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

[Al B. Sure!]

It started in 1954 and the "Brown v. Board of Education " lawsuit that was focused on Topeka, Kansas (a Union state). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 followed.

Additionally,

http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1121.html

So take your views about the racist South and stick up your ass. Poor DaShi.

Yawn... I think we all know about segregation in schools and the backlash on busing, especially in Boston. Still not Southern levels of racism.

I guess that's why in the North, we had all those racist politicians getting voted. You know, George Wallace was a yankee.

[DaShi]

Poor Sloww. You've got to give him credit for trying. Given Texas' long history of embarrassments, you can't blame him for trying to whitewash another.

[Hauldren Collider]

It started in 1954 and the "Brown v. Board of Education " lawsuit that was focused on Topeka, Kansas (a Union state). The Civil Rights Act of 1964 followed.

Additionally,

http://encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/1121.html

So take your views about the racist South and stick up your ass. Poor DaShi.

So it was a Union state in the civil war 90 years before the Brown v. Board case, what's your point? And the fact that one "northern" state had Jim Crow laws hardly absolves the south.

[SlowwHand]

Some people in the South are racists. Some in the North are racists. Not all of the racism involves black and white.

I said this early on.

[EPW]

Well, you couldn't really not be racist back then. But you could be against slavery, and Texas sure wasn't.

[Solomwi]

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'.

This says otherwise:

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.

[Al B. Sure!]

What? Where in there does it say anything that shows me agreeing with the statement "one can't be butthurt over something one directly experienced"?

Huh, Solomwi?

[Al B. Sure!]

Let me break it down for you because you're a Genius Clique member and you're a tricky bastard...

You said, So one can't be butthurt over something one directly experienced?

I said, no. DaShi was implying that. I said it makes sense to have issues (be 'butthurt' to DaShi, I guess) if you directly experienced institutional racism.

You said this says otherwise, quoting me where I said it's still too soon to call people butthurt when people who are today in their 50's and 60's experienced these things. I then said give it another few decades (meaning when these people die) before talking about people being butthurt. With the first part, I explicitly stated that they're not being butt-hurt because they experienced these things.

How does that say otherwise? It is perfectly in keeping with my point that those who experienced widespread institutional racism should be 'butthurt' (hate that term because it's inappropriate in this context).

To reiterate, I said, No. One CAN take issue over experiencing ****.

You quote me where I say that you can't call people butthurt if they experienced this ****.

What's the problem?



Not that it will make a difference. This is going to go like with KH. Somehow I'm entering the twilight zone right now and everyone will lack reading comprehension skills.

[Al B. Sure!]

Because I'm dealing with a tricky bastard with a law background (I recently got into a debate with an attorney who went to USC Law; like an hour later, I had navigated through his mind-games but I was worn out )

This was the sequence of events:

Plus the butthurt of it still lingers today.

The 'it' to which DaShi was referring was segregation. DaShi appears to be implying that there are Blacks today who he considers 'butthurt' over segregation. DaShi does not appear to have anything but negative connotations for such people, as evidenced by his usage of the term butthurt. Being butthurt, I assume, would consist of activities such as speaking out about racism. Usage of the term butthurt indicates that DaShi is dismissing such activities as whining complaints.

I responded with:

Butthurt? That's what you call people who are mad about everything from lynchings and cross burnings to inequality of opportunity and conditions? Butthurt? And nevermind the long-lasting repercussions institutional racism has had.

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.

In the first paragraph, I dismissed his characterization of being 'butthurt' by expressing the seriousness of segregation, racism, etc. It is not a case of simple whining.

In the second, more relevant to your following posts, paragraph, I noted that it is too soon to dismiss the concerns of people whom DaShi referred to as being butthurt because many such people personally experienced institutional racism. In other words, it is not whining if you actually experienced such things.

I said to give it a few decades (meaning people who had experienced such racism would have died) before dismissing said concerns; in other words, if a 20 year old kid complains about institutional racism, he is more dismiss-able than a 70 year old man who dealt with racism for much of his life. Perhaps the 20 year old would be 'butthurt' and DaShi's characterization would be applicable to the younger person who was not directly subjected to said institutional racism.

You then responded with:

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

I assume 'that makes sense' was sarcastic.

I am puzzled by your statement, however. I understand that you are implying that I said that one can not be butthurt over something one directly experienced. No. DaShi said that (assuming butthurt is a negative thing to DaShi and he believes one shouldn't be butthurt).

To be clear, my 'can not' is in a purely normative sense in that one can definitely take issue with things one personally experienced but I disagree with the characterization of it being a case of one being 'butthurt'. (see above) Perhaps that is where the confusion lies?

However, the asking of that question with the loaded sarcastic response of 'that makes sense' indicates that you disagree with my characterization that one can (ought) not be considered butthurt if one personally experienced institutional racism. Again, the term butthurt is the important distinction.

I believed I was clearing up the confusion when I stated:

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'.

There. I succinctly explained that I believe that one can take issue (note that I am not characterizing it as being butthurt) with directly experienced racism. DaShi was the one saying one can not (in the sense of 'ought not' as evidenced by the negative connotations of the term 'butthurt') take said issue.


Understand?

[Al B. Sure!]

My statements appear perfectly congruent to me. I am baffled by how one would contradict the other.

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.

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'.

Can anyone explain where the contradiction lies?

I stated that DaShi should not characterize people as being butthurt (whiners) when they personally and directly experienced the things they are complaining about. I then reiterated, it makes sense to have said issues about said things and that I wouldn't characterize it as being butthurt because of the legitimacy of the concerns (hence why I said makes sense and why I noted that he should wait before he calls people butthurt until those who are complaining didn't experience said racism). Where is the incongruity?

[Al B. Sure!]

I can see already that my lengthy post is going to be vain because I'm up against a Genius Clique member and an attorney to boot and he'll say something tricky and KH will come in here with "Albie is such a ****** " and all of a sudden everyone who comes here will just dismiss my entire posts because of the half a sentence that KH and Solomwi will spew forth and everyone will be struck dumb with a bad case of lack of reading comprehension.

Maybe someone like Mobius will be like wow is everyone stupid? Albie was so clear! But he won't post. I know some of you have seen these games but never say anything. BlackCat personally experienced it in the case of the word 'niggardly' but he won't even notice that the Genius Clique strikes again.

[Dauphin]

all of a sudden everyone who comes here will just dismiss my entire posts

All of a sudden? It's not new.

You are a parody and a stereotype.

[Arrian]

You know the single thing that makes you sound so stupid? Even more than your constant repetition about knowing the one and only reason the South seceded?
The insistence that racism only existed/exists in the South. It makes you sound like a total dumbass.

Wow, way to totally misread what's being said. NOBODY is insisting that racism only existed/exists in the South. This is a massive chip you have on your shoulder, and it's sad. Everyone agrees that racism existed and exists on both sides of the Mason/Dixon line. There are differences in how that racism manifested itself, which matter, but absolutely no one is asserting that the free-soil states were pure and true - then or now. This is not a difficult concept.

The difference is that most of us do not have this pathological need to defend our state/region/whatever from any and all criticism, past or present.

Example: slavery was legal in CT at the time of the revolution. The residents of my state fought a war against the Brits obstensibly for "liberty" whilst maintaining the right to own other people. This was shameful. So was the fact that in 1818, my state's new constitution went out of its way to specify that blacks could not vote. 1848 - a mere 12 years prior to Lincoln's fateful election, is when slavery was finally outlawed up here. Ugh, right?

Why should I care about that, other than to note its ugliness? Even if my ancestors were involved (and they were not, except to the extent that my Devonshire seafaring family may once have been involved in the transatlantic slave trade - though I've never run across anything that indicates it), it's not like *I* had a role in it. Nobody is accusing *me* of being a slave driver or a racist (unless, of course, I say something that sounds racist, which is another matter). Nor does Texas' role in the Confederacy and later Jim Crow disenfranchisement of black Americans mean that you are pro-slavery or a racist. DUH. Let it go, man.

-Arrian

p.s. "Single reason" != "Overwhelmingly primary reason." Slavery was by far and away the #1 issue. Tarriffs and "internal improvements" (funded by said tarriffs) were secondary. That issue had been bigger in the past, and yes South Carolina got all fiesty about it in the 1830s. South Carolina was pretty much always fiesty. But there's formation of the CSA w/o the Slavery issue.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Wow, way to totally misread what's being said. NOBODY is insisting that racism only existed/exists in the South. This is a massive chip you have on your shoulder, and it's sad. Everyone agrees that racism existed and exists on both sides of the Mason/Dixon line. There are differences in how that racism manifested itself, which matter, but absolutely no one is asserting that the free-soil states were pure and true - then or now. This is not a difficult concept.

The difference is that most of us do not have this pathological need to defend our state/region/whatever from any and all criticism, past or present.

Example: slavery was legal in CT at the time of the revolution. The residents of my state fought a war against the Brits obstensibly for "liberty" whilst maintaining the right to own other people. This was shameful. So was the fact that in 1818, my state's new constitution went out of its way to specify that blacks could not vote. 1848 - a mere 12 years prior to Lincoln's fateful election, is when slavery was finally outlawed up here. Ugh, right?

Why should I care about that, other than to note its ugliness? Even if my ancestors were involved (and they were not, except to the extent that my Devonshire seafaring family may once have been involved in the transatlantic slave trade - though I've never run across anything that indicates it), it's not like *I* had a role in it. Nobody is accusing *me* of being a slave driver or a racist (unless, of course, I say something that sounds racist, which is another matter). Nor does Texas' role in the Confederacy and later Jim Crow disenfranchisement of black Americans mean that you are pro-slavery or a racist. DUH. Let it go, man.

-Arrian

p.s. "Single reason" != "Overwhelmingly primary reason." Slavery was by far and away the #1 issue. Tarriffs and "internal improvements" (funded by said tarriffs) were secondary. That issue had been bigger in the past, and yes South Carolina got all fiesty about it in the 1830s. South Carolina was pretty much always fiesty. But there's formation of the CSA w/o the Slavery issue.

Good post. Not taking things personally would be fine and well were it not for the imbeciles who attempt to tar and feather folks for the locale they reside within.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It'd be a slight bit easier, though, if some Southerners weren't trying to prop the Confederacy up left and right (such as arguments over Southern state flags - stars and bars being added mostly during segregation period in a lot of those areas).