New Orleans To Remove Excremental Rebel Monuments

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm wondering where your thesis was published. Sons of the confederacy quarterly ? Physical abuse of southern slaves was rampant. S Carolina even wrote laws restricting discipline to whipping and chaining while seeing the need to expressly forbid burning, castrating and scalding. Torture implements were even devised specifically for use with American slaves. The references are plentiful and easy to find. I can't find one that doesn't make the statement that the cruelty was widespread. Perhaps you can link your novel thesis that these slaveholders were generally good to their property. While you're at it cite similar examples of such abuse on Apple employees

:lol:

I don't know what's funnier, your complete mischaracterization of me, my politics, my position on this issue, or your absolute raging ignorance and hypocrisy.

[birdog1960]

:lol:

I don't know what's funnier, your complete mischaracterization of me, my politics, my position on this issue, or your absolute raging ignorance and hypocrisy.

Didn't characterize you or your politics at all. I characterized your description of antebellum American slavery. Prove me wrong

[Chef Jim]

Didn't characterize you or your politics at all. I characterized your description of antebellum American slavery. Prove me wrong

Actually I think it would be more fun for you to prove where he said no slaves were harmed.

[Tiberius]

Actually I think it would be more fun for you to prove where he said no slaves were harmed.

He didn't say no slaves were harmed, that was not the argument attacked and you know it. You are making a dishonest counter argument

[Deranged Rhino]

Didn't characterize you or your politics at all. I characterized your description of antebellum American slavery. Prove me wrong

Prove your inaccurate assessment of what I said wrong? That's a waste of time.

 

First you have to understand what I said, and your response made it clear you did not. I didn't say abuses didn't happen, ever. And if you think anything I've said on this subject is in line w neomconfederate historians then you're laughably incorrect.

 

You admit you know nothing about this subject, now it's clear you know nothing about what has been said in this thread. It really helps to know people's arguments and positions before you make blanket statements...

 

... Which brings us back to the original point I was making.

 

Actually I think it would be more fun for you to prove where he said no slaves were harmed.

Exactly.

[4merper4mer]

And if you truly knew your history in this area you'd know those examples were not the norms, not even close to the norms, in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers.

 

 

This thread is getting nasty and I thought I'd try to bring back to civility a little. Your mention of antebellum south reminded me that JP Losman joined a band after the Bills cut him.

 

Here is one of their videos. He is playing the piano at :10 and a better picture at 1:22. Even if you don't like country you have to admit he is better at this than at QB

 

[Deranged Rhino]

:lol:

[DC Tom]

 

Exactly.

 

You've got to remember, this is the same (*^*&%^$^#that said there were no guns in Europe.

 

Nuance doesn't exist for him. At all. Ever. He considers details to be confusing ("obfuscating," as he says) and ignores them. You can't discuss the Civil War era who considers the concept of "states" an apologetic nuisance designed to cloud the issues.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Anyone ever read the book civil war 2?

[Tiberius]

 

You've got to remember, this is the same (*^*&%^$^#that said there were no guns in Europe.

 

Nuance doesn't exist for him. At all. Ever. He considers details to be confusing ("obfuscating," as he says) and ignores them. You can't discuss the Civil War era who considers the concept of "states" an apologetic nuisance designed to cloud the issues.

HA HA. So is your Greggy right that slaves were generally treated well as property? Boy, you are really out of sorts! What nuance are you talking about? Take a deep breath already

 

And what in the world are you talking about in the bold there??? What's that got to do with how slaves were treated?

Good old state's rights! Eh Tom?

 

The Battle of Liberty Place was an attempted insurrection by the Crescent City White League against the Reconstruction state government on September 14, 1874, in New Orleans, where it was then based. Five thousand members of the White League, a paramilitary organization of the Conservative Democratic Party, made up largely of Confederate veterans, fought against the outnumbered Metropolitan Police and state militia. The insurgents held the statehouse, armory, and downtown for three days, retreating before arrival of Federal troops that restored the elected government. No insurgents were charged in the action. This was the last major event of violence stemming from the disputed 1872 gubernatorial election. Both the Conservative Democrat John McEnery and Republican William Pitt Kellogg claimed victory; the U.S. government supported Kellogg.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place

 

Can't wait for Wacka or LABillz to show up saying, "Look, Democrats! Obama bad"

 

Does this really seem worthy of a monument in New Orleans?

[B-Man]

Four organizations whose goals are to protect and preserve New Orleans' historic landscape have filed a federal lawsuit to halt efforts to remove four prominent Confederate monuments.

The Louisiana Landmarks Society, Foundation for Historical Louisiana, Monumental Task Committee and Beauregard Camp No. 130 on Thursday challenged the City Council's vote to remove the structures and Mayor Mitch Landrieu's approval of the ordinance.

 

 

http://www.sfgate.com/news/us/article/The-Latest-Vote-on-Confederate-monuments-in-New-6704859.php

[Chef Jim]

HA HA. So is your Greggy right that slaves were generally treated well as property? Boy, you are really out of sorts! What nuance are you talking about? Take a deep breath already

 

And what in the world are you talking about in the bold there??? What's that got to do with how slaves were treated?

 

Good old state's rights! Eh Tom?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place

 

Does this really seem worthy of a monument in New Orleans?

Probably not but what does this have to do with the other monuments being removed?

[B-Man]

Probably not but what does this have to do with the other monuments being removed?

 

 

My favorite part of Gator's little link.

 

In 1891, the city erected a monument to commemorate and praise the insurrection from the Democratic Party point of view, which at the time was in firm political control of the city and state and was in the process of disenfranchising most blacks. The white marble obelisk was placed at a prominent location on Canal Street. In 1932, the city added an inscription that expressed a white supremacist view.

 

In 1974, the rethinking of race relations after the Civil Rights Movement caused the city to add a marker near the monument explaining that the inscription did not express current philosophy. After major construction work on Canal Street in 1989 required that the monument be temporarily removed, it was relocated to a less prominent location and the inscription was altered.

 

 

 

 

.

[Tiberius]

Probably not but what does this have to do with the other monuments being removed?

It was all part of the same thing. Civil War, fighting against reconstruction, monuments celebrating both, no different

[DC Tom]

And what in the world are you talking about in the bold there??? What's that got to do with how slaves were treated?

 

That you even ask that question more than proves my point, you dumb !@#$.

[Deranged Rhino]

HA HA. So is your Greggy right that slaves were generally treated well as property?

That is not what I said, or close to it.

 

You're out of your element, Donny.

[birdog1960]

Prove your inaccurate assessment of what I said wrong? That's a waste of time.

 

First you have to understand what I said, and your response made it clear you did not. I didn't say abuses didn't happen, ever. And if you think anything I've said on this subject is in line w neomconfederate historians then you're laughably incorrect.

 

 

you said this: " in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers."

 

i say this is untrue. they were not outliers. it was so common that laws were needed to protect them from amputations or cutting off the tongue in addition to those horrible acts already mentioned. prove me wrong. i believe a consensus of historians would judge your stance quite sympathetic to antebellum slaveholders and quite unsympathetic to slaves. it would most certainly be questioned during a thesis defense. but it's an historical point. and you stated you're an historian that published a thesis on the civil war. the reference to support your point should be easily plucked from your bibliography. go for it.

[Keukasmallies]

I NOLA is successful in removing/relocating monuments, maybe TBD should launch a drive to remove/relocate some of the nonsensical posts/posters seen in this thread...?

[Tiberius]

you said this: " in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers."

 

i say this is untrue. they were not outliers. it was so common that laws were needed to protect them from amputations or cutting off the tongue in addition to those horrible acts already mentioned. prove me wrong. i believe a consensus of historians would judge your stance quite sympathetic to antebellum slaveholders and quite unsympathetic to slaves. it would most certainly be questioned during a thesis defense. but it's an historical point. and you stated you're an historian that published a thesis on the civil war. the reference to support your point should be easily plucked from your bibliography. go for it.

He said that? Oh Lord....I stopped reading his nonsense and look what I missed

[birdog1960]

He said that? Oh Lord....I stopped reading his nonsense and look what I missed

rhino: " The history of slavery in the Americas is one of my niches. I've studied it extensively, written papers on it and a thesis. There is no question the root cause of the war was slavery and the desire to see the practice continued and expanded into the new territories.

 

 

 

one would think it a pretty facile task to defend statements made by someone so learned on the subject.

 

I would enjoy the privilege to read what is likely to be a very interesting, if not likely well received, thesis.

I NOLA is successful in removing/relocating monuments, maybe TBD should launch a drive to remove/relocate some of the nonsensical posts/posters seen in this thread...?

which nonsensical posts are you referring to? cuz this one is pretty nebulous on its own.

Edited December 29, 2015 by birdog1960

[Deranged Rhino]

you said this: "in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers."

Actually, that's not what I said nor is it in context. What I said was this:

 

"And if you truly knew your history in this area you'd know those examples were not the norms, not even close to the norms, in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers."

 

It's a different statement when you don't game the quote to try to get it to say what you want it to say. What I actually said is undoubtedly true. Extreme abuse was not the norm, the economics of Chattle slavery assured this far more than any laws. I never said abuses didn't happen. I never made the claim chattel slavery was morally justifiable, all I was pointing out were the abuses on the scale of what you mentioned (salt pepper, castration, etc) were not the norms -- not that they didn't happen.

 

If you knew your history you'd know this is true. But you've already admitted you don't know this history, and you continue to demonstrate this beyond a shadow of a doubt throughout this discussion.

 

It makes sense that you'd lash out with false claims against the guy who is making you look foolish in this thread. I get that your upset and embarrassed. It would be hard not to be with your posting history in this thread. You have been proven to be a complete hypocrite in this subject, and morally inferior. Your own logic after all is: anyone who supports slavery is morally inferior -- yet you gleefully support modern slavery because they make really neat iPhones and iPads.

 

Still, it'd be appreciated if you were honest when trying to attack my position.

 

Now, this final nugget:

 

i believe a consensus of historians would judge your stance quite sympathetic to antebellum slaveholders and quite unsympathetic to slaves. it would most certainly be questioned during a thesis defense. but it's an historical point. and you stated you're an historian that published a thesis on the civil war. the reference to support your point should be easily plucked from your bibliography. go for it.[/background]

This is exactly why you're getting your ass handed to you in this thread. Not only do you not understand the difference between a thesis and a doctoral dissertation, you're making the argument that anyone who dares offer facts that run contrary to your admittedly ignorant understanding of the subject (you yourself have admitted you have never studied this subject) they're being "unsympathetic to slaves".

 

Think about that in relation to the greater topic at hand. To you, anyone who offers information that doesn't fit your shallow understanding of events, is instantly pro slavery. That's a recipe for whitewashing history if I've ever seen one.

 

That's piss poor logic, it's an even scarier way to view/teach history.

 

But it's hilarious reading all your righteous indignation about this when you refuse to own up to the fact that you, today right now, are enjoying the spoils of modern slavery.

 

:lol:

Edited December 29, 2015 by Deranged Rhino

[birdog1960]

Actually, that's not what I said nor is it in context. What I said was this:

 

"And if you truly knew your history in this area you'd know those examples were not the norms, not even close to the norms, in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers."

 

It's a different statement when you don't game the quote to try to get it to say what you want it to say. What I actually said is undoubtedly true. Extreme abuse was not the norm, the economics of Chattle slavery assured this far more than any laws. I never said abuses didn't happen. I never made the claim chattel slavery was morally justifiable, all I was pointing out were the abuses on the scale of what you mentioned (salt pepper, castration, etc) were not the norms -- not that they didn't happen.

 

If you knew your history you'd know this is true. But you've already admitted you don't know this history, and you combine to demonstrate this beyond a shadow of a doubt throughout this discussion.

 

It makes sense that you'd lash out with false claims against the guy who is making you look foolish in this thread. I get that your upset and embarrassed. It would be hard not to be with your posting history in this thread. You have been proven to be a complete hypocrite in this subject, and morally inferior. Your own logic after all is: anyone who supports slavery is morally inferior -- yet you gleefully support modern slavery because they make really neat iPhones and iPads.

 

Still, it'd be appreciated if you were honest when trying to attack my position.

 

Now, this final nugget:

 

This is exactly why you're getting your ass handed to you in this thread. Not only do you not understand the difference between a thesis and a doctoral dissertation, you're making the argument that anyone who dares offer facts that run contrary to your admittedly ignorant understanding of the subject (you yourself have admitted you have never studied this subject) they're being "unsympathetic to slaves".

 

Think about that in relation to the greater topic at hand. To you, anyone who offers information that doesn't fit your shallow understanding of events, is instantly pro slavery. That's a recipe for whitewashing history if I've ever seen one.

 

That's piss poor logic, it's an even scarier way to view/teach history.

 

But it's hilarious reading all your righteous indignation about this when you refuse to own up to the fact that you, today right now, are enjoying the spoils of modern slavery.

 

:lol:

fail to see the distinction between what I quoted and what you just recopied. care to explain? were slaves too valuable to purposely harm or not?. if so, produce some evidence. was cruelty to slaves and abuse an outlier event or not? how does context change the meaning of those statements (hint: it doesn't) . what did you mean by the word outliers? I believe I was the first to use it on this forum in reference to gladwell's book. I know what he meant. what did you mean?

 

the rightful indignation is just that. you won't even confirm your documented use of words that have no alternative meanings. it's pitiful.

 

oh, and in my circles, thesis means doctoral dissertation unless otherwise qualified. what was yours? a high school project?

Edited December 29, 2015 by birdog1960

[Deranged Rhino]

fail to see the distinction between what I quoted and what you just recopied. care to explain? were slaves too valuable to purposely harm or not?

 

Of course you fail to see the distinction. Your inability to see nuance is why you're getting your ass handed to you in this thread.

 

"Anyone who supports slavery is morally inferior" -- that's what you said in this very thread is it not?

[birdog1960]

Of course you fail to see the distinction. Your inability to see nuance is why you're getting your ass handed to you in this thread.

 

"Anyone who supports slavery is morally inferior" -- that's what you said in this very thread is it not?

you made the statements. were slaves too valuable to purposely harm or not? was slave cruelty an outlier event or not?

[Deranged Rhino]

you made the statements. were slaves too valuable to purposely harm or not? was slave cruelty an outlier event or not?

I made the statement that extreme abuses were not the norm. And they were not.

 

Now, back to the point and what you said:

 

i'm not a civil war historian... i contend that those still supporting the idea of the confederacy and by extension its link to slavery, are in fact very likely to be ethically inferior to those that don't.

So, using your own logic, is it not fair to say your support of Apple and its use of slave labor very likely makes you ethically inferior to those who do not support slavery?

 

Do you care to comment at all on your own statements or would you like to continue to pretend you never said them?

[DC Tom]

oh, and in my circles, thesis means doctoral dissertation unless otherwise qualified. what was yours? a high school project?

 

You need to move in smarter circles.

[boyst]

 

 

This thread is getting nasty and I thought I'd try to bring back to civility a little. Your mention of antebellum south reminded me that JP Losman joined a band after the Bills cut him.

 

Here is one of their videos. He is playing the piano at :10 and a better picture at 1:22. Even if you don't like country you have to admit he is better at this than at QB

 

Sadly i know the words to the entire song. it's not a bad song, i love the instrumental to some regard but the stereotypical watered down lyrics really bring that song down a peg. Hilary's voice is tremendous, pairs well with Charles.

[DC Tom]

I made the statement that extreme abuses were not the norm. And they were not.

 

"Not the norm" and "outliers" are concepts that these black-and-white simpletons will never understand.

[birdog1960]

I made the statement that extreme abuses were not the norm. And they were not.

 

Now, back to the point and what you said:

 

 

So, using your own logic, is it not fair to say your support of Apple and its use of slave labor very likely makes you ethically inferior to those who do not support slavery?

 

Do you care to comment at all on your own statements or would you like to continue to pretend you never said them?

you said nothing about extreme. once again, it's all documented right here.

 

and your academic credentials here are important since you claim superiority of knowledge based on them. so what was your "thesis"? was it just an idea? did you obtain it from a box of crackerjacks? was it recognized by scholars as an important contribution to the field? were your "papers" published? or are you just blowing smoke? go ahead and lie because it's clear you believe you can get away with it.

 

"Not the norm" and "outliers" are concepts that these black-and-white simpletons will never understand.

except he didn't say "not the norm" until just now.

 

and in the same vein, how bout your academic credentials here? or are they from the cliff claven school?

Edited December 29, 2015 by birdog1960

[FireChan]

Gators logic in this thread:

 

Destroying history is good -- like ISIS does

 

Slavery lifts people out of poverty.

 

good grief you're a mess in the head.

You're still not going to offer a response to my questions?

 

Man, what an intellectual coward you are. I've never really had anything against you, but this has been a shameful performance in this thread. Pity.

 

And if you truly knew your history in this area you'd know those examples were not the norms, not even close to the norms, in the antebellum south. Slaves were too valuable to purposefully harm. Didn't mean it didn't happen but they were outliers.

 

 

you said nothing about extreme. once again, it's all documented right here.

 

and your academic credentials here are important since you claim superiority of knowledge based on them. so what was your "thesis"? was it just an idea? did you obtain it from a box of crackerjacks? was it recognized by scholars as an important contribution to the field? were your "papers" published? or are you just blowing smoke? go ahead and lie because it's clear you believe you can get away with it.

except he didn't say "not the norm" until just now.

 

and in the same vein, how bout your academic credentials here? or are they from the cliff claven school?

Just now, Christmas day, same thing

[birdog1960]

 

 

Just now, Christmas day, same thing

point conceded. doesn't change the argument nor the questions re evidence to support these contentions or academic credential to support claims of intellectual superiority on the matter.

[4merper4mer]

Sadly i know the words to the entire song. it's not a bad song, i love the instrumental to some regard but the stereotypical watered down lyrics really bring that song down a peg. Hilary's voice is tremendous, pairs well with Charles.

 

 

I understand that you might not have liked JP when he was with the Bills but he does a nice job on the piano in that tune and you should give him some credit by name.

 

A little known fact about that video is that the end part, where all of the band members are fixing to get laid, was filmed on the set for the other two but they green screened JP because one of his bud's filmed him picking up some broad on Chippewa and the director thought she was perfect for the video. The original plan was to have a computer on top of his piano and he was going to be Googling up some porn.

Edited December 29, 2015 by 4merper4mer

[Deranged Rhino]

you said nothing about extreme. once again, it's all documented right here.

 

Of course I did. But you missed when I said it because you were more interested in twisting the conversation away from your own hypocrisy towards something else.

 

But you failed. So, back to the question you continue to ignore:

 

So, using your own logic, is it not fair to say your support of Apple and its use of slave labor very likely makes you ethically inferior to those who do not support slavery?

 

Do you care to comment at all on your own statements or would you like to continue to pretend you never said them?

[Tiberius]

 

"Not the norm" and "outliers" are concepts that these black-and-white simpletons will never understand.

No, they were the norm. What's next, you two idiots will start saying the Nazis were polite to the Jews as they gassed them? Clowns

 

Never thought you would sink so low. What a pathetic idiot you are

[Deranged Rhino]

No, they were the norm. What's next, you two idiots will start saying the Nazis were polite to the Jews as they gassed them? Clowns

 

Never thought you would sink so low. What a pathetic idiot you are

:lol:

[Azalin]

:lol:

 

Yeah, nothing legitimizes a point of view like tossing out the Nazi card. He should change his screen name to 'Mr Godwin'.

[DC Tom]

except he didn't say "not the norm" until just now.

 

What the !@#$ do you think "outliers" means?

 

and in the same vein, how bout your academic credentials here? or are they from the cliff claven school?

 

I've read the classics.

No, they were the norm. What's next, you two idiots will start saying the Nazis were polite to the Jews as they gassed them? Clowns

 

Never thought you would sink so low. What a pathetic idiot you are

 

Gassing Jews was not the norm, either.

[4merper4mer]

 

 

 

Gassing Jews was not the norm, either.

 

 

Now you've gone and ruined Joe the Sandusky Proponent's day.

[Tiberius]

 

Yeah, nothing legitimizes a point of view like tossing out the Nazi card. He should change his screen name to 'Mr Godwin'.

Oh, the Nazi thing upsets you. Wow

 

The evidence legitimizes my point of view. You don't even have to know history--which obviously Tom and Greggy obviously do not--to understand you don't get people to work for free with brutality. Throw in laws which encourage brutality, put in charge people determined to squeeze every last once of profit from these people and you get institutionalized brutality.

 

Why would people even argue that slavery wasn't incredibly brutal? I cannot imagine...

[3rdnlng]

Oh, the Nazi thing upsets you. Wow

 

The evidence legitimizes my point of view. You don't even have to know history--which obviously Tom and Greggy obviously do not--to understand you don't get people to work for free with brutality. Throw in laws which encourage brutality, put in charge people determined to squeeze every last once of profit from these people and you get institutionalized brutality.

 

Why would people even argue that slavery wasn't incredibly brutal? I cannot imagine...

Just what are you trying to say?