So I saw this meme and...It turned into a serious discussion

[RocketRichard]

... impressed by the creativity of those with access to Photoshop (source).

Wow, the sentiment expressed by the person who created this is offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[George Wallace]

Wow, the sentiment expressed by the person who created this is offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

......and that takes us back to post # 1

Sent from my desktop using a keyboard.

>

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wow, the sentiment expressed by the person who created this is offensive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry. No 'Safe Spaces' here. However, in emergency any Canadian institution of higher learning will have plenty of permanent, temporary and emergency safe spaces that a, so inclined, individual should be able to find companionship and succour in.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Wow, the sentiment expressed by the person who created this is offensive.

Consider the source 

 

[AbdullahD]

Consider the source 

Smooth

 

[mariomike]

^ Political humour has progressed / regressed, depending on your political POV.

In the not so distant past, the limit seemed to be Bob Hope teasing presidents about their golf games. 

"Golf is my profession. Show business is just to pay the green fees"

 

[dimsum]

Well?

...I think she squats?

 

[Pusser]

... shook my head at the ... range ... of discourse on FB (source - also attached in case the link doesn't work)

Offensive, simply for being historically inaccurate:

1)  The figure of 620K was long thought to be the tally for deaths in the US Civil War (it has since been shown that the number is actually higher), but nevertheless, it is a total of deaths on BOTH sides.  It's probably pretty safe to say that very few, if any, of the Confederates died to free black slaves.

2)  The US Civil War may have ended slavery and although it was undoubtedly a significant factor, it is still debatable as to whether freeing the slaves was what the war was about.

3)  Even if it is agreed that the war was about ending slavery, it was certainly NOT about creating racial equality, nor did it come close to achieving that. 

4)  Racism remained rampant across the entire US after the US Civil War, albeit more overtly in some areas than others.  The US Army was segregated until 1948.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Offensive, simply for being historically inaccurate:

1)  The figure of 620K was long thought to be the tally for deaths in the US Civil War (it has since been shown that the number is actually higher), but nevertheless, it is a total of deaths on BOTH sides.  It's probably pretty safe to say that very few, if any, of the Confederates died to free black slaves.

2)  The US Civil War may have ended slavery and although it was undoubtedly a significant factor, it is still debatable as to whether freeing the slaves was what the war was about.

3)  Even if it is agreed that the war was about ending slavery, it was certainly NOT about creating racial equality, nor did it come close to achieving that. 

4)  Racism remained rampant across the entire US after the US Civil War, albeit more overtly in some areas than others.  The US Army was segregated until 1948.

I would counter they did indeed die so that slavery could be ended (that might not have been their end goal and is what you're alluding to) but their deaths along with the Union deaths made it possible nevertheless.

 

[Kat Stevens]

Offensive, simply for being historically inaccurate:

1)  The figure of 620K was long thought to be the tally for deaths in the US Civil War (it has since been shown that the number is actually higher), but nevertheless, it is a total of deaths on BOTH sides.  It's probably pretty safe to say that very few, if any, of the Confederates died to free black slaves.

2)  The US Civil War may have ended slavery and although it was undoubtedly a significant factor, it is still debatable as to whether freeing the slaves was what the war was about.

3)  Even if it is agreed that the war was about ending slavery, it was certainly NOT about creating racial equality, nor did it come close to achieving that. 

4)  Racism remained rampant across the entire US after the US Civil War, albeit more overtly in some areas than others.  The US Army was segregated until 1948.

You find historical inaccuracy in an internet meme offensive?  The provided safe space is right over there.  No, no, farther.  Keep going. No, farther yet, almost there, slugger.  :

 

[The Bread Guy]

The figure of 620K was long thought to be the tally for deaths in the US Civil War (it has since been shown that the number is actually higher), but nevertheless, it is a total of deaths on BOTH sides.  It's probably pretty safe to say that very few, if any, of the Confederates died to free black slaves.

I've mentioned something like that on some social media (specifically, how many Confederates died to free the slaves?), but I'm still waiting for a response.

I would counter they did indeed die so that slavery could be ended (that might not have been their end goal and is what you're alluding to) but their deaths along with the Union deaths made it possible nevertheless.

A killed by (B who supports X) =/= A supports X (which is what "died to free black slaves" suggests)

<GodwinWarning>Using that reasoning, the SS* died, in part, to free the Jews/gypsies/cosmopolitans/homosexuals from the extermination camps.</GodwinWarning>

If the Confederates died to abolish slavery, at least SOME of the monuments set up to their dead would mention it.  And even though I read those biased MSM outlets and not infowars.com, I haven't read about toooooooooooooo many pro-Confederate functions/protests/rallies using "we are here to honour the brave Southerners who died to free the slaves" key messaging.  On both the protest and monument thing, though, I stand to be corrected, though.

You find historical inaccuracy in an internet meme offensive?

If that's the case, stay away from FB, folks - between people raging against Trump being a Nazi and people raging against biased media like the BBC helping Muslims deploy their creeping sharia agenda in the West, you'll face a whole heaping helping of offense of one kind or another. 

Still, it's nice to hear from all sides to learn how to read between the lines in our post-truth media landscape, isn't it?  ;D

* - And yes, I know the difference between the SS camp bureaucracy and the Waffen SS.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I've mentioned something like that on some social media (specifically, how many Confederates died to free the slaves?), but I'm still waiting for a response.
A killed by (B who supports X) =/= A supports X (which is what "died to free black slaves" suggests)

<GodwinWarning>Using that reasoning, the SS* died, in part, to free the Jews/gypsies/cosmopolitans/homosexuals from the extermination camps.</GodwinWarning>

If the Confederates died to abolish slavery, at least SOME of the monuments set up to their dead would mention it.  And even though I read those biased MSM outlets and not infowars.com, I haven't read about toooooooooooooo many pro-Confederate functions/protests/rallies using "we are here to honour the brave Southerners who died to free the slaves" key messaging.  On both the protest and monument thing, though, I stand to be corrected, though.
If that's the case, stay away from FB, folks - between people raging against Trump being a Nazi and people raging against biased media like the BBC helping Muslims deploy their creeping sharia agenda in the West, you'll face a whole heaping helping of offense of one kind or another. 

Still, it's nice to hear from all sides to learn how to read between the lines in our post-truth media landscape, isn't it?  ;D

* - And yes, I know the difference between the SS camp bureaucracy and the Waffen SS.

That is to say that their (Confederate) deaths enabled the Union to win more freely and thus herald the opportunity of the Emancipation decree of President Lincoln. 

So, using that same logic as above Tony, you could make a case that your example was indeed correct in that their deaths contributed to the fall of the Reich and therefore (hopefully) enabled some of their victims to be at last rescued when their camps were overrun by Allied troops instead of perishing as intended by their captors.

And I am sure that in both cases, if reasonably correct, were most definitely not the end goal of those participants in that respect. (icing on the cake, I suppose)

 

[Eaglelord17]

The Civil War was fought primarily over the political exclusion of the Southern States from the political process. They felt that since Lincoln was elected without a single vote from the South that their votes were insignificant (which is how I feel about Wynne, the North should separate!  ;D).

Slavery was a very large issue at the time period but it wasn't 100% limited to either camp (the Union still had slave states in it). Even the Emancipation Proclamation is basically a joke as it only freed slaves in the SOUTHERN states, i.e. the land the Union didn't control. Northern States which still had slavery were allowed to continue on owning slaves.

The modern narrative that is spread about the Civil War being about slavery is equivalent to the narrative that was spread about Germany being the main cause of WWI. It is a attempt to completely discredit the South and in turn make it seem as they had no legitimacy in fighting the war in the first place. History is written by the victors.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The modern narrative that is spread about the Civil War being about slavery is equivalent to the narrative that was spread about Germany being the main cause of WWI. It is a attempt to completely discredit the South and in turn make it seem as they had no legitimacy in fighting the war in the first place. History is written by the victors.

As we seem to be on the Mother of All Tangents, I find it interesting and ironic that the Confederates, Germans (WW1 & 2) and Japanese (WW2) all fired the first shot in anger, then were destroyed almost completely in the conflagrations that followed. Neo-apologist positions seeking to blame others for these conflicts tend to minimize that 'first shot' fact.

 

[mariomike]

(which is how I feel about Wynne, the North should separate!  ;D).

Be careful what you wish for. 

Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be.”
Proposal For The Province of Toronto
http://www.liquisearch.com/proposal_for_the_province_of_toronto/history

 

[Eaglelord17]

Be careful what you wish for. 

Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be.”
Proposal For The Province of Toronto
http://www.liquisearch.com/proposal_for_the_province_of_toronto/history

Honestly all I want is my electricity bill to be back to where it was (having gone up over 10x what it was, we went from having basically the cheapest power in all of Ontario to where we are now) and a double-laned highway for the TransCanada. I really don't want much, but it seems like I am asking for the world.

As we seem to be on the Mother of All Tangents, I find it interesting and ironic that the Confederates, Germans (WW1 & 2) and Japanese (WW2) all fired the first shot in anger, then were destroyed almost completely in the conflagrations that followed. Neo-apologist positions seeking to blame others for these conflicts tend to minimize that 'first shot' fact.

History is always written by the victors. The victors have something to prove when they write history. They need to justify there position as much as they possibly can. Much like how now looking at the Cold War many of the Soviet moves were actually defensive rather than aggressive (like the Cuban Missile Crisis being a response to the US putting missiles in Turkey) simply because we can now see their thought process. In the past it was because the Evil Empire wanted to conquer us, now we can see it from a different light.

To simply say that the South was a bunch of slave owning racists doesn't excuse the fact the North also had a bunch of slave owning racists even after the war was over (which is something most modern perspectives ignore).

As mentioned though this is a massive tangent

 

[mariomike]

11/21/2016
FDNY Hires Ex-Cons For Diversity
http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/21/fdny-hires-ex-cons-for-diversity/
"Use our prisoner to probie pathway." 

 

[The Bread Guy]

To simply say that the South was a bunch of slave owning racists doesn't excuse the fact the North also had a bunch of slave owning racists even after the war was over (which is something most modern perspectives ignore).

Fair ball, however ...

The Civil War was fought primarily over the political exclusion of the Southern States from the political process ...

As opposed to the risk of the loss of a significant source of free labour?  What proportion of the south's economy was dependent on slaves?  As opposed to the north?

 

[Eaglelord17]

Fair ball, however ...As opposed to the risk of the loss of a significant source of free labour?  What proportion of the south's economy was dependent on slaves?  As opposed to the north?

The South's economy was definitely more dependent on slavery than the North's (being a primarily agricultural area instead of the industrialized North), however the North still had slavery as well so the point is moot. When the President got elected without a single vote from the South, it lead them feeling like their vote didn't matter. We see much the same type of mentality on the rise at the moment with the rural/urban divide (and realistically back then it was more or less a rural/urban divide then as well). Even the Emancipation Proclamation was more a means of screwing over the economy of the Southern states than a actual attempt to liberate anyone (otherwise it would have included the Northern states as well).