Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sprightly

Why Are So Many Fascist Monuments Still Standing in Italy?

308 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

7 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Because they knew he would oppose expansion which they believed would end up putting the slave states in a minority position where it would eventually be abolished nationwide.

So, if Lincoln and everyone else knew that slavery would die through expansion, there was no need for him to say that he was going to end it where it was. It was a political feint. Thus, southern states left the union even though he said he did not want to end it there. They got the picture. You don't get it because you want to eliminate slavery from the argument.

Classic Myth of the Lost Cause thinking.

Why you persist in this reason after it has been exposed as BS is beyond me.

and then, of course, Lincoln did exactly that. Ended slavery where it was,

Edited by hst2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

8 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Not even close.

Mine read "A descendant hurt by a Union statue because his or her ancestor was raped by a soldier"

For your post to be relevant it would read "a descendant hurt by a Confederate statue because his or her ancestor was held in bondage by the society for whom the soldier fought."

The answer is plenty.

Are they such little snowflakes that they can't handle actual history?  Should we pretend that slavery never existed here and all the people here who were descendants from Africa came here as immigrants?

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 minutes ago, hst2 said:

So, if Lincoln and everyone else knew that slavery would die through expansion, there was no need for him to say that he was going to end it where it was. It was a political feint. Thus, southern states left the union even though he said he did not want to end it there. They got the picture. You don't get it because you want to eliminate slavery from the argument.

Classic Myth of the Lost Cause thinking.

Wrong, because I agree with what you just stated, in fact it was just a rewording of what I just posted.  You again fail in your accusing of me embracing the "Lost Cause" because I don't. 

If the states didn't secede then Lincoln would have been trapped by his own words and slavery would have remained legal for a longer period of time.  The states actually did Lincoln a favor by seceding.

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smokey 1 said:

Are they such little snowflakes that they can't handle actual history?  Should we pretend that slavery never existed here and all the people descended from Africa came here as immigrants?

Those statues teach us nothing about slavery. Quite the opposite.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Wrong, because I agree with what you just stated, in fact it was just a rewording of what I just posted.  You again fail in your accusing of me embracing the "Lost Cause" because I don't. 

If the states didn't secede then Lincoln would have been trapped by his own words and slavery would have remained legal for a longer period of time.  The states actually did Lincoln a favor by seceding.

Its your understanding of Lincoln that is so purposefully wrong in order to write slavery out of the discussion.

The states seceded because they knew slavery would die out from expansion. There is no "if" about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

16 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

Because they knew he would oppose expansion which they believed would end up putting the slave states in a minority position where it would eventually be abolished nationwide.

I saw a woman, Nancy Isenberg, speak the other evening, the author of White Trash. She is a historian and professor at LSU.

Very interesting.  Talked about how the earliest settlers here from the UK were mostly indentured servants and this class of people was called "Waste People" in the UK, the notion being to dump the non-productive, non-property holding people onto the colonies. (Fascinating how she traced the evolving of terms to describe lower class white people, not too hard to connect the dots from "waste people' to "white trash").

Re the Civil War, her take was interesting.  The South (the governing elites) was dead set against the freeing of slaves AND the upward mobility of the poor whites. and specifially were against the notion taking hold up north of upward mobility (immigrant driven).

So while the war was about slavery, seems it was more broadly about maintaining a class system.

Highly recommend the book.  Its discussion of property ownership as a bludgeon I'm sure you'll enjoy! ;)

Edited by ms maggie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, hst2 said:

Why you persist in this reason after it has been exposed as BS is beyond me.

and then, of course, Lincoln did exactly that. Ended slavery where it was,

I don't so why do you persist in saying I do?

He had the war he needed to do that.  Do you really believe Lincoln would have fought a war to free the slaves if the states didn't secede? If not for the war it would likely been after his term(s) in office before it was completely abolished.

Edited by Smokey 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ms maggie said:

I saw a woman, Nancy Isenberg, speak the other evening, the author of White Trash. She is a historian and professor at LSU.

Very interesting.  Talked about how the earliest settlers here from the UK were mostly indentured servants and this class of people was called "Waste People" in the UK, the notion being to dump the non-productive, non-property holding people onto the colonies. (Fascinating how she traced the evolving of terms to describe lower class white people, not too hard to connect the dots from "waste people' to "white trash").

Re the Civil War, her take was interesting.  The South (the governing elites) was dead set against the freeing of slaves AND the upward mobility of the poor whites. and specifially were against the notion taking hold up north of upward mobility (immigrant driven).

So while the war was about slavery, seems it was more broadly about maintaining a class system.

Highly recommend the book.  Its discussion of property ownership as a bludgeon I'm sure you'll enjoy! ;)

Yes, the southern leaders were opposed to education and anything that uplifted the lives of their inhabitants. This is the heritage they like to celebrate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

I don't so why do you persist in saying I do?

You persist in arguing that Lincoln did not oppose slavery where it was when we know, in fact, that he didn't have to. Its a meaningless point that only serves to attempt to remove slavery from the discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hst2 said:

You persist in arguing that Lincoln did not oppose slavery where it was when we know, in fact, that he didn't have to. Its a meaningless point that only serves to attempt to remove slavery from the discussion. 

I never said he didn't oppose slavery where it existed, I said he said he wouldn't try to abolish it where it existed.  Why do you have to lie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

I saw a woman, Nancy Isenberg, speak the other evening, the author of White Trash. She is a historian and professor at LSU.

Very interesting.  Talked about how the earliest settlers here from the UK were mostly indentured servants and this class of people was called "Waste People" in the UK, the notion being to dump the non-productive, non-property holding people onto the colonies. (Fascinating how she traced the evolving of terms to describe lower class white people, not too hard to connect the dots from "waste people' to "white trash").

Re the Civil War, her take was interesting.  The South (the governing elites) was dead set against the freeing of slaves AND the upward mobility of the poor whites. and specifially were against the notion taking hold up north of upward mobility (immigrant driven).

So while the war was about slavery, seems it was more broadly about maintaining a class system.

Highly recommend the book.  Its discussion of property ownership as a bludgeon I'm sure you'll enjoy! ;)

LOL.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/439200/white-trash-review-nancy-isenbergs-new-book-bad-history

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sprightly said:

Who here on this thread supports slavery or traitors? Or do you mean people elsewhere?

The reason you bring up this thread is because of the ongoing situation with the statues of the traitorous Confederates. Those traitorous Cons supported slavery.  You are in effect saying if they still have statues of Fascists up then it shouldn't be a problem for the USA to have statues of the traitorous Confederates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, blowboatbethesda said:

I read the book myself.  Perhaps you should do so as well? 

What of what I noted in my post do you find objectionable, or untrue?

Or is this just kneejerk bull****?

In the meantime:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/15351325.Review__White_Trash__The_400_Year_Untold_History_of_Class_In_America/

A New York Times Notable and Critics’ Top Book of 2016
Longlisted for the PEN/John Kenneth Galbraith Award for Nonfiction
One of NPR’s 10 Best Books Of 2016 Faced Tough Topics Head On
NPR’s Book Concierge Guide To 2016’s Great Reads
San Francisco Chronicle’s Best of 2016: 100 recommended books
A Washington Post Notable Nonfiction Book of 2016
Globe & Mail 100 Best of 2016

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

 Speaking of fascists in Rome, the ancient Roman emperors were no choir boys and brutalized numerous peoples doing heinous things like feeding them to lions and nailing them to crosses.  I am glad that a couple hundred years after the last emperor a bunch of politically correct Italians didn't decide to erase all traces of the empire.  

Edited by jdsample

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EgyptKang said:

The reason you bring up this thread is because of the ongoing situation with the statues of the traitorous Confederates. Those traitorous Cons supported slavery.  You are in effect saying if they still have statues of Fascists up then it shouldn't be a problem for the USA to have statues of the traitorous Confederates.

If California seceded would you believe they were traitors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jdsample said:

 Speaking of fascists in Rome, the ancient Roman emperors were no choir boys and brutalized numerous peoples doing heinous things like feeding them to lions and nailing them to crosses.  I am glad that a couple hundred years after the last emperor a bunch of politically correct Italians didn't decide to erase all traces of the empire.  

You’re comparing “Lost Cause” propaganda to the ruins of Roman Civilization? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

15 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

I read the book myself.  Perhaps you should do so as well? 

What of what I noted in my post do you find objectionable, or untrue?

Or is this just kneejerk bull****?

In the meantime:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/09/the-original-underclass/492731/

http://www.heraldscotland.com/arts_ents/15351325.Review__White_Trash__The_400_Year_Untold_History_of_Class_In_America/

A  Notable and Critics’ Top Book of 2016
Longlisted for the PEN/John Kenneth Galbraith Award for Nonfiction
One of NPR’s 10 Best Books Of 2016 Faced Tough Topics Head On
NPR’s Book Concierge Guide To 2016’s Great Reads
San Francisco Chronicle’s Best of 2016: 100 recommended books
A Washington Post Notable Nonfiction Book of 2016
Globe & Mail 100 Best of 2016

New York Times

The Atlantic

NPR

SanFrancisco Chronicle

Washington Post

Globe and Mail.

 

Left-wing socialist, liberal, history rewriting, propagandist hack jobs, all.

I'll bet RAWSTORY loved it too. :rolleyes:

Edited by blowboatbethesda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, ms maggie said:

I saw a woman, Nancy Isenberg, speak the other evening, the author of White Trash. She is a historian and professor at LSU.

Very interesting.  Talked about how the earliest settlers here from the UK were mostly indentured servants and this class of people was called "Waste People" in the UK, the notion being to dump the non-productive, non-property holding people onto the colonies. (Fascinating how she traced the evolving of terms to describe lower class white people, not too hard to connect the dots from "waste people' to "white trash").

Re the Civil War, her take was interesting.  The South (the governing elites) was dead set against the freeing of slaves AND the upward mobility of the poor whites. and specifially were against the notion taking hold up north of upward mobility (immigrant driven).

So while the war was about slavery, seems it was more broadly about maintaining a class system.

Highly recommend the book.  Its discussion of property ownership as a bludgeon I'm sure you'll enjoy! ;)

To be honest, this country's whole existence is about maintaining a class system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Smokey 1 said:

If California seceded would you believe they were traitors?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, blowboatbethesda said:

New York Times

The Atlantic

NPR

SanFrancisco Chronicle

Washington Post

Globe and Mail.

 

Left-wing, liberal, history rewriting, propagandist hack jobs, all.

I'll bet RAWSTORY loved it too. :rolleyes:

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ivanbalt said:

Yes.

Can you expand on that and explain how they would considered be traitors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, blowboatbethesda said:

New York Times

The Atlantic

NPR

SanFrancisco Chronicle

Washington Post

Globe and Mail.

 

Left-wing socialist, liberal, history rewriting, propagandist hack jobs, all.

I'll bet RAWSTORY loved it too. :rolleyes:

How fortunate.  Now you can add this to the long list of books you won't read.  Free up time for your work with orphans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Smokey 1 said:

Can you expand on that and explain how they would considered be traitors?

Simple they are part of the United States.  This is a country, not something like the European Union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ivanbalt said:

Simple they are part of the United States.  This is a country, not something like the European Union.

So how is leaving the country treason?  Do you consider people who leave this country and become citizens of another country traitors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0