Gods and Generals

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Ramo
From what I've heard, the movie is long-winded (like Gettysburg), and entirely neglects to mention slavery at all.

It does mention slavery in a few major areas actually.

[Mr. Harley]

The war was not about states rights, but power. The South had dominated US politics from our founding through approximately 1850, holding the presidency for 49 out of the first 61 years, dominating both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court. Demographic shifts caused that to change, and a rigid ideology combined with refusal to compromise led to the South loosing this dominance. So their moneyed elites that controlled the states' political aparati wanted to pick up their marbles and run away home.

The only Southern state that may have left the union via free elections was Alabama, and that is open to interptation. In the other southern states non-representative systems of pseudo-election led to the plantation holders (a small minority) having virtually a lock on the elective process. They controlled the legislatures and the press, which churned out propoganda concerning the issues and the war. The northern press was usually no better on the propoganda portion.

On the other side of the ledger, remember that Lincoln's stated intent when elected was to preserve the Union. Not free slaves, not attack the south, simply preserve the Union. He was willing to subvert the constitution and the legal process to do this. Many of the Supreme Court decisions that are getting in Mr. Ashcroft's way in his agenda concerning civil rights were made comncerning similar actions that Lincoln was willing to take to preserve the Union, AT ANY COST. He did exactly what he said he would, remorselessly. He is now a "great" man. He won. Had he lost???

[Grandpa Troll]

Well, I love a good Movie, and was getting pretty intent on this living up to its potential...BUT...

Gods and generals..was more like highlight reel for the few battles the Rebs won (Yeah I am a Yankee..living in the South)

+ a follow-the-leader..in showing what the producer deemed as his take on Stonewall Jackson.....

What is important to remember is this,

WE WON!! the Civil War...

But...many issues from back then are as yet unresolved,

1) Slavery Issues-Worldwide too!
2) Southern Pride being unable to accept that they were simply outmatched by Superior intellect
3) WE need a United Staes, but even this date, we stand a nation devided..sadly..

The Movie was Far toooooooooooo Long and as a previous poster stated, was kinda like a high school play in many parts....

I am sorry I wasted my moola on this flick, with exception of previews,


Tears of The Sun

The Hunted

Dreamcatcher

They all look pretty kewl

But, as for the movie, sorry, not that spectacular.

As a byline, the ending stated that it was part of a Triology, along with Gettysburg and I dont recall the other movie title.


This opinion is just that:

My Opinion, please, go see it and decide for yourself. Pluck your $5.00-$10.00 down, support the movie, they dont care, as long as they get your money.

Grandpa Troll

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by David Floyd
MtG,

Probably, but what's your point? Are you, then, saying that MY right to property hinges upon MY ability to resist your gun?

All "rights" are nothing more than arbitrary social constructs. You have either of two conditions with respect to "rights:" Those that your society agrees to and willingly grants you, and those you can secure.

If you have no means to secure specific rights, then you're dependent on the recognition of those rights by the society you live in, and the value that society places on granting those rights to it's members.

Your right to property may not hinge on the ability to resist my gun specifically, but if that right is valued differently by the society you live in, you don't have it unless you can secure it.

It's like the whole secession argument - the southern states had a right to secede (though the Yankees didn't like to admit that), but they had no means to secure that right, so it went down the toilet.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


All "rights" are nothing more than arbitrary social constructs. You have either of two conditions with respect to "rights:" Those that your society agrees to and willingly grants you, and those you can secure.

If you have no means to secure specific rights, then you're dependent on the recognition of those rights by the society you live in, and the value that society places on granting those rights to it's members.

Your right to property may not hinge on the ability to resist my gun specifically, but if that right is valued differently by the society you live in, you don't have it unless you can secure it.

It's like the whole secession argument - the southern states had a right to secede (though the Yankees didn't like to admit that), but they had no means to secure that right, so it went down the toilet.

MtG


I have to agree with most of your points, I havent chewed all of them, but what a lot of folks dont understand is Yes we have rights, but if they are violated in our eyes, we have a due process and then go to court or trial, and depending upon whom your lawyer/attorney is and whom the other party has representing them, will determine the outcome. This could realistically have little or nothing to do with you actually having your "rights" violated or not

I think about the Rodney King beating. Rodney King was indeed not the upstanding citizen we all wish we could be. BUT..he didnt deserve the beating he took. All those tough cops from LAPD, they could have swarmed him. But didnt. They beat him for a fairly minor reason. I too am a former Law Enforcement Officer, USArmy Military Police and B.I.A. (Bureau of Indian Affairs-Federal) and well, he had his rights violated and they got away pretty much so, until the next trial.


Again the South had their opinions and the Union theirs, We won, due to superior intellect/firepower/manpower/support, ect.

I also agree, if things had been reversed, well, Rodney King wouldnt have been an issue,

I do love your quote..."

Unless you can secure it........... "


Yup, things revolutions and wars are started over, say, like Gods and generals....


Peace

Grandpa Troll

[Imran Siddiqui]

The war was not about states rights, but power.

Isn't that redundant?

[Mr. Harley]

MichaelTheGreat already made the point a couple of post ago. As long as there is a consensus, power is not necessarily an issue. States Rights can be a framework to deal with disagreements that are not necessarily power oriented, though unfortunately given the nature of the humanity they often are.

There was no consensus concerning these rights even before the beginning of the civil war, and both sides already had a long history of using violence to secure their perceived "rights," i.e. Bloody Kansas. I use the term power as a contrast to "State's rights" to make the point that the governments of the Southern States were in almost all cases not representative, let alone democratic.

"in democracy people meet and exercise their government in person; in a republic, they administer it by their representatives and agents - James Madison). People often forget the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, and that it was not the "South" going to war with the Union, at least initially, but those with a non-democratic control of the state machinery who were doing so. The various techniques used to disenfranchise the majority of voters in the South of the pre-Civil War period has been documented extensively. At the time the people of the states could not even vote on their senators (elected by the state government). Even today we do not have a Democratically elected President, as is shown by the fact that the individual with the majority of votes is not President - but President Bush had the majority of DELEGATES). I was trying to keep the post as short a practical, one can write volumes on the issue - in fact, it's been done

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
MichaelTheGreat already made the point a couple of post ago. As long as there is a consensus, power is not necessarily an issue. States Rights can be a framework to deal with disagreements that are not necessarily power oriented, though unfortunately given the nature of the humanity they often are.

There was no consensus concerning these rights even before the beginning of the civil war, and both sides already had a long history of using violence to secure their perceived "rights," i.e. Bloody Kansas. I use the term power as a contrast to "State's rights" to make the point that the governments of the Southern States were in almost all cases not representative, let alone democratic.

"in democracy people meet and exercise their government in person; in a republic, they administer it by their representatives and agents - James Madison). People often forget the US is a REPUBLIC, not a democracy, and that it was not the "South" going to war with the Union, at least initially, but those with a non-democratic control of the state machinery who were doing so. The various techniques used to disenfranchise the majority of voters in the South of the pre-Civil War period has been documented extensively. At the time the people of the states could not even vote on their senators (elected by the state government). Even today we do not have a Democratically elected President, as is shown by the fact that the individual with the majority of votes is not President - but President Bush had the majority of DELEGATES). I was trying to keep the post as short a practical, one can write volumes on the issue - in fact, it's been done

Excellent point, because a person could win the popular vote BUT not the delegates vote.

Back in the Civil War Days, whos to say that one state was about dead even and its so called hiearchy "decided" to report a "Majority", we dont know ...we only know what was written, and that could be slightly slanted...~sigh~...back to the movie, in my best Siskel & Ebert presentation, I say its an "OK" movie, not a stunner...

Grandpa Troll

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, we do know in many cases what happened back in the Civil War days politically. Records were kept, and in many cases the individuals in control of the state political machinery wrote specifically about the strategy involved in maintaining control, with letters that still exist. Some of the techniques were lack of polling places in the highland areas, where roads were poor to begin with. Slaves were counted fractionally, as per the constitution, by a DISTRICT basis. This guanteed that in areas with large numbers of slaves, i.e. the lowland/piedmont areas, essentially the local whites got to "vote" the slaves. Even with this, many of the state "conventions" that determined succession were largely chosen, not elected. The only southern state that may have "democratically," as per a white male landed majority vote, secceded from the union was Alabama. Please note that the "widespread" southern support of the war required a draft later on, with progressively heavier amounts of resistance to it, as planters with a certain amount of slaves were exempted, while small upland farmers were forced to serve with an army that was increasingly sending back only the maimed or death notices.

The North was not immune to these problems. The Irish immigrants in New York were also partially disenfranchised, and when a series of laws were passed that the well-to-do avoid the draft for $300 (a substantial sum of money), we had the first draft riots in this country. There was also an unpleasantly racist overtone behind the riots, which "Gangs of New York" actually addresses, if the reviews are accurate.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it - I wish I knew the source of that quote. We have had a two successive presidents who avoided service in Vietnam because of having middle class options (i.e. college deferrement) and/or connections, as in family friends getting them into the National Guard versus active service. Of course the American people were democratically consulted as to our policies in Vietnam . Funny thing, that war became increasingly unpopular, and there was resistance to the draft. Please note in NEITHER case am I judging who was right or wrong in the war, I am highlighting the similarities in process which are one of the weaknesses and strongpoints of Republics versus Democracies. Democracies typically don't start wars, though you can find exceptions. Republics, because of the insulating layer between the people and their government find it much easier to do so. However, a Republic can respond to an emergency much faster, again because of the representative versus direct nature.

Reference the movie, thank you all for the reviews. I'm going to wait till it gets to the local $2 theatres. It probably begs for the wide screen, but I fear from what I've read I would feel shall we say disappointed if I had paid full price.

[RedFred]

You'd still be disappointed if they paid you full price to see this turkey. One of the highest rates of people walking out part way through ever.

On the side issue of people still fighting the US Civil War or for that matter, the battle between the French and English over Quebec, my advice is give it up and move on.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by RedFred
You'd still be disappointed if they paid you full price to see this turkey. One of the highest rates of people walking out part way through ever.

On the side issue of people still fighting the US Civil War or for that matter, the battle between the French and English over Quebec, my advice is give it up and move on.

Psst..I am from the Great Stae of Maine, been living down south since I was 17 with exception of a short stint back north, man, talk about being a poor sport, The South really is a place with Pride, that being Poor-Loser-Pride

But, We Won and lets move past it, but most cant so well, gives them something to talk about and something for Yankess to boast about.....Say...why is that so, so many boys were killed,maimed, or left mentally scarred..seems as though we would have all learned....but here is Iraq...our newest "Civil-War"....


Grandpa Troll

[David Floyd]

All "rights" are nothing more than arbitrary social constructs. You have either of two conditions with respect to "rights:" Those that your society agrees to and willingly grants you, and those you can secure.

So, then, if your society (by which I assume you mean >50% of people with power to enforce their will) believes in slavery, and you don't have the power to resist slavery, then you have no right to be free?

Well, gee, I guess there really was nothing wrong with the Holocaust, or, to use a more current example, nothing wrong with Saddam Hussein gassing Kurds, right?

If you have no means to secure specific rights, then you're dependent on the recognition of those rights by the society you live in, and the value that society places on granting those rights to it's members.

I'll agree with that, if we define society as a collection of individuals, with a majority being defined as >50% of power-wielding individuals, and if we change your use of the word "granting" to "recognizing".

This doesn't, however, change the basic facts - that certain rights are present regardless of what society says (and your opposition to the Holocaust or gassing Kurds or slavery validates this position, regardless of what you say), and that violating those rights is an immoral act (I can't imagine you think that slavery is moral, therefore it must be immoral).

Your right to property may not hinge on the ability to resist my gun specifically, but if that right is valued differently by the society you live in, you don't have it unless you can secure it.

Sure I have it. I just might be unable to exercise it without getting killed/imprisoned.

It's like the whole secession argument - the southern states had a right to secede (though the Yankees didn't like to admit that), but they had no means to secure that right, so it went down the toilet.

No it didn't. If the Southern States had a right to secede, then they STILL have a right to secede, regardless of the outcome of the war. Might and military power do NOT change objective truths and moral right and wrong.

[Mr. Harley]

reply subthread #3 - rights (subthread #2 - history, subthread #1 - the movie )

I have to agree more with MichaeltheGreat's point on rights, than our last poster's, David Floyd. However, I think the disagreement rests in practical versus theoretical, and with my grounding in history, I tend towards the former.

Mr. Floyd's point is valid, in that the concept, or theory, of various "rights" has led to the gradual acceptance of these and incorporation of them into the basic concepts in many of our societies, especially in the West. Of course, when they are irreconcilable with another series of concepts, i.e. Sharia (codified Moslem law, which implicitly embraces a narrow set of religious law superceding and superior over secular law) versus the seperation of Church and state, the concepts of "rights" and how your society "should" work come into conflict, often violently. Look at the fates of non-Moslems in the Sudan, East Timor, and the Baha in Iran.

Historically, MichaeltheGreat is correct. Mr. Floyd actually makes his point for him. The concept of "rights" did not save the Jews in WW2 Europe, nor did it save the woman and children in the Kurdish villages. The only right they had was the "right" to die. The ending of slavery was an amalgam of both views, the theoretical "right" versus the practical "right", and in the United States it took both to end it. The theory (abolition) set the stage, and then force actually ended it. In Europe the theoretical view triumped without force. Then again, it really wasn't an issue for them, so it was relatively simple for Europe to end "slavery" (though not peonage, "slavery lite").

One of my proudest moments occured when I met an activist bisexual friend on campus one day. She was very obviously upset. I asked her what was wrong, and she explained that one of the local Christian fundamentalist students (his label for himself, all Christian fundamentalists DO NOT subscribe to this extremity of belief) had said that we (the United States) should put your kind of people (gay-bisexual) into camps. I asked her how she thought I would react. She paused, and you could see her consider a really new concept. She said I would get my guns (cringe, my rifles/shotguns I don't own handguns, I used to hunt for venison, I love venison) and get them (gays-lesbians in camps) out. That day I converted a liberal, at least partially, over to the libetarian camp, and she realized that sometimes force is the only way to secure your rights, and maybe eliminating firearms can be a BAD idea. When using force to keep your rights you can end up dead, and sometimes you lose. Unfortunately, it can be the only option left to preserve them.

Part of what makes the United States great is our Bill of Rigths, specifically designed to protect the minority from the will of 50% plus one. This is also one of the reasons (out of many) that our founding fathers chose a Republic versus a Democracy. While the Bill of Rights doesn't always work properly, and can be suject to abuse and erosion, it is part of our stregth. That is why I find the current assault on it in the name of the war on terror, and the fact that it is supposted to make us safer, frightening. "Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security." Ben Franklin

[The worst form of insubordination is being right - Keith Dollinger, law enforcement]

edit, trying to get tags to work

[David Floyd]

Only thing I can really respond to is this:

Historically, MichaeltheGreat is correct. Mr. Floyd actually makes his point for him. The concept of "rights" did not save the Jews in WW2 Europe, nor did it save the woman and children in the Kurdish villages.

Naturally, and I never claimed otherwise. My point is that the rights exist outside of society, not that people always (or even usually) behave morally.

You are making my point by implying that the Nazis behaved immorally by killing Jews.

Everyone believes in some form of objective moral code, it just sometimes takes time to pin down exactly what they believe - but I don't really believe there is any true relativist out there.

[Mr. Harley]

Everyone believes in some form of objective moral code, it just sometimes takes time to pin down exactly what they believe - but I don't really believe there is any true relativist out there.

"Moral" unfortunately is extremely relative except for some basic maxims . For example, thou shalt not kill - except for infidels, witches, mud people, strangers, etc. This is why I used the dual examples of Sharia and the anti-gay beliefs of many (not all) Christian fundamentalists in this country (please note - if you believe the activity is sinful, i.e. wrong than you are usually considered against that activity).

For example, the last figures I heard were approximately one sixth of the world's population are Muslim, or about one billion. The majority, so again over 500 million, believe in Sharia, the codification of Islamic law many centuries ago. They believe it IS moral to punish an adulteress/adulterer, often stoning them to death, and because of the witness requirements most of the people receiving this punishment are going to be female. If you do not believe this includes a large amount of people, you have large areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, northern Nigeria, parts of Indonesia, large areas of the Middle East, and Iran depending on if the religious police get you. I'll let the reader total the numbers.

Ethics tries to seperate out the religious element of morality. This routinely leads to ethicists being accused of moral relativism by the religious-morally oriented people in their society - AND THEY ARE, BY THAT STANDARD. Unfortunately, when one set of moral beliefs, especially when believed by a majority (sometimes believed by a minority who happens to have the reins of power), conflicts with the "accepted standards" (ethics? morality?) of another group, this leads to violent conflict. The conflict of when is it moral/ethical to impose your beliefs on another group who are engaged in egregious activity, by your standards, has been a major issue for thousands of years.

The European Union may be one of the very few governmental entities today specifically trying to develop a multi-national code of ethics. Listen to some of the Christian fundamentalist news programs to see their view of the morality of what the EU is doing (they decry it's relativism). Like most things in the real world, it full of shades of grey and interptation.

One non-relativist evaluation of ethical rules, I suspect, is how would you feel if the rules you are proposing were imposed by you by any other group in the world, after being reduced to their most basic maxim. This is why I am a social libetarian. An example of such a parsed moral rule would be - "Someone can impose religious rules they feel are righteous on those who disagree". Most people who wish to do so would say, "but this is different" when they do this, but protest when a different religious group imposes their beliefs on them. Therein lies the red flag for moralists who have no concept, and no desire, for ethical maxims.

My definition of left and right wing in the United States is that each group attempts to coerce solely personal behaviour they disappove of via the legistative process, while protecting those behaviours they approve of. When either group complains about the result - legalized abortion or passing laws to elimnate all gun ownership, for example - they get on their moral high ground, and if the opposing issue is brought up, well, "that's different." Maybe someday we will truly have a universal code of ethics, but not in my lifetime .