Scholarly history of Civil War vs. popular "history" of Civil War

[Al B. Sure!]

Your inability to understand is your failure, not mine. I've been perfectly clear about what your mistake was. Even quoted it for you.

So in that case other posters should have no problem identifying it, right?


Sloww and Arrian have posted recently. Can either of you tell me what my mistake was?

[giblets]

As I predicted. plus gribbler chimed in.

Now where's KH and his "albie is a ****** " comment?


Let's see if anyone else gets bamboozled. I notice how you said I made a mistake at least two more times but don't say what the mistake was... probably cause it doesn't exist!

All I can say is, YHBT.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Never heard that term before. Not sure how I feel about the term, per se, but they are indeed a stain on humanity.

Flaggot is a term applied to the idiots in Georgia who protested the removal of stars and bars from the Georgia flag. I.e. an inside reference to Imran's statement

[Al B. Sure!]

I would appreciate it if any of my fellow posters would enlighten me as to what my mistake was, seeing as though Solomwi so clearly illuminated it.

[giblets]

It's still too soon to call people butthurt about it when people who are today in their 50's and 60's experienced these things. Give it another few decades before talking about people being butthurt.

So one can't be butthurt over something one directly experienced? That makes sense. Now, continue with your albieplexy.

Huh? So one can't be butthurt over something one directly experienced? No, that's what DaShi is implying. I said it makes sense to have issues over something one directly experienced. It's not being 'butthurt'.

Wow, first you denied Solomwi's interpretation of your post, and then you confirmed it.

If you claim the fact that someone directly experienced something proves that they aren't butthurt, then you are assuming people can't be butthurt over something they directly experienced.

[giblets]

If A then not B
A, therefore not B

Albie makes the second statement, while denying that he implied the first.

[Solomwi]

Sorry, gribbler. You're in the Genius Clique, so you explaining it doesn't count.

[Al B. Sure!]

You both do realize that 'can not' has two meanings? It represents both the lack of capacity to perform an action and a normative meaning synonymous with 'ought not'.

Retards.

[giblets]

You both do realize that 'can not' has two meanings? It represents both the lack of capacity to perform an action and a normative meaning synonymous with 'ought not'.

Retards.

Okay, let's look at his post!

Plus the butthurt of it still lingers today.

Now I'm no genius, but it looks to me like this post is not a normative statement. It is entirely positive. All he said was the butthurt exists.

No use of the phrase "can not", oddly enough.

[Al B. Sure!]

What the **** does butthurt imply?! Is he saying people ought to be butthurt?! Butthurt is purely a negative connotation.

His usage of that term instead of anything else screams that he doesn't think it's legitimate. He's implying that such people shouldn't take issue with racism because they're just butthurt whiners.

[giblets]

It's not a normative statement.

[Solomwi]

You both do realize that 'can not' has two meanings? It represents both the lack of capacity to perform an action and a normative meaning synonymous with 'ought not'.

Retards.

Had I meant ought not, I'd have used ought not. ****.

[Al B. Sure!]

Had I meant ought not, I'd have used ought not. ****.

Hey ****, that's how I ****ing took it. Excuse me for assuming colloquial English. And since I mentioned in my lengthy post that I thought the ought not/incapable of distinction might have been the root of the confusion, you could have been a ****ing man and said, yeah that's what it was and left it alone, accepting it as a case of miscommunication.

INSTEAD YOU WANT TO BE A ****ER

[giblets]

INSTEAD YOU WANT TO BE A ****ER

WHY ARE YOU YELLING?

[Sprayber]

The Confederacy was a terrible experiment in our history. It has done more harm to the concept of states rights than anything else that I can think of. I was born and raised in the South and I love this region dearly but the constant insistence on claiming that the South fought for a noble cause gets on my nerves. Having to see idiots driving up and down the road with Confederate flags on their trucks claiming "Heritage not Racism" makes me sick to my stomach. Now I can understand the desire for people to want to believe that their ancestors fought for a noble cause but to ignore what the driving cause of the war was is to be dishonest. It is true that the North had and has forms of racism in its own right but the fact that the South institutionalized its racism in the form of slavery at first and then in laws limiting the rights of blacks cannot be denied if you are honest about the facts. The only way to ever get past that is to acknolwdege that the South was wrong and move on. One more thing that irritates me is the constant yacking about the war of Northern Aggression term that a lot of people down here talk about. I don't recall the South having a problem with an aggressive federal army when it was attacking Mexico and extending the borders south or all the talk about adding Cuba to the US. I actually believe that states should have more control over decisions that effect their people BUT if it means that an institution such as slavery would have been allowed to drag on for decades more or a large part of the people living in that state would be effectively shut out of the decision making process, then id rather there be a strong federal government to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity in life. I for one am happy about reading about Sherman's march through Georgia and South Carolina. It took the war to those people who were so enthusiastic about plunging the nation into a bloody war that cost so much in human life.

That's one Southerners opinion...