Might be interesting to compare and contrast how we in the US have handled our laundry list of "bad things we've done in the past" compared to, say, Germany.

I know that the Nazi flag and other imagery are outright banned / censored in Germany. From what I understand, WW2 history taught in schools in Germany is handled very carefully, if not largely glossed over.

In the US, the only bit of history that gets treatment similar to that (in my experience/opinion) is the Vietnam war. I know my High School history classes definitely glossed over it and didn't want to get into any details about why, how, or whether or not we should have been in the war at all.

Compare that to WW2, which was covered in pretty great detail. Very much including actively encouraging students to consider their own thoughts on controversial things like dropping not just one but two atomic bombs on Japan.

The Civil War is also covered much more openly and honestly. I don't think I can recall anyone ever seriously suggesting that the single, most important root cause of the Civil War wasn't slavery. Other umbrella labels like "states rights" might be referred to as the impetus, but yes, any and all of those things really boil down to slavery.



One thing that scares me about the German approach (sweep under the rug and don't talk about it) is that it sort of all too conveniently ignores the reality that these terrible things were done by people who were (disturbingly) not very different from us. OK, Hitler himself might have been a 1 in a million or 1 in a billion combination of evil, crazy, and powerful. But Joe Average from today ... not so different from Hans Average from 1930s Germany.

Celebrating one's heritage and past is OK, sometimes even good. Especially when one can honestly own and try to understand the bad along with the good. I think it is OK to appreciate the Confederate flag, along with historical figures like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. It is possible to accept that their core motivations were done in support of a very bad and evil institution (slavery), but to still respect or even admire their accomplishments as human beings. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves too, but we are willing to look beyond that when considering his legacy.

Maybe the Confederate flag is tied too closely to the institution of slavery for it ever to be uncoupled from that. Maybe a government that prides itself on being democratic should consider that that connection creates a conflict with many of its constituents. But I hope we never sweep it under the rug and pretend it never happened.

Ta-Nehisi Coates had a good piece about the flag the other day:

The meaning of the Confederate flag is best discerned in the words of those who bore it

I have noticed it, but most of the time it is tied to economics. IE taxes, jobs, fees, etc they feel they are being burdened with. The racial component is there, but it is just a part of overall disdain for the poor. They don't like paying taxes, perceive that 'others' are not paying their fair share and tie it to a racial comment. Yet, most of the people I hear complaining live an outstanding lifestyle with an abundance of free time and money.

That said - the speaker in this video confuses me. While his explanation of 'White Fragility' makes sense he doesn't tie it to Treyvon, Ferguson, Charleston, in a very convincing way.

What I keep seeing in the media and online is a constant battle about details and phrases. 'Thug', 'Terrorist', 'Racist', and confederate flags. They want to talk ad nauseam about these things instead of the overarching long term effects of economic disenfranchisement, gun control, and a broken criminal justice system that is difficult for both the police and the general public (e.g. drug prohibition and criminalization).

Online I see people figuratively shouting at each other and "picking sides". Some people have nothing but disdain for the police and some have nothing but disdain for minorities and poor people.

Instead we need to have disdain for bad ideas, policies, and actions.

President Obama's speech was very insightful. He recognizes the multiple obstacles to reducing violence and the limited political will to really effect change.

I found this article interesting:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1071634/

Idiot. Should have painted a Confederate Flag on the roof. Improves the ballistic properties.

I disagree. He's discussing what HE SEES as a way around a system that outlaws abortion period. A system that he is on record, in favor of, btw.

In the cases of "honest rape" he is not opposed to emergency contraception. The phrase "honest rape" is anti-woman, victim blamey, proto-fascist rhetoric. I have 0 problem with his stance on emergency contraception. I also have no problem with a system that disallows late term abortion, except in cases when the mothers life is in danger. Late term abortion is ghastly. I'm against it. But "late term abortion" is also another pro-life rhetorical device. To make the entire arena of reproductive choice emotionally repulsive. The instances of late term abortions are extremely rare, but there's tons of hype about it out of the mouths of pro-lifers.

So, his rhetoric is abhorrent. Add this to his revisionist speeches in front of confederate flags, insanely rascist newsletters with his name on it, and I find it hard to believe that it's all an accident. I'm no longer buying that he's just a doting, old, confused by stander instead of a misogynistic, racist old dinosaur from the 1950's.

Oh, and as an OB/GYN, he should be WELL aware of the various psychological and emotional states of victims of sexual assaults. He should be well aware that we all don't just immediately rush over to the emergency room screaming "rape". And that just because we didn't do that, it doesn't mean we weren't "honestly" violated.
>> ^aurens:

To be frank, I think you (and others) are missing the point.
Ron Paul, as I see it, is addressing an obvious problem with a system that would allow medical treatment (early-stage abortion, or the prevention of pregnancy) only for rape victims, namely that you'd have to have a way of turning away (EDIT: and identifying) women who sought abortions for reasons other than rape. He's not suggesting a rubric for doing so (I don't think the interview format would have allowed him to), nor is he making any assumptions about the nature of rape victims or rapists. (Remember: he's a trained obstetrician-gynecologist. I'd bet he knows more about sexual assault than most of us do.) The phrase "honest rape" (yes, a terribly chosen phrase) is part of an attempt to address the problem described above, one which he didn't adequately explain.>> ^peggedbea:
it's like he's imagining this world where women/girls are only raped by absolute strangers. where rape is only actually rape if it occurs in a dark parking lot after a night of womanly shopping. it couldn't really be rape if you know your attacker. it's not really an "honest rape" if the rapist is someone you know socially and therefore have social and emotional ties to and the drama of reporting it would only GREATLY INTENSIFY the trauma of the experience. it's certainly not an "honest rape" if anyone could say "well, what were you doing THERE?" "i guess you shouldnt've been drinking!" "well, why were you dressed like that in the first place?" "what were you doing in the car with him?!?". and you certainly weren't actually raped if your psyche allows you to just internalize the incident, place all of the blame on yourself so that you can avoid the stigma and not have to subject yourself to further pokes and prods, investigations by strangers and 0298502945049490 questions and passive-aggressive blame from the people in your life.
ffffuuuuccckkkk tttthhhhhiissss

Certainly true. However, while Lincoln was undeniably against slavery (though not an abolitionist), he seemed to keep his feelings about slavery out of the war:

>> ^ChaosEngine:


Some things are just worth going to war for.


"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
-Letter to Horace Greeley

I can get behind that historian's way of describing it, and I agree with what you're saying about how the Civil War went down. I just disagree with your assessment of what Paul himself said -- he didn't just say "it's not the only issue" he later says "it wasn't the deciding issue" which is just...wrong.

The South seceded and fired the first shots because they wanted to keep their slaves so badly they'd rather leave the Union than give them up.

There was a confluence of other issues involved in the conflict, but "State's rights" was and always has been a euphemism for the bargain that was struck at the signing of the Constitution to let some states keep slavery, not some separate, lofty moral principle that has nothing to do with slavery.

>> ^Skeeve:

"While slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war." - Elizabeth R. Varon, Bruce Levine, Marc Egnal, and Michael Holt at a plenary session of the organization of American Historians, March 17, 2011.
Most historical works I have read about the American Civil War explain that, from the North's perspective, the war wasn't to end slavery, but to preserve the union. That said, the South's reason for seceding was based more heavily on protecting their right to have slaves.
As with all wars, there wasn't just one cause and, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, I have to agree with his statement that slavery wasn't the only reason for the Civil War.>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^Kreegath:
However, he does make his opinion clear that he doesn't think ending slavery was the deciding reason for the civil war, something that I've actually heard is a historically defensible position.

Heard from who?

>> ^artician:

However someone put it to me once that made me look at the entire clash between slave-holders and anti-slavery-abolitionists differently.



I understand the reasoning behind it from the slaveowners point of view, but the crux of the matter boils down to one sentence in your post.


>> ^artician:

Ignore the human rights aspect for the sake of this example (horrible, but necessary to understand it from their perspective).



For the sake of an intellectual exercise, that is totally valid. But this wasn't some hypothetical situation. A whole bunch of people were actually enslaved, so ultimately the human rights aspect trumps the economic, social and political aspects. IMHO, the human rights aspect almost always does.
Some things are just worth going to war for.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Sorry, I must be hearing things, because I'm pretty sure I just heard him advocate the "purchase of slaves freedom". Are you fucking kidding me?
I'm sorry, there's no room for debate, practicality, states fucking rights or anything else on this. If someone owns slaves, you go to that person and you inform them that "their" slaves are no longer slaves. If they object, you shoot them in the fucking head. In fact, I'd go further. You then calculate how much the person owes the former slaves for the work they would have done, and you seize those assets to compensate the former slaves.


From our modern perspective and (genuinely) more civilized understanding of human rights, I totally agree with your statement. That is my perspective on the topic as well. However someone put it to me once that made me look at the entire clash between slave-holders and anti-slavery-abolitionists differently.

In that day, slaves were valued as property. Now, I'm paraphrasing poorly here, but the way it was described to me was that the total value of slaves in the south at that time was more than any other property, product or monetary value altogether. Inflated for today's markets it was on the scale of billions of dollars directly tied to the industry and economy of the south.

Now, as reluctant as we probably all are to do this, put yourself in the shoes of someone from the south at that time, accepting that slaves were basically the commodity of the highest value in the region. "Commodity-X", for analogy's sake. Ignore the human rights aspect for the sake of this example (horrible, but necessary to understand it from their perspective). Your states entire economic backbone relied on Commodity-X. Through it, economy and incomes were stable, prosperity was extremely high, and life was good all around for the majority of citizens.


Now imagine if the federal government came to your state and told you:
"We've decided that Commodity-X is 'wrong', therefore we are going to eliminate and ban all traces of Commodity-X from every person and property in this region."

Essentially imagine the government taking 80% of your personal property based on their own criteria without compensation of any kind. You would go nuts! You might storm the capital, or maybe even be angry enough to join a movement of militant resistance against that kind of theft.

So when I take that perspective into account, I can understand why Paul would make a comment like "purchase of slaves freedom", because it would essentially be compensation of the billions and billions of dollars lost to a quarter of the United States citizens.



Another, equally valid parallel that might be even easier to understand would be looking at today's resistance by the Oil industry to relinquishing their addiction to that commodity. Once again, the economy of a massive part of the world is affected, and those which rely on it for their lively hood are being asked to relinquish with no real compensation. Granted there are a number of inconsistencies between the two that I won't go into, but the similarities are such that it's very comparable, sans human rights issues.

It's an apt analog for understanding why those affected would be so butt-hurt over the whole ordeal.

"While slavery and its various and multifaceted discontents were the primary cause of disunion, it was disunion itself that sparked the war." - Elizabeth R. Varon, Bruce Levine, Marc Egnal, and Michael Holt at a plenary session of the organization of American Historians, March 17, 2011.

Most historical works I have read about the American Civil War explain that, from the North's perspective, the war wasn't to end slavery, but to preserve the union. That said, the South's reason for seceding was based more heavily on protecting their right to have slaves.

As with all wars, there wasn't just one cause and, as much as I dislike Ron Paul, I have to agree with his statement that slavery wasn't the only reason for the Civil War.>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Kreegath:
However, he does make his opinion clear that he doesn't think ending slavery was the deciding reason for the civil war, something that I've actually heard is a historically defensible position.

Heard from who?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Kreegath:
However, he does make his opinion clear that he doesn't think ending slavery was the deciding reason for the civil war, something that I've actually heard is a historically defensible position.

Heard from who?


http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2475

>> ^Kreegath:

However, he does make his opinion clear that he doesn't think ending slavery was the deciding reason for the civil war, something that I've actually heard is a historically defensible position.

Heard from who?

No, you get it exactly. That is why I am so sour on Ron Paul. He rails against the tyranny of federal government, but seems to be OK with it at the local level.>> ^artician:

He seems very set on allowing States to decide what laws they follow in their local governments, but I wonder if that goes for something like slavery in his mind as well? Maybe I'm misunderstanding him.

Pabst Blue Ribbon!

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
@dystopianfuturetoday - Everyone else on this site knows you are conservative. Everyone else but you. Come out of the closet already. Don't you notice how TheSofaKing and QM fawns over your comments and posts. It's no coincidence. It's cool. Let your inner confederate flag fly.

http://videosift.com/video/Fight-of-the-Century-Keynes-vs-Hayek-Round-Two?loadcomm=1#comment-1194313

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't want to have to surrender my superlib card, but I'm OK with bin Laden dead, sans trial. I'd be OK with a trial too, but that's not how it played out. Either way is fine, just so long as it's over. I won't be celebrating bin Laden's death, or making ghoulish comments about pictures of his bullet ridden corpse, but generally, I'm glad to have finished the final chapter in the decade long story of 9/11.

I celebrate the death of the 9/11 era. Good riddance to all of it.

@dystopianfuturetoday - Everyone else on this site knows you are conservative. Everyone else but you. Come out of the closet already. Don't you notice how TheSofaKing and QM fawns over your comments and posts. It's no coincidence. It's cool. Let your inner confederate flag fly.

http://videosift.com/video/Fight-of-the-Century-Keynes-vs-Hayek-Round-Two?loadcomm=1#comment-1194313

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't want to have to surrender my superlib card, but I'm OK with bin Laden dead, sans trial. I'd be OK with a trial too, but that's not how it played out. Either way is fine, just so long as it's over. I won't be celebrating bin Laden's death, or making ghoulish comments about pictures of his bullet ridden corpse, but generally, I'm glad to have finished the final chapter in the decade long story of 9/11.

I celebrate the death of the 9/11 era. Good riddance to all of it.