U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary
 [Register]
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary The Triangle Area
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2019, 11:26 AM
 
2,600 posts, read 2,241,885 times
Reputation: 3126

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
Because it's not all about them and times change?
i mean whatever but on the face of it it's silly to go "how dare they ask to participate in the thing they've participated in all along"

you guys know black people can and do join the SCV right?

it's concerning how much the left supports those threatening violence and disruption when they agree with it politically. If nation of islam, black panthers, or black israelites had marched in a christmas parade for 20 years i would have no problem with them continuing and i bet most conservatives wouldn't either. It's strange as well because the SCV doesnt even fly the battle flag and they're not even a racially exclusive organization but organized around veteran remembrance. Heck I wouldn't care if al queda marched peacefully.

meh, obviously they aren't inclusive, i think they could of been shown the door without having violent disruption. it is tiresome talking about the confederacy.

Last edited by hey_guy; 12-09-2019 at 11:44 AM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2019, 11:43 AM
 
2,064 posts, read 1,057,371 times
Reputation: 2105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
i mean whatever but on the face of it it's silly to go "how dare they ask to participate in the thing they've participated in all along"

you guys know black people can and do join the SCV right?

it's concerning how much the left supports those threatening violence and disruption when they agree with it politically. If nation of islam, black panthers, or black israelites had marched in a christmas parade for 20 years i would have no problem with them continuing and i bet most conservatives wouldn't either. It's strange as well because the SCV doesnt even fly the battle flag and they're not even a racially eclusive organization but organized around veteran remembrance. Heck I wouldn't care of al queda marched.
Really?

https://www.richmond.com/news/sons-o...f0d0f4215.html

https://www.ncpedia.org/sons-confederate-veterans

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-wa...-87161160.html
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 11:48 AM
 
2,600 posts, read 2,241,885 times
Reputation: 3126
haha ok you got me ive seen them in a few parades way back and they didnt
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 12:00 PM
 
2,064 posts, read 1,057,371 times
Reputation: 2105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
haha ok you got me ive seen them in a few parades way back and they didnt
You might want to stick to posting factual information of which you have actual knowledge.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 12:05 PM
 
2,600 posts, read 2,241,885 times
Reputation: 3126
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward Teach View Post
You might want to stick to posting factual information of which you have actual knowledge.
thank you mr. hostile troll
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 12:19 PM
 
2,064 posts, read 1,057,371 times
Reputation: 2105
Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
thank you mr. hostile troll
Takes one to know one, I guess.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Where the College Used to Be
2,390 posts, read 946,607 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
i mean whatever but on the face of it it's silly to go "how dare they ask to participate in the thing they've participated in all along"

you guys know black people can and do join the SCV right?

it's concerning how much the left supports those threatening violence and disruption when they agree with it politically. If nation of islam, black panthers, or black israelites had marched in a christmas parade for 20 years i would have no problem with them continuing and i bet most conservatives wouldn't either. It's strange as well because the SCV doesnt even fly the battle flag and they're not even a racially exclusive organization but organized around veteran remembrance. Heck I wouldn't care if al queda marched peacefully.

meh, obviously they aren't inclusive, i think they could of been shown the door without having violent disruption. it is tiresome talking about the confederacy.
A couple of points/thoughts/questions

1. Yes Black Americans can and do join the SCV. I've seen reports online about the "handful" of Black Americans who have joined; the most famous obviously being Nelson Winbush.

2. In focusing on just this board, I haven't seen anyone support the outside agitators. I am about as Anti Confederate/Neo-Confederate as they come and even I don't support people threatening violence in response to their involvement in the parade. But that doesn't mean I can't question why they would be included in a small community (I wouldn't exactly call Garner and WF big) parade about Christmas.

3. I find it hard to believe that Conservatives would be OK with Al Qaeda marching anywhere on the streets of a town/city in the United States; given Al Qaeda murdered ~3000 Americans and led to the longest war in our history. I mean if were being honest, Conservatives (or at the very least, the leadership of the party) support banning migration to the US from a list of Muslim countries (which hilariously left the Salafists in KSA off the list)...yet I'm to believe they would support them marching, here, in America?

4. Calling the SCV (and the UDC) a veteran remembrance group, as I said to wheelsup a few pages back, is missing the forest through the trees. The real life application of their mission (read up on Frank Ernest and his words on his mission in life) has little to do with remembering Veterans. Both groups set out to "put lipstick on the pig" that was the history of the CSA. They openly espouse Lost Cause Mythology to soften the image of their heritage (and I get it....its tough to hear disparaging things about your great-great-great grandfather/mother/uncle/aunt et al.) Their entire mission, as it tangibly manifests in life, is to gaslight people into believing that the turmoil between say 1830 and 1880 had to do with anything but what it actually had to do with; an agrarian culture clinging to the only system they knew to exist when most other contemporary societies had moved on from the sin.

People like Frank (and the SCV more broadly) argue that their ancestors fought to defend their honors, their way of life, States Rights, "that the overwhelming majority of CSA soldiers in fact owned no slaves" (of course not. Like most wars, the average man fights on behalf on those that choose to go to war. Slave owning was anything but "an average man's" station in life) etc etc etc etc; ignoring outright the words of their own leaders of the time.

As CSA VP Alexander Stephens famously said a few weeks before Fort Sumter, in his "Cornerstone Speech" (edited for decency)

"Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the n***o is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.....Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice"

That the SCV/UDC have fought for generations to soften the image doesn't change the fact that the leaders who led them, laid it out for all to see, what the belief they were existing and fighting for was and would be.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 12:53 PM
 
2,600 posts, read 2,241,885 times
Reputation: 3126
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVoR View Post
A couple of points/thoughts/questions

1. Yes Black Americans can and do join the SCV. I've seen reports online about the "handful" of Black Americans who have joined; the most famous obviously being Nelson Winbush.

2. In focusing on just this board, I haven't seen anyone support the outside agitators. I am about as Anti Confederate/Neo-Confederate as they come and even I don't support people threatening violence in response to their involvement in the parade. But that doesn't mean I can't question why they would be included in a small community (I wouldn't exactly call Garner and WF big) parade about Christmas.

3. I find it hard to believe that Conservatives would be OK with Al Qaeda marching anywhere on the streets of a town/city in the United States; given Al Qaeda murdered ~3000 Americans and led to the longest war in our history. I mean if were being honest, Conservatives (or at the very least, the leadership of the party) support banning migration to the US from a list of Muslim countries (which hilariously left the Salafists in KSA off the list)...yet I'm to believe they would support them marching, here, in America?

4. Calling the SCV (and the UDC) a veteran remembrance group, as I said to wheelsup a few pages back, is missing the forest through the trees. The real life application of their mission (read up on Frank Ernest and his words on his mission in life) has little to do with remembering Veterans. Both groups set out to "put lipstick on the pig" that was the history of the CSA. They openly espouse Lost Cause Mythology to soften the image of their heritage (and I get it....its tough to hear disparaging things about your great-great-great grandfather/mother/uncle/aunt et al.) Their entire mission, as it tangibly manifests in life, is to gaslight people into believing that the turmoil between say 1830 and 1880 had to do with anything but what it actually had to do with; an agrarian culture clinging to the only system they knew to exist when most other contemporary societies had moved on from the sin.

People like Frank (and the SCV more broadly) argue that their ancestors fought to defend their honors, their way of life, States Rights, "that the overwhelming majority of CSA soldiers in fact owned no slaves" (of course not. Like most wars, the average man fights on behalf on those that choose to go to war. Slave owning was anything but "an average man's" station in life) etc etc etc etc; ignoring outright the words of their own leaders of the time.

As CSA VP Alexander Stephens famously said a few weeks before Fort Sumter, in his "Cornerstone Speech" (edited for decency)

"Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the n***o is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.....Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner"—the real "corner-stone"—in our new edifice"

That the SCV/UDC have fought for generations to soften the image doesn't change the fact that the leaders who led them, laid it out for all to see, what the belief they were existing and fighting for was and would be.

good post i guess the fundamental difference of my mentality is i dont park the ills of slavery under the 4 years the CSA existed it's endemic to the US. I could throw plenty of racist quotes from lincoln at you, but im sure you know them. And lots of union states were slave states. You would be hard pressed to find a person NOT racist in that era and even the abolitionists had racist ideas but at the end of it all was a lot a lot a lot of dead people.

pushing the monument thing aside the SDC and UDC do a lot of work in preserving battlefields and grave sites and i still consider that good work.


regarding the point above im just trying to stress a history of peaceful assembly should be worth something and just because you hate what some one stands for i dont think its wrong to ask to not devolve into endorsing those who want to show up and make a ruckus just because it aligns with your politics.

i dont need to devolve in arguing what started the war with you but i know you know when the war started ending slavery wasnt even on the table. You can only really saw "not expanding slavery" was on the table

Also i've heard all the arguments a bunch but nothing prima facie about the SCV is racist or even exclusionary it's always an A->B->C type of argument opposed to say the actual klan


I guess at the end of the day all i really have to say is i don't necessarily see remembering confederate dead as bad i would agree glorifying the confederacy probably is. Now when someone is doing one vs the other folks will never come to agreement.

Last edited by hey_guy; 12-09-2019 at 01:11 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Where the College Used to Be
2,390 posts, read 946,607 times
Reputation: 1852
Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
good post i guess the fundamental difference of my mentality is i dont park the ills of slavery under the 4 years the CSA existed it's endemic to the US. I could throw plenty of racist quotes from lincoln at you, but im sure you know them. And lots of union states were slave states. You would be hard pressed to find a person NOT racist in that era and even the abolitionists had racist ideas but at the end of it all was a lot a lot a lot of dead people.
Nor do I, and I agree. A couple of examples of what you speak of.

Wendell Holmes, one of the prominent Abolitionists at the time, said of Lincoln "I consider him a first rate, second rate, man" for his slow coming around re: slavery. As Lincoln said at the time (in so many words) "If I could save the Union and free all the slaves, I would. And if I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do that too"

Robert Gould Shaw's (made famous in modern times from the movie Glory) whose parents were leading Abolitionists from Boston, diary, which was the basis for the movie, reads as anything but someone who viewed the races equally.

I also agree that racism/slavery wasn't a thing only to the CSA; its roots predate the country, going back to the first settlements on the continent. Racism is a human condition.

Where the difference comes for me is, while the "Union" was certainly not a land of "non racist" people, only one side took up arms to defend the ideals/institutions that existed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
pushing the monument thing aside the SDC and UDC do a lot of work in preserving battlefields and grave sites and i still consider that good work.
As would I. It's one of the saddest things about Battlefields (and Southern Battlefields especially) that they aren't preserved. I get that maybe there was less desire in the South to preserve them at the time, given the South lost, but they are evidence of the struggle that in many ways still defines us today. I mean there are neighborhoods covering the approach to Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg; leaving a small section of the Wall preserved.

There's a McDonalds basically at the high water mark at Pickett's (which should have really been called Pettigrew's Charge, but Pettigrew was a NC boy and Pickett was a VA boy) of the Confederacy at Gettysburg.

Stonewall's Flanking March trail at Chancellorsville cuts through multiple neighborhoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
regarding the point above im just trying to stress a history of peaceful assembly should be worth something and just because you hate what some one stands for i dont think its wrong to ask to not devolve into endorsing those who want to show up and make a ruckus just because it aligns with your politics.
I get it, and I agree. You don't challenge an idea by not letting the other speak. You challenge it by presenting an argument against it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hey_guy View Post
i dont need to devolve in arguing what started the war with you but i know you know when the war started ending slavery wasnt even on the table. You can only really saw "not expanding slavery" was on the table
From the North's POV at the onset, absolutely, 100%. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. In fact there are Union Regiments that went on the Lam after the Emancipation Proclamation because they wouldn't fight for Abolition.

But from the South's POV, they (or at the very least, the local state leaders who decide such things) were absolutely fighting for it. They literally seceded from the Union for that State Right; the right to own another person, and it formed a basis of their understanding of how natural law works; as Stephens spoke to.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2019, 01:30 PM
 
2,600 posts, read 2,241,885 times
Reputation: 3126
Quote:
Originally Posted by GVoR View Post
Nor do I, and I agree. A couple of examples of what you speak of.

Wendell Holmes, one of the prominent Abolitionists at the time, said of Lincoln "I consider him a first rate, second rate, man" for his slow coming around re: slavery. As Lincoln said at the time (in so many words) "If I could save the Union and free all the slaves, I would. And if I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do that too"

Robert Gould Shaw's (made famous in modern times from the movie Glory) whose parents were leading Abolitionists from Boston, diary, which was the basis for the movie, reads as anything but someone who viewed the races equally.

I also agree that racism/slavery wasn't a thing only to the CSA; its roots predate the country, going back to the first settlements on the continent. Racism is a human condition.

Where the difference comes for me is, while the "Union" was certainly not a land of "non racist" people, only one side took up arms to defend the ideals/institutions that existed.



As would I. It's one of the saddest things about Battlefields (and Southern Battlefields especially) that they aren't preserved. I get that maybe there was less desire in the South to preserve them at the time, given the South lost, but they are evidence of the struggle that in many ways still defines us today. I mean there are neighborhoods covering the approach to Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg; leaving a small section of the Wall preserved.

There's a McDonalds basically at the high water mark at Pickett's (which should have really been called Pettigrew's Charge, but Pettigrew was a NC boy and Pickett was a VA boy) of the Confederacy at Gettysburg.

Stonewall's Flanking March trail at Chancellorsville cuts through multiple neighborhoods.



I get it, and I agree. You don't challenge an idea by not letting the other speak. You challenge it by presenting an argument against it.



From the North's POV at the onset, absolutely, 100%. The North was fighting to preserve the Union. In fact there are Union Regiments that went on the Lam after the Emancipation Proclamation because they wouldn't fight for Abolition.

But from the South's POV, they (or at the very least, the local state leaders who decide such things) were absolutely fighting for it. They literally seceded from the Union for that State Right; the right to own another person, and it formed a basis of their understanding of how natural law works; as Stephens spoke to.
no disagreement one comment though

Do you think it was for a racial hatred or the fact, over time, the south let its economy become so defined around the institution they felt their only choice was to fight to preserve it or face economic irrelevance. Obviously an irony if you're a slave.

I do think the above is a valid point because it really puts the focus to it was elites were really fighting for their power. I also don't really praise the north for virtue because if you look at it with an economic lens, they became anti-slavery when the institution didn't deliver value to them any more...a cheap grace if any.

I know the lost cause is debunked but I do consider it an unresolved point of law about voluntary participation in the union by the states...a point only resolved by the war itself.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > North Carolina > Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, Cary
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top