Prevailing views on the WBTS and cultural marxism

possum

"Cultural marxism", largely meaning engendering an atmosphere of political correctness.

Since I have been on this forum, I have moved away from my old views on matters pertaining to the 1860's conflict, having learnt about the causes and conditions that led up to the war. It is now evident to me (I've also been reading heaps) that the American South had been badly disenfranchised and also ignobly attacked by the alleged victors (hardly victors in the moral sense although they'd like to think they were).

From my humble corner of the world, my own views had been sadly formed by the mythological claptrap that has issued forth ever since, on the subject. I am vowing to make good on that, in all sorts of ways, on behalf of my brothers and sisters of the South.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly we appropriate views on serious matters according to our own conditioning and pejudices, likes and dislikes. In doing so we often sacrifice truth on the altar of stupidity and ignorance.

One thing we often forget is that the world was a very different place in the 1800's. What we do is superimpose our own new millenium views onto situations that happened 150 years ago and often lack the imagination to remember that we were not as enlightened as we are now about matters such as slavery. Which was not confined to American South BTW. In fact did they not turn up in the first place on yankee ships?

And yes, this has all been exacerbated by the relatively recent climate of cultural marxism.(probably at its height in the 80's).Mind you, in some countries its probably a good idea to be culturally marxist, otherwise you might get your head chopped off.

I do however feel there is a danger of branding people who disagree with certain views, as culturally marxist.

You may have three people with the same view who have come to that view independently:

1. mealy-mouthed culturally marxist person who lacks the individuality to figure things out by himself and who espouses the view of the person with the most dominant personality - they are commonly known as Conformists (shudder).

2. An individual who has suffered extensively as a result of external circumstances and whose objectivity has been permanently distorted as a result of those experiences.

3. The person who hankers for the truth of the matter
and is prepared to put his head on the line for that truth. But they may seem to be in the same camp as the other two with the difference that they have figured it out for themeselves.

So there's a danger of having pre-conceived misconceptions about these three people because they may all be saying similar words. We make assumptions about where they are coming from and there is no way really of knowing (especially not on the internet). We can't see their body-language or behaviours.

We also all love to believe we are on the side of the angels. Well thats just the thing about angels. They don't have sides. That's why they are angels.

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

We can't forget though that they were brought over on "Yankee" ships because it was during the time before the sucession of the South. So in reality, they weren't yankee ships at all. They were American ships, some from the North, some from the South. It was the crime of all, not just those who stayed under the nation's flag in a time of crisis. Also don't forget that in the 1850's and 1860's, people were starting to see how inhumane slavery was. The general believe isn't ok when there are people showing that it's wrong. Once people began to question it during this time of change, those who still believed it to be alright became incorrect. So yes, while many still thought nothing of it, that's no excuse since others could see the cruelness in it, and expressed it.

I agree that people should figure things out for themselves though. I can't stand it when people don't even bother to think about it before speaking. It's ok to be on whatever side you choose, as long as you side with that group because of your beliefs and ideas. It's not ok to just follow the common, and sometimes false, information you hear.

possum · Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2006 1:56 pm Post subject: prevailing views

Howzitt Cog, Long time no speak.

Well no, it is Yankeedom I'm taking issue with here.

The effects of the New England slave trade were momentous. It was one of the foundations of New England's economic structure; it created a wealthy class of slave-trading merchants, while the profits derived from this commerce stimulated cultural development and philanthropy. --Lorenzo Johnston Greene, “The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,” p.319. (not the same Lorenzo BTW)

First slave ship to be specially decked out in America for the ignoble purpose was, if my source is correct, built in 1637 and sailed from Salem, Massachusets.

Massachusets first legalized slavery in America.
Virginia first attempted to prohibit it.
General Grant had three slaves
General Lee had none.

As far as I can see slavery is not so much the issue in this post as the rank hypocricy of those who promoted, profited and then pretended to be righteous about it.

What I would like to see is, not a perpetuation of this same tendency, but some eating of a great big humble pie; an acknowlegement from the North to the South of the scapegoating. Then I'd like to see (publically and privately) a heartfelt and deep apology to decades of painting the South as the embarrassing part of USA. Which I had certainly bought into until I started learning more.

Oh yes and I nearly forgot, allow them to fly their battle flag of the Confederacy whereever and whereever they like!!

P.S. I''m not having a go at you CoG I just have a thing about injustice.
Maybe the fact that I have no Southern blood or connections may help people understand that I do not have my own agenda. Mind you I have a suspicion I was somewhere in the vicinity in a former life

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

I know you're not having a go at me, no worries.

I see what you're talking about but I can't say I totally agree. I think the slave trade in New England was mainly there because the country was founded up in that neck of the woods and they also have a lot of ports for ships to sail to. Naturally many slave ships would sail in and out of there. Same with that first specialized one being built there. They really knew how to make some good boats up north. It's what they did, being a strong fishing area and all.

As for the people involved, I like to look at it in a less geographical way. Every part of the country had its fair share of slave merchants. It's not so much where it happened as who did it. Many people in the North looked at all Southerners as being slave owners. They saw all Northerners as merchants and industrialists and stuff like that. But in reality, most people were nothing the others thought. While the South still had the most plantations and slave owners, I'm more than willing to admit that some Northerners had slaves too.

As for Grant, he treated the slaves he was put in charge of very well. I think he paid them too actually, but I'm not sure about that. I also believe he freed them at some point. It was all because he married the daughter of slave owners.

We also can't forget that many who wished for slavery to be abolished were honest, good people who never owned a slave in their life. Some were hypocrites, but most weren't.

I also agree that the Confederate flag should not be banned. I may be a Northerner through and through, but I don't think it's right to stop them from remembering the South's attempt at independence. It's a huge part of this nation's history that shouldn't be silenced. While I think those who still hope for the Confederacy to come back are a bit nuts, I don't blame them for wanting to display the pride they have for their area and beliefs. Stopping that flag from being flown is destroying the individuality that makes this country unique.

possum · Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 4:10 pm Post subject: prevailing views on the

Yes I have no doubts that the old Southerners would not have been able to make such efficient slaveships - many would have probably sunk in the first storm. Kinda proves my point really.

I'm not doing the 'all northerners are hypocrites and all southerners misunderstood' thing here either.
People are people and you get oafs,liars, ignoramuses and belligerants everywere,just as you get the opposite, through all stratas of society and geographical locations.

There were seething historical hatreds between the two sets of people at odds with one another as has been gone into on the forum somewhere, don't ask me where.

THIS is what i reckon the heart of the matter is.

Trouble is, the Anglo-Saxon elements (New Englanders etc), have this unpleasant tendency to put very negative spins on the other set of people whilst sanitizing their own greed, hatred and ignorance.That is what I mean about hypocrisy.
And that is historical too.

What I take issue with, is that the brilliance and guile of the pommie spin has created and perpetuated huge myths and lies about the American South, that the rest of the world seems to take as gospel. Not that I'm saying N.Z. is the rest of the world, but we're pretty broad-minded as a nation (to generalize). That false spin on the southern states is alive and well here too.

And over the last few months I have, IRL, spoken to a south Afican, two Indians, two frenchmen,and a Pole, all of whom believe the WBTS was a war to stop slavery and that the American South is largely composed of idle, stupid hillbillies.

So that is why I would like to see fewer 'yes buts' and a resolution by anyone who has in ANY way helped perpetuate that myth, to begin to work against it.But I can't see that happening any time soon. Can you?
If it was the other way around and certain da mning myths against the North had been perpetuated and believed by the rest of the world, how outraged would the North be?

No wonder the Irish painted all their letter boxes and buses shamrock green!

I think we have have gone off the off topic.

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

I agree with all that. I think a huge part of it all is that people are loyal to their area and can't admit that it hasn't been perfect in the CW either. But I suppose that such loyalty isn't such a bad thing. In my history class we're learning about Rome and we saw how losing loyalty can cause the fall of an empire, or a country nowadays. I think we here in America just need to find the happy medium between history, myths, and loyalty. But that won't be until 2008 lol.

possum · Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 5:06 am Post subject: prevailing views

Nah, if the loyalty is based on a sham, best it all comes a-tumbling down so that something worthwhile can be constructed.

Have you read that book yet CoG? You may have to keep it in a brown paper wrapper of course....

On the subject of books, Joanne Pope Melish(Brown University professor) has written "Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860".

In it she reveals that slavery existed in New England for more than 200 years (beginning in 1638) until it became uneconomical (can't have that!). The burgeoning manufacturing industry need a more educated and skilled workforce.

Melish describes how free blacks in NE were horribly abused (including sexual abuse from their sactimonious masters) AND that NE literature portrayed blacks as preposterous, stupid or evil beings.
The esteemed Ralph Waldo Emerson predicted that as an 'inferior race', blacks would "follow the dodo into extinction". He also acknowleged that "the abolitionist wishes to abolish slavery because he wishes to abolish the black man".
This in order to "restore New England to an idealized original state as an orderly homogenous, white society." White supremacy anyone?

Free blacks in NE were urged to leave the country, attacked, rioted against, excluded from juries, and even from cemeteries.
Black graves were dug up so that white cemeteries would not be "tainted". There was a "crescendo of mob violence against people of colour."
New Englanders did everything they could to eradicate free blacks from their midst including burning down entire communities. And on and on and on.
But hey, they were free.
Racism was alive and well UNIVERSALLY back then it seems. But what I take issue with is the HYPOCRISY- the holier than thou attitude from the north to the South.
Why do I care?
Well I do declare, I have grown a Southern heart.

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

I never said the North was a sacred haven for slaves. Nobody liked them, but the North just didn't keep them inslaved. Besides, not every Northerner was an abolishionist. but most of the people who were were from the North. the matter of slavery in the Civil War isn't so much about how much people liked them as it was their freedom. Better hated than inslaved.

As for loyalty, finding the happy medium includes correcting myths.

Everyone knows and admits that slavery was up North since the colonies were formed. But it's also where abolishonment movement began. The North wasn't and isn't some big horrible lying beast. Everyone against the North only seems to ba able to see the mistakes they made, and not what they did to fix it.

Mr. Emerson may have been for white sumpremacy, but that doesn't mean everyone up North was. The actions and words of one should not be taken as the actions and words of all.

Also, what Northerners did to blacks was being done around the country. It happened a lot in the South too. It still does sometimes too nowadays. The North cannot be made out to be this horrible place when it was a countrywide crime, not a regional one.

possum · Posted: Sun Nov 19, 2006 3:14 am Post subject: prevailing views

Don't get me wrong. I'm not at all suggesting that the North was all wrong and the South was all right.
Its that kind of polarised thinking that gets us into war in the first place.

What I'm saying is that the scales are way out of whack and the South is in the RED. If I could thump a
table with my fist to make my points on-line, I would.But I only have colourful language in my *beep*.

What I want is for people to acknowledge, confess and apologise because there is an awful lot of apologising to be done.yes even after 146 years.