One more place racist garbage is no longer welcome

Michael Barnes wrote: I would be willing to bet that a sampling of confederate badge holders at BGG would reveal lots of extreme right-wing politics and closet racists. No doubt in my mind.

My experience is that the word "confederate" in that sentence is unnecessary.

Nice, Pete. The hammer & sickle should be treated in exactly the same way, BTW.

The first state to secede was S. Carolina, and in their manifesto, they blathered for half of the document about how it's cool for them to dip out and "throw off the reigns of tyranny" and all that, but then, the FIRST THING they cited as a failure for the Northern states to abide their own constitution was....wait for it...

sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

All About State Right South Carolina wrote: "In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

The same article of the Constitution stipulates also for rendition by the several States of fugitives from justice from the other States."

They were pissed that Northerners were harboring their slaves, which they saw as in opposition to the Constitution.

That's what it was about, in a nutshell. You could cite the cotton gin's invention forcing the Southern economy to get cheap (read: purchased) labor, but again, it is a slavery issue.

I guess they hadn't figured out that they could import Mexicans and pay them cents on the dollar yet.

I do realize that some of it was about slavery but from what I've read... only in school some time ago mind you, was that the slavery issue has been greatly over played in the years since, for the sake of movies and what not. Yes, the North did indeed "harbor slaves" and put pressure on them to end slavery but from what I've read that was simply because the knew that by ending slavery the south would be crippled economically and they could take over the reigns of power in the country. It wasn't because the North cared about the plight of the slaves... they didn't give a shit at all and would gladly, racist-ly, send thousands or Irishmen to their death to achieve this end and then not give the now infamous 40 acres and a mule... jack.

This is important because voting didn't come right away, civil rights were still a ways off. It seems clear to me. I'd like if someone could point me in the direction of a book that can prove me wrong.. a few quotes on line won't be quite sufficient. Regardless of how many thanks they get.

Not saying I don't believe it, I just don't believe it ... yet.

I'm also still for letting them keep the stupid symbol if they want to post it, this is another slight against BGG for me. If people want to self identify with a symbol like that they totally should do it openly. Forcing them to hide it does not help your society, it hurts it, makes people less trusting, and keeps racism in the dark... exactly where you don't want it, can't fight it, and are forced to wonder about it. Bad idea all around and against all my ideals as a free person.

In Canada we have anti-hate speech laws and I hate them. Fred Phelps can't come here and I totally think he should be allowed, and shouted down. I'm sure people here agree with him but they've become sneaky and found clever rhetorical ways of getting around pro gay arguments in order to hide their bigotry.. this is much worse.

Lincoln was a Republican and the Republican party at the time was understood to at least have sympathy to the idea of abolition. That's why the Southern states threatened to secede. Indeed the end of slavery would have blown the profitability of the Southern agricultural economy a huge blow, but that doesn't just turn the Civil War into an economic war all of a sudden. If your business is only profitable by employing slaves, then with all due respect, I am convinced you ought to shut down your lousy business.

That reminds me of the recent Hostess fiasco; "Oh noes, we can no longer produce Twinkies without giving our employees shitty wages", and the public responded: "Aw fuck them, we want tasty Twinkies!" You're digging your own holes, my friends.

You're still ignoring how they won the war, those Irish men were essentially slaves dude.

Not to mention that yes, just because it shut it down economically and handed them all the power doesn't mean it wasn't about slavery... but it doesn't mean it was either and since the end result was they get all the power... I'm thoroughly unconvinced.

..also, it's easy for me to imagine a bunch of rich white guys in a room saying: "hey, let's crush these guys so we can have all the power, yes it will cost us a fortune but in the end we will be richer and more powerful."

It's way harder for to imagine those same guys sitting in a room saying: "hey, let's crush these guys so we can free the slaves, yes it will cost us a fortune but in the end we all people will be free. Incidentally let's use slave labour to do it, put in special tax so rich people can avoid the war.. but remember, this is about us all being equal, not about how rich we're going to get"

Dair wrote: Shouldn't this thread be titled "One more place racist garbage is no longer welcome" or "One less place racist garbage is welcome"?

Or, perhaps, "One less place racist garbage is no longer unwelcome"?

Jacob, the US Civil War only took place because the Southern states decided to secede over the issue of slavery. If they didn't, nobody knows how it would have turned out. You could also be arguing, "Hey, all of Europe would be communist now, if the Nazis hadn't invaded the Soviet Union". I grant you that the war was dirty as hell - all civil wars are - but don't give me that "slavery wasn't the issue" crap. I don't care what they taught you in school. Look at the facts. Slavery is right there in the articles of secession.

Schweig! wrote: Jacob, the US Civil War only took place because the Southern states decided to secede over the issue of slavery. If they didn't, nobody knows how it would have turned out. You could also be arguing, "Hey, all of Europe would be communist now, if the Nazis hadn't invaded the Soviet Union". I grant you that the war was dirty as hell - all civil wars are - but don't give me that "slavery wasn't the issue" crap. I don't care what they taught you in school. Look at the facts. Slavery is right there in the articles of secession.

It's not what they taught me in school, it's what my pessimistic brain interpreted their teachings as. I think the slavery thing is way overplayed. Especially considering how they won.

But that's another thing I don't understand, if a state wants to secede, why not let them? Whenever Quebec decides to separate (every 10 years or so) here in Canada we just put it to a vote. If they want to leave, collectively, let them. But what is the interest in NOT letting them leave? Power, tax dollars... I'm not giving you shit I asked for one thing... a book recommendation. Like I said no amount of on line bickering will convince me, I want to read an expert.

JonJacob wrote:
It's not what they taught me in school, it's what my pessimistic brain interpreted their teachings as. I think the slavery thing is way overplayed. Especially considering how they won.

No doubt.

JonJacob wrote: But that's another thing I don't understand, if a state wants to secede, why not let them? Whenever Quebec decides to separate (every 10 years or so) here in Canada we just put it to a vote. If they want to leave, collectively, let them. But what is the interest in NOT letting them leave? Power, tax dollars... I'm not giving you shit I asked for one thing... a book recommendation. Like I said no amount of on line bickering will convince me, I want to read an expert.

Well you nailed it. The U.S. was originally founded as a united federation of states. For some time each state had it's own currency. Slowly thing consolidated, and you're right on: power, and dollars. There's a lot of history there, but you've put forward a damn good question: If a member of the union disagrees, what power to we have to prevent them from leaving the union?

wadenels wrote:

JonJacob wrote:
It's not what they taught me in school, it's what my pessimistic brain interpreted their teachings as. I think the slavery thing is way overplayed. Especially considering how they won.

No doubt.

JonJacob wrote: But that's another thing I don't understand, if a state wants to secede, why not let them? Whenever Quebec decides to separate (every 10 years or so) here in Canada we just put it to a vote. If they want to leave, collectively, let them. But what is the interest in NOT letting them leave? Power, tax dollars... I'm not giving you shit I asked for one thing... a book recommendation. Like I said no amount of on line bickering will convince me, I want to read an expert.

Well you nailed it. The U.S. was originally founded as a united federation of states. For some time each state had it's own currency. Slowly thing consolidated, and you're right on: power, and dollars. There's a lot of history there, but you've put forward a damn good question: If a member of the union disagrees, what power to we have to prevent them from leaving the union?

Military power.

Jacob, it's all well and good that you doubt history as it's written, but you need to follow that up with your own historical research, else you're making it quite obvious that you're pretty clueless about the events that led to the US Civil War. Put simply, the Southern states started it. The bombardment of Fort Sumter moved any peaceful resolution of the conflict out of the picture. It's pretty irrelevant then how the North won in the end. I personally believe that slavery could have been abolished - although plantation owners would have been at a loss regardless - without completely wrecking the Southern agricultural economy. But by the secessionists' decision to go to war, they risked exactly that - and the outcome was even worse.

At the end of the day it doesn't matter who started the actual war.

He has doubts that the North, who were very, very racist wanted to abolish slavery for humanitarian reasons. Which is a fair doubt because it sounds way too idealistic about a bunch of XIX century politicians who regarded the actual slaves as subhuman morons.

It's like saying the Revolutionary wars in the Americas were about the freedom of the people, you know? Too good to be true.

Mmmm. Similar thing happened in UK with the co opting of the flag of St George by the racists. Now, flying the St George flag can easily be considered racist in some sectors of society.

Definitely don't agree about the Hammer and Sickle. I'm afraid racism is a totally different thing to communism and no amount of bickering will persuade me that they are the same thing. Also, I have a massive Hammer and Sickle flag bought when I went to the USSR in 1986 and it's great. Also have a little statue of Lenin at Finlandia station on top of an armoured car, that one used to hold the aerial up on top of my TV.