USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[Patroklos]

1. Who called it evil? Whose criticism were you trying to address?

Geronimo, post #358.

2. How would you define evil, if not extremely immoral/reprehensible/etc.?

I save evil for extreme cases. Like killing millions of people horribly, or micowaving your baby more recently. Pol Pot kind of stuff.

And of course all wrongdoing is relative. Rome isn't evil for sacking Carthage, but we sure as hell would be if we did that to Baghdad today.

Now I am leaving for the night. The girlfriend is sick and honestly she is more important that you. She doesn't appreciate me posting from here house either. So until the morning.

[MrFun]

I think I'm done with this thread anyway.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Patroklos
I save evil for extreme cases. Like killing millions of people horribly, or micowaving your baby more recently. Pol Pot kind of stuff.

It may just be me but as a Sopranos fan I found this amusing. Tony used a very similar definition about who goes to hell.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
I think I'm done with this thread anyway.

I'm amazed at how long this thread has gone. I've been following it the whole time too.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I accidently copied NAVNUPWRTRACOMNOTE 1301

I'm more fascinated by what that means .

Naval Nuclear Power Training Command Note 1301 (?)

Okay, so I missed Notice, otherwise, I was correct without reading his response.

ACK!

[Patroklos]

Actually you are correct, it is Note, I miss typed.

Cookie for Tuberski

[Imran Siddiqui]

WHAT ELSE have you mistyped in this thread!

[Patroklos]

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Molly, why do you have such a hard time discussing what everyone else is?

I don't. I do have a problem with people who consistently refer to irrelevant comparisons (such as Oliver Cromwell, 'The Dukes Of Hazzard' (!) ) in order to make it look as though they have a background for their 'argument'.

You mean primary Civil War sources from nonparticipants 20-100 years after the war?

Yeah- like Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln... the thread isn't just about the American Civil War. Seems you're the one having a hard time:

discussing what everyone else is

Perhaps trying to be clever is addling your wits slightly...

Or you pictures that are not actually from the South?

Like the dog returning to its vomit... gosh, how could I tell you'd bring that up again ?

It also lets contemporary biases that have zero relevance to the actual event creep in.

Of course, because Classical Greek historians were never biased towards their own side. And Ancient Roman historians never had to worry about offending the Emperor.... good grief.

Again, the "it was all about slavery" crowd are actually trying to tell us what people thought, when those people already told us what they thought themselves

I quoted what Jefferson Davis said about the Emancipation Proclamation. Seems fairly relevant to me...

Take out the issue of slavery and slave-owning. What would have been the impetus for war ?

The North's dislike of the largely agrarian economy of the South ? Absurd.

You, yes. Molly, no. In any case all that stuff about the post reconstuction South is irrelevant, nothing I said has anything to do with what the laymen of 1880+ South thought.

Right- because no revisionist views or history books on what were the causes of the American Civil War appeared in the North or South after Reconstruction.

Rubbish. Where did the white inhabitants of the Post-Reconstruction South go for the 'real' history of the 'War of Northern Aggression' ? The internet ?

If one wanted to know the real reasons for the Spanish-American War (for instance) one would hardly go to the Hearst presses of the time...

[Patroklos]

Right- because no revisionist views or history books on what were the causes of the American Civil War appeared in the North or South after Reconstruction.

And they were written by laymen? If you are worried about revisionist histories, shouldn’t you be concerned with what the historians writing them thought instead of share croppers paddling barefoot across their dirt floors?

Why not start with pointing out the gross scholarly errors in the works that defined the topic, still used in history classes today alongside modern books. Thousands of published and peer reviewed historians past and present have failed to (usually because their research yields the same results, it is their interpretation/emphasis that differs. See this thread that you didn’t bother to read.), but I am sure you will have success. Maybe you can impress them with your with your vast lexicon of archaic and obscure vocabulary oddities, distracting them from your argument that lacks sense and substance.

I am not sure why you continue to pretend I said to use only primary sources instead of what I actually said, which was to not use only modern literature. I have only stated it over and over again in this thread. Honestly, who are you talking to?

You know what molly, you’re not even worth it. The thread is stale and you are not even interested in discussing what everyone else is (quite civilly surprisingly, with the exception of yourself). If your sole contribution to this thread is to post anecdotal to completely irrelevant information on things we are not even talking about in an attempt to invoke emotional responses instead of contributing to reasoned discourse feel free.

So again, unless you want to discuss what we are actually talking about, please return to memorizing thesaurus pages.

[MrFun]

You weren't exactly respectful in this discussion either, Patroklos by talking down to me and others using words like "training wheels" and "using color book history" to insult my intelligence and the work I have done to earn my degree. Not asking to be recognized as an expert, but asking for respect in such discussions.

So I think it was somewhat hypocritical of you to lash out at Molly while you yourself engaged in childish tactics like talking down to people.

[DinoDoc]

You post this:

Originally posted by MrFun
You weren't exactly ...

Posting this:

Originally posted by MrFun
I think I'm done with this thread anyway.

?

Liar!

[Patroklos]

You weren't exactly respectful in this discussion either, Patroklos by talking down to me and others using words like "training wheels" and "using color book history" to insult my intelligence and the work I have done to earn my degree. Not asking to be recognized as an expert, but asking for respect in such discussions.

I think me calling your reliance on modern literature for a black and white few of events naive is a far cry from molly basically calling me an apoligist racist.

[MrFun]

Yeah, yeah . . . .

I need to make a better effort then.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Patroklos


I think me calling your reliance on modern literature for a black and white few of events naive is a far cry from molly basically calling me an apoligist racist.

But there's nothing naive about my view, as how I perceive the Civil War and Reconstruction is based on research as a graduate student, and on my own independent, extensive reading on those two events/developments.