What exactly is required for a internal conflict of a nation to be considered a civil war? Well the real questio is what problems do both sides face? What problems do a Usurper face when trying to over throw a king, and what problems do a king face against a usurper (besides loing ones kingdom and life?). Is a weaker king who loves his people harder or easier to overthrow a powerful king feared by his people?
It's where one side is trying to perform a revolution and the other side says, "Stop that!", with weapons.
Yes, places Like South Boston, South Detroit, South LA (Oops! That is just LA Proper). Seems most of the racists pulled up stakes and moved north.
That is a generalization and as good as the one the OP of your quoted line made.
Good point - Hate of the north. That was a big factor back then. But as a Virginian, I am very proud that we also lead the way in electing the first black governor of a state. The war ended a long time ago, and the north gets to write the history. But that is what it is, history. The present day shows us that other than heating bills, there is not a lot of difference between northern and southern these days - except those who want to conintue to war in order to gain some type of imaginary superiority complex over people that they cannot gain through merit.
Europe is hardly civil war-free. Chechnya is heating up again, and the mess in the former Yugoslavia still burns some NATO budget. And some people who like to stretch definitions are calling the fight between Mexican drug cartels and the federales a civil war. Casualty levels there are certainly warlike, and some places are pretty much no-go for cops & the army.
Oi, the irony. That kind of line is a perfect example of ignorant bigotry. The South is no more monolithic a culture than any other region in our great not-so-melty-pot of a nation. Rednecks are available nation wide, and some rednecks are actually kind and reasonable people. Rich people with fancy educations are also available nation wide, and some of them are viciously self-centered and bigotted, but they have a tendency to be discrete about it. Try thinking with your brain and not your label-maker.
Sounds like you never paid attention to the state flag when you were a kid. From the '50s until 2001, about 2/3 of it was the stars and bars. For a couple of years, that version was put amongst other historical versions at the bottom of the flag. The version as of 2003 resembles the early 20th versions, with no stars and bars.
Plus, unless things have changed drastically in the last few years, you must be getting around entirely without road travel. Stars and bars motifs were all over the backs of vehicles last time I drove up and down Georgia's stretch of I-75, sometimes just small stickers, sometimes as part of larger stickers with a slogan, sometimes filling the entire back window of truck cabins. Down here in North Florida, the same is still true. But it is also well into the 21st century--a while ago, I saw a bumper with stars and bars on one side and a gay pride flag on the other. Takes all kinds, as they say...
Would Chechnya be considered Europe? or Asia? Just curious. But Yugoslavia is an excellent example. And by what I stated as the definition of a civil war, you are right, the Mexico fight is not anywhere near one. When I said a safe base of operation - not a villa that is heavily fortified, but an area where the people willingly protect you from the other side. Yugoslavia, The USA v. CSA, and even Chechnya all are good examples.
But it got me thinkning. What is the difference between a Civil War and a Revolutionary one? thinking back on history, the only thing I can come up with is the scope. One wants to conqueror a nation, the other just wants to move off and have the nation leave them alone.
Was actually making a reference to the civil war in Iraq that broke out after The US took over but Bush called it sectarian violence so the US could stay there legally.
That is a racist thing to say. You should be happy that/if he was a good governor, the fact that he is/was black should be irrelevant.
One country controls another country, the country revolts to become independent. The American Revolution was unique in that it was mainly British people who didn't like taxes. The American Revolution was pretty much a Civil War that was fought for money. Inb4 taxation without representation, that's a lame rationalization. Revolutionary wars happen when a country has a colony, and the colony wants to take its independence back. (ex: the Philippines, pretty much all of Southeast Asia and Africa, and Haiti)
I should also say that the winning side comes down to who has the peoples heart unless there is outside help from another country / event.
Some times it can take years to beat the otherside or make peace in some form.
he was. But being the first, he was also a trend setter (notice the number of blacks that have broken the gubernatorial barrier since then). The first is always noteworthy for the fact that they broke the barrier. It would be racist if I said he was the best black governor as once elected, then he is just another governor. I am not judging him on a separate standard, I judged his election on a different historical plane. You need to learn the difference. The time of a shouting racist every time you do not like what someone thinks is over, regardless of what the party now in power in DC wants you to believe.
That would negate the Mexican revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Velvet Revolution, among many others.
The only difference between a civil war and a revolutionary war is who wins. If the establishment wins its a civil war.. If they lose its a revolution.
Oh and massachusetts has the first black governor already.. Duval Patrick....It shouldnt be a big deal anyway. Its not exactly racist to care about the first one but is defeatist. It shows that the black community feels they have less ability to succeed than they actually do.. You can thank Al Sharpton for that. I hate that guy. he enables the black community to accept defeat and just blame it on the fact that they are black... I understand there are still problems where black people are turned down from jobs because of racism but dwelling on it and giving up because this guy said its hopeless is not helping.
Good observation!
Anyone who brings up the whole first insert minority here to become/do insert significant thing here is pretty much a moron. If you're truly impartial it is unimportant what their race is. Just ask Morgan Freeman, he knows everything.
First Whatevers can definitely be overy-hyped, treacly, or whatever.... But many of those milestones are important facts of history. Your personal ability to ignore an identity trait that your ancestors would have considered a Bad Thing is a good thing. So is knowing some the names and stories that helped change society so that you could be that different from your ancestors.
Also, don't forget that not all First Whatevers are about minorities. Women are a majority and a historically subjugated class. There are also political-correctness-free Firsts worth considering from time to time, such as when Florida elected the first Republican Governor since Reconstruction back in 1986. Elections like his and Doug Wilder's mark significant changes in electoral politics within a given state and are often (as in both these cases) connected to nationwide trends.
If you believe that everyone is truly equal, then the fact that these important people were different should not be relevant. You should judge people wholly and entirely upon their actions and beliefs, not the color of their skin. This is never true in today's society. The color of your skin is the only thing people care about. Look at all the college scholarships. Look at all the diversity programs instituted by employers for fear of being labeled as racists by the discriminatory press. The fact that people value the first minority to do activity x is the sad culmination of years of public education brainwashing and media babbling. If Lance Armstrong was the first man on the moon, who cares who the first woman was, who the first black man was, who the first Chinese man was, or who the first quadriplegic man was. Now, if the first ______ person to walk on the moon also did something important, of course they should be recognized. But by dividing the Earth into races and hoarding our achievements into spiteful factions, we are not eliminating racism, but rather encouraging it.
I agree to this.
Of course America is the only one that does this because we are thousands of years behind socialogically. There have been leaders of each gender and race all throughout history. (cleopatra etc...) Its because our founding fathers set us back when they made our country by suppressing minorities and women with the legislation they put in place. Thats why I hate politicians that say " what would or founding fathers say" When bringing up new political ideas. I dont care, they were dicks.
They really were, except for Jefferson. Benjamin Franklin was kind of a bad guy, as was Washington. They were a bunch of war mongers who didn't want to pay taxes, that today would seem quite reasonable . Jefferson owned slaves, but I can sort of forgive him for that because he was just a grrrrreat president.
UNRELATED EDIT: I thought of an exception to the civil war v. revolutionary war rule. The Spanish Civil War. The coup de etat was successful, but it was called a civil war.
No two people are "truly equal" because we are all unique. That's entirely different from believing that cizizens in a strong democratic republic deserve equal opportunities to participate in civic life and the marketplace despite past practices that excluded them.
Only seriously crazy people care about only one thing, and everyone belongs to multiple 'identity politics' groups. Plus, everyone who lives long enough ends up in the same group together: old people. Seems to me like you're feeling trapped in a black-and-white, 2D world view when the real world is just way more colourful and complex.
Also, Lance Armstrong is a cancer-surviving champion cyclist. Neil Armstrong was the first human to stand on the Moon, the first male, the first European-descended U.S. citizen, the first civilian, the first Navy veteran, the first Eagle Scout, the first engineer, and so forth. Whether any given 'first' in a list like that is worth discussing depends entirely on the context. Writing a history of space flight 200 years from now? Maybe Valentina Tereshkova is a footnote at best. Writing about the role of women in the Soviet Union and/or the Cold War space race? The fact that she was the first woman in space definitely belongs in the body text.
Re the 'what would the founders do' stuff, I don't think it's reasonable to simply call them dicks and dismiss them but it is far worse for a modern person to claim they know what those 18th century folks would say about a 21st century question, as many 'strict constructionists' and American exceptionalists attempt to do.
You will probably find exceptions to any definitions, but I think Swerdy's comes closest to the truth.
Dr Guy, what do you make of your current governor's decision to resume the 'traditional' proclamation of Confederate History Month and his apparent desire to completely ignore the role of the peculiar institution in the history of the South and the nation?
I'm a staunch regionalist and value the strengths of Southern culture highly. I'm also a crunchy, tree-hugging whatever-the-fuck and I truly loathe seeing one of our leaders pull such a dumb-ass move. Confederate History Month is a perfectly reasonable idea. Ignoring the facts of slavery is at best a gross abuse of the word "history," and just plain trashy even if the gap was somehow 'unintentional.' Bullshit like this makes it very, very hard for reasonable admirers of the South to avoid getting labeled as bigots-by-association. Yes, we have plenty of communities where people collect Hitler memorabilia and believe the Klan was a positive social force. We also have plenty of communities where kids' playgroups are mainly about class, not skin tone.
Gah. Mr. McDonnell needs a public spanking and maybe a month of being grounded.
If you are referring to the controversy of some of the legislators, I think you missed a word in the above. Assuming slavery is that word, I will answer accordingly (if not, please correct me).
I see no problem with the declaration itself. It is a part of history and one that many still acknowledge for the impact it had on the south. Confederate history is a very short one, but also a very deadly one not only for the former CSA, but for the USA as well. And to deny the men who fought and died in it is to ignore a critical piece of history. There was great evil done during that war, and afterwards, but it lead to the strengthening of the new nation and I believe resulted in the USA being a world power today.
There are many causes of the war, not least of which was the issue of slavery. But the war was not only about slavery, and indeed there is already movements afoot to dedicate resources to education and honoring those that were slaves, and those who died to abolish it within this Commonwealth. And I fully support it. It is another thing, that while we are not proud of it, we should not forget or let me swept into the dustbins of history. As such, the acknowledgement of slavery is not interchangeable with the remembering of the CSA. Even Doug Wilder acknowledged the distinction with his proclamation in 1990.
The problem is that Mark Werner politicized it (where it had not been before), and of course the Idiot Kaine just followed suit (if he had 2 brain cells to rub together, he might be dangerous).
So I see this as being a lot of hoohaw about nothing. But of course a good opportunity for some to politicize the event for their own personal gain. It does not detract from anyone to acknowledge it, nor does it promote the ante-bellum institutions that lead up to it. It is a part of history.
Do we have to celebrate VE day with a day of mourning for Dresden? Slavery did not start and end with the CSA. It did end as a result of the war, but was in place long before. Why equate the 2? They are not the same. One is a great stain upon the American past initiated by England and perpetuated by not only the founding fathers, but by ALL 13 colonies. Should we acknowledge slavery and the abolition of it? Definitely. Do we have to every time we want to commemorate any event in history that co-existed with it? Hardly. Why do we celebrate Independence day without simultaneously beating ourselves up about the fact that it institutionalized slavery for 40+ years past when it would have expired had we NOT rebelled?
Because the 2 are not synonymous. You see McDonnell as a jerk for recognizing a historical era of the Commonwealth. Yet you do not do the same for all the others who are doing the same thing with celebrations like Independence day. if the whole source of the CSA was the creation, institution and abolishment of slavery, I would agree with you. But the creation of this country, and the war that followed "4 score and 5 years" later are not celebrations of slavery. They are honoring different events that did co-exist with slavery.
Beg pardon; I guess that "the peculiar institution" is not as well-known a euphemism for slavery as I'd thought.
We might have more agreement than you think, opinions about McDonnell excluded. I used to frighten and confuse some of my students with lines like "Abraham Lincoln is no hero to me," which I'd then explain is because he was the father of the imperial presidency and his hagiographers rarely bother to explain that he was both an abolitionist and a racist. Slavery was most certainly a driving force behind the Civil War, but in some respects Lincoln's election was simply a back-breaker for a camel laden with regional conflict baggage that had a great deal to do with how the North and South were responding differently to economic and technological change.
My problem with McDonnell's proclamation (and with any other entirely positive 'history' event about a war) is that we absolutely should be remembering things like Andersonville, Sherman's March, Dachau, and Dresden. Respecting folks who fell honorably in battle should not require ignoring the horrors of whatever war they fought, except perhaps for folks who believe war should be a way of life. For those of us who hope the species might eventually outgrow war, remembering the horrors is just as important as remembering the honorable dead. Compounding that kind of war-worship with an effort to pretend slavery played no role in the CSA is a deep offense to me, and I had kin who wore the gray (or maybe the butternut, not sure).
It may be, but I guess some background on me is needed. I was born in Virginia, and am Southern by birth. But my ancestors did not own slaves in this country (note the qualification). But at an early age we picked up roots and traveled the world on the US military plan. So I am not versed in some of the terms used. I completely missed that, but will remember it.
That being said, I expect you have heard of recent events. Which tells me 2 things.
1. McDonnell is running for VP in 12.
2. He is a politician.
As for the rest of your post, I think our major disagreement (excluding McDonnell himself) is how we remember/honor the different parts of our history. To give you an example of my feelings on the matter, while I fully acknowledge the role of my ex wife in the birth and rearing of my children, my sons are not going to insist their mother attend my wedding to my new bride, just because they are in the wedding party.
I can't really follow your analogy here, but that might be because I know some first-hand accounts (including mine) that span pretty much the entire blended/broken family spectrum. I often refer to my male parent, who was married to my mother when I was born, as "the sperm donor" or "the man who got Mom pregnant." I've also been a groomsman at a sprawling wedding that included four legal-biological parents, a step parent, and a few parent-like people with no legal or genetic connections to the wedding couple.
None of that really helps me understand why it might be a good thing to celebrate Confederate history without acknowledging that our Southern ancestors lived in a society deeply influenced by both the institution of slavery and the shreds of African cultures that managed to survive despite slaveholders' attempts to completely destroy the identities of the people they forcibly imported.
And on the other-other hand, I am both glad to see McDonnell attempting to correct his mistake and sad to see the more pathetic efforts from my fellow Democrats to make this bad situation worse in the name of scoring political capital. Both major parties still have our share of racists. I believe my party has an edge on the GOP in terms of naming that a serious problem and trying to end it, but those efforts are often undermined when 'race card' crap comes into play.
Hey! We got something else in common! Our "sperm donor" nomenclature.
As for the analogy, you have to look at it from the perspective of the children. They were with me celebrating my marriage, and yet they did not include their mother. (Likewise I was not invited when she remarried). That did not mean they did not respect, love or honor their mother, only that it was not the proper place for them to stand up and say "I love you mom". There are other occasions when they do that (like on mother's day). Celebrating my marriage did not detract from that.
just as honoring the fallen in the civil war does not detract from the history of slavery. What is happening is that instead of being able to place flowers on the graves of our ancestors (who may or may not have been slave owners - the point is really immaterial), we are being told we have to first kneel at the slavery alter to do so.
Interesting sidebar, the apparent hold out on the apology of McDonnell is the most racist jerk in the GA. The only good thing you can say about him is he is no longer trashing the city he once was mayor of.
I guess it is in how you view it. if you view it as a sole thing (the only thing we are doing in this state is honoring the war dead of the Civil war), you would be correct. However, as perfunctory and regular as the Civil War proclamation use to be (before Warner and Kaine), so is the proclamation from each governor about how evil Slavery was and that we are glad it is over. It is just not done at the same time. Even L. Douglas Wilder did not confuse the 2. He did include Lincoln in his proclamation (and got heart ache for that as the feelings among most Old Dominioners is akin to yours in that respect). But at least that was very War related and I saw no problem with it. He may have been the last casualty of the Civil War after all.
But in writing the above paragraph, and remembering a previous statement of yours, I wonder if Wilder really knew what Lincoln was? You must have loved that proclamation!
So the south is *not* still fighting the civil war? Hmm ... seems to me it still is.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
