Politics XXXVII (The 12th Prime)

[BruceVC]

18 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

None of that really erases history though. At least, not any more than has happened with every civilization that has come before us. We've gone through some pretty serious purges and cultural upheavals over the centuries. This stuff is super tame in comparison.

Hurlshot I am  a little worried that a liberal and well meaning  state like California could alter there history interpretation of the South, in other words the Confederacy will be seen in history as nothing but an attempt to justify slavery and that would paint the entire movement in a negative light

Its unlikely and I know you probably have no visibility on this but has this been mentioned ? This will just lead to additional frustration from most Southern states as they will feel vilified which is unnecessary 

[Raithe]

[Azdeus]

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/06/senates-new-anti-encryption-bill-even-worse-earn-it-and-thats-saying-something

Ahh, look, the US coalition of geriatric ignoramuses is going at it again.

[Skarpen]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/us/seattle-protest-zone-CHOP-CHAZ-unrest.amp.html

Capitlistic military once again destroyed communist utopia. 

[Gorth]

Psssst Trump! This is how it's done....

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-53233386

 

[Amentep]

4 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Hurlshot I am  a little worried that a liberal and well meaning  state like California could alter there history interpretation of the South, in other words the Confederacy will be seen in history as nothing but an attempt to justify slavery and that would paint the entire movement in a negative light

Its unlikely and I know you probably have no visibility on this but has this been mentioned ? This will just lead to additional frustration from most Southern states as they will feel vilified which is unnecessary 

Um...there's no explanation of the Confederacy that does not end back in an attempt to justify and perpetuate slavery.

If you look at the common narrative of the "Lost Cause", you get things like -

It was about states rights (to keep people enslaved); It was about the economic life of the noble, chivalric south (because it was built on slave labor); It was a war of Northern aggression (how dare they try to free our slaves!); Slavery was a God given "positive good" promoting the welfare of blacks who were better off as slaves than free in Africa because they are unequipped to be full people yet (because the North and southern abolitionists can't argue against a Divine institution can they? And thus allowing slavery to be perpetuated which we need or all us rich people will all be poor.)

Regarding "losing" history...history is always looked back at and revisited; there is a tendency to view the past with a romantic or mythological eye and then later to re-evaluate it with a more dispassionate one, and that re-evaluation is always a constant.  I'm old enough to remember still being taught things like George Washington cut down a cherry tree and admitted it to his father because he couldn't lie.  We made mythic men out of the founding fathers, but inevitably historians were going to go back and really look at what happened and find they were just people, complex and messy and inconsistent people.

Here's a few things that I've learned as an adult that was never touched on when I was in high school (cue comments about the poor education in southern states! ):

• Washington almost bankrupted the army; after being asked to be the 1st President*, he said he'd do it - not for a salary but to cover his expenses.  But Washington was a spendthrift and as I mentioned, almost bankrupted the Continental army, so they actually turned down that offer.  Eventually Washington relented and accepted the salary.
• Abraham Lincoln was the wrestling champion of his county in Illinois.  His life narrative when I was a kid involved log cabin building, putting himself through school, his law practice and then the presidency which he won because a girl wrote to him and suggested he grow a beard to hide his face. (Okay only mildly serious there) 
• President Garfield is often described as being shot by a disgruntled office seeker.  Charles J. Guiteau, however, was suffering from mental illness and had never talked with Garfield prior to Garfield winning the presidency.  Having a long history of problems (including being kicked out of a free love commune), Guiteau believed that getting a speech published (Garfield vs Han****) and presenting a handful of speeches (some that he couldn't even complete) was sufficient work to earn a position in Grant's cabinet - if not an ambassadorship. He finally met with Grant the first time after he'd taken the Presidency, and not getting his desired governmental appointment plotted and executed an assassination. Modern psychologist think Guiteau may have been a narcissistic schizophrenic.  However, for the most part, this narrative was left out, giving the perception that Guiteau was an aggrieved public servant promised a job which Garfield later reneged on.
• Georgia wasn't originally a slave state.  It was money and influence from the Carolinas that caused the leadership at the time to reverse the decision (and fairly quickly, I think there are only a few weeks between announcing that there wouldn't be slavery and when laws were changed to allow it.  Plantation owners in the Carolina wanted to open up the savannah lands (getting rid of the people already there) but only if they could bring their slaves to farm the land). 

I do think that eventually historical figures from the civil war and before will be understood as both people who did good and bad things and that some of those things were due to thoughts that to us now seem as abhorrent as, say jus primae noctis**, or as weird as say, using beef bullion enemas to treat a President who'd been shot while prodding his wound with unwashed hands, but weren't in their time.  What we're struggling with is demythifying the past at the moment, and accepting what that means about then and how it informs now.

*Even this is a bit of myth, as it implies the US was a leaderless confederation until Washington, ignoring Peyton Randolph as president of the First Continental Congress, John Han**** as president when the Declaration was signed, Samuel Huntington as president when the Articles were ratified and took effect, Thomas McKean as the first president elected under the Articles, and John Hanson as the first president under the Articles to serve the prescribed one-year term

**Yes I know there is debate about how widespread this custom was or if its entirely mythological, but since it was specifically outlawed by King Ferdinand of Aragon in the Arbitral Decision of Guadalupe and combined with historical references to similar practices going back to ancient Greece, I'm erring on the side that it was a thing of some kind in some places or with specific rulers.

 

[BruceVC]

10 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Um...there's no explanation of the Confederacy that does not end back in an attempt to justify and perpetuate slavery.

If you look at the common narrative of the "Lost Cause", you get things like -

It was about states rights (to keep people enslaved); It was about the economic life of the noble, chivalric south (because it was built on slave labor); It was a war of Northern aggression (how dare they try to free our slaves!); Slavery was a God given "positive good" promoting the welfare of blacks who were better off as slaves than free in Africa because they are unequipped to be full people yet (because the North and southern abolitionists can't argue against a Divine institution can they? And thus allowing slavery to be perpetuated which we need or all us rich people will all be poor.)

Regarding "losing" history...history is always looked back at and revisited; there is a tendency to view the past with a romantic or mythological eye and then later to re-evaluate it with a more dispassionate one, and that re-evaluation is always a constant.  I'm old enough to remember still being taught things like George Washington cut down a cherry tree and admitted it to his father because he couldn't lie.  We made mythic men out of the founding fathers, but inevitably historians were going to go back and really look at what happened and find they were just people, complex and messy and inconsistent people.

Here's a few things that I've learned as an adult that was never touched on when I was in high school (cue comments about the poor education in southern states! ):

• Washington almost bankrupted the army; after being asked to be the 1st President*, he said he'd do it - not for a salary but to cover his expenses.  But Washington was a spendthrift and as I mentioned, almost bankrupted the Continental army, so they actually turned down that offer.  Eventually Washington relented and accepted the salary.
• Abraham Lincoln was the wrestling champion of his county in Illinois.  His life narrative when I was a kid involved log cabin building, putting himself through school, his law practice and then the presidency which he won because a girl wrote to him and suggested he grow a beard to hide his face. (Okay only mildly serious there) 
• President Garfield is often described as being shot by a disgruntled office seeker.  Charles J. Guiteau, however, was suffering from mental illness and had never talked with Garfield prior to Garfield winning the presidency.  Having a long history of problems (including being kicked out of a free love commune), Guiteau believed that getting a speech published (Garfield vs Han****) and presenting a handful of speeches (some that he couldn't even complete) was sufficient work to earn a position in Grant's cabinet - if not an ambassadorship. He finally met with Grant the first time after he'd taken the Presidency, and not getting his desired governmental appointment plotted and executed an assassination. Modern psychologist think Guiteau may have been a narcissistic schizophrenic.  However, for the most part, this narrative was left out, giving the perception that Guiteau was an aggrieved public servant promised a job which Garfield later reneged on.
• Georgia wasn't originally a slave state.  It was money and influence from the Carolinas that caused the leadership at the time to reverse the decision (and fairly quickly, I think there are only a few weeks between announcing that there wouldn't be slavery and when laws were changed to allow it.  Plantation owners in the Carolina wanted to open up the savannah lands (getting rid of the people already there) but only if they could bring their slaves to farm the land). 

I do think that eventually historical figures from the civil war and before will be understood as both people who did good and bad things and that some of those things were due to thoughts that to us now seem as abhorrent as, say jus primae noctis**, or as weird as say, using beef bullion enemas to treat a President who'd been shot while prodding his wound with unwashed hands, but weren't in their time.  What we're struggling with is demythifying the past at the moment, and accepting what that means about then and how it informs now.

*Even this is a bit of myth, as it implies the US was a leaderless confederation until Washington, ignoring Peyton Randolph as president of the First Continental Congress, John Han**** as president when the Declaration was signed, Samuel Huntington as president when the Articles were ratified and took effect, Thomas McKean as the first president elected under the Articles, and John Hanson as the first president under the Articles to serve the prescribed one-year term

**Yes I know there is debate about how widespread this custom was or if its entirely mythological, but since it was specifically outlawed by King Ferdinand of Aragon in the Arbitral Decision of Guadalupe and combined with historical references to similar practices going back to ancient Greece, I'm erring on the side that it was a thing of some kind in some places or with specific rulers.

 

Thanks for sharing, I dont understand all the sentiment that Americans feel about the  Civil War..I am going to read this detail and maybe ask other questions because there are some things I dont understand about the negative views but it is probably because Im not American 

Edit : Your post has already been revealing .....the detail is exactly what I need to analysis this historical event 

 

Edited July 2, 2020 by BruceVC

[Orogun01]

10 hours ago, Amentep said:

Um...there's no explanation of the Confederacy that does not end back in an attempt to justify and perpetuate slavery.

If you look at the common narrative of the "Lost Cause", you get things like -

It was about states rights (to keep people enslaved); It was about the economic life of the noble, chivalric south (because it was built on slave labor); It was a war of Northern aggression (how dare they try to free our slaves!); Slavery was a God given "positive good" promoting the welfare of blacks who were better off as slaves than free in Africa because they are unequipped to be full people yet (because the North and southern abolitionists can't argue against a Divine institution can they? And thus allowing slavery to be perpetuated which we need or all us rich people will all be poor.)

Regarding "losing" history...history is always looked back at and revisited; there is a tendency to view the past with a romantic or mythological eye and then later to re-evaluate it with a more dispassionate one, and that re-evaluation is always a constant.  I'm old enough to remember still being taught things like George Washington cut down a cherry tree and admitted it to his father because he couldn't lie.  We made mythic men out of the founding fathers, but inevitably historians were going to go back and really look at what happened and find they were just people, complex and messy and inconsistent people.

Here's a few things that I've learned as an adult that was never touched on when I was in high school (cue comments about the poor education in southern states! ):

• Washington almost bankrupted the army; after being asked to be the 1st President*, he said he'd do it - not for a salary but to cover his expenses.  But Washington was a spendthrift and as I mentioned, almost bankrupted the Continental army, so they actually turned down that offer.  Eventually Washington relented and accepted the salary.
• Abraham Lincoln was the wrestling champion of his county in Illinois.  His life narrative when I was a kid involved log cabin building, putting himself through school, his law practice and then the presidency which he won because a girl wrote to him and suggested he grow a beard to hide his face. (Okay only mildly serious there) 
• President Garfield is often described as being shot by a disgruntled office seeker.  Charles J. Guiteau, however, was suffering from mental illness and had never talked with Garfield prior to Garfield winning the presidency.  Having a long history of problems (including being kicked out of a free love commune), Guiteau believed that getting a speech published (Garfield vs Han****) and presenting a handful of speeches (some that he couldn't even complete) was sufficient work to earn a position in Grant's cabinet - if not an ambassadorship. He finally met with Grant the first time after he'd taken the Presidency, and not getting his desired governmental appointment plotted and executed an assassination. Modern psychologist think Guiteau may have been a narcissistic schizophrenic.  However, for the most part, this narrative was left out, giving the perception that Guiteau was an aggrieved public servant promised a job which Garfield later reneged on.
• Georgia wasn't originally a slave state.  It was money and influence from the Carolinas that caused the leadership at the time to reverse the decision (and fairly quickly, I think there are only a few weeks between announcing that there wouldn't be slavery and when laws were changed to allow it.  Plantation owners in the Carolina wanted to open up the savannah lands (getting rid of the people already there) but only if they could bring their slaves to farm the land). 

I do think that eventually historical figures from the civil war and before will be understood as both people who did good and bad things and that some of those things were due to thoughts that to us now seem as abhorrent as, say jus primae noctis**, or as weird as say, using beef bullion enemas to treat a President who'd been shot while prodding his wound with unwashed hands, but weren't in their time.  What we're struggling with is demythifying the past at the moment, and accepting what that means about then and how it informs now.

*Even this is a bit of myth, as it implies the US was a leaderless confederation until Washington, ignoring Peyton Randolph as president of the First Continental Congress, John Han**** as president when the Declaration was signed, Samuel Huntington as president when the Articles were ratified and took effect, Thomas McKean as the first president elected under the Articles, and John Hanson as the first president under the Articles to serve the prescribed one-year term

**Yes I know there is debate about how widespread this custom was or if its entirely mythological, but since it was specifically outlawed by King Ferdinand of Aragon in the Arbitral Decision of Guadalupe and combined with historical references to similar practices going back to ancient Greece, I'm erring on the side that it was a thing of some kind in some places or with specific rulers.

 

I wish I could like your post twice.

I know history is always looked through the lens of politics but it would be nice to look at it as an objective science and not project theories. There is however a real danger in rewriting history for political ends as it will create a lack of trust once the objective truth is discovered. I mean, a lot of people mistrust the Holocaust not because of antisemitism but because they're surprised to find that Hitler wasn't a child molesting sociopath that wore shoes made out of human leather.

[Guard Dog]

17 hours ago, BruceVC said:

They cant just erase history, the loss of Confederate soldiers should absolutely matter to people in Southern States. It doesnt mean you support slavery but your ancestors death or commitment is still relevant ....and I cannot believe most people in the South will just accept this

Surly we can separate slavery from the fact many Confederate soldiers didnt even own slaves but believed in the doomed cause ....of course the reality is the South breaking away would definitely have weakened the overall USA immeasurably so the South had to lose to ensure a better world with a united USA we all know about ?   

That isn't really what I meant. They won't "erase" the civil war exactly. And those who find virtue in the Confederacy are usually the ones who know the least about it. Or at least the ones who have bought a story they don't even know is fiction. 

No I was thinking of something more subtle and or Orwellian. I will come back to this a little later

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Orogun01 said:

I wish I could like your post twice.

I know history is always looked through the lens of politics but it would be nice to look at it as an objective science and not project theories. There is however a real danger in rewriting history for political ends as it will create a lack of trust once the objective truth is discovered. I mean, a lot of people mistrust the Holocaust not because of antisemitism but because they're surprised to find that Hitler wasn't a child molesting sociopath that wore shoes made out of human leather.

A lot of people mistrust the holocaust?

I would honestly lump those people in with anti-vaccinators and flat earthers.

[Orogun01]

14 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

A lot of people mistrust the holocaust?

I would honestly lump those people in with anti-vaccinators and flat earthers.

This might sound weird but there's actually some merit to it. The post war years heavily propagandized the events; they still do, numbers were inflated, there was little study done to justify some of the wild claims that some people made. All in all, I can't ascribe any institutional malice to it; even though there are institutions keen on protecting against any study, but there's been enough changes and reasonable arguments to cast some doubt about the common narrative. History is a science, it is meant to be an iterative process of study, discovery and speculation, not a solid narrative that serves political purposes. I'm looking at you History Channel with all your Hitler nonsense.

[Hurlshort]

The footage that came out of those camps at the end of the war needs no exaggeration. It depicts the worst of humanity.

I agree that History, as a subject, should be kept fairly simple. We weigh cause and effect. Speculation should be kept separate, as that can lead us to completely false narratives such as the Mayan Scholar Utopia or the Great Zimbabwe/Queen of Sheba connection. But history is just one aspect of the Social Sciences, and I'd call it detached or even hard-hearted to ignore all that context and not think critically about how to improve the future.

There is nothing political in saying that the Holocaust and Hitler are horrific chapters in human history. That is a pretty simple lesson. It isn't propaganda. I don't see what your objective is in referring to it that way.

[Gromnir]

3 hours ago, Hurlshot said:

A lot of people mistrust the holocaust?

I would honestly lump those people in with anti-vaccinators and flat earthers.

am older, so we benefit from having spoken with people who were detained in camps and we had a relative who actual fought with US forces in europe and were at one o' the camps when... liberated. even so, holocaust denial is  disturbing. moon hoax and flat-earth nonsense, as hard as it is to believe folks may be so ignorant, one may chalk up to genuine lack o' any kinda scientific knowledge coupled with extreme suspicion. holocaust denial...

in spite o' the mountains o' evidence, and bodies, folks work hard to disbelieve holocaust. can't help but wonder why folks is trying so hard to ignore evidence. is impossible not to wonder at some sinister motive driving unsupportable disbelief.

moon landing hoaxers and flat-earthers make us lament US educational system as well as the individual's capacity for almost willful ignorance.

holocaust deniers? ain't any kinda sympathy or pity we may muster. is something darker making such obtuseness possible.

[Gorth]

Isn't history more than just reciting past events? Part of the excitement I get from studying history is trying to discover causes. Sometimes by reading other peoples interpretations, sometimes by jumping to my own conclusions

 

E.g. the Holocaust happened, but what caused it? The simpleminded answer would be "The Nazis". But that is just closing ones eyes and ignoring the parts of history that lead to that point. Few things happens in isolation. The better you understand the underlying causes and effects, they better you can work towards avoiding repeats of such events in the future. Even if trying to get an overview of all the threads of history that lead to it, results in your browser crashing from 4096 opened tabs.

 

[Orogun01]

32 minutes ago, Hurlshot said:

The footage that came out of those camps at the end of the war needs no exaggeration. It depicts the worst of humanity.

I agree that History, as a subject, should be kept fairly simple. We weigh cause and effect. Speculation should be kept separate, as that can lead us to completely false narratives such as the Mayan Scholar Utopia or the Great Zimbabwe/Queen of Sheba connection. But history is just one aspect of the Social Sciences, and I'd call it detached or even hard-hearted to ignore all that context and not think critically about how to improve the future.

There is nothing political in saying that the Holocaust and Hitler are horrific chapters in human history. That is a pretty simple lesson. It isn't propaganda. I don't see what your objective is in referring to it that way.

Ok, for one thing context comes down to presentation. I can give you the hard cold facts and let you make up your own mind or inject my own conclusion and bend the facts to suit it, conveniently omitting what doesn't agree. More so, "improve the future" it's a sociopolitical goal, not a scientific one (not purely scientific) the problem is that a political movement requires the hyperbole of propaganda to reach a maximum audience. So you have a very biased message; without all the facts and nuance, being interpreted to the unaware masses. Even if your intentions are good and the result its good, it is bound to have unintended consequences, like most every action in life.

Partly the reason I brought out WW2 is that it is a very publicized historical event that has been heavily politicized (Godwin's law is a good example of the cultural impact the narrative has had) It paints the Allies in an absolute good light and Hitler as the worst thing ever. The reality it's more nuanced; for example,  British bombers would attack German villages and cities that had been converted into POW camps.  Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five is a good account of the firebombing on Dresden, that has been criticized as a retaliatory attack  by Britain, that means that camps that housed Jewish civilians were bombed by the Allies. Additionally, supply lines were bombed by the allies that were the lifelines to these camps; so the starvation of Jewish prisoners may also have been the result of Allies actions.

To my original point, once you change history to tie it to a political goal as soon as the true historical facts come out it brings doubt to that  goal. No matter how good intended it might be.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

 

E.g. the Holocaust happened, but what caused it? The simpleminded answer would be "The Nazis". 

 

the purges o' jewish people in europe started long before the nazis, and sadly, didn't even end with the nazis. after all, a significant number of people liberated from death camps were promptly murdered by local populations. nazis hardly started the problem or saw the end.

as a matter o' fact, the nazis kinda mess with modern perceptions o' racism. nazi, fascist and racist is terms which is gonna frequent see overlap in rl examples.  nevertheless the aforementioned is distinct concepts. all too often, people (vol) appears to use all three terms interchangeable. more than a few people thinks systemic racism is nazi attempts at genocide, or something similar. have a pundit rattle on 'bout how US government supported home loan guidance which lasted well into the 70s did irreparable and lasting harm to minority populations and too many have a hard time seeing similar to nazis loading jews into train cars and sending 'em to death camps. systemic racism is nazis doing evil, not bank bureaucrats from decades past giving a preference to people trying to buy a house before most o' the posters to this board were even born, right.

wrong.

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

1 minute ago, Gromnir said:

weird double post. apologies

 

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

6 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

the purges o' jewish people in europe started long before the nazis, and sadly, didn't even end with the nazis. after all, a significant number of people liberated from death camps were promptly murdered by local populations. nazis hardly started the problem or saw the end.

as a matter o' fact, the nazis kinda mess with modern perceptions o' racism. nazi, fascist and racist is terms which is gonna frequent see overlap in rl examples.  nevertheless the aforementioned is distinct concepts. all too often, people (vol) appears to use all three terms interchangeable. more than a few people thinks systemic racism is nazi attempts at genocide, or something similar. have a pundit rattle on 'bout how US government supported home loan guidance which lasted well into the 70s did irreparable and lasting harm to minority populations and too many have a hard time seeing similar to nazis loading jews into train cars and sending 'em to death camps. systemic racism is nazis doing evil, not bank bureaucrats from decades past giving a preference to people trying to buy a house before most o' the posters to this board were even born, right.

wrong.

HA! Good Fun!

 

It is not such clean comparison as the Nazis had a clearly stated goal with regards to the Jewish population, we don't have that in the US as it is most often a confluence of interested parties that act with disregard.  Institutions in America are present in all sides of the spectrum and will rise up given a chance and enough funds, but they don't have the unilateral power that the Nazis enjoyed.
Kinda of a good idea, that balance of power that the founders set.

[Gromnir]

17 minutes ago, Orogun01 said:

It is not such clean comparison ...

that were our freaking point. 

*sigh*

unnecessary clarification: because US systemic racism don't look like nazi holocaust, which almost all save some comical holdouts agree were a terrible evil, US supported discrimination ain't viewed by a few persons (too many) as real racism.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited July 3, 2020 by Gromnir

[Orogun01]

26 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

that were our freaking point. 

*sigh*

unnecessary clarification: because US systemic racism don't look like nazi holocaust, which almost all save some comical holdouts agree were a terrible evil, US supported discrimination ain't viewed by a few persons (too many) as real racism.

HA! Good Fun!

Sorry, I honestly found your post a bit vague...you can say all you want about my reading comprehension and I can rant about your powers of communication. But how about we agree that every reply isn't necessarily a contradiction and I was just adding to your point?

[Skarpen]

Are we living in Orwellian nightmare? Recent poll shows only 18% of Germans feel they can safely express their opinion publicly, only 34% feel they can do this among friends. Those are not a good numbers.

https://www.worldatlarge.news/world-conflict/2019/5/29/only-18-of-germans-feel-they-can-exercise-free-speech-in-public-34-among-friends

[ComradeYellow]

Wow the Libertarian Party doesn't even try to hide their ignorance anymore.  It's literally the same as displaying a Nazi flag aka enemies the U.S. government destroyed or helped destroy.  They  probably should have went with Vermin Supreme or John McAfee, at least those candidates actually had a shot (Americans vote for celebrity in equal parts with policy).

[Guard Dog]

Anyone care to make a wager on how long it will be before Ghislaine Maxwell "commits suicide"?

[Skarpen]

13 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

Anyone care to make a wager on how long it will be before Ghislaine Maxwell "commits suicide"?

My bet is on Covid related health issues.

[HoonDing]