Winning versus Annihilation

[barnhart]

Petr, I think the cooperation you observe post civil was simply northern and southern white people agreeing to trampled the constitutional rights to black folks. This was the conflict all along and the conflict went away as soon as the north abandoned reconstruction and pulled their troops back. For the next eighty years northern whites agreed to silence over southern white supremacy and Jim Crow terrorism and southern whites agreed to silence over northern segregation and economic oppression of black folks. Order was restored so long as you don't count the sufferings of black folks.

You may have a point about the optimistic american nature that only looks forward, it is amazing that african americans and native americans view the country as anything less than a genocide machine. Maybe the fact that we have so little history means it is easily over looked.

[temporal1]

Petr, I think the cooperation you observe post civil was simply northern and southern white people agreeing to trampled the constitutional rights to black folks. This was the conflict all along and the conflict went away as soon as the north abandoned reconstruction and pulled their troops back. For the next eighty years northern whites agreed to silence over southern white supremacy and Jim Crow terrorism and southern whites agreed to silence over northern segregation and economic oppression of black folks. Order was restored so long as you don't count the sufferings of black folks.

You may have a point about the optimistic american nature that only looks forward, it is amazing that african americans and native americans view the country as anything less than a genocide machine. Maybe the fact that we have so little history means it is easily over looked.

(cough)
you must be proud of your elegant composition.

regarding genocide machines, there is no debate when it comes to the combination of OTC and prescription birth control for all parts of the (western) population, which is quietly not maintaining; for profit corporate abortion specially focuses on elimination of poor populations, skin color is not primary, packaged so attractively as “human rights,” the poor are convinced to “freely” vote for it, i.e., freely vote for extermination of their very own young. An otherwise unnatural choice.

When people voluntarily destroy their own is it called genocide or suicide? Or, too uncomfortable to consider, thus ignored?

All living creatures are designed for life, protection and nurturing of offspring. Human reasoning, not God’s design, interferes. Even plants are designed to strive to live, no matter hostile conditions.

Life is a remarkable concept. Certainly not man made.
If life were left to the whims of man, he would ultimately determine it unfair, inconvenient, bothersome, not a wise investment.

The topic is bunny trailing again. i have to try to remember my original question.
The first part of PetrC’s post was kinda on that path. possibly.

[Ken]

Petr, I think the cooperation you observe post civil was simply northern and southern white people agreeing to trampled the constitutional rights to black folks. This was the conflict all along and the conflict went away as soon as the north abandoned reconstruction and pulled their troops back. For the next eighty years northern whites agreed to silence over southern white supremacy and Jim Crow terrorism and southern whites agreed to silence over northern segregation and economic oppression of black folks. Order was restored so long as you don't count the sufferings of black folks.

You may have a point about the optimistic american nature that only looks forward, it is amazing that african americans and native americans view the country as anything less than a genocide machine. Maybe the fact that we have so little history means it is easily over looked.

Post Civil War and post-reconstruction, Southern whites essentially became the key swing voting block in the US. The Democratic party captured their votes post-reconstruction and up through the FDR era and WW2 when the the south was a solid Democratic block. The emergency of the civil rights movement of the 1950s (and Truman's desegregation of the military) began a decades-long shift of southern whites from the Democratic to the Republican party where they became the voting block that brought Reagan, Bush, and Trump into power as well as long periods of GOP hold over the Senate. This is due to the electoral college which essentially rendered the votes of southern Blacks as meaningless in statewide elections until recently for presidential races, as well as for senators and governors.

The consequence is that southern whites have been driving policy in both parties for 150 years to an extent that far exceeds their actual electoral weight. Yes, racism has permeated very corner of America and has been a stain on this country since the founding. But the idea that southern Jim Crow segregation was some sort of northern import is just completely ahistorical. There is a very long and deep historical record of segregation in the south. Primarily because, unlike in the north, southern segregation and discrimination was overtly enforced by the force of law. And the legislative process leaves a rich paper trail. You will search long and hard and mostly in vain to find examples of southern white politicians arguing against segregation, or any suggestion that it was being imposed from the north by "yankees"

[barnhart]

T1, you mentioned my post is not the direction you have in mind for this thread which is likely true as I am struggling to understand what you are saying.

I think there are many ways to celebrate southern culture. Nearly 1/3 of the south are black and they managed to do it without celebrating the Confederacy as well. Plenty of white southerners live comfortably in identities that do not hinge on the Confederacy. It can be done. We can critique the Confederacy without impugning southern culture. Attempts to process it's legacy are not attacks on southern identity unless that identity is rooted there.

In the town where I grew up there is a confederate cemetery two blocks from the town center. People were commonly aware of their ancestors buried there. On certain holidays they would visit the graves and decorate or repair them. I always wondered if they knew how much this cost them in terms of relationship with the black half of the population. It was a trade off they were willing to make.


Nations are like a family in some ways. A dysfunctional family is where powerful and destructive things like addiction and mental illness are ignored and never discussed or addressed. Painful discussions are a part of healing.

[Ken]

T1, you mentioned my post is not the direction you have in mind for this thread which is likely true as I am struggling to understand what you are saying.

I think there are many ways to celebrate southern culture. Nearly 1/3 of the south are black and they managed to do it without celebrating the Confederacy as well. Plenty of white southerners live comfortably in identities that do not hinge on the Confederacy. It can be done. We can critique the Confederacy without impugning southern culture. Attempts to process it's legacy are not attacks on southern identity unless that identity is rooted there.

In the town where I grew up there is a confederate cemetery two blocks from the town center. People were commonly aware of their ancestors buried there. On certain holidays they would visit the graves and decorate or repair them. I always wondered if they knew how much this cost them in terms of relationship with the black half of the population. It was a trade off they were willing to make.


Nations are like a family in some ways. A dysfunctional family is where powerful and destructive things like addiction and mental illness are ignored and never discussed or addressed. Painful discussions are a part of healing.

Waco Texas still had segregated public cemeteries when I lived there a few years ago. Really. Separate white and black city cemeteries separated by a chain link fence up until 2016: https://wacotrib.com/news/city_of_waco/ ... dc7f6.html

That is also part of "southern heritage" Should that have been "preserved" as well?

[barnhart]

Waco Texas still had segregated public cemeteries when I lived there a few years ago. Really. Separate white and black city cemeteries separated by a chain link fence up until 2016: https://wacotrib.com/news/city_of_waco/ ... dc7f6.html

That is also part of "southern heritage" Should that have been "preserved" as well?

Are you asking me? Not in my thinking.

[Ken]

Waco Texas still had segregated public cemeteries when I lived there a few years ago. Really. Separate white and black city cemeteries separated by a chain link fence up until 2016: https://wacotrib.com/news/city_of_waco/ ... dc7f6.html

That is also part of "southern heritage" Should that have been "preserved" as well?

Are you asking me? Not in my thinking.

I put monuments to a vicious war to preserve slavery or honoring the Confederacy in same category. The place for history is in the history books. Not all of it merits honoring or preserving in public spaces.

[barnhart]

As far as I can see Ken, we are in agreement.

[Ken]

As far as I can see Ken, we are in agreement.

I wasn't arguing with you. I was expanding on your point.

We shouldn't forget any of our history. But not all of it merits honoring in public spaces. To respond to the original theme of this thread. Taking down public monuments to sinful and immoral wars that were erected to support white supremacy isn't "annihilation". It's finally doing the right thing.

[temporal1]

Some thoughts.
First,
reconciliation is necessary, absolutely. The reconciliation between the North and the South was a good thing, not a bad.
Secondly,
reconciliation implies being honest about people's personal motives. If Bootstrap admits that Lincoln didn't intentionally fight against slavery, he ought to admit that Lee didnt intentionally fight for slavery.
Thirdly,
reconciliation often implies that even the winning side admits that the losing side had a real problem.
In American reconciliation, the North admitted that the South had a real Negro problem.
In American-German reconciliation the U.S.admitted that Germany had a real problem with Communism.
Fourth:
Reconciliation implies that the losers are allowed to cultivate a loving memory to their dead ones. This must not inevitably lead to statues on public places. But the memory is not an affair of cold or inimical historians or museologists. It is an affair of the loving;
the right place of such statues would be in spaces belonging to the Friends or Daughters of the Confederacy.

At last:
Germany. Most people have forgotten how much Americans did to reconciliate with the Germans.
There were a lot of American generals who pleaded in favor of the German generals and in fact helped to set them free after only few years. Also, these German generals were well-respected afterwards, by their countrymen as well as by their American opponents.

All this was not so different from the reconciliation between North and South in the USA.

Only later on has the interior development in Germany led to what I call the Pharisean approach to politics:
The Pharisee wants to be "completely different" from others (here: from the past) and he must show this by banning every symbol which would connect him with the past.

(This is, of course, the same approach which the Bolshevists used in Russia w.r.t. Tsarism.)

But as we all are humans, we can never be "completely different" from other humans,
and the more the Pharisee (unconciously) realizes this, the more he must retreat to a perfect suppression of the symbols.

This is a treat to read, thank you. You are getting at the heart of what i’m not so able to articulate.
i appreciate your tone. A voice of studied reason in a world of emotion and rancor.

i suggest one small word exchange:

Fourth:
Reconciliation implies that the losers are allowed to cultivate a loving memory to their dead ones. This must [may] not inevitably lead to statues on public places. But the memory is not an affair of cold or inimical historians or museologists. It is an affair of the loving; the right place of such statues would be in spaces belonging to the Friends or Daughters of the Confederacy.

i suggest “may not,” because, in keeping with the spirit of your overall post, any change should be discussed and agreed by all parties. to my knowledge, no such attempt was ever made. it’s been wholesale aggression without intent of mutual understanding/agreement, actually war-like, and proudly so. further, altho some suggest transfer of statues to museums, predictably, the next step is to abolish such museums or spaces in museums. (not a way to “make friends and influence people,” so to speak.)

Dr Alveda King has a level-headed response with helpful suggestions regarding statues:

”Alveda King tells protesters: 'If you find yourself going into a rage over a statue, step back’ “
https://www.foxnews.com/media/alveda-ki ... tatue-rage

Winning versus Annihilation .. switching gears .. Ukraine
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=4584

This thread has been mostly about internal U.S. conflicts/problems.

Feb 24 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. Given recent decades, not all agree this was mysteriously unprovoked.

The Left-West seems intent on annihilating Putin, if not the Russian Federation. The squeeze is merciless.

The country, commonly known as Russia, is located partly in eastern Europe and partly in northern Asia, bordering the Arctic Ocean in the north.

Russian Federation is the new name of the country of what is left of the Soviet Union, after the breakaway of some of its republics.

“Russia Is Not the Soviet Union”
“The bottom line is that Russia is a conventional, somewhat conservative, power,
whereas the Soviet Union was a messianic, totalitarian power.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/russia-not-soviet-union

Jesus the Christ goes beyond “not hating,” “tolerating.” Christians are to love enemies. A Big Step beyond. A really hard step.
Can Jesus be trusted??

Jesus has some terrifying expectations.