·         3,530 Native American troops"

And this:

"Enlistment strength for the Confederate Army ranges from 750,000 to 1,227,890. Soldier demographics for the Confederate Army are not available due to incomplete and destroyed enlistment records."

And this:

"Farmers comprised 48 percent of the civilian occ upations in the Union. Others included mechanics, 24 percent; laborers, 16 percent; commercial, 5 percent; miscellaneous, 4 percent; and professional occupations, 3 percent."

So, about 5 pct of the Black population fought to end slavery (assuming all the Black soldiers had been slaves).  The other 95 pct of the Black population remained slaves until the bitter end.  Somewhere between 9 and 15 pct of the free population were away on the battlefield which meant they couldn't be controlling the enslaved population.  And a large number of Confederate soldiers could not have owned slaves although they could have been members of a slave owning family.

There really were more white people fighting on the Union side of the war to end slavery than on the Confederate side to protect slavery.  The Union Army really was predominantly white with a high percentage of farmers.  And those white Midwestern farmers could not have owned slaves so couldn't be motivated to protect slavery for their benefit.

It seems the real history doesn't correspond to the politicized version of history.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.23  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.21    2 weeks ago
I used to use these as a teaching tool, when I taught 4th and 5th grade, so I do know about these. They are painful to read. In fact, they kind of prove my point that there was no easy route out of slavery. My question is did you read them?

As I stated, I haven't read all of them but do continue reading from time to time.

Yep, some of the stories makes one angry.  But many remind me of stories my (long dead) relatives told about their own life experiences.  People aren't that different if we only pay attention.

It's certainly possible to find some hair-raising narratives.  (My ancestors witnessed it first hand, that's why they opposed slavery and fought on the Union side of the war.  I've heard stories from the abolitionists point of view, too.)

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
6.2.24  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.23    2 weeks ago

Nerm,

We were very lucky, that my great grandfather kept a journal so we got a first-hand view of what was going on, even before he got here. And while he at first resented being basically abducted into the army, he came to understand what was important about the war (which he called der Krieg für die Schwarzen Menchen) or the war for the black people, since he didn't even understand this was also a civil war. He also said he felt badly at their suffering, and expounded on that... as his german slowly gave way to more English. To have his diary is truly a gift. A war seen from a third uninvolved party. It is truly remarkable. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.25  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @6.2.24    2 weeks ago
We were very lucky, that my great grandfather kept a journal so we got a first-hand view of what was going on, even before he got here. And while he at first resented being basically abducted into the army, he came to understand what was important about the war (which he called der Krieg für die Schwarzen Menchen) or the war for the black people, since he didn't even understand this was also a civil war. He also said he felt badly at their suffering, and expounded on that... as his german slowly gave way to more English. To have his diary is truly a gift. A war seen from a third uninvolved party. It is truly remarkable. 

Yep. It's history in the raw.  Unvarnished and not always politically correct.

I do not know if any of my ancestors kept diaries or letters.  My parents were the youngest children of the youngest children.  All I have are stories passed down through the family.

There weren't any Black people where I grew up.  I remember the first time I met a Black person as a child.  He was my grandfather's doctor.  My experience has been that Black people are just people who look different.  How people look isn't that important; everybody looks different.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.26  Tessylo  replied to  r.t..b... @6.2.17    2 weeks ago
'Equality isn't about assigning blame for circumstance'
Which is exactly what you have done with every attempt to justify your historically inaccurate and willfully ignorant essays , placing blame squarely on the oppressed while dismissing all the factors that led to the oppression. Disingenuous at best...purely partisan justification at it's worse.

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Kavika
6.2.27  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.20    2 weeks ago
Why aren't Black people erecting statues of John Brown?  John Brown died for the freedom of Confederate slaves.  Is John Brown too white?  Or were Confederate slaves too cowardly? 

That is your question, and I responded to it. Now you come back with the comment that you knew about the monument/statues. 

So that leaves the question are you lying when you say that you are now aware of the statues or were you lying when you asked the question?

Blacks have fought in every war that the US has been in, including the Revolutionary War. 

Questioning the courage of a very large part of the citizens of America is, in itself, the perfect example of cowardice. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.28  Nerm_L  replied to  Kavika @6.2.27    2 weeks ago
So that leaves the question are you lying when you say that you are now aware of the statues or were you lying when you asked the question?

A lie can hide the truth or a lie can reveal the truth.  Would the truth have been revealed if I hadn't lied?  You did look up the history to prove me wrong, didn't you?  That's your accomplishment, not mine.  I only gave you a reason to do the work yourself.

Yes, I knew John Brown had been memorialized.  John Brown was a symbol for the Union and an abolitionist hero, after all.  John Brown's Body was a Union marching song.

But no one wants to talk about that history.

Blacks have fought in every war that the US has been in, including the Revolutionary War.  Questioning the courage of a very large part of the citizens of America is, in itself, the perfect example of cowardice. 

Courage is confronting one's fears and doing what has to be done.  Often without any reward or benefit for oneself but to benefit others.  Heroes are often scared shitless but do what they have to do anyway.

Black soldiers fighting for the Union knew they would not be taken prisoners.  Black soldiers would not return to a life of slavery because they would not live.  Black soldiers were truly and totally free because they would die free if they had to die.  They lived as free men, fought as free men, and would die as free men.  No Confederate could take away their freedom.  That's the freedom that John Brown offered Confederate slaves.  The abolitionists preached that only fear could enslave free men.

Freedom requires courage.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.29  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.28    2 weeks ago
Would the truth have been revealed if I hadn't lied?

Truly mind numbing mental contortions and twists of logic you're attempting. It was almost like watching a party clown make a balloon swastika.

And yes, many people knew about John Brown long before you decided to "educate" us by either lying or just assuming there must not be a monument because you're already far too invested in your own warped narrative of the civil war and the confederacy.

They lived as free men, fought as free men, and would die as free men.  No Confederate could take away their freedom

That's a nice sentiment now, but just a few posts ago you said "Confederate slaves did not fight for their freedom; my ancestors did that.  Confederate slaves did not earn their freedom; my ancestors gave them their freedom."

Are you trying to make some line between those black Americans who had escaped who then fought to free their fellow slaves and the beaten down captive slaves that weren't able to escape? So did some black Americans "earn" their place in history but the ones who weren't able to rise up because they were controlled, abused and enslaved should be forgotten and discarded as unworthy? What a truly convoluted dance you're performing. The abrupt back-stepping is a sight to see, but you're really not fooling anyone.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.30  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.28    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Kavika
6.2.31  Kavika   replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.28    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.32  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.29    2 weeks ago
That's a nice sentiment now, but just a few posts ago you said "Confederate slaves did not fight for their freedom; my ancestors did that.  Confederate slaves did not earn their freedom; my ancestors gave them their freedom."

My ancestors did fight to free Confederate slaves.  But that part of history isn't discussed.  The history of my ancestors is ignored.  Why?

Every discussion of the Civil War focuses attention on the Confederacy because that's where the slaves were located.  But the real history is there were more white people who did not own slaves than white slave owners.  The history has been twisted to only talk about a minority of white people to make political claims about a modern minority made up of Black people.  And the history of the majority of the white population is blown off by claiming they allowed slavery to continue.

But that's not the real history.  A lot of the white population did not want slavery to continue and wanted the government to end the institution of slavery.  But the Democratic Party held power and blocked civilized attempts to end slavery using legislation and the courts.  The majority of the white population began voting for politicians promising to curtail slavery.  The Democratic Party was losing its grip on political power.  And the Democratic Party seceded from the United States to form the Confederacy.  The Lost Cause was lost before secession; slavery was going to end.

After Southern Democrats seceded, the government could have negotiated a compromise to avoid war.  The Southern Democrats only seceded because they could not politically reach a compromise in Congress that gave them what they wanted.  The threat of secession had been used in the past to force a political compromise in Congress; secession wasn't something new in politics.  But the new government, led by a new political party, that had been elected by a large portion of the white population chose not to negotiate.  The Southern Democrats were given the choice to return to the Union or fight a war.  The Lost Cause was lost before the first battle; slavery was going to end.

The North was hampered by corrupt politicians but the North fought.  The North was hampered by profiteers but the North still fought.  The North was hampered by inept military leaders but the North fought harder.  Finally the government found the political will and military leadership to fight a war of eradication.  And the North began fighting to the death.  Unconditional surrender with no compromise.  Slavery was no more.  The South would never rise again.

The history of abolition is older than the country.  A lot of white people tried to end slavery at the beginning of the country.  But slavery continued because of political compromises for political expediency.  The Lost Cause was lost when the Constitution was ratified.  The abolition movement grew over the formative decades of the United States and the political demands for abolition increased.  But that abolitionist history is completely ignored so that Democrats can engage in the same sorts of racial politics it used at the founding of the party.  The Democratic Party is still talking about slavery that the party perpetuated instead of ended.  Democrats have twisted the history of the Civil War to only talk about the Confederacy because that's where the slaves were located.  And Democrats are still using slavery to divide the country.

Confederate slaves did not fight for their freedom.  No twisting of history can change that fact.  The institution of slavery continued until the bitter end of the Lost Cause.  Confederate slaves did not rise up, throw off their yokes, and fight for their freedom.  Abolitionists ended slavery; Confederate slaves did not.  That history is being ignored to hide the real history of slavery in the United States only to perpetuate racial politics that has divided the country from the beginning.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.2.33  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @6.2.16    2 weeks ago

It was not missed.  It was purposely ignored.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.34  Nerm_L  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @6.2.33    2 weeks ago
It was not missed.  It was purposely ignored.

So, why do discussions of the history of World War II devolve into arguments about the values of the Nazis?  

You know, the United States was fighting to defend its beliefs, values, and way of life, too.  World War II wasn't only about Nazi beliefs, values, and way of life.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.35  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.34    2 weeks ago

You're the one who brought up the values of the Nazis.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.2.36  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.32    2 weeks ago
Confederate slaves did not fight for their freedom.  No twisting of history can change that fact.

Nat Turner would disagree with your twisting of history.

So would escaped slaves who joined the Union Army

https://www.crf-usa.org/black-history-month/black-troops-in-union-blue#:~:text=Nearly%20180%2C000%20free%20black%20men,to%20struggle%20for%20equal%20treatment.

Nearly 180,000 free black men and escaped slaves served in the Union Army during the Civil War. But at first they were denied the right to fight by a prejudiced public and a reluctant government. Even after they eventually entered the Union ranks, black soldiers continued to struggle for equal treatment. Placed in racially segregated infantry, artillery, and cavalry regiments, these troops were almost always led by white officers.

...

Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation liberated slaves in those areas still in rebellion. It went on to announce that free black men “will be received into the armed services of the United States....”

In the spring, the War Department organized the Bureau of Colored Troops. The bureau began a massive army recruitment program aimed at free blacks in the North and emancipated slaves in Union-held Southern territory. All the new regiments of U.S. Colored Troops were led by white officers, recruited from existing regular army units.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.37  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.32    2 weeks ago
My ancestors did fight to free Confederate slaves.  But that part of history isn't discussed. 

Total nonsense. The contributions make by Midwest white farmers is well documented.

" Some 750,000 sons, brothers, fathers, and friends marched away from their homes and farms in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin to serve on faraway battlefields, something like one in eight residents. It wasn’t a universally popular war in those states—an anti-draft riot in Port Washington, Wisconsin, was the first significant anti-war disturbance in the country. But Midwesterners answered the call to defend the Union and to win recognition as full partners in a union of states that they had joined just a few decades earlier"

https://www.whatitmeanstobeamerican.org/places/did-the-midwest-win-the-civil-war/

" forty-nine percent of Iowa's male population of military age served in the Union Army, the highest percentage of any Northern state. Of all the men that served in the Union Army, forty-eight percent were farmers."

http://rickwoten.com/CivilWarAgriculture.html

The history has been twisted to only talk about a minority of white people to make political claims about a modern minority made up of Black people.

More total nonsense. Obviously the majority of Union soldiers were white, that is not a detail that is being left out of history.

A lot of the white population did not want slavery to continue and wanted the government to end the institution of slavery.

Yes, we know, anyone who has ever studied the civil war knows this.

But the Democratic Party held power and blocked civilized attempts to end slavery using legislation and the courts.

What you intentionally and dishonestly leave out is that it was the "Southern Democrat" party doing those things which was very different than the "Northern Democrat" party, each of which put forward their own candidates for President in 1860 with John C. Breckinridge as candidate for the Southern Democrats and Stephen A. Douglas as candidate for the Northern Democrats.

I get it, many dishonest pieces of shit today want to try and equate the Southern Democrats with anything labeled "Democrat" today even though the parties ideology could not be further apart. The fact is, the true inheritor of the Southern Democrat party today is the Republican party that continues to push many of the same beliefs and defends the confederate flag and confederate monuments and welcomes white supremacists, Nazi's and the KKK which used to be exclusively Southern Democrat aka "Dixiecrat". They still live in the same States, they still harbor the same prejudices, they are still in power in every former confederate State just as they have been for over a century, only the party name has changed.

After Southern Democrats seceded, the government could have negotiated a compromise to avoid war.

Oh, so it's the North who is at fault for the South treasonously attacking it? Just more of your warped twisted logic.

The Southern Democrats only seceded because they could not politically reach a compromise in Congress that gave them what they wanted.

"Whiny whine whine, the North won't let us shred their laws that reject the penalties for not returning escaped slaves to us so it's their fault we have to attack them. How else can we continue owning humans as cattle if we don't revolt?" /s

"Sir, the white supremacists and slave owners in the South are revolting!"

"Yes, yes they are."

The Southern Democrats were given the choice to return to the Union or fight a war.

Yes, and they chose wrong. They ignorantly rose up and attacked and were put down like the worthless dogs and losers they were.

" The North was hampered by corrupt politicians but the North fought.  The North was hampered by profiteers but the North still fought.  The North was hampered by inept military leaders but the North fought harder."

You claim your ancestors fought for the North right? Because it sounds a lot like your spending all your time defending the confederacy and attacking the North. Are you sure of which side your ancestors fought on?

Democrats have twisted the history of the Civil War to only talk about the Confederacy because that's where the slaves were located.  And Democrats are still using slavery to divide the country.

It would appear the only ones twisting the history of the civil war would be conservative Republicans in the South who are too invested in the confederacy to accept the truth and yourself.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.38  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.35    2 weeks ago
'You know, the United States was fighting to defend its beliefs, values, and way of life, too.  World War II wasn't only about Nazi beliefs, values, and way of life'

Oh and I forgot - their beliefs and way of life

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.39  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.1    2 weeks ago
Which history are the political bigots ignoring?

"My part has been to tell the story of the slave. The story of the masters never wanted for narrators."  ~ Frederick Douglas

 
 
 
Ender
6.2.40  Ender  replied to  r.t..b... @6.2.39    2 weeks ago

The intention of keeping people in the dark.

Making it punishable to learn to read and write.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.41  r.t..b...  replied to  Ender @6.2.40    2 weeks ago
Making it punishable to learn to read and write.

Not to mention barring the right to vote for an entire century.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.42  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.36    2 weeks ago
Nat Turner would disagree with your twisting of history. So would escaped slaves who joined the Union Army

I've already addressed this.  According to the National Park Service there were 4 million enslaved people in the Confederate and border states.  180,000 Black soldiers fighting for the Union would have been less than 5 pct of the enslaved population.

9 to 15 pct of the Confederate and border states population fought in the war.  14 pct of the population of the Northern states fought in the war.  The number killed in battle for both sides was 204,000.  The of number of those wounded in battle was 469,000 for both sides.  The number of casualties from all causes for both sides was 1.125 million.

There were more Confederate slaves (at 4 million) than the combined strength of both the Union and Confederate armies (at 3.9 million).

Confederate slaves remained enslaved until the bitter end of the Lost Cause.  There were over 1 million casualties to free 4 million slaves who did not fight.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
6.2.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.42    2 weeks ago
180,000 Black soldiers fighting for the Union would have been less than 5 pct of the enslaved population.

And?  You said they didn't fight.  Some of them did.  Your statement was false.

There were over 1 million casualties to free 4 million slaves who did not fight.

This seems to be causing some bitterness.  Why?  It sounds a lot like victim blaming.

Why the false statements about blacks not fighting for Civil Rights?  Why do you think that your ancestors having fought in the Civil War gives you any special insight into this issue?  Do you think it's rare for an American who has had family here for generations to have ancestors who fought in the Civil War?  I'd say many, if not most here, do.  This does not set you apart from the rest of us, nor does it give you any special insight into history.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.44  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.43    2 weeks ago
Why the false statements about blacks not fighting for Civil Rights?  Why do you think that your ancestors having fought in the Civil War gives you any special insight into this issue?  Do you think it's rare for an American who has had family here for generations to have ancestors who fought in the Civil War?  I'd say many, if not most here, do.  This does not set you apart from the rest of us, nor does it give you any special insight into history.

Confederate slaves did not rise up, throw off their yokes, and fight for freedom.  That's the unvarnished history.  That's what the facts tell us.

Dismissing, twisting, or ignoring the real history because it doesn't conform to romanticized notions or a mythologized story of a struggle for freedom is a dishonest telling of history.  The war may have been fought over slaves but the slaves did not fight.

Confederate slaves were given their freedom.  No matter how uncomfortable, that's really what happened.  Rewriting that history would be telling a lie.

After the Confederate slaves were given their freedom, they weren't just abandoned.  Civil rights specifically for Black Americans were written into the Constitution.  Civil rights wasn't allowed to depend upon interpretation of what was already in the Constitution.  There wasn't any way to rig the system so that slavery could return; slavery was ended without question or doubt.

Civil rights ensured that the Black population could vote, could represent themselves, and could govern themselves.  Those who had fought for the Confederacy were disenfranchised; they could not vote or hold elected office.  Schools were established to educate the Black population and to train Black teachers.  What today are called Historically Black Colleges were established; the Black population could be educated without interference from the white population.  The Black population built churches that allowed them to practice religion without interference from the white population.  The Black population participated in politics, held elected offices, represented themselves, and governed on equal terms with the white population.  While much of that may appear to be a precursor to segregation, the intent was to give the Black population opportunities to become equals in society without interference from the white population.  Overcoming the influence of slavery would require the following generations to become educated and develop the talents and skills to participate in society on equal terms without interference from the white population.

So what the hell happened?  The Black population voted the Democratic Party back into power.  The Black population did not fight against manipulation, intimidation, and political fraud even though the Black population held considerable political power in the South.  During reconstruction a separate but equal system of civil rights had been established with the intent of preventing interference from the white population.  But Democrats twisted that separate but equal civil rights into segregation and Jim Crow.  Democrats took away the opportunity for the Black population to develop into an equal part of society.  The former Confederacy became a Democratic stronghold for over 80 years.  The Democratic Party engaged in racial politics to institute a form of indefensible white supremacy just as they had with the racial politics of slavery.  There was again a Northern faction of the Democratic Party pursuing compromises for indefensible racial policies and a Southern faction of the Democratic Party demanding an uncompromising acceptance of their racial policies.

Arguing about that history won't make it more palatable.  Rewriting that history would be telling lie.  And denying that history would be dishonest.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.45  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.44    2 weeks ago
Confederate slaves did not rise up, throw off their yokes, and fight for freedom.  That's the unvarnished history.  That's what the facts tell us.

So basically your argument is that because they didn't completely free themselves, they aren't worthy of freedom?

Dismissing, twisting, or ignoring the real history because it doesn't conform to romanticized notions or a mythologized story of a struggle for freedom is a dishonest telling of history.

So you don't believe that black Americans struggled and suffered under the yoke of slavery? You're claiming that because they weren't able to throw off the yoke themselves that they shouldn't be treated as equal today? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.

Confederate slaves were given their freedom.

They also had their freedom taken away through no fault of their own, so it's not like they were being given something "extra".

After the Confederate slaves were given their freedom, they weren't just abandoned.

For the most part, especially in the South, they were.

Civil rights ensured that the Black population could vote, could represent themselves, and could govern themselves.

Now that's hilarious. From someone who keeps claiming to know about American history and the civil war you are woefully uninformed.

" After  Abraham Lincoln  was assassinated in April 1865, the task of reconstructing the Union fell to his successor,  Andrew Johnson . A Tennessee-born Unionist, Johnson believed strongly in state’s rights, and showed great leniency toward white Southerners in his  Reconstruction  policy."

" As a result, in 1865-66, most Southern state legislatures enacted restrictive laws known as  Black codes , which strictly governed Black citizens’ behaviors and denied them suffrage and other rights."

" The  14th Amendment , approved by Congress in 1866 and ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons “born or naturalized in the United States,” including former slaves, and guaranteed “equal protection of the laws” to all citizens."

" In 1870, Congress passed the last of the three so-called Reconstruction Amendments, the  15th Amendment , which stated that voting rights could not be “denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

" Reconstruction saw biracial democracy exist in the South for the first time, though much of the power in state governments remained in white hands. Like Black voters, Black officials faced the constant threat of intimidation and violence, often at the hands of the  Ku Klux Klan  or other white supremacist groups."

"While the 15th Amendment barred voting rights discrimination on the basis of race, it left the door open for states to determine the specific qualifications for suffrage. Southern state legislatures used such qualifications—including literacy tests, poll taxes and other discriminatory practices—to  disenfranchise  a majority of Black voters in the decades following Reconstruction. "

" As a result, white-dominated state legislatures consolidated control and effectively reestablished the Black codes in the form of so-called  Jim Crow laws , a system of segregation that would remain in place for nearly a century ."

https://www.history.com/news/african-american-voting-right-15th-amendment

The more you know.

So what the hell happened?  The Black population voted the Democratic Party back into power.

See, if you'd simply done your homework you wouldn't make such ignorant statements like this. Obviously black Americans rights were not protected, they were not "ensured" a vote and they did NOT "vote" in the Southern Democrat (aka Conservative Democrat) party that re-took control of the former confederate States shortly after the civil war.

But Democrats twisted that separate but equal civil rights into segregation and Jim Crow.

The Conservative Democrats did do that, which makes me wonder why you were claiming before that black Americans had been "assured" a vote.

"The former Confederacy became a Democratic stronghold for over 80 years."

You really are desperate to link the current Democrat party with the Southern Democrat party aka Conservative Democrat party or "Dixiecrats". The only thing the two share is the word "Democrat" which is of course simply means " an advocate or supporter of democracy". The Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats are entirely different parties and always have been. The Conservative Democrat party created the KKK and Jim Crow laws and fought the civil right act that was written and passed by a majority of Northern Democrats and was signed into law by a Northern Democrat President. You would think this would be pretty easy to understand, but for some reason conservative Republicans are desperate to try the Southern Democrats to the Northern Democrats of today. Perhaps it's because virtually all those same places controlled by white Christian conservatives who used to call themselves Democrats are still controlled by the same white Christian conservatives who now call themselves Republicans. Republicans are now the party of Southern white Christian conservatives and the descendants of the confederacy which is why they irrationally protect confederate monuments and defend the confederate flag.

Rewriting that history would be telling lie.  And denying that history would be dishonest.

I agree, so please stop trying to do it, it just sounds so weak and desperate and you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.2.46  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.44    2 weeks ago
Confederate slaves did not rise up, throw off their yokes, and fight for freedom.  That's the unvarnished history.  That's what the facts tell us.

So you argument is that because they did not lead a successful slave revolt (the entire system that controlled their lives was designed to prevent this) they should have remained slaves? I just want to make sure we are clear and all understanding things the same way.

Dismissing, twisting, or ignoring the real history because it doesn't conform to romanticized notions or a mythologized story of a struggle for freedom is a dishonest telling of history.  The war may have been fought over slaves but the slaves did not fight.

Dude, you are coming very close to flat out defending the idea of slavery here. I will give you a very small benefit but....

Confederate slaves were given their freedom.  No matter how uncomfortable, that's really what happened.  Rewriting that history would be telling a lie.

Who is saying otherwise? I am not seeing any arguments that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't a thing...

After the Confederate slaves were given their freedom, they weren't just abandoned.  Civil rights specifically for Black Americans were written into the Constitution.  Civil rights wasn't allowed to depend upon interpretation of what was already in the Constitution.  There wasn't any way to rig the system so that slavery could return; slavery was ended without question or doubt.

So are you suggesting that as soon as the South defeated the former slave owners, and southern whites in general just welcomed their black brothers and sisters into society and made sure they started out on equal footing?

Civil rights ensured that the Black population could vote, could represent themselves, and could govern themselves. 

Of course when the government taxes people with no money to exercise their right to vote, and imposes literacy tests on people who were intentionally kept illiterate, and approves of mobs terrorizing those newly freed slaves, representing and governing yourself may be slightly difficult. 

Honestly, I am not going to keep going through your post sentence by sentence, the gist of it is is that systemic oppression does not exist, slaves had equal footing the day after the Civil War ended, and that black people just cannot manage themselves. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.47  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.45    2 weeks ago
So basically your argument is that because they didn't completely free themselves, they aren't worthy of freedom?

Confederate slaves did not partially free themselves, either.  There weren't strikes, protests, or riots.  Confederate slaves did not vandalize, pillage, and burn plantations, cities, or anything else.

Confederate slaves did not do anything like we are seeing on today's streets.  And today's protests were made possible by Northern white abolitionists and not made possible by anything Confederate slaves did.  If ending the institution of slavery depended upon Confederate slaves rising up and saying 'no more' then we'd still have slavery in the United States.

So you don't believe that black Americans struggled and suffered under the yoke of slavery? You're claiming that because they weren't able to throw off the yoke themselves that they shouldn't be treated as equal today? Because that's what it seems like you're saying.

Struggling and suffering under the yoke of slavery isn't the same as struggling for freedom.  That's no different than struggling and suffering under the yoke of poverty won't do anything to end poverty.  Someone has to stand up and say 'no more'.  

You really are desperate to link the current Democrat party with the Southern Democrat party aka Conservative Democrat party or "Dixiecrats". The only thing the two share is the word "Democrat" which is of course simply means "an advocate or supporter of democracy". The Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats are entirely different parties and always have been. The Conservative Democrat party created the KKK and Jim Crow laws and fought the civil right act that was written and passed by a majority of Northern Democrats and was signed into law by a Northern Democrat President. You would think this would be pretty easy to understand, but for some reason conservative Republicans are desperate to try the Southern Democrats to the Northern Democrats of today. Perhaps it's because virtually all those same places controlled by white Christian conservatives who used to call themselves Democrats are still controlled by the same white Christian conservatives who now call themselves Republicans. Republicans are now the party of Southern white Christian conservatives and the descendants of the confederacy which is why they irrationally protect confederate monuments and defend the confederate flag.

Today's Democratic Party still has a faction of pragmatic compromisers and a faction of uncompromising demanders.  Today's Democratic Party is still engaged in racial politics to make indefensible demands that are moderated by pragmatic compromisers.

Today's Democratic Party is turning the metropolitan landscape into the new South.  Democratic metropolitan areas are asserting sovereign rights, making uncompromising demands, and politicizing racial divisions.  Today's Democrats are following the same political strategy concerning immigration as the party did concerning slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.  The Democratic Party is using the issue of immigration to obtain political dominance just as the party used slavery.  Undocumented immigrants have replaced Democrat's slaves.  And the Democratic Party is attempting to spread undocumented immigration just as they attempted to spread slavery.

The Democratic Party has attempted to weaken the Constitution, govern as a confederation rather than as a republic, and divide the country since the party's founding almost 200 years ago.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.2.48  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.47    2 weeks ago

Are you a QAnon member?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
6.2.49  r.t..b...  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.47    2 weeks ago
Someone has to stand up and say 'no more'.  

I volunteer...

"The reason there's so much ignorance is that those who have it are so eager to share it." ~ Frank A. Clark

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.50  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.47    2 weeks ago
Today's Democratic Party is turning the metropolitan landscape into the new South.

Bullshit.

Democratic metropolitan areas are asserting sovereign rights, making uncompromising demands, and politicizing racial divisions.

Bullshit.

Today's Democrats are following the same political strategy concerning immigration as the party did concerning slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.

Bullshit.

The Democratic Party is using the issue of immigration to obtain political dominance just as the party used slavery.  Undocumented immigrants have replaced Democrat's slaves.

Bullshit.

 And the Democratic Party is attempting to spread undocumented immigration just as they attempted to spread slavery.

Bullshit.

The Democratic Party has attempted to weaken the Constitution, govern as a confederation rather than as a republic, and divide the country since the party's founding almost 200 years ago.  

More useless bullshit. Are you simply regurgitating everything you hear on right wing radio or from Alex Jones? You know those guys aren't sane right? Obviously it is pointless continuing to correct you as you refuse to accept facts, reason or logic.

To quote the Principal in Billy Madison:

"What you’ve just (posted) is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this (forum) are now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.2.51  Nerm_L  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.2.50    2 weeks ago
Bullshit. Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

Bullshit.

You seem to be throwing a lot of bullshit in defense of the Democratic Party.

More useless bullshit. Are you simply regurgitating everything you hear on right wing radio or from Alex Jones? You know those guys aren't sane right? Obviously it is pointless continuing to correct you as you refuse to accept facts, reason or logic.

No, I'm citing the actual history of the Democratic Party and how that history is relevant today.  What is surprising is that the demands to honestly look at our racist history deliberately ignores the actual history of the Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party really is the party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.  You have correctly pointed out that the uncompromising, indefensible demands within the Democratic Party couldn't be made acceptable with pragmatic compromise as happened before in the Democratic Party.  But the Democratic Party did not change its founding principles.  The Democratic Party still revered those who founded the Democratic Party.  The Democratic Party still engaged in the same type of politics and still pursued the same types of political goals.

Don't ignore the metropolitan areas that have become Democratic strongholds are still highlighting racial divisions and are still making uncompromising demands concerning racial problems.  The Democratic strongholds have not become integrated, racial justice has not blossomed, civil rights has not flourished.  The racial division has remained as sharply defined as it was in the racist past of the United States.

Democrats have made a lot of appealing promises.  But the reality of the Democratic strongholds of metropolitan areas is that the racial division is still maintained with separate and unequal treatment of the Black population.  George Floyd was murdered in a Democratic stronghold.  George Floyd was murdered in the home of Hubert Humphrey who has been hailed as a hero for removing the uncompromising and indefensible Dixiecrat faction from the Democratic Party.  But the reality is that kicking out the Dixiecrats was only another pragmatic compromise to protect the Democratic Party's history and political power based upon racial politics.  The Democratic Party hasn't really changed.

I admit I was fooled.  I admired Franklin Roosevelt (and still do).  I am a (Teddy and Franklin) Roosevelt Progressive.  I was a strong supporter of Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale.  I wanted Paul Wellstone to run for President.  I had doubts when Bill Clinton became the political statesman hailed by the Democratic Party.  I had concerns when the Democratic Party highlighted Barack Obama's race at every opportunity.  But the nomination of Hillary Clinton opened my eyes and revealed that the Democratic Party hasn't changed at all.  And the racial unrest across the urban landscape of Democratic strongholds has confirmed that the Democratic Party has not changed.  The Democratic Party remains the party of slavery, segregation, and JIm Crow.  The persistent racial divide in Democratic strongholds speaks for itself.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.2.52  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Nerm_L @6.2.51    2 weeks ago
You seem to be throwing a lot of bullshit in defense of the Democratic Party.

Only because you resorted to a truck load of it in your last comment. You gave no factual examples of anything, you just spurted your biased unfounded fact-less opinion about what you believe the Democrat party is and what they represent. If you were taking a shot at them you missed by a mile.

No, I'm citing the actual history of the Democratic Party and how that history is relevant today.

No, you're not. You don't give a single fact in that tired whiny tirade.

The Democratic Party really is the party of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow.

You keep leaving out "Southern" intentionally because you know it cremates your sad false argument.

But the Democratic Party did not change its founding principles.

What's interesting about there being multiple Democrat parties through the years is that they each have a different origin story, and the "Southern Democrats" aka "Conservative Democrats" didn't change, but they don't exist anymore, they were all absorbed by the current Republican party as you can see by the current Republicans defending the confederacy and their symbols of hate and racism.

making uncompromising demands concerning racial problems

I guess some white supremacists and just totally worthless human beings in general might believe that asking for equality, asking for respect, asking to be assumed innocent instead of guilty is an irrational or uncompromising demand. I rather think they're not asking for enough. Perhaps if we suggested enslaving white southerners for a few hundred years so that black Americans could profit off their work for  a few centuries as they build the wealth they were denied for so long might be more reasonable. Of course those white fat sacks of diabetes would cost more to house than they're worth working in the fields. Nearly 30% of the former confederate States populations are clinically obese so perhaps a little exercise would do them good.

But the nomination of Hillary Clinton opened my eyes

Ah, of course it did, you're just another one of the many Trump supporters who bought into the Russian lies. Sad.

 
 
 
Krishna
6.3  Krishna  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 weeks ago

John Oliver, like most liberal thinkers, ignore that the Confederates were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life.

And similarly. let's not ignore that Hitler's Nazis were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life.

Lately, with all the talk the Confederate traitors (the goal of which was to take as many American lives as possible-- lives of brave American patriots who were willing to die to defend the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic) I've seen many people saying that perhaps we erect other monuments to other groups who were similarly "willing to die to defend their beliefs, values and way of life.

For starters, those defending their way of life make the brave soldiers in Nazi Germany. Soviet soldiers. Soldiers of Imperial Japan. Even the soldiers of which everer Kim Jung ___ it was during the Korean War who murdered our kids over their with every bit as much vigor as those Confederate murders!

And after we invaded Iraq-- the brave Iraqi soldiers were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life. (Willing to die? Heck, Arab suicide bombers could teach the Confederate soldiers a thing or two in that department!)

J

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.3.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Krishna @6.3    2 weeks ago
And similarly. let's not ignore that Hitler's Nazis were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life.

That's correct, the Nazis were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life.  It was a tough fight.  Don't ignore that many were also willing to die for a moral cause where it was necessary to kill Nazis by any means available.  World War II wasn't just about the Nazis.

Telling the history of World War II by only talking about Nazis is dishonest.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.2  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.1    2 weeks ago

So now you're defending the Nazis.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.3.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.2    2 weeks ago
So now you're defending the Nazis.

Afraid to look at history honestly?  The Nazis really were willing to die for their beliefs, values, and way of life.  Millions did die.  If the history of World War II is going to be told by only talking about the Nazis then that is the history.

You think eradicating the Nazis was accomplished by wagging fingers, civil disobedience, and passing laws?  You think the Nazis lost the war because they were shamed into submission?  You think the Nazis just gave protesters what they wanted?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.4  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.3.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.4    2 weeks ago
The only good Nazi is a dead Nazi.  

A lot of Americans fought, were wounded and died to make Nazis good Nazis.  But that's not the part of history that is being talked about, is it?

My father liberated a concentration camp and freed enslaved people.  That's part of my history.  What's yours?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.3.6  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.5    2 weeks ago

Prove it!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
6.3.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @6.3.6    2 weeks ago
Prove it!

Prove what?  That my father was a member of the 609th Medical Clearing Company, 169th Medical Battalion, XIX Corp, attached to the Ninth Army in the Ruhr Valley of Germany? 

The Ruhr valley was the industrial heart of Germany and the Nazis used slave labor.  You should know that from your obvious knowledge of Nazi history.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
6.3.8  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.3    2 weeks ago

Their values sucked big time.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.3.9  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.1    2 weeks ago

That's correct, the Nazis were willing to die defending their beliefs, values, and way of life. 

They were, and I am completely justified in saying fuck them because those beliefs, values, and way of life that included enslaving or exterminating 95% of the people on the planet. 

It was a tough fight. 

It was, the Soviets (a group targeted for extermination) paid a VERy high price.

Don't ignore that many were also willing to die for a moral cause where it was necessary to kill Nazis by any means available.

And good for them, they did the right thing. Nazi Germany was an evil that could not be allowed to exist. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.3.10  Thrawn 31  replied to  Nerm_L @6.3.5    2 weeks ago
You think eradicating the Nazis was accomplished by wagging fingers, civil disobedience, and passing laws?

Look, no one came out of that war clean. It was long, nasty, and brutal. But the allies died fighting for the right cause. Sure, "right" is in the eye of the beholder, but in my view not wanting to enslave/exterminate most people on the planet is the right side to be on. There were heroics on both sides, and both sides thought they were in the right, but ultimately we have to take a side, and my side is fuck the Nazis.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
6.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Nerm_L @6    2 weeks ago

Don't forget that the British were selling arms and materiel to the Confederates and buying their cotton.

 
 
 
Dean Moriarty
7  Dean Moriarty    2 weeks ago

His shtick is doing a bad impersonation of Morton Downey Jr.  Not my cup of tea as far as comedic acts go. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
7.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7    2 weeks ago

You sure it's his style and not the content that sticks in your craw?

 
 
 
Krishna
7.1.1  Krishna  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @7.1    2 weeks ago
You sure it's his style and not the content that sticks in your craw?

Hmmm... your comment does raise an interesting point!

It's definitely something ponder.... especially amongst those of us who are ardently trying to "Get Smarter Here".

And I know I'm speaking for several others in addition to myself!!!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Krishna @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

"Get Smarter Here"

I gotten smart enough to put the obvious bigots here on ignore. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
7.1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Make that "I've".

 
 
 
Krishna
7.2  Krishna  replied to  Dean Moriarty @7    2 weeks ago
Not my cup of tea as far as comedic acts go. 

Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion! jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

(And I challenge anyone to prove otherwise!!!)

 
 
 
Tessylo
8  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

I'm going to change the subject here John and you can remove it if you like, but this is an episode I watched with my dad and his girlfriend one night, we laughed until we cried.  

We watch him when we're all together.

He is spot on.  

John is a genius 

 
 
 
zuksam
8.1  zuksam  replied to  Tessylo @8    2 weeks ago
John is a genius

No he's not he has a team of writers who spend all week writing 20 minutes of monologue and more than half of it is just regurgitated stuff we've all heard before. He just reads the teleprompter and I'm sure he rehearses the whole bit several times then reviews the tapes and makes changes. Every movement, pause, and facial expression is written into the script, it's called acting. Making propaganda is a team effort.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @8.1    2 weeks ago

What a steaming pile of shit.  Propaganda?

FFS  

Yes, he is a genius.

It takes wit and intelligence to appreciate John Oliver.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  zuksam @8.1    2 weeks ago

Trump uses a teleprompter also, but he goes so far off script that his writers just roll their eyes and think "Why do we even bother."

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.1.3  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.1.2    2 weeks ago

I read the transcript from the Tulsa 'rally' and that moron rambled and ranted off script for an hour and a half.  The only time he stuck to a script was around the last 1/2 hour.  

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
8.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Tessylo @8    2 weeks ago

I want one of those frogs.

 
 
 
Tessylo
8.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @8.2    2 weeks ago

Really cute little froggie!

 
 
 
zuksam
10  zuksam    2 weeks ago

Since we live in a democracy the choice on whether statues are removed or not should be voted on in the municipalities where they stand. Nobody has the right to tear down public or private property no matter how offensive it is to them. I have no problem with them being removed from public spaces if it's done properly and lawfully but I don't think they should be destroyed (I see them as works of art more than memorials) they should be put all together in a park with new signs that explain who they were and why they were removed from their previous location. I do believe that to destroy these statues is to destroy part of our history so maybe changing the perspective in which they're viewed would solve the problem. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @10    2 weeks ago
'I do believe that to destroy these statues is to destroy part of our history so maybe changing the perspective in which they're viewed would solve the problem.'

Try picking up a history book.

Are there any non-whitewashed history books out there?

 
 
 
zuksam
10.1.1  zuksam  replied to  Tessylo @10.1    2 weeks ago
Are there any non-whitewashed history books out there?

If there are I'm sure the Radical Left will be burning them soon.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  zuksam @10.1.1    2 weeks ago

What a completely ignorant thing to say.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
10.1.3  Ronin2  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.2    2 weeks ago

Who do you think the PC crowd belongs too? It definitely isn't conservatives. It is the left. 

The only thing ignorant is the left's attempt to rewrite all of history to reflect their distorted views.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  Ronin2 @10.1.3    2 weeks ago

Projection.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
10.1.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.4    2 weeks ago

No, fact!

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @10.1.5    2 weeks ago

No, projection.

The 'right' only deals in projection, deflection, and denial.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
10.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.6    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Sparty On
10.2  Sparty On  replied to  zuksam @10    2 weeks ago

Spot on

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.2.1  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @10.2    2 weeks ago

[deleted

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
12  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

I'll just say it, fuck the confederacy and fuck the confederates. They were traitors who sought to tear the country apart to preserve a system of race based slavery. They can rot in hell and do not deserve to be honored. 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Ender
Kathleen
cjcold
Vic Eldred
The Magic Eight Ball
Paula Bartholomew
Gsquared
Texan1211
Tacos!
Snuffy


74 visitors