A Senatorial atonement for past blocking of anti-lynching bills

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ned


So, why did that OTHER state revolt? Or, is it your position that liberty with slavery is not worth it? Then you deny our own revolution and our own constitution. We, as the Texans decades later, were fighting tyranny even though we had slaves.

The Founding fathers revolted in the interest of freedom from monarchical government. The Southern fireeaters seceded in order to preserve slavery.

Which revolution do you think is more legitimate?

[Ned]

Originally posted by MrFun


The Founding fathers revolted in the interest of freedom from monarchical government. The Southern fireeaters seceded in order to preserve slavery.

Which revolution do you think is more legitimate?

So what. We are talking here about the Texan's revolt againt the Santa Ana dictatorship which is being misrepresented in US schools for some reason. You tell us that reason, would you, Mr. Fun?

[Mr. Harley]

Ned - what the younger posters are getting here is that just because Santa Anna was a dictator did NOT make the Texans this great and noble group of people. You have an anti-slavery despot versus a pro-slavery very limited democracy that was more of a voting oligarchy (like much of the South) than it was a true democracy. There were no "good guys" in that conflict, and the actions taken by the US Government and it's representatives (including state governments) abrogating property rights insured by treaty shows you there is plenty of dirt on the US side of the history. If you ask the Native Americans which government did they prefer, that's like asking if I want to be drowned or strangled. I'd rather a different choice.

[Ned]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Ned - what the younger posters are getting here is that just because Santa Anna was a dictator did NOT make the Texans this great and noble group of people. You have an anti-slavery despot versus a pro-slavery very limited democracy that was more of a voting oligarchy (like much of the South) than it was a true democracy. There were no "good guys" in that conflict, and the actions taken by the US Government and it's representatives (including state governments) abrogating property rights insured by treaty shows you there is plenty of dirt on the US side of the history. If you ask the Native Americans which government did they prefer, that's like asking if I want to be drowned or strangled. I'd rather a different choice.

There were Texans who did not own slaves who supported the revolt. Many of them were native Mexicans.

My point is that if one takes this line of thinking to it logical conclusion, one ends up that the US founding fathers were evil as well because SOME of them owned slaves. This whole effort to smear our founding fathers is part of a larger effort to smear America at every turn.

[Mr. Harley]

That's where you and I have one of our few fundamental disagreements. For example, George Washington was a great man, and we can both list his achievements, especially his keen understanding of politics and strategy (i.e. the most important goal early in the war was to keep his army intact). However, that does not change the fact he was a slave holder, when already many people were questioning it's morality, and he engaged in a vicious genocide in the Ohio Valley, ordering his troops to exterminate women and children.

By not teaching the totality, we instead end up with cardboard heroes instead of real people, and a very shallow understanding of our legacy as a nation. If that history had been taught properly, the widespread massacres in the Phillipines may well not have occured. If the guards at Abu Graib had been taught about the US Army's actions in the Phillipines, or about Mai Lai and the heroic helicopter crew that stopped it, and about the lynchings and the widespread community celebrations that accompanied them, or the conditions of Native Americans who were rounded up by military units, we might not have had to deal with a major propoganda coup for Muslim extremists. That's why history, and how it is taught, is so important.

[Ned]

Or, as you and I seem to agree, the use of nuclear weapons in WWII.

But, what you said does strike a note. I have had recent arguments with Molly Bloom and others that the Brits had a lot to do with causing WWII (as well as Wilson and the French, to a degree) so that we cannot say that Germany was entirely at fault.

But, back to the topic at hand. Just because some of our founding fathers had slaves does not make illegitimate the effort they and many others who did not have slaves undertook to throw off the British yoke, etc. The same goes for the Texans. It is interesting how Santa Ana seems to be protrayed in our schools today. He seems to be protrayed as a Mexican version of Abraham Lincoln who rode to Texas to free the slaves.

[Mr. Harley]

Actually, Ned, you and I don't have a fundamental disagreement over the use of Nuclear Weapons in WW2. It's a very naunced argument (I've got some more data but I won't thread jack) and you brought me around to the fact that it was not quite so clearcut as I had been taught. You come down on one side of a very fine division, and I come down on the other.

I stayed out of the argument you had with Molly Bloom. I read it after I got out of the hospital, and didn't want to spike my BP. Your points about Great Britian and WW2 had certain excellent facts, but you did a terrible job at presentation, i.e. it could be interpreted that you were excusing certain German actions. Note I'm not saying that is whay you said - but once it is open to that interpretation, you'll get pounded on no matter how good your point. FYI, I've considered writing a book - "Pox Brittanica - the legacy of the British Colonial Empire and modern conflicts" looking at how the abuse of British Common Law (Right of Conquest), British Diplomatic policy, and their empire created the roots of many of the worst conflicts post WW2. The Brits have not only more unpleasant deeds to account for, they had an arrogance that the Bush Jr. administration would feel right at home with (I couldn't resist )

The fact our founding father's kept slaves does very much lend a certain illegitimacy to their struggles for indepedence (when read as freedom), especially in the South. The acquiescence of the Northern States to that "peculiar institution", and their profiteering from it, helped create the roots of the Civil War. You might veiw it as tarnish on a valuable silver coin. It doesn't lessen the value (tarnish is inevitable) but it might have been nice to have had a gold coin instead.

[Drake Tungsten]

If the guards at Abu Graib had been taught about the US Army's actions in the Phillipines, or about Mai Lai and the heroic helicopter crew that stopped it, and about the lynchings and the widespread community celebrations that accompanied them, or the conditions of Native Americans who were rounded up by military units, we might not have had to deal with a major propoganda coup for Muslim extremists.

[Mr. Harley]

Drake, if they had been taught about that, the studies on authority figures and torture (lab coats and shocking subjects, I cannot remember the name of the study), and about Nuremburg and the "I was only following order's" defense - I honestly don't think it would have happened. The Army JAGS covered their butts well beforehand, they understood the underlying law and history. If the grunts had a little more training and education, we might have had more people at the beginning standing up and saying you cannot do this, or at least you cannot do this until you know they are guilty - remember, most of the people abused their were suspects and were innocent!

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Ned


So, why did that OTHER state revolt? Or, is it your position that liberty with slavery is not worth it? Then you deny our own revolution and our own constitution. We, as the Texans decades later, were fighting tyranny even though we had slaves.

Because Santa Anna decided to execute slave owners who failed to set their slaves free.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Drake, if they had been taught about that, the studies on authority figures and torture (lab coats and shocking subjects, I cannot remember the name of the study), and about Nuremburg and the "I was only following order's" defense - I honestly don't think it would have happened. The Army JAGS covered their butts well beforehand, they understood the underlying law and history. If the grunts had a little more training and education, we might have had more people at the beginning standing up and saying you cannot do this, or at least you cannot do this until you know they are guilty - remember, most of the people abused their were suspects and were innocent!

I'd like to live in your world...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Ned


There were Texans who did not own slaves who supported the revolt. Many of them were native Mexicans.

My point is that if one takes this line of thinking to it logical conclusion, one ends up that the US founding fathers were evil as well because SOME of them owned slaves. This whole effort to smear our founding fathers is part of a larger effort to smear America at every turn.

So pointing out that even great people have flaws is unpatriotic now? Smearing the US has nothing to do with it. And how is pointing out that Native Americans don't hold Columbus in very high esteem US-bashing? And sometimes the US needs to get bashed, it's not like we were the good guys all the time; NO country is ever the good guy all the time so US bashing has nothing to do with it, it is about getting nationalistic bias out of history, no matter which country we are talking about.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Drake, if they had been taught about that, the studies on authority figures and torture (lab coats and shocking subjects, I cannot remember the name of the study), and about Nuremburg and the "I was only following order's" defense - I honestly don't think it would have happened. The Army JAGS covered their butts well beforehand, they understood the underlying law and history. If the grunts had a little more training and education, we might have had more people at the beginning standing up and saying you cannot do this, or at least you cannot do this until you know they are guilty - remember, most of the people abused their were suspects and were innocent!

[Ned]

Well, Shawn, it appears the coverup of what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki continued after the war ended. Reporters were excluded from the two cities. One reporter got in, but his stories were confiscated and are only now being published.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050619/D8AQQFRG2.html

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Because Santa Anna decided to execute slave owners who failed to set their slaves free.

So that is why the other states revolted? It had nothing at all to do with Santa Ana seizing power?