Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I understand your point here and it is valid, but; just because a lot of people (or even most) look at something a certain way doesn't make it correct or healthy.
That wasn't the point that I was making; I attempted to address to another poster, who said that "having an accurate understanding of history will indeed divide people from others who don't."
***
Dr King's approach might not work for all Americans, but most Americans have a conscience, and enough sense, to see that his arguments were/are correct. Yet, not every American would be persuaded by Dr King, and it's to be expected that small numbers of dissenters, and schisms, would result.
Segueing into my next point, I said that "But what happens when division spans the Country? Sociologists and those who focus on urban studies, decry the affect that "white flight" had upon America's Cities. Disunity is real, and the consequences therein are severe."
The point that I attempted to make, is that you don't correct one societal problem, by creating another one.
If small numbers of Americans are alienated by Dr King, and the truth that he bore, that's to be expected. But in attempting to correct one problem (racial prejudice), another one was created, that being division between segments of society, and it spans the entire Country.
To offer as proof the effects that division can cause, I cited the "while flight" phenomenon in many of America's cities.
Division is an insidious plague which is undermining American society, and it's fed by pitting one disaffected class of people against another.
The "melting pot" approach harmonizes people, cultures, and differences, while today's approach feeds tribalistic tendencies. In other words, getting to know my Japanese neighbors, and sharing their culture, is the "melting pot" approach; conversely today's approach - in this case asking schoolchildren to assume the role of a slave taskmaster - foments animosity and division between people. One approach breeds familiarity; the other approach breeds hatred.
Quote:
Originally Posted by distortedlogic
Why do we have to get offended and resentful?
Lets revisit the example that I used: schoolchildren are taught that Americans of Japanese decent were interned because of their heritage; that for no other reason other than their heritage, they were discriminated against.
Now...respectfully I ask the question: why would students of Japanese decent get offended at that? Why would they be resentful?
Is their reaction a surprise?
Do you see what I am saying?
***
Teach all you want about Dr King and his legacy. And while you're at it, instruct kids about Medgar Evans and Booker T Washington. Throw in the accomplishments of jazz greats like Ella Fitzgerald and Dizzy Gillespie. Great stuff; have at it, and enrich the lives of the schoolchildren. Such promotes the meltingpot approach, which heretofore, was successful.
But to suggest that schoolchildren assume the role of a slave taskmaster?
Getting back to the Japanese example:
"NDL, pretend that you incarcerated Japanese people because of their ethnicity."
I wouldn't want that school assignment, nor is it rational. Why? Because none of my Japanese classmates were interned in WWII detention camps, so why would I pretend that they were? Instead, expose me to Japanese culture, food, music, etc.; that's a lot more productive, and it's something to embrace and celebrate.
Still waiting on someone smarter than me to answer my question. I’ve been asking it for years. Would the Civil War have taken place if there had been no slavery in the South?
Read the book "White Trash. The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America" by Nancy Isenberg. That book will knock you on your arse haha. Trust me. Good read.
I'll check this out...that's for suggesting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by furmanpals
Still waiting on someone smarter than me to answer my question. I’ve been asking it for years. Would the Civil War have taken place if there had been no slavery in the South?
Yours is a tough nut to crack; some would have us believe that slavery was the sole motivation behind the War, and they'd produce strong arguments to substantiate their claim. Yet on the other end of the spectrum, are those who say that slavery was not a motivating factor, and they too, have good arguments to substantiate their claim.
That's why, for me, I consider the bulk of the people involved in the war effort - those who would be involved in combat - and the vast majority of these folks were of the peasant class. Yes, I know that some of these folks were conscripted into service. Even so, you'd have to consider the hardships of war, and all that they endured.
Was slavery a factor? Absolutely, but was it the predominant factor? For in the end, your question begs another consideration: would the war have taken place at all, if not for the hubristic actions of the Northern confederacy?
Still waiting on someone smarter than me to answer my question. I’ve been asking it for years. Would the Civil War have taken place if there had been no slavery in the South?
And although you didn't mention him by name, many of Abraham Lincoln's views on Black Americans were deplorable:
"...Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery."
"Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
""My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."
And although you didn't mention him by name, many of Abraham Lincoln's views on Black Americans were deplorable:
"...Lincoln believed that colonization—or the idea that a majority of the African-American population should leave the United States and settle in Africa or Central America—was the best way to confront the problem of slavery."
"Nearly a decade later, even as he edited the draft of the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in August of 1862, Lincoln hosted a delegation of freed slaves at the White House in the hopes of getting their support on a plan for colonization in Central America. Given the “differences” between the two races and the hostile attitudes of whites towards blacks, Lincoln argued, it would be “better for us both, therefore, to be separated.”
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union."
""My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861."
It absolutely does not answer my question. The CSA started the war, not Lincoln. If there were no slavery in the CSA, would we have seceded from the U.S.A.? What we have started a war?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,813 posts, read 34,657,307 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
The War concluded in 1865; I know that the Brooklyn Bridge was completed in 1883.
The Subway was opened in 1904; Lord knows how many years prior construction started; Manhattan island is wholly bedrock, and the subway was built, shovel by shovel, and brick by brick.
The Philadelphia Water department was formed in 1801; it's water infrastructure is incredible, and who knows how much it cost to construct.
Boston's history, is likewise both old and incredible.
There's no question that the tax revenue from the South funded some of the above projects, at the expense of many peasant farmers.
Agreed, but few people reason as such; either folks say that slavery was the sole motivating factor behind the war, or they deny the slavery component altogether; the truth is somewhere in between.
Lots of people form their opinions of the war based on the Civil War by Ken Burns. He sold it on slavery, slavery, slavery. I researched my own families during that period. I'm not buying it. It was a complex situation. In my opinion, Mr. Burns' series would be better named Ode to the Army of the Potomac and US Grant.
Many SC troops fought in the western theater in the Army of Tennessee, under the Reverend General Leonidas Polk.
As to the Philadelphia Water Works, unlike other cities, they were city owned and funded.
The first underground train system in the world was in London. It did not open prior to the US Civil War. PBS aired a series on the history of the London Underground.
Yes, slave labor built many civic buildings. No, yeoman farmers throughout the land did not fund bridges in NYC and public water in Philadelphia.
And just to be clear, what they don't teach in the history books is that at the time of the Civil War, there were still a few slaves in New Jersey. Unlike the other "free" states, NJ freed slaves by manumision. The remaining slaves were not called slaves. They were called apprentices for life.
It absolutely does not answer my question. The CSA started the war, not Lincoln. If there were no slavery in the CSA, would we have seceded from the U.S.A.? What we have started a war?
I don't have time to read the original document, but here it is:
Lots of people form their opinions of the war based on the Civil War by Ken Burns. He sold it on slavery, slavery, slavery. I researched my own families during that period. I'm not buying it. It was a complex situation. In my opinion, Mr. Burns' series would be better named Ode to the Army of the Potomac and US Grant.
Many SC troops fought in the western theater in the Army of Tennessee, under the Reverend General Leonidas Polk.
As to the Philadelphia Water Works, unlike other cities, they were city owned and funded.
The first underground train system in the world was in London. It did not open prior to the US Civil War. PBS aired a series on the history of the London Underground.
Yes, slave labor built many civic buildings. No, yeoman farmers throughout the land did not fund bridges in NYC and public water in Philadelphia.
And just to be clear, what they don't teach in the history books is that at the time of the Civil War, there were still a few slaves in New Jersey. Unlike the other "free" states, NJ freed slaves by manumision. The remaining slaves were not called slaves. They were called apprentices for life.
Great post
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
