Martok wrote:Coito ergo sum wrote:
Many of those who express pride in the Confederate history don't agree with what you attribute as "what it stood for." You think they're wrong, of course. But, they disagree.
Its called denial of history.
Part of that is on your part as much as it is on their part. You appear to have a narrow view of history on this point and you seek to attribute one and only one "meaning."
Martok wrote:
Much like holocaust denialism.
It all depends on what one is denying. If one denies that there is proof that Nazis made lampshades and soap out of people to use in their homes, well, that would be something it is appropriate to deny since it's the general consensus that those things did not occur. If one denies that the holocaust or final solution occurred at all, then one is denying what is supported by overwhelming proof. Likewise, if one attributes other meanings and other reasons for the Confederacy than just slavery, one may have a good basis in fact for doing so. If one were to say that "slavery had nothing to do with it," then one would be denying what is supported by overwhelming proof.
Martok wrote:
We've already seen it first hand when the governor of Virgina declared Confederacy pride month and didn't make any mention of slavery.
Sure, and that may be ripe for criticism. However, that incident was blown out of proportion.
Martok wrote:
He viewed slavery as a minor detail and not worth mentioning it.
I read what he said, and I don't think he could fairly be characterized as having said that. What he said, as I read it, is that the complaints of the omission of that from the speech was basically blowing things out of proportion. It may well be a fair point that slavery should be acknowledged in these commemorations. However, that doesn't mean the commemorations should be banned.
Martok wrote:
That's denying history and blatantly ignoring the huge role slavery played in the Confederacy. Like Newsweek editor Jon Meacham pointed out, the Confederacy and slavery are "inextricably and forever linked"
Well, of course they are. Look - the United States allowed slavery. The United States counted blacks as 3/5 of a person. The United States Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case held that a black man, even if he escaped to a free state, was "property" to be returned to his owner. All this was just a few years before the Southern States Seceded. And, even in states where slavery was abolished, under state (not federal) law, people in general did not consider black people equal to white people. Even in European countries where slavery had been abolished A LITTLE longer (but not all that much longer in the grand scheme of things) racism was the norm, not the exception, and it was institutionalized throughout the Western world. The British and the continental Europeans were of the mind of "A White Man's Burden" (R. Kipling) as well, and the "right of conquest" applied throughout the world, and if the white Europeans weren't enslaving people they were conquering them, ruling them under monarchical despotism and stealing their resources and national treasures.
The stain of slavery is as much, or almost as much, on the US and the European Powers as it is on the Confederacy. It is an illusion to present it as sort of an "us (enlightened)" vs. "them (nasty slave owners)" - that is revisionism in the extreme. The Union Jack and the Stars n Stripes are not all that much less stained with the guilt of slavery than the Confederacy.
Martok wrote:
Moreover, one might argue that the United States "stood for" slavery (and some do make that argument) since it was founded by many slave owners. Even one of the greatest founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, owned slaves, and so did the Father of our country - George Washington. I'm "proud" of this country's heritage too, though.
Except the election of Abraham Lincoln was an attempt in trying to rectify a wrong that Washington and Jefferson didn't want to touch.
That was not one of the reasons Abraham Lincoln was elected, as far as I know. Perhaps you know something I don't and can point me to contemporary sources where people were supporting Lincoln to, in some way, "right the wrongs of Jefferson and Washington." He was, as I understand it, elected mainly because the new Republican party took advantage of a split in the Democratic Party. One of the reasons Lincoln was elected was because he and the Republicans were interested in high tariffs on imports (the Southern states did not like that idea, because it would hit them the hardest). The idea of not letting slavery expand into the new territories had little to do with a concern that slaves be freed - rather it was intended to disallow labor market competition from either slaves or free blacks. At the time, the small number of free blacks in the North had no real citizenship rights and some states, like Lincoln’s state of Illinois, had amended their constitutions to make it illegal for blacks to move into the state.
In his First Inaugural Address Lincoln promised that he had no intention of disturbing Southern slavery, and that even if he did it would be unconstitutional to do so. In the same speech he pledged his support of a proposed constitutional amendment that had just passed the U.S. Senate two days earlier (after passing the House of Representatives) that would have forbidden the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery. In other words, he was perfectly willing to see Southern slavery continue.
It is simply not correct that Lincoln was elected, even in the slightest, to eradicate slavery or "right the wrongs" of the past. That is a gross oversimplification, as well as being simply wrong.
tssk.
