PDA

View Full Version : Church bells sounds to warn against neo-nazis


Mort
05-02-2014, 10:03 AM
Toots my own country's horn with this story. Nothing new I guess... ? ;)

On and around May 1th there was a pretty big showing of neo-nazi demonstrations all around Sweden. The largest gathering being in a city called Jönköping.

Churches in Jönköping decided to sound their bells full blast for the two hour demonstration. Historically done to warn against impending danger (last done in 1939).

From The Local (http://www.thelocal.se/20140502/swedish-church-rings-bell-to-warn-of-neo-nazis)
"We chose to ring the bells because we think it's a threat to our open society when our streets play host to messages that do not respect every person's value and dignity," Swedish Church (Svenska Kyrkan) priest Fredrik Hollertz told The Local on Friday.

"We wanted to use what we used in the days of old."
...

The Jönköping church bells haven't been used to warn of danger since Wold War II broke out in 1939.


This story struck a cord with me big time. Such a relatively small action but such a big impact (at least on me, and it seems most of sweden's populace).

Nazbaque
05-02-2014, 11:55 AM
Ah neo-nazis one of many examples of why democracy is never going to work: over 90 % of humanity are too stupid to be allowed to vote

Btw Mort it's "May 1st" not "May 1th"

GonzoTheGreat
05-02-2014, 12:02 PM
Btw Mort it's "May 1st" not "May 1th"
Wouldn't "oneth" make more sense than "onest"? :confused:

Nazbaque
05-02-2014, 12:57 PM
It's short for "first" bonehead.

GonzoTheGreat
05-03-2014, 04:04 AM
"1" is short for "fir"?

Zombie Sammael
05-03-2014, 07:19 AM
"1" is short for "fir"?

Yes. My favourite tree is the 1 tree.

Nazbaque
05-03-2014, 07:29 AM
"1" is short for "fir"?

... I thought everyone knew. Look at the shape of the number "1". Now as everyone knows "f" is short for "fuck". Then comes "i" which is plainly a "1" which has shot something out of its tip and is already a bit shorter. Last there is "r" which is what happened to the "1" because "i" came too quickly.

ShadowbaneX
05-03-2014, 12:23 PM
Well, that got derailed quickly.

Infidel
05-03-2014, 05:11 PM
...1 seal...1 seal...1 seal...

Terez
05-03-2014, 09:13 PM
Toots my own country's horn with this story. Nothing new I guess... ? ;)

On and around May 1th there was a pretty big showing of neo-nazi demonstrations all around Sweden. The largest gathering being in a city called Jönköping.

Churches in Jönköping decided to sound their bells full blast for the two hour demonstration. Historically done to warn against impending danger (last done in 1939).

From The Local (http://www.thelocal.se/20140502/swedish-church-rings-bell-to-warn-of-neo-nazis)

This story struck a cord with me big time. Such a relatively small action but such a big impact (at least on me, and it seems most of sweden's populace).
Cool story. Neo-nazis are gaining ground everywhere, it seems. I think they have always been around; the internet has just helped them organize and recruit. In a way, that's good; I like to think of it as airing out the moldy stuff in our societies. It could have consequences first, though.

Mort
05-04-2014, 05:42 AM
Cool story. Neo-nazis are gaining ground everywhere, it seems. I think they have always been around; the internet has just helped them organize and recruit. In a way, that's good; I like to think of it as airing out the moldy stuff in our societies. It could have consequences first, though.

Agree 100%

Nazbaque
05-04-2014, 08:00 AM
Had to go wiki for a refresher on neo-nazism. Mainly I wanted to check the definition, but there was also pretty decent info on general activities nation by nation. Got me thinking how strange, sad and scary it is that so many people seem to want enemies in the same way most people want friends. This thought has been bouncing in my head for a while. This just made me concentrate on it. I can understand teasing that goes too far. Having fun getting reactions out of someone else. I can understand being hooked on hate after being provoked and mistreated. I can even understand bloodlust. Being provoked to the point where you just want to let go and destroy, but this is different. It's like some people have a craving to hate in a way that other people want food or sex.

Most people get hungry when they smell good food or arroused when they see someone attractive. Some people even seek to build up these emotions before going for the release. I can understand feeling annoyed or angry when seeing something you think shouldn't be a part of the world, but I can't understand actually looking to build up anger. Someone going to a bar to look for someone to have sex with I can understand. But someone going to a bar to look for someone to hate? Like the hateful looks and insults are somesort of flirting.

Okay earlier I said I don't understand and I didn't, but as I write this I can suddenly see it. Gluttony and Lust are two of the seven deadly sins I've always understood. Hunger and arrousal indulged too far. This is Wrath's version of the same thing. Insults are flirting. The shouting and grabbing are like the looks and touches of pre-foreplay. Then it's taken outside in a similar way a couple might find a hotel room. The following parts of both sides are censored and then they reach their respective climaxes: bloodlust and orgasm.

Now of course you can have a fight for fun as in sports or even ala Fight Club, but that is mutually agreed upon and there is even equipment for making it safer (yes I just compared boxing gloves to condoms). So this is the understanding I have achieved: neo-nazis are to Wrath what rapists are to Lust.

GonzoTheGreat
05-04-2014, 08:47 AM
Now of course you can have a fight for fun as in sports or even ala Fight Club, but that is mutually agreed upon and there is even equipment for making it safer (yes I just compared boxing gloves to condoms). So this is the understanding I have achieved: neo-nazis are to Wrath what rapists are to Lust.
To tie this in to the church thing: many churches disapprove of condoms; do they also disapprove of boxing gloves?

Ozymandias
05-04-2014, 04:46 PM
Agree 100%

Reminds me of the story that was going around couple weeks back of the white supremacists who couldn't get any traction on their "million white man march" and instead ended up planting easter eggs filled with racist messages around DC.

Speaks volumes to where we are as a society that this is the best racists can do these days.

Also, very appropriate action on the part of the Swedish church, symbolic without infringing on anyone's right to demonstrate.

Terez
05-04-2014, 05:00 PM
Neo-nazism seems to be more of an issue in Europe than it is here because in the US neo-nazis can find most of what they want in the GOP or, if that's not enough, the militia movement which has always been a barely-cloaked white supremacist movement. The way Cliven Bundy was covered on Fox speaks volumes more about where we are as a society than the march on DC. We expect our racism to be covert in the US, but the white supremacist movement is growing here. Don't fool yourself.

Southpaw2012
05-04-2014, 05:32 PM
Fox covered him for his fight with the Federal Government's intrusion. He was ripped apart when he made his remarks. Fox has never defended racist remarks nor has anyone else worth discussing. When I say racist remarks, I mean true racist marks; such as with Bundy. Not the racist remarks and racist people liberals see hiding behind every bush who don't agree with them.

Terez
05-04-2014, 05:34 PM
Fox covered him for his fight with the Federal Government's intrusion.
A movement that has deep roots in white supremacism and began during Reconstruction. Only Fox was surprised by his remarks. (And to tell the truth, I doubt many at Fox were surprised either...just disappointed that he got caught on camera.)

Tomp
05-04-2014, 06:24 PM
To tie this in to the church thing: many churches disapprove of condoms; do they also disapprove of boxing gloves?

The difference is that boxing gloves have resulted in more deaths.

Seeker
05-04-2014, 06:39 PM
Neo-nazism seems to be more of an issue in Europe than it is here because in the US neo-nazis can find most of what they want in the GOP or, if that's not enough, the militia movement which has always been a barely-cloaked white supremacist movement. The way Cliven Bundy was covered on Fox speaks volumes more about where we are as a society than the march on DC. We expect our racism to be covert in the US, but the white supremacist movement is growing here. Don't fool yourself.

Is this the idiot who tried to graze his cattle on government land and then got mad when asked to pay his bill? Apparently charging someone for the use of land that you own is intrusion now.

Terez
05-04-2014, 07:42 PM
Apologies for the double post, but I need to come back to the rest of this quote.
Fox covered him for his fight with the Federal Government's intrusion. He was ripped apart when he made his remarks. Fox has never defended racist remarks nor has anyone else worth discussing. When I say racist remarks, I mean true racist marks; such as with Bundy. Not the racist remarks and racist people liberals see hiding behind every bush who don't agree with them.
This is what I was talking about earlier when I said that we expect our racism to be covert in the US. Europe has in general had a different history with race construction; in Europe, what you got was nationalism, a sort of ethnical push and pull between myriad white ethnicities, with some nuance on the Mediterranean where white races got darker during the conquest.

The US, on the other hand, has had a black-white false dichotomy since its inception, but we were born at the height of the Enlightenment, which means that we are very practiced at covert racism. Overt racism doesn't quite have the same level of cultural taboo in Europe generally, not yet; one might even say that the opposition to neo-nazism in Europe is less about white supremacy and more about the association with Hitler, who rose to power on nationalism rather than racism, and ultimately focused on a race that passes for white in the US. The kind of fear that inspires in Europeans has a lot to do with how the entire continent was virtually destroyed during WWII. The white supremacy and the holocaust are almost a side story to that. (Almost.)

Again, Bundy's opposition to the federal government has its roots in the Civil War and all its concomitant ills. That's why you shouldn't be surprised at his overt racism, why Fox shouldn't have been surprised. I was on the road when all this was going on, but I remember hearing about him before I went on the road and instantly knowing what he was about. I have known several people who have been associated with the militia movement, one of whom was an extremely intelligent guy with whom I used to meet for coffee every day.

Clayton is in jail now, or was last I checked, for child molestation, which for the record I doubt he actually did (I would have to talk to the girls to be sure, but I haven't seen them since before I heard he was in jail). The reason I doubt he did it is because his wife used to tell me in detail her fantasies for screwing him over or even killing him. I don't blame her; he was intolerable, and he seduced her when she was 17 and he was...30?

I'm not sure what all Clayton was a member of, except the Masons, which he was very excited about (and he told me a bit about how much stuff he had to memorize to pass their tests). But Clayton would talk quite a bit about the federal government and the illegality or unconstitutionality of most of its actions. He talked about the sovereignty of the individual, and the highest authority being the county sheriff. He talked about how it's illegal for the federal government to tax, how it's impossible to sue the federal government, etc. And he was overtly racist in conversation with me (but not to black employees at the coffee place...he was always covert with them).

I learned a lot about that particular philosophy from Clayton, and I've learned more about it in years since. A friend of mine joined a militia; he is also overtly racist...with white people. Everyone I've ever known to be associated with the militia is overtly racist with white people. It's like they expect every white person to agree with them and thus have no filter around white people. The militia movement grew in multiples after Obama was elected; there was an increase of close to 1000% in the number of militia groups.

Rachel Maddow did a good segment on Bundy which I just watched (trying to catch up on what I missed while I was gone). She filled in a few gaps in my knowledge of the history:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/watch/radical-racist-context-missed-in-rancher-hype-236481603620

Some of the specifics, I didn't know already, but the general gist of the history has been apparent to me for a long time. The South is still burned up about the Civil War and the scary, scary darkies. This is where the paranoia about the federal government taking away your guns comes from: Reconstruction. Maybe Fox thought they were safe with Bundy because he was in Nevada, but this has long since ceased to be a South-only thing.

These militia groups are made up of extremists, people like Bundy (and worse), people who distribute white supremacist literature at gun shows and hang out at Stormfront, but they have always enjoyed wide support from Republicans. It's no secret that conservatives fantasize about these militias taking on the federal government, just like we saw at Bundy's ranch. (In this case, they even fantasized about using women as human shields.) But your would-be saviors are probably 99% white supremacists. Overt racists. Without them, your fantasy of taking on the federal government is laughably impossible to achieve.

Fox will only stand out against the most overt, undeniable racism. Anything that isn't caught on video like Cliven Bundy is therefore just liberals seeing racism under every bush. It's ridiculous that you guys expect us to believe that. I just listened to my grandmother last night going on about how we did the Nigras a favor by bringing them here from Africa, because they have better lives than they did there! And of course, black people were selling each other; everyone knows that! That conversation started with talking about WoT and how long it is; I mentioned that I liked Gone With the Wind when I was a kid because it was long. Grandma said she liked it because it portrayed the history of the South accurately, especially the bit about how slaves were considered to be members of the family. My Grandma is not an outlier. These beliefs pervade the South, and are no longer limited to the South.

For perspective on covert vs overt racism, this is a well-written article:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/05/This-Town-Needs-A-Better-Class-Of-Racist/361443/

PS: I did some research on Clayton and I changed my mind. I found the opinion summary (http://law.justia.com/cases/mississippi/supreme-court/2013/2012-ka-00372-sct.html) for his appeal (major trigger warning), and it looks pretty damning. I also found some comments from people who know him on an online article, and they say that at soon as he was convicted, their mother abandoned all four of their kids with her mother. A friend I saw tonight told me that he's seen her fairly recently and she looks to be a methhead these days. Very sad all around, and it makes me want to find those girls and do something for them. There is still a possibility that there mother arranged it somehow, but it's a bit convoluted.

Davian93
05-05-2014, 01:14 PM
A couple thoughts along with Terez here...

1. Not all right-wingers are racists but almost all racists are right-wingers.

2. If someone starts talking to you about "states rights" or how the Civil War was about "states rights", they are 99.99999% a racist.

3. If you start off a sentence with "Let me tell you what I know about the negro"...nothing good will ever come from it or follow those words.

I mentioned that I liked Gone With the Wind when I was a kid because it was long. Grandma said she liked it because it portrayed the history of the South accurately, especially the bit about how slaves were considered to be members of the family. My Grandma is not an outlier. These beliefs pervade the South, and are no longer limited to the South.

LOL..so very true. What a horribly racist movie. The book is far, far worse and more overt about it than the movie was (which whitewashed (fun word choice) a lot of the racism in the novel).

Terez
05-06-2014, 04:03 AM
If someone starts talking to you about "states rights" or how the Civil War was about "states rights", they are 99.99999% a racist.
There is some nuance here. The origin of the talking point was a lot more overtly racist than it tends to be these days; it's quite possible to grow up believing that the Civil War was primarily about states' rights while being considerably less racist than one's parents and especially grandparents. I know many successful white people in the south who have never really learned the history beyond the southern talking points. It's always ignorant, but the level of racism varies. I remember when I was younger how shocked I was to learn that the South supported FDR so consistently. Less surprising that the Dixiecrats came to be, and their successors, on the basis of race rather than terrible government programs. They loved the New Deal but only feared that the Negro would find some way to benefit from it; the division predated FDR, as non-Southern Democrats started to support the end of Jim Crow and civil rights more generally. The Southern hatred of the federal government is old, but it reached critical mass in the late 60s, which was the perfect opportunity for the neoliberals to glom onto the revivalists and thus win the south.

SauceyBlueConfetti
05-06-2014, 02:38 PM
:( Frowny face


"Covert" racism would convey intent.

One of the biggest issues I have with folks is when they are racist and deny it.

Living near Detroit makes life interesting in these conversations. I have a "friend" (whom I inherited when I got married, she is the wife of my husband's friend). She talks big about reviving Detroit, how hard she works to help, she goes to church there, they want to buy a loft there, they like to shop there. Detroit rah rah rah. Then she will turn around and make a racist comment entirely devoid of human sympathy. Mind boggling. If you asked her, point blank, if she discriminates, she would get puffy and yell NO WAY.

While most of us (I hope) think of ourselves as open minded and accepting --at least moreso than our previous generations-- but we all still harbor a bit of racist thoughts, or discriminating ideas for various ethnic groups, even if we don't realize it immediately. Recognizing that is hard for people, vocalizing it is a whole 'nother story.

Covert = Someone who knows they are racist and trying to hide it from small-to-large groups they interact with on a regular basis.

Idiocy = Denying that you harbor issues, even a little.

: (


I loved Gone with the Wind. Sadly, it did reflect the era pretty close to reality. It was written by a southern white woman who lived in the days where blacks were treated both as family and as property to demean and degenerate at will. To them, they didn't see that as a problem.

Davian93
05-06-2014, 03:13 PM
I think that's more just northern racism. I grew up around that outside of Philadelphia and I saw it all the time living around Boston and now in Vermont.

They'll cry to the heavens that they're not racist but as soon as its a group of all white people, their true colors come out with the ever fun phrases like:

"that's mighty white of you"

"the city/old neighborhood/going to the game is so dangerouw these days because of them" or "because of how things have changed".

Regular usage of racist or anti gay terminology when they dont think any non-white, non straight people are around.

Ripping of things like welfare and affirmative action because "we've given enough"

etc etc etc.
I once had an electrician talk to me at work when he was repairing our HVAC unit...we got to talking about how we had both lived in northern Virginia...and then he said this out of no where "Yeah but I moved to Vermont because I got sick of all the niggers".

I responded by mentioning how my fiancee was Latino. What a jackass.

I loved Gone with the Wind. Sadly, it did reflect the era pretty close to reality. It was written by a southern white woman who lived in the days where blacks were treated both as family and as property to demean and degenerate at will. To them, they didn't see that as a problem.


I will agree that it showed the POV of the rich whites southerners of that time period pretty well (both when it was written during the 1930s and in the pre-bellum and then post-war years. The POV that they were doing "them" a favor by keeping them enslaved and how it was all part of God's will was quite prevalent during both periods...it goes along with the entire revisionist history of the South that is perpetrated all the way to the current day with the reverence of southern leaders like Lee and Jackson and in books like the alternate histories of Harry Turtledove.

Nazbaque
05-06-2014, 03:56 PM
Idiocy = Denying that you harbor issues, even a little.
Does this apply to me too? I'm pretty sure I don't have any racial prejudices. Pretty low on prejudices of any kind actually. About people that is. I hate the taste of coconuts. It's not an allergy as such the taste just makes me want to vomit. So I'm convinced that any food that has coconut in it will taste horrible in my mouth. But any given person is never just an extension of a race to me, or nationality or religion. Except politicians. They are assholes by default.

Uno
05-06-2014, 04:42 PM
This is just a very general comment regarding this Bundy fellow and the tea-partyesque anti-government crowd:

If I took their anti-statist views at face value, I would have had a lot of sympathy as a matter of philosophical principle: I have no love for the state and the concentration of impersonal institutionalized power it represents. But I don't think they really are sincere anti-statists. Rather, I think they fear that the demographics and interest groups with whom they identify are losing control over the state to people they despise, so they lash out at the state, not because they are against it, but because they don't want their perceived foes to control it. In that sense, they are much like the Southern plantocracy after the election of Lincoln. They're quite willing themselves to harness the power of the state to champion their own agendas, be it the regulation of sexuality or the imposition of religion in public institutions.

Even if they were genuine anti-statists--anarchists, if you will--they would be fundamentally misguided, for it is folly to free yourself from the tyranny of the state if you don't also free yourself from the greater tyranny of corporate rule. Indeed, the state may be the best available protection we have right now (and for the foreseeable future) against the plutocracy. A poor protection it is turning out to be, but I don't know of a realistic alternative at present.

Davian93
05-06-2014, 05:09 PM
This is just a very general comment regarding this Bundy fellow and the tea-partyesque anti-government crowd:

If I took their anti-statist views at face value, I would have had a lot of sympathy as a matter of philosophical principle: I have no love for the state and the concentration of impersonal institutionalized power it represents. But I don't think they really are sincere anti-statists. Rather, I think they fear that the demographics and interest groups with whom they identify are losing control over the state to people they despise, so they lash out at the state, not because they are against it, but because they don't want their perceived foes to control it. In that sense, they are much like the Southern plantocracy after the election of Lincoln. They're quite willing themselves to harness the power of the state to champion their own agendas, be it the regulation of sexuality or the imposition of religion in public institutions.

Even if they were genuine anti-statists--anarchists, if you will--they would be fundamentally misguided, for it is folly to free yourself from the tyranny of the state if you don't also free yourself from the greater tyranny of corporate rule. Indeed, the state may be the best available protection we have right now (and for the foreseeable future) against the plutocracy. A poor protection it is turning out to be, but I don't know of a realistic alternative at present.

Oh, they love the State...as long as they're in control of it. That's the crux.

Terez
05-06-2014, 07:49 PM
"Covert" racism would convey intent.
Yes, but the need to deny one's racism publicly can and does easily lead to the need to deny it to oneself. Thus you get the "elegant" racism that Coates wrote about in the article I linked.

I loved Gone with the Wind. Sadly, it did reflect the era pretty close to reality. It was written by a southern white woman who lived in the days where blacks were treated both as family and as property to demean and degenerate at will. To them, they didn't see that as a problem.
I will agree that it showed the POV of the rich whites southerners of that time period pretty well (both when it was written during the 1930s and in the pre-bellum and then post-war years. The POV that they were doing "them" a favor by keeping them enslaved and how it was all part of God's will was quite prevalent during both periods...it goes along with the entire revisionist history of the South that is perpetrated all the way to the current day with the reverence of southern leaders like Lee and Jackson and in books like the alternate histories of Harry Turtledove.
Indeed, it's pretty accurate on white perspective and even black perspective to a point. I don't recall any attempt to make the reader sympathize with the field hands; they were mostly nobodies and rapists except those who rose to the exalted ranks of house slave. Mammy could very well have a real-world counterpart or three, but she was used to reinforce a white ideal of what good slaves should have been like, and while Mammy did push her boundaries fairly often throughout the story, and that level of freedom probably did represent reality in many cases, the white southern reader comes away with the impression that this was right and good, rather than just a good person making the best of a terrible situation. I'm honestly not sure sometimes how much sympathy Margaret Mitchell had with the Cause. Maybe she wasn't sure either.

Northern racism was one of the themes in GWTW too, particularly after the war when the carpetbaggers arrived. I have also seen it (some northeastern liberals I encountered at college).

This is just a very general comment regarding this Bundy fellow and the tea-partyesque anti-government crowd:

If I took their anti-statist views at face value, I would have had a lot of sympathy as a matter of philosophical principle: I have no love for the state and the concentration of impersonal institutionalized power it represents. But I don't think they really are sincere anti-statists. Rather, I think they fear that the demographics and interest groups with whom they identify are losing control over the state to people they despise, so they lash out at the state, not because they are against it, but because they don't want their perceived foes to control it. In that sense, they are much like the Southern plantocracy after the election of Lincoln. They're quite willing themselves to harness the power of the state to champion their own agendas, be it the regulation of sexuality or the imposition of religion in public institutions.

Even if they were genuine anti-statists--anarchists, if you will--they would be fundamentally misguided, for it is folly to free yourself from the tyranny of the state if you don't also free yourself from the greater tyranny of corporate rule. Indeed, the state may be the best available protection we have right now (and for the foreseeable future) against the plutocracy. A poor protection it is turning out to be, but I don't know of a realistic alternative at present.
The plutocrats are certainly the class in need of reaching. Employee-owned businesses do exist, even debt-free ones. Even those could often use a bit of balancing, though, a bit less hierarchy. Plutocrats need to be convinced that they are biting the hands that feed them, to their own detriment, but they all seem to be convinced that they'll discover a way to get off the planet and John Galt before it all comes crashing down. I don't know if much thought has been given to what comes after.

Uno
05-06-2014, 08:08 PM
The plutocrats are certainly the class in need of reaching. Employee-owned businesses do exist, even debt-free ones. Even those could often use a bit of balancing, though, a bit less hierarchy. Plutocrats need to be convinced that they are biting the hands that feed them, to their own detriment, but they all seem to be convinced that they'll discover a way to get off the planet and John Galt before it all comes crashing down. I don't know if much thought has been given to what comes after.

Plutocracy is the worst form of rule. No sense of social responsibility, no loyalty to anything but profit, no culture, and so short-sighted. The only solace is that self-destruction is inherent in such a system, but it could still do the rest of us a lot of harm when it falls.

Terez
05-06-2014, 11:01 PM
One weird parallel between our white supremacists and the neo-nazis in Europe: they usually support austerity to the point of fascism. I suppose there are some race-related concerns about government spending across Europe too. Golden Dawn in Greece is probably one of the strongest groups.

Uno
05-07-2014, 12:37 AM
Well, that capitalism and fascism go hand in hand is hardly surprising.

Terez
05-07-2014, 04:35 AM
I was talking more about the idea that white supremacy and fascism go hand in hand, though I suppose you could argue that racism is a subset of fascism. It seems to me a bit more nuanced than that.

The US Civil War was ostensibly about states' rights, and also property rights. Those who argue these things today are missing the point that self-evident and inalienable right of the individual to liberty should trump these relatively mundane concerns, even if some of the Founders couldn't yet see it. To argue that the War of Northern Aggression was about states' rights or property rights, now or then, is to argue that states' rights and property rights are more important than basic human dignity.

Capitalism in the modern "conservative" understanding is not supposed to protect industries that are incapable of modernization. That is the risk you take in business, the risk that conservatives like to use to justify the lionization of our plutocrats (as if being poor does not risk so much more, just on an average day).

Andrew Napolitano was on the Daily Show a while back defending his argument that the federal government should have just bought all the slaves and everyone would have been happy, because the War ultimately cost more money than purchased emancipation would have (debatable). So basically he argued that the plantation owners should have gotten a taxpayer bailout, and that they were justified to start a War because they didn't get it. I'm sure it makes sense in his head, but he also ignores the fact that the South's reaction to the evidence that slavery's days were numbered was to double down on slavery and try to breed what they had lost when the trans-Atlantic trade was shut down, a practice that stubbornly continued for decades after the writing was on the wall.

GonzoTheGreat
05-07-2014, 04:55 AM
The US Civil War was ostensibly about states' rights, and also property rights. Those who argue these things today are missing the point that self-evident and inalienable right of the individual to liberty should trump these relatively mundane concerns, even if some of the Founders couldn't yet see it. To argue that the War of Northern Aggression was about states' rights or property rights, now or then, is to argue that states' rights and property rights are more important than basic human dignity.
And what's wrong with that*?
That was precisely what it was all about for those southern states: they believed that their right to have other people as property trumped those other people's right to basic human dignity.

It's not for nothing that American conservatism still isn't willing to accept liberalism as was promoted during the French Revolution, with liberty, equality and brotherhood for all rather than just for the elite. If they were to accept that fairly minimal standard of decency, then they would have to admit that slavery was indeed evil and that the whole Southern heritage is founded on evil.

Of course, it's not only American conservatives who have such an "evil isn't bad when the right kind of people do it" attitude. Not all that long ago, our own prime minister publicly espoused the VOC-attitude towards making a success of yourself, while glossing over that that amounted to conquering other lands, enslaving the local population and exploiting them while fighting off any competitors.

Argentina is very regularly claiming possession of the Falkland Islands, based on those islands having been stolen from the then Spanish authorities of what is nowadays Argentina. But they do not show any inclination to abandon the southern and western parts of their country, which in the relevant era were not yet part of that colony but were then still held by native Americans (who were later on "cleared away" by soldiers). If they were sincere, they would have to give up about half of their own country in order to have some kind of honest claim to a few small islands.

Conservatism is and always has been about picking whatever parts of history (real or made up) you like, ignoring the rest and also ignoring what effects it would have on others.
Of course, a lot of progressive politics ignores reality entirely, basing its goals only on wishful thinking, so that too isn't always very good. People should apply some more "what evidence supports this" thinking to their politics, instead of the ubiquitous "what (who) do I like".

* With assuming that's what the war was about. Not with that idea as such; I do know why that is flawed.

Nazbaque
05-07-2014, 08:14 AM
Any given war any where and any when happened because:

1: People want enemies

2: Politicians are assholes

Everything else is just detail.

Davian93
05-07-2014, 09:13 AM
Andrew Napolitano was on the Daily Show a while back defending his argument that the federal government should have just bought all the slaves and everyone would have been happy

A couple minor problems with that:

1. They weren't for sale...that idea was offered and rejected at the time.

2. The gov't didnt have that type of cash lying around. They needed to massively raise revenue and borrow literally billions of dollars to pay for the Civil War and it took them decades to pay it off. It would never have been approved even if the South would have gone for it. They weren't willing to give up their "property" period. And they believed so much in that right to keep their "property" that they preemptively seceded and started a war (they fired the first shots and made most of the provocative moves in late 1860/early 1861 that started the shooting.)

3. Neapolitano is a horse's ass.

Mort
05-11-2014, 03:02 PM
Any given war any where and any when happened because:

1: People want enemies

2: Politicians are assholes

Everything else is just detail.

1. (at least some) People want power. So much that they'll create enemies. Considering 'enemies' are people too that becomes a rather vicious circle.

2. Politicians are people.

GonzoTheGreat
05-12-2014, 04:20 AM
1. (at least some) People want power. So much that they'll create enemies. Considering 'enemies' are people too that becomes a rather vicious circle.

2. Politicians are people.
Some politicians declared war on drugs, and drugs aren't people. So obviously, that's a victimless war (discounting all those who get convicted of things like "using or having stuff we disapprove of for arbitrary reasons", but they tend to belong to minorities, so that's no big deal).

Ozymandias
05-16-2014, 05:13 PM
I was talking more about the idea that white supremacy and fascism go hand in hand, though I suppose you could argue that racism is a subset of fascism. It seems to me a bit more nuanced than that.


I should think the answer is that fascism and religion go hand in hand, and that modern racism is a subset of religion. It’s an especially valid argument when you consider the overtly Christian defenses given by white Southerners in the ante-bellum period, or when you consider the attitude of British colonialists in the Victorian era (think Rudyard Kipling). Both fascism and religion (in the monotheistic sense, at least) are attempts to control every facet of the citizen’s life, up to and including thoughts.

Perhaps it is merely historical coincidence that a fairly mono-religious bunch of Caucasians subdued a lot of darker-colored people, and the Bible was a handy justification for an existing reality, but intolerance and theism are essentially one and the same.

Sodas
06-14-2014, 09:26 PM
Cool story. Neo-nazis are gaining ground everywhere, it seems. I think they have always been around; the internet has just helped them organize and recruit. In a way, that's good; I like to think of it as airing out the moldy stuff in our societies. It could have consequences first, though.

It's also been going on at schools, like UCLA. I was reading articles on Sam Harris, a professor there, who is preaching an end to religious ideology.

http://www.beliefnet.com/Community/2006/11/The-Crusade-Against-Religion.aspx

In fact, the biggest question is why isn't there a debate going on right now in Universities on evolution. Gradual evolution has been blown out of the water, and even punctuated equilibrium has as well - due to species popping out of the same locations.

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=28

There is also a list of some 100+ professors asking for an open debate.