|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Dec 26, 2021 5:03:18 GMT
1. KKK was more of a "Confederate identity" organisation. Nathan Bedford Forrest even said that And 3. That was more for economic reasons. Also, Civil War was fought for a number of reasons State's rights, tussle for political and economic control between planter class and bankers-abolitionists, tarrifs and the list goes on. 4. Neither Apartheid nor Segregation were "racist". They will always tell you that "Blacks"/"Mixed" were not allowed to use public facilities, which were to be used by "Whites", but they will never tell you that "Whites" too were not allowed to use public facilities, which were to be used by "Blacks"/"Mixed" and they will never tell you that "Mixed" too were not allowed to use public facilities, which were meant for "Blacks" and vice versa. 6. The Summary of the rulings under the so called "Jim Crow laws" was basically that as long as they were providing those services to everyone, they could be provided separately to people of different skin complexion. Those laws strictly prohibited denial of services to any individual solely because of color of his/her skin. 2;7. How are those related to skin complexion? 1. Who lynched blacks? Forrest said that because he was a KKK leader, of course he denies the claims. 3. WHAT? I suggest you watch Atun-Shei Films' "Checkmate Lincolnites" series, he made a video just on that (does have 1-2 or so swear words, so watcher beware). States' Rights for what? To keep slavery. Planter class needed what to rival bankers? Slaves! The whole southern economy relied on slaves. 4. Whites weren't naturally using colored facilities because they were bad, have you seen the fountains and the restrooms? Blacks didn't use the White rooms because they were afraid (KKK and public opinion, especially in the South) and Whites didn't use the Colored rooms because they were much worse in quality than the white rooms. 6. And yet, in the South, you saw separation of the classes, lynchings from the public, and lots of horrible things going on for Blacks. racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized That includes the Jews. 2. The SS and Nazis didn't just target Jews, they targeted Romani, the disabled, and the peoples of the Soviet Union, not to mention much more. 5 and 7. Many countries in 19th and 20th century Europe were anti-Semitic. I use 7 as an example because almost an entire country hated a group and blamed them a defeat which they did not do. The Dreyfus Affair was conducted on him solely because he was a Jew. To your later replies: Generally, the K did a lot of things that aren't exactly popular now. Dig deep enough and you will find them. Which leaders? Remember, Wilson was a Southerner! Anti-Semitism - hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people Y' know, Google exists for a reason. 3. Atun Shei is just a scalawag propagandist with a "white guilt". What you write after that just proves my point, that they were defending slavery for economic reasons and not because of the myth called "racism". State's Rights for everything, including not having to pay tarrifs and not having to lose the labouring class. 4. And your source is "trust me vro"? 6. "Separation of Classes"? What does that even mean? "Lynchings from the public"? When? How are Jews and Disabled racial or ethnic group? How can an entire country be "anti-semetic"? Hitler was an anti-semite. Most Muslims and Arabs are also anti-semetic. Wilson was a leftist. |
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Dec 26, 2021 6:27:10 GMT
1. Who lynched blacks? Forrest said that because he was a KKK leader, of course he denies the claims. 3. WHAT? I suggest you watch Atun-Shei Films' "Checkmate Lincolnites" series, he made a video just on that (does have 1-2 or so swear words, so watcher beware). States' Rights for what? To keep slavery. Planter class needed what to rival bankers? Slaves! The whole southern economy relied on slaves. 4. Whites weren't naturally using colored facilities because they were bad, have you seen the fountains and the restrooms? Blacks didn't use the White rooms because they were afraid (KKK and public opinion, especially in the South) and Whites didn't use the Colored rooms because they were much worse in quality than the white rooms. 6. And yet, in the South, you saw separation of the classes, lynchings from the public, and lots of horrible things going on for Blacks. racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized That includes the Jews. 2. The SS and Nazis didn't just target Jews, they targeted Romani, the disabled, and the peoples of the Soviet Union, not to mention much more. 5 and 7. Many countries in 19th and 20th century Europe were anti-Semitic. I use 7 as an example because almost an entire country hated a group and blamed them a defeat which they did not do. The Dreyfus Affair was conducted on him solely because he was a Jew. To your later replies: Generally, the K did a lot of things that aren't exactly popular now. Dig deep enough and you will find them. Which leaders? Remember, Wilson was a Southerner! Anti-Semitism - hostility to or prejudice against Jewish people Y' know, Google exists for a reason. 3. Atun Shei is just a scalawag propagandist with a "white guilt". What you write after that just proves my point, that they were defending slavery for economic reasons and not because of the myth called "racism". State's Rights for everything, including not having to pay tarrifs and not having to lose the labouring class. 4. And your source is "trust me vro"? 6. "Separation of Classes"? What does that even mean? "Lynchings from the public"? When? How are Jews and Disabled racial or ethnic group? How can an entire country be "anti-semetic"? Hitler was an anti-semite. Most Muslims and Arabs are also anti-semetic. Wilson was a leftist. 3. Really? And is your stance "heritage, not hate"? They defended slavery because the relied on the superiority of the masters over the slaves. You won't see White slaves on the White man's plantation. 4. ibb.co/Nyf2mWnThe quality difference is apparent. 6. It's right in the words. The separation of the races and classes. Segregation and apartheid. "Jews originated as an ethnic and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE, in the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel." 1. Have a minority (Jews). 2. Have an inciting event the can be blamed on said minority (defeat of Germany in WW1) 3. Have a leading class (Nazis) or a populace that hates said minority already (Jews were already hated by the German [and generally the European] populace to some degree) 4. Blame said minority (popular opinion of the German population) 5. Take actions against that group (Holocaust) Not an entire country. Just a large majority with maybe 1% of them being outliers. So using your reasoning, most Muslims and Arabs are also racist, using the literal definition and your words. And also Hitler, which should have been established already. Wilson was also a Southerner. And not only that, a supporter of the KKK, so of course the KKK won't attack Wilson. I'm probably on a watchlist from all of the Google searches (it's a joke that I'm not risking), so I will give you a literary example I know. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, a Black character is about to be attacked by the crowd, until the protagonist's father stops it (correct me if I'm wrong). This event is based on the author's life. Just look it up, and there will be horrific things that you will see. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Dec 26, 2021 6:45:00 GMT
3. Atun Shei is just a scalawag propagandist with a "white guilt". What you write after that just proves my point, that they were defending slavery for economic reasons and not because of the myth called "racism". State's Rights for everything, including not having to pay tarrifs and not having to lose the labouring class. 4. And your source is "trust me vro"? 6. "Separation of Classes"? What does that even mean? "Lynchings from the public"? When? How are Jews and Disabled racial or ethnic group? How can an entire country be "anti-semetic"? Hitler was an anti-semite. Most Muslims and Arabs are also anti-semetic. Wilson was a leftist. 3. Really? And is your stance "heritage, not hate"? They defended slavery because the relied on the superiority of the masters over the slaves. You won't see White slaves on the White man's plantation. 4. ibb.co/Nyf2mWnThe quality difference is apparent. 6. It's right in the words. The separation of the races and classes. Segregation and apartheid. "Jews originated as an ethnic and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE, in the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel." 1. Have a minority (Jews). 2. Have an inciting event the can be blamed on said minority (defeat of Germany in WW1) 3. Have a leading class (Nazis) or a populace that hates said minority already (Jews were already hated by the German [and generally the European] populace to some degree) 4. Blame said minority (popular opinion of the German population) 5. Take actions against that group (Holocaust) Not an entire country. Just a large majority with maybe 1% of them being outliers. So using your reasoning, most Muslims and Arabs are also racist, using the literal definition and your words. And also Hitler, which should have been established already. Wilson was also a Southerner. And not only that, a supporter of the KKK, so of course the KKK won't attack Wilson. I'm probably on a watchlist from all of the Google searches (it's a joke that I'm not risking), so I will give you a literary example I know. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, a Black character is about to be attacked by the crowd, until the protagonist's father stops it (correct me if I'm wrong). This event is based on the author's life. Just look it up, and there will be horrific things that you will see. 3. Its very subjective. Those whos ancestors suffered from slavery will certainly think those are symbol of hate and for those who have ancestors in Confederate Army will consider those monuments as heritage. Neither of them are wrong, that's natural. 4. That's the only image they have. I can't see any difference in this one though images.app.goo.gl/9WhTvEjwH2gLB2nh8images.app.goo.gl/6HdsiSJj1DefnBur65. Barely 1% of the Germans actually believed in the "Stab in the back theory". Well, he says that KKK attacked "leftists", which is just not true. Most of KKK's support came from "leftists". They used to burn Churches, destroy private property and were very anti-free market. A semi-fiction book is, to put it mildly, not the best source for anything. |
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Dec 26, 2021 7:16:37 GMT
3. Really? And is your stance "heritage, not hate"? They defended slavery because the relied on the superiority of the masters over the slaves. You won't see White slaves on the White man's plantation. 4. ibb.co/Nyf2mWnThe quality difference is apparent. 6. It's right in the words. The separation of the races and classes. Segregation and apartheid. "Jews originated as an ethnic and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE, in the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel." 1. Have a minority (Jews). 2. Have an inciting event the can be blamed on said minority (defeat of Germany in WW1) 3. Have a leading class (Nazis) or a populace that hates said minority already (Jews were already hated by the German [and generally the European] populace to some degree) 4. Blame said minority (popular opinion of the German population) 5. Take actions against that group (Holocaust) Not an entire country. Just a large majority with maybe 1% of them being outliers. So using your reasoning, most Muslims and Arabs are also racist, using the literal definition and your words. And also Hitler, which should have been established already. Wilson was also a Southerner. And not only that, a supporter of the KKK, so of course the KKK won't attack Wilson. I'm probably on a watchlist from all of the Google searches (it's a joke that I'm not risking), so I will give you a literary example I know. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, a Black character is about to be attacked by the crowd, until the protagonist's father stops it (correct me if I'm wrong). This event is based on the author's life. Just look it up, and there will be horrific things that you will see. 3. Its very subjective. Those whos ancestors suffered from slavery will certainly think those are symbol of hate and for those who have ancestors in Confederate Army will consider those monuments as heritage. Neither of them are wrong, that's natural. 4. That's the only image they have. I can't see any difference in this one though images.app.goo.gl/9WhTvEjwH2gLB2nh8images.app.goo.gl/6HdsiSJj1DefnBur65. Barely 1% of the Germans actually believed in the "Stab in the back theory". Well, he says that KKK attacked "leftists", which is just not true. Most of KKK's support came from "leftists". They used to burn Churches, destroy private property and were very anti-free market. A semi-fiction book is, to put it mildly, not the best source for anything. 3. There are horrors of slavery that a normal Confederate fought for. Horrors that would be unacceptable in a current U.S. scenario and would be instantly jeered by Americans as racist. Moral horrors. Find yourself a history textbook, or a documentary about slavery. The enslaved were subject to horrors while the enslavers profited from such horrors. 4. Both are of the outside while the second one just shows a clinic. Little differences can be seen from the outside. For example if I gave you 2 envelopes, one containing a crappy picture while the other containing the Mona Lisa, you could not spot the difference with those envelopes, assuming both are identical (its an example don't attack me because of the unlikeliness of the example). 5. And yet, Hitler took power, and Kristallnacht took place. Even if the populace didn't believe it (and a chunk certainly did judging from Nazi rallies and such), the leaders did. Even if the KKK didn't attack the left wing, they certainly did attack Blacks (if you use Forrest, he was a leader of the KKK), and certainly did commit racist acts. Remember, I said that the events were inspired the by author's personal experiences. Take a stroll in the opposite camp. Search up things that involve the deaths of Blacks via the acts of the public, such as public lynching and executions, sometimes of young adults, and see that you are wrong. Certainly you will find things. If this debate proves anything, it's that racist occurrences did happen. Using only the textbook meaning of the word "racism" and common and unbias historical knowledge, we can see that a racist ruler created death camps, sent his elite soldiers after what he perceived to be undesirables, and exterminated at least 6 million of them. Its a horrible event called the Holocaust. When Soviet troops entered a camp whist attacking the Nazis, they found skeletons with skin over them. Still living, but only barely. Neo-Nazis have denied this, and I wish to see that you don't either. |
|
|
|
Post by Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov on Dec 26, 2021 7:53:37 GMT
3. Really? And is your stance "heritage, not hate"? They defended slavery because the relied on the superiority of the masters over the slaves. You won't see White slaves on the White man's plantation. 4. ibb.co/Nyf2mWnThe quality difference is apparent. 6. It's right in the words. The separation of the races and classes. Segregation and apartheid. "Jews originated as an ethnic and religious group in the Middle East during the second millennium BCE, in the part of the Levant known as the Land of Israel." 1. Have a minority (Jews). 2. Have an inciting event the can be blamed on said minority (defeat of Germany in WW1) 3. Have a leading class (Nazis) or a populace that hates said minority already (Jews were already hated by the German [and generally the European] populace to some degree) 4. Blame said minority (popular opinion of the German population) 5. Take actions against that group (Holocaust) Not an entire country. Just a large majority with maybe 1% of them being outliers. So using your reasoning, most Muslims and Arabs are also racist, using the literal definition and your words. And also Hitler, which should have been established already. Wilson was also a Southerner. And not only that, a supporter of the KKK, so of course the KKK won't attack Wilson. I'm probably on a watchlist from all of the Google searches (it's a joke that I'm not risking), so I will give you a literary example I know. In the book To Kill A Mockingbird, a Black character is about to be attacked by the crowd, until the protagonist's father stops it (correct me if I'm wrong). This event is based on the author's life. Just look it up, and there will be horrific things that you will see. 3. Its very subjective. Those whos ancestors suffered from slavery will certainly think those are symbol of hate and for those who have ancestors in Confederate Army will consider those monuments as heritage. Neither of them are wrong, that's natural. 4. That's the only image they have. I can't see any difference in this one though images.app.goo.gl/9WhTvEjwH2gLB2nh8images.app.goo.gl/6HdsiSJj1DefnBur65. Barely 1% of the Germans actually believed in the "Stab in the back theory". Well, he says that KKK attacked "leftists", which is just not true. Most of KKK's support came from "leftists". They used to burn Churches, destroy private property and were very anti-free market. A semi-fiction book is, to put it mildly, not the best source for anything. Anti-free market does not mean leftism. The same as anti-communism doesn't mean rightism. |
|
|
|
Post by Shrimant Peshwa Madhavrao Bhat on Dec 26, 2021 9:20:04 GMT
3. There are horrors of slavery that a normal Confederate fought for. Horrors that would be unacceptable in a current U.S. scenario and would be instantly jeered by Americans as racist. Moral horrors. Find yourself a history textbook, or a documentary about slavery. The enslaved were subject to horrors while the enslavers profited from such horrors. 4. Both are of the outside while the second one just shows a clinic. Little differences can be seen from the outside. For example if I gave you 2 envelopes, one containing a crappy picture while the other containing the Mona Lisa, you could not spot the difference with those envelopes, assuming both are identical (its an example don't attack me because of the unlikeliness of the example). 5. And yet, Hitler took power, and Kristallnacht took place. Even if the populace didn't believe it (and a chunk certainly did judging from Nazi rallies and such), the leaders did. Even if the KKK didn't attack the left wing, they certainly did attack Blacks (if you use Forrest, he was a leader of the KKK), and certainly did commit racist acts. Remember, I said that the events were inspired the by author's personal experiences. Take a stroll in the opposite camp. Search up things that involve the deaths of Blacks via the acts of the public, such as public lynching and executions, sometimes of young adults, and see that you are wrong. Certainly you will find things. If this debate proves anything, it's that racist occurrences did happen. Using only the textbook meaning of the word "racism" and common and unbias historical knowledge, we can see that a racist ruler created death camps, sent his elite soldiers after what he perceived to be undesirables, and exterminated at least 6 million of them. Its a horrible event called the Holocaust. When Soviet troops entered a camp whist attacking the Nazis, they found skeletons with skin over them. Still living, but only barely. Neo-Nazis have denied this, and I wish to see that you don't either. 3. Most Confederate soldiers were not fighting for slavery. Slavery was undoubtedly horrible, I am not denying that. But I don't think it was racist, it was mainly there for economic reasons. KKK also attacked White Southerners, who cooperated with the Republicans and the federal government and also white Northerner immigrants. So much "racism" indeed. I am not denying Holocaust. |
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Dec 26, 2021 11:56:47 GMT
Me just watching Infographics Show on our TV (YouTube)
|
|
|
|
Post by 6Johnny23 on Dec 26, 2021 18:33:05 GMT
3. There are horrors of slavery that a normal Confederate fought for. Horrors that would be unacceptable in a current U.S. scenario and would be instantly jeered by Americans as racist. Moral horrors. Find yourself a history textbook, or a documentary about slavery. The enslaved were subject to horrors while the enslavers profited from such horrors. 4. Both are of the outside while the second one just shows a clinic. Little differences can be seen from the outside. For example if I gave you 2 envelopes, one containing a crappy picture while the other containing the Mona Lisa, you could not spot the difference with those envelopes, assuming both are identical (its an example don't attack me because of the unlikeliness of the example). 5. And yet, Hitler took power, and Kristallnacht took place. Even if the populace didn't believe it (and a chunk certainly did judging from Nazi rallies and such), the leaders did. Even if the KKK didn't attack the left wing, they certainly did attack Blacks (if you use Forrest, he was a leader of the KKK), and certainly did commit racist acts. Remember, I said that the events were inspired the by author's personal experiences. Take a stroll in the opposite camp. Search up things that involve the deaths of Blacks via the acts of the public, such as public lynching and executions, sometimes of young adults, and see that you are wrong. Certainly you will find things. If this debate proves anything, it's that racist occurrences did happen. Using only the textbook meaning of the word "racism" and common and unbias historical knowledge, we can see that a racist ruler created death camps, sent his elite soldiers after what he perceived to be undesirables, and exterminated at least 6 million of them. Its a horrible event called the Holocaust. When Soviet troops entered a camp whist attacking the Nazis, they found skeletons with skin over them. Still living, but only barely. Neo-Nazis have denied this, and I wish to see that you don't either. 3. Most Confederate soldiers were not fighting for slavery. Slavery was undoubtedly horrible, I am not denying that. But I don't think it was racist, it was mainly there for economic reasons. KKK also attacked White Southerners, who cooperated with the Republicans and the federal government and also white Northerner immigrants. So much "racism" indeed. I am not denying Holocaust. White Southerners who had soft spots for Blacks as well. They may have had other targets, but you cannot deny that the KKK target Blacks the most. Those soldiers fought to keep slavery. Why did the South secede? To keep slavery. Did the Confederate sign up to fight for his home or to fight for slavery? We may never know, but there is definitely some that were racist and fought to preserve slavery. If you do not deny the Holocaust, then why do deny racism? |
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 28, 2021 2:27:15 GMT
𝘛𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘴𝘬𝘺, I have to disagree with you on one major point. I do not think that the turnabout of Wallace was due to pure political opportunism. Everyone who saw him afterwards, including close personal aides and Richard Nixon himself remarked that he was a changed man. I believe that mankind, no matter how bad it is, will always strive for good. I actually believe that his segregationism was political gamesmanship, with the famous quote 9f never "being out-'n'ed again."
|
|
|
|
Post by Saltin on Dec 28, 2021 7:46:29 GMT
Historically around the world slavery didn't really have much to do with racism as much a reaping economic reward for conquest or supremacy. Meaning the loosing side was basically made to loose its humanity and forced to become a means of production, in other words made to be an economic asset.
The Romans for example didn't care all that much about what color of skin their enemies were, the survivors of battle were all going to be enslaved to serve the empire.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Dec 28, 2021 15:15:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Saltin on Dec 28, 2021 22:49:51 GMT
^ he hasn't been around for a while like since June but we got quiet a few players go afk between game releases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Manfred von Richthofen on Dec 31, 2021 16:31:37 GMT
Happy New Year!
|
|
|
|
Post by Lucklife on Jan 1, 2022 5:52:26 GMT
Happi new year to you too!
|
|
|
|
Post by Gerd von Rundstedt on Jan 2, 2022 1:45:19 GMT
6Johnny23, I can't say that I agree with Atun-Shei, but I do enjoy his work. It has made me laugh a lot. The Civil War, as far as my studies have showed me, was neither for states rights or slavery. It was primarily for the power struggle between the north and south. Before you shrug that off as obvious, let me say a couple of things. The North and South were obviously different regions with different policies and different economies, which culminated in debates over slavery (and peripherally, states rights). These factors were merely the talking points in this battle. The North, with its economy and population, thought that the democratic choice would be to let the majority (North) decide what were the rules In the country. The South did not. These were really, in a sense, about state's rights. The northern conglomerate wanted to suppress the south, and the southern conglomerate wanted to suppress the north. Why? Well, power is always fought over, and the United States certainly acted like two different countries, so I think a civil war, over any issue, would be inevitable. The South wanted to be let as is, to allow the horrors of slavery just as it had done the past 100 years, and wanted its own country where they didn't have to worry about the north. The North couldn't care less, and just wanted to take political control over the resources of the south so that they could use them to their advantage. In short: both sides sucked. CENTRIST POWER! Please don't cancel me. I barely lean southern sympathizer, so I tick off both sides of the issue.
|
|
