More DeSantis agenda

[ErosWired]

7 hours ago, BlackDude said:

There were no “good guys” in the Civil War. And although I don’t think it was your intent to minimize the impact of slavery on the war, that’s how it came across.

I’m not going to try to rise to that bait. It will always come across that way to you because you are predisposed to that view. Any discussion about slavery that takes any position other than the one that puts slavery full center as the only topic that matters runs headlong into the claim that slavery is the only topic that matters.

Slavery was vile, unconscionable and inexcusable. The institution had profound and perfidious effects that reverberate through society to this very moment. The expectation that these wrongs can be undone has led to much frustration; they cannot be undone, only mitigated. The wound may heal, but it scarred the flesh, and the scar will remain. We cannot unwind time and make it as though no one was ever enslaved or discriminated against in any way.

If it were merely a question of achieving parity between races in the present day, great progress might be made; but for many, what they demand is equity over time - a full balancing of the scales, to reach a true equilibrium of justice. Essentially, this is the eye-for-an-eye principle, whereby both sides are settled at an equal base level (and both, incidentally, equally blind). In this case, however, the only way the balance could be obtained would be a role reversal in which Blacks enslaved whites long enough to obtain equal benefit to that which whites obtained through enslaving them. Yet all agree that slavery is vile, unconscionable and inexcusable, so the path of total balance is not an option.

But my comment above was not intended to address any of those broad questions, but simply that the condition of individuals belies simplistic conclusions about the causes of the war.

Your examples merely underscore my point. Of those who benefitted peripherally from slavery, you cite landowners, railroads, insurance companies, banks, and corporations. My comments were about individual citizens who didn’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, which in the rural South of the 1860s was a pretty common description. Nobody denies that slaves suffered, nor that a society built on their backs was reprehensible, but there were people - many people - whose lives had little to do with it, as they were just struggling to get enough to keep the wolf from the door themselves.

My comment made no attempt to frame any “good guys” - in fact, I personally very much agree with abolitionist Wendell Phillips’ judgment of Lincoln as “a first rate second rate man” for his willingness to equivocate on slavery. Lincoln wasn’t a “good guy” - he was actually a dick about it. ‘The Great Emancipator’, my ass. Rather, my comment was meant to point out that not everyone - as so many would simplistically have it - were “bad guys”. Just because the society treated a class of people unjustly, every individual is not painted in the same hue with the same brush of guilt.

Not every Russian is equally evil because Putin is waging an unjust war in Ukraine. The society might be guilty of not rising to stop him, but the individual does not have the power. The complexity of the nature in which individuals become the society is what makes facile statements like a single cause or a single motivation for any societal phenomenon unrealistic.

[BlackDude]

2 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Your examples merely underscore my point. Of those who benefitted peripherally from slavery, you cite landowners, railroads, insurance companies, banks, and corporations. My comments were about individual citizens who didn’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of, which in the rural South of the 1860s was a pretty common description. Nobody denies that slaves suffered, nor that a society built on their backs was reprehensible, but there were people - many people - whose lives had little to do with it, as they were just struggling to get enough to keep the wolf from the door themselves.

Telling history is bait. Nor is it a “predisposition.”  

My point is everyone benefited directly or indirectly. Those who aren’t against it were perfectly fine with the status quo. 

If you think The Civil War was just a big property dispute, and that economics was just some ancillary issue, we can agree to disagree. 

[hntnhole]

16 hours ago, ErosWired said:

I am surprised that you would subscribe ti something so simplistic as a notion of “The” (singular) cause of the American Civil War.

There are those who believe that the "basic" cause was a clash between opposing economic systems, one agrarian (which was also based on slave-labor) and an industrialized system in the North.  According to some, the issue of slavery was used to drum up support for the Union cause, and demonize the South for enslaving others.  

If we look at a map of each side in that struggle showing railroad (i.e. supply lines), it's seems that mere lack of logistics would have ensured a Southern defeat.  

I'm not commenting on the validity here, I do clearly remember a history professor once saying something to the effect that the Civil War was merely a conflict between economic systems, and nothing more.  I rather doubt that, but then I'm not a history professor either.  

[NWUSHorny]

I find the differences in what is taught about the Civil War both interesting and significant. I grew up in the heart of Lincoln land, and am pretty well steeped in that history. We were taught and shown through a lot of living history reenactments at Lincoln sites about his belief that slavery was a great injustice, as well as implied connections with the underground railroad. Yes, we were also taught that he did promise not to end slavery and to keep the union together in his run for president, but the primary cause of the Civil War was the insistence of some southern citizens intention to preserve slavery.

We were also taught that Abe was one of the biggest promoters of our public education system as exists today, including signing the Morrill Act establishing the federally chartered Land Grant Universities. All of which is under direct attack from DeSantis and the MAGA political movement.

[ellentonboy]

Let's just say we are looking to move to a "blue" state but neither my partner nor myself are old enough to retire and I am at a loss as to where to move to.

 

Any suggestions>?

[NWUSHorny]

8 minutes ago, ellentonboy said:

Any suggestions>?

If you want to stick with a warm climate, CA and HI are probably your only options. If that isn't a priority I'd suggest either CO or IL. Just keep in mind that there are "blue" states that are both blue and completely accepting of gays that are also blue ball states when it comes to casual sex. I'm looking to move too, I'm looking at both the political and ball environment and very much want to avoid moving to another blue ball state.

[ErosWired]

6 hours ago, BlackDude said:

Telling history is bait. Nor is it a “predisposition.”  

My point is everyone benefited directly or indirectly. Those who aren’t against it were perfectly fine with the status quo. 

If you think The Civil War was just a big property dispute, and that economics was just some ancillary issue, we can agree to disagree. 

If not predisposition, then perspective, and perspective is everything in the way humans interpret society. In this case, the prevailing perspective that the white race benefited from the institution of slavery, and those benefits persist to the present day, reflected in continued social and economic inequity. This is arguably true; the consequences undeniably favor Caucasians by most any metric.

What follows, then, is an interesting question. If we assume that the benefits of the white-established society accrue to whites, what are the implications of the fact that in 2044 white people are no longer expected to be in the majority? This won’t mean that all the systems established by white, legacy-of-slave-owner-society are abolished; it will simply mean that those benefits that accrued from the institution of slavery will then accrue to People of Color as well. One might say, Well, it’s about time they got a little of their own back, but that’s not how it works - it’s still modern people benefiting from the enslavement of others in the past. They just happen to have skin closer in color now.

Full disclosure: I’m white as paste. I’m see-thru white. My family is all from Appalachia (God help us). I do a lot of genealogy, and I have never found an ancestor who owned a slave.

Except for one. He owned one slave, and I know this because there is a photograph of the enslaved man in a book of local history. I cannot bear to look at it. It makes me viscerally sick. The shame is almost unbearable, and this is five generations later. No doubt this will gratify some People of Color, who will say, Good - you should be ashamed because your ancestor owned a slave.

But what if my son or daughter marries a Black person (fine by me) and their child one day looks at that book of local history? That child is as much Black as White, and the child’s heritage is equal parts oppressed and oppressor. Should that child feel shame because her ancestor owned a slave and she benefits from the society built on the institution? How should she feel if she delves into genealogy and discovers that a 7th-generation ancestor on one side actually owned a 7th-generation ancestor on the other? (Genealogy is a perilous hobby.)

The thing about genealogy is that you start to see how everyone is connected to everyone else - there really is ultimately no us and them. Blood mixes readily, and in ways you don’t expect, and it doesn’t unmix. The Melting Pot here is only going to get more mixed, and harder to sort out who should be ashamed of what.

By the way, above you say that those who weren’t against slavery were perfectly fine with the status quo. Lincoln wasn’t. He was neither for nor against it, and he sure as hell wasn’t happy with the status quo, because he could read the tea leaves - the country was a cultural powder keg.

I neither think the war was a property dispute nor an economic issue, but a cultural reckoning that was always inevitable because no human society founded on disequilibrium and the deprivation of human need can endure. The endemic channeling of those things that humans require for self-actualization to a segment of the population, coupled with its sharp denial to another, built an unsustainable rising pressure within the society, from which all other complications derived.

I fear we see a not dissimilar dynamic playing out in the modern day.

Edited March 4, 2023 by ErosWired

[hntnhole]

On 3/4/2023 at 4:20 PM, ellentonboy said:

Any suggestions>?

I'd guess that NorthEastern Illinois would be one consideration.  The remnants of the old Daley Machine are still strong enough to keep Springfield blue, and Chicago will probably be an oasis for Liberals for a number of years to come.  The lake breeze is almost always present, which is delighful in the summer.  Winter though, can be a depressing series of cold, dark, short days. 

Some neighbors (boys) are considering Nicaragua ... but I don't want to pull up roots and move again.  And I don't want to have to learn another language either.  Everything's up in the air .............. 

[BlackDude]

On 3/4/2023 at 2:43 PM, ErosWired said:

What follows, then, is an interesting question. If we assume that the benefits of the white-established society accrue to whites, what are the implications of the fact that in 2044 white people are no longer expected to be in the majority? This won’t mean that all the systems established by white, legacy-of-slave-owner-society are abolished; it will simply mean that those benefits that accrued from the institution of slavery will then accrue to People of Color as well. One might say, Well, it’s about time they got a little of their own back, but that’s not how it works - it’s still modern people benefiting from the enslavement of others in the past. They just happen to have skin closer in color now.

Full disclosure: I’m white as paste. I’m see-thru white. My family is all from Appalachia (God help us). I do a lot of genealogy, and I have never found an ancestor who owned a slave.

Except for one. He owned one slave, and I know this because there is a photograph of the enslaved man in a book of local history. I cannot bear to look at it. It makes me viscerally sick. The shame is almost unbearable, and this is five generations later. No doubt this will gratify some People of Color, who will say, Good - you should be ashamed because your ancestor owned a slave.

1. We learned in South Africa power is not in numbers, it’s it economics. White people don’t have to be a majority. 
 

2. Most “POC” can be classified as white, and many choose to be. Black people are the only people who can’t be classified as white. That’s why many black people differentiate between POC and black, because doing something for POC oftentimes does nothing for black people. 
 

3. Bi-racial people are considered black in America culturally. That’s not what I say, that’s what white society has decided. Society operates along cultural lines, not genealogy.

4. Nothing will happen in 2044. America will resemble South Africa politically and economically (and the LGBT community culturally): white peoples on top with majority of the resources, POC serving as a buffer class with some benefits, and black people on the bottom.

5. If you don’t want to feel ashamed because white people owned slaves, you don’t have to. Hell, I’m not ashamed when a black person commits a crime in Chicago. 

[topblkmale]

On 3/4/2023 at 3:20 PM, ellentonboy said:

Let's just say we are looking to move to a "blue" state but neither my partner nor myself are old enough to retire and I am at a loss as to where to move to.

 

Any suggestions>?

New York

[topblkmale]

8 hours ago, BlackDude said:

1. We learned in South Africa power is not in numbers, it’s it economics. White people don’t have to be a majority. 
 

2. Most “POC” can be classified as white, and many choose to be. Black people are the only people who can’t be classified as white. That’s why many black people differentiate between POC and black, because doing something for POC oftentimes does nothing for black people. 
 

3. Bi-racial people are considered black in America culturally. That’s not what I say, that’s what white society has decided. Society operates along cultural lines, not genealogy.

4. Nothing will happen in 2044. America will resemble South Africa politically and economically (and the LGBT community culturally): white peoples on top with majority of the resources, POC serving as a buffer class with some benefits, and black people on the bottom.

5. If you don’t want to feel ashamed because white people owned slaves, you don’t have to. Hell, I’m not ashamed when a black person commits a crime in Chicago. 

Very true statement especially in corporate America.

[ErosWired]

21 hours ago, BlackDude said:

5. If you don’t want to feel ashamed because white people owned slaves, you don’t have to. Hell, I’m not ashamed when a black person commits a crime in Chicago. 

Are you saying that white America doesn’t have to feel ashamed that white people owned slaves in America? Really? Whew, that’s a relief. For a while there I thought there might be something legitimate to the argument that the dominant majority unjustly profited from the mistreatment of minorities for 400 years.

Of course we have to feel fucking ashamed of it. The whole damn nation needs to be cringingly ashamed of it. If we’re not ashamed, it means we don’t get why it was wrong or how wrong it was, and why every vestige of its legacy needs to by God be dug up by the roots and burned in fire.

[BlackDude]

3 hours ago, ErosWired said:

Are you saying that white America doesn’t have to feel ashamed that white people owned slaves in America? Really? Whew, that’s a relief. For a while there I thought there might be something legitimate to the argument that the dominant majority unjustly profited from the mistreatment of minorities for 400 years.

Of course we have to feel fucking ashamed of it. The whole damn nation needs to be cringingly ashamed of it. If we’re not ashamed, it means we don’t get why it was wrong or how wrong it was, and why every vestige of its legacy needs to by God be dug up by the roots and burned in fire.

People who are continuing the legacy of white supremacy in ideology and in practice should be ashamed. However, a person is responsible for their own feelings.  
 

 

[BootmanLA]

On 3/3/2023 at 10:43 PM, ErosWired said:

Bear in mind that there were plenty of white folks in the agrarian south who did not own plantations, or slaves. 

As has been pointed out repeatedly: ALL white people, not just those who owned slaves, benefitted from the institution because it gave them a leg up in terms of status. The poorest white had a higher social status than the wealthiest black in virtually every part of the south, and nowhere is that more solidly true than in the rural south. That held true long after slavery and repercussions of that still pervade American society and applied equally to your ancestors as well as the richest plantation owners.

On 3/3/2023 at 10:43 PM, ErosWired said:

There is historical record of the response of some white Confederates when asked why they were fighting against Union soldiers who were in the South. Their answer wasn’t “Because you’re trying to free our slaves” - it was “Because you’re down here.” To these people, the proximate, immediate, pressing motivation for war wasn’t the preservation of the slave state, it was stopping an invasion that was killing their people, burning their homes and farms, killing their livestock, and fouling their water.

That may have been the reason those individuals eventually joined the fight. But the war itself - the secession, the attacks on federal facilities that kicked off the fighting, the organized efforts of the southern states - that had everything to do with slavery. Pretending it didn't and focusing on the motivations of a bunch of hayseed rednecks here and there, instead of the bigger picture, is a lot like asking a group of random US servicemembers why they were fighting in Iraq and assuming that (whatever it is) was the reason for the Iraq war.

On 3/3/2023 at 10:43 PM, ErosWired said:

It’s worth pointing out, by the way, that Lincoln himself did not place the abolition of slavery as the sine qua non of the War - for him, what mattered was the preservation of the Union.

True, insofar as that goes. But Lincoln's position changed once he realized that the South would not rejoin the union even under the circumstances of preserving slavery. The impetus was the so-called "border states'" rejection of the idea of gradual emancipation,

It's also important to note that while Lincoln might have been willing to tolerate slavery where it existed as the price for maintaining the union, he was clearly and emphatically on record that it was morally reprehensible and that it should not be allowed to expand into the remaining territories. He repeated his opposition to slavery and his intent to eradicate it during his re-election campaign. Tell the whole story, not just selected parts.

[BootmanLA]

On 3/4/2023 at 8:20 AM, ErosWired said:

But my comment above was not intended to address any of those broad questions, but simply that the condition of individuals belies simplistic conclusions about the causes of the war.

The problem, again, is that you are confusing the reasons that *individuals* chose to fight, or not, with the reasons that the **governing bodies with the actual ability to wage war* chose to enter into that conflict.

It's like the difference between why Johnny becomes a civil engineer and why BigCo Giant Engineers, Inc. is in business. Johnny becomes an engineer because it's a skill he has, or a talent, or something he enjoys doing, or because his father was an engineer and he's following in the footsteps. It could be any number of things. BigCo Giant Engineers is in business to make money, period. It sees a market for what it does and tries to get whatever market share it can.

Not just apples and oranges, but apples and an Antarctic glacier. Not even in the same general realm.

On 3/4/2023 at 8:20 AM, ErosWired said:

Not every Russian is equally evil because Putin is waging an unjust war in Ukraine. The society might be guilty of not rising to stop him, but the individual does not have the power. The complexity of the nature in which individuals become the society is what makes facile statements like a single cause or a single motivation for any societal phenomenon unrealistic.

Granted. But in Russia, everyone in the country doesn't benefit, in comparison with [fill in the blank] simply because they're Russian. White people, in this country, always had a status that exceeded that of blacks. If nothing else, as the Supreme Court clarified in Dred Scott, blacks couldn't even be citizens of the country. Period.

On 3/4/2023 at 4:43 PM, ErosWired said:

If we assume that the benefits of the white-established society accrue to whites, what are the implications of the fact that in 2044 white people are no longer expected to be in the majority? This won’t mean that all the systems established by white, legacy-of-slave-owner-society are abolished; it will simply mean that those benefits that accrued from the institution of slavery will then accrue to People of Color as well.

What an incredibly simplistic and poorly conceived idea. By this "logic", no minority in any country could ever dominate society, or business, or economics, or anything else, because sheer numbers were the only thing that mattered. Ever looked at who had power in South Africa prior to the end of apartheid and what numbers were in each group? More than 3/4 were black, and whites never more than 20%, less than 13% by the time the system finally started breaking down.

Rest assured that long after white people become a numerical minority in this country, they will still undoubtedly control the vast majority of the power, even before you account for gerrymandering.  When white households own >85% of the wealth of the country,

On 3/4/2023 at 4:43 PM, ErosWired said:

By the way, above you say that those who weren’t against slavery were perfectly fine with the status quo. Lincoln wasn’t. He was neither for nor against it, and he sure as hell wasn’t happy with the status quo, because he could read the tea leaves - the country was a cultural powder keg.

Lincoln was on record as early as 1854 saying he was personally opposed to slavery, period. I agree he wasn't "perfectly fine with the status quo" but it's a slur to suggest he had no feelings on the issue. He was simply resigned to the fact that keeping slavery where it existed was almost certainly a prerequisite to maintaining the union, despite his clearly and unequivocally stated opposition to the institution.