How Libertarians Win Friends And Influence People With Their Positions on the Civil War - Page 39 - Politics and Economics

1. What's a 'neo-confederate'?

2. You guys who keep bringing racism up: it seems you guys really dislike racism, because why else would we have such a long thread about it. But it seems Lincoln was a racist. Do you guys criticize Lincoln also? I mean, I don't think racism can get much worse than Lincoln's. Seems a good thing then to take him off his throw in the public opinion and expose him for the racist that he was. Right?

1. the internet is your friend

2. Lincoln's racism is not relevant to this thread and everybody itt concedes he was a racist. but way to try and steer the conversation off the road.

12-03-2009 , 07:49 PM

#953

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Lee Atwater is also dead, and yet you're in here arguing that "the Anglo-Celtic peoples settled the South and gave it its dominant culture and civilisation" is not a giant "HEY RACISTS JOIN THIS GROUP" flag (edited for obviousness). Pretty sure dead guys can still be influential from beyond the grave.

"The African peoples were taken to the South and imparted on the region a distinct culture. We believe the culture is important and must be preserved."

Would this statement be racist if a southern African-American group had it on it's website?

12-03-2009 , 07:52 PM

#954

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

Rothbard wasn't defending Duke in the link. He thinks the man is despicable. But he recognizes there is an audience out there for certain rhetoric and believes the libertarian movement can make use of it.

I don't think anyone denies that this at the very least was the strategy for them at one point, but now they've found a brand new crowd to sell their political schemes to and we're not keen on that tripe.

We're losing even recent historical context for these libertarian types because of the internet generation imo. Back in his day LRC was the type of guy who would be hand cranking pamphlets off a printing press if it meant getting his thoughts into the hands of people. He's got a ton of energy and more commitment than I'll probably ever have to anything related to politics. Because everyone has a blog to spout their thoughts he seems less out there than he would if you had ran into him in the 80s in my opinion.

He's great for what he is, which is the ass end of a libertarian echo chamber. It's small now, but we've got to build it up before it can do anything real. He's just another guy like me who's read the literature which was modeled after other people's **** and now he plans on talking about it so much that people talk about him talking about it and they are talking about how everyone is talking about this new thing that so many people are talking about to the point that other people have to talk about this thing that everyone else is talking.

There is a lot of noise and nonsense in an echo chamber, but in the end the only thing that actually matters is that we shrink the size of the government at some point. If people say stupid stuff along they way, then I guess that's their idea of how to start a libertarian revolution.

12-03-2009 , 07:55 PM

#955

adanthar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 20,109

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjkidd

Is a group calling for recognition of a White History Month racist?

12-03-2009 , 07:56 PM

#956

Huehuecoyotl

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2009 Posts: 29,296

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Is a group calling for recognition of a White History Month racist?

InB4 the other 11 months of the year

12-03-2009 , 07:56 PM

#957

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Is a group calling for recognition of a White History Month racist?

Yes

12-03-2009 , 07:58 PM

#958

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

Is a group calling for recognition of a White History Month racist?

Not if a group calling for a black history month isn't racist. The first rule of morality is you can't have separate classes of people where an action is prohibited for one group but allowed for another.

12-03-2009 , 08:00 PM

#959

T50_Omaha8

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,741

This thread is fast on it's way to becoming one of the top 30 threads of all time in the politics forum!

Keep it up guys. I know you can do it.

edit: O/U 3PM tomorrow...any takers?

Last edited by T50_Omaha8; 12-03-2009 at 08:00 PM. Reason: .

12-03-2009 , 08:04 PM

#960

SL__72

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 16,499

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nielsio

1. What's a 'neo-confederate'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki

* Honor of the Confederacy and its veterans — Much of the Neo-Confederate movement is concerned with giving the proper due honor to the Confederacy itself, to the veterans of the Confederacy and Confederate veterans' cemeteries, to the various flags of the Confederacy, and to cultural Southern identity.[3]
* Economics — neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market economy which engages in significantly less taxation than currently found in the United States, and which does not revolve around fiat currencies such as the United States Dollar.[4]
* History — many neo-Confederates are openly critical of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln to varied degrees, and of the history of Reconstruction. Various authors have written critiques of Lincoln and the Union. Slavery is almost never defended, but it is usually denied as a primary cause of the American Civil War.[5] Critics often accuse Neo-Confederates of "revisionism" and of acting as "apologists".
* Culture — many neo-Confederates promote an unabashed Christian culture. They support, for example, public displays of Christianity, such as "Ten Commandments" monuments and displays of the Christian cross.[6] Almost all Neo-Confederates strongly support the right to keep and bear arms, present in both the United States Constitution and the Confederate States Constitution. Generally they oppose unmitigated illegal immigration of foreign nationals into Southern states.[7] Some Neo-Confederates view the Civil War as a conflict between a secular North and an orthodox Christian South.[8] Certain Neo-Confederates believe in a Celtic identity theory for residents of the South, with residents of the North being mostly English.[9]
* Secession — many neo-Confederates openly advocate the resecession of the Southern states and territories which comprised the old Confederate States of America. The League of the South, for example, promotes the "independence of the Southern people" from the "American empire". [10] Most neo-Confederate groups do not seek violent revolution, but rather an orderly separation, such as was done in the division of Czechoslovakia. Many Neo-Confederate groups have prepared for what they view as a possible collapse of the federal United States into its 50 separate states, much like the Soviet Union collapsed, and believe the Confederacy can be resurrected at that time.
* The Civil Rights Movement — many neo-Confederates adopt a typical paleoconservative view of the Civil Rights Movement.[11]
* Antifeminism — neo-Confederates support traditional gender roles in opposition to feminism, again, much like most paleoconservatives. [12]

12-03-2009 , 08:06 PM

#961

MvdB

veteran

Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,562

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjkidd

This is all nice and technical, but history matters. A group that has historically been disadvantaged tremendously because of racism, wanting a heritage month, that may technically be racist but only can be so because of previous racism against them, is not quite the same as the advantaged group wanting the same kind of celebration / remembrance. This is all regardless of whether the whole idea of a history month for anyone is a good idea or not.

12-03-2009 , 08:11 PM

#962

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

I'm not saying that there should be a white history month. Just that it's not racist to think that there should be one.

again, this is the dictionary definition of racism. I think it is a good definition and I don't see how wanting a white history month necessarily fits the definition.

Quote:

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

12-03-2009 , 08:13 PM

#963

sightless

banned

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,988

codewords

12-03-2009 , 08:15 PM

#964

T50_Omaha8

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,741

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjkidd

Perhaps it doesn't necessarily mean one is racist, but if someone's logic is "hey there should be a white history month because it's about white people who are the best ldo" then obviously it is in fact racist.

It's about motive. Just like how shooting a black person with a gun may or may not be an act of racism.

Do you think someone who wants a white history month is more or less likely to be motivated by racism than someone who wants a black history month?

12-03-2009 , 08:16 PM

#965

Mrmusicrecorder

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,361

How about Native American history season, they deserve three months right...
Being of Swedish and Finnish descent, my only white guilt is to those we slaughtered. This of course does not mean I am not sensitive to other injustice or slavery around the world at any point in time.

12-03-2009 , 08:16 PM

#966

SenorKeeed

mew mew mew

Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 37,478

More likely.

12-03-2009 , 08:18 PM

#967

Mrmusicrecorder

veteran

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,361

Quote:

Originally Posted by T50_Omaha8

Do you think someone who wants a white history month is more or less likely to be motivated by racism than someone who wants a black history month?

White history month has to be separate but equal. (sarcasm)

12-03-2009 , 08:18 PM

#968

Case Closed

self-banned

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 19,112

Quote:

Not really that bad of an idea imo. The yearning for the honor of death in battle is a very common human characteristic. It's the asthetic we have to attach to ignoble actions to make them palatable. People who lost family in the civil war on the southern side should not have to feel shame for it, and the government should remember their effort appropriatly.

Quote:

Economics — neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market economy which engages in significantly less taxation than currently found in the United States, and which does not revolve around fiat currencies such as the United States Dollar.

Something that I agree with, but it has no historical ties to actual southern heritage. It's like how people think Jefferson was a prince because he wrote so eloquently of freedom. He effed it up too when it came down to his historical actions. But he's a good symbol for some people and I guess the south is a good enough symbol to start attaching random **** to for this movement.

Quote:

History — many neo-Confederates are openly critical of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln to varied degrees, and of the history of Reconstruction. Various authors have written critiques of Lincoln and the Union. Slavery is almost never defended, but it is usually denied as a primary cause of the American Civil War.[5] Critics often accuse Neo-Confederates of "revisionism" and of acting as "apologists".

Yeah, things did not go down like it was taught in 8th grade. Their plan to rectify our horrifically racist school system is to provide them with historical propaganda later on in life.

Quote:

Culture — many neo-Confederates promote an unabashed Christian culture. They support, for example, public displays of Christianity, such as "Ten Commandments" monuments and displays of the Christian cross.[6] Almost all Neo-Confederates strongly support the right to keep and bear arms, present in both the United States Constitution and the Confederate States Constitution. Generally they oppose unmitigated illegal immigration of foreign nationals into Southern states.[7] Some Neo-Confederates view the Civil War as a conflict between a secular North and an orthodox Christian South.[8] Certain Neo-Confederates believe in a Celtic identity theory for residents of the South, with residents of the North being mostly English.[9]

Oh here we go, here's the fun stuff. This is the populism that never sits well with a libertarian. They want all the spoils of the free market, but they don't want to have to see any gay people holding hands while they do it. This is where people end up selling out a lot in the real world. Everyone has that one thing that they wish they could do if they had a monopoly on coercion, the trick is trying to sell it to the right group of people to impose it on everyone.

Quote:

paleconservatism

You remember the 50s? Yeah....yeah you sure do...look I have a political time machine that can turn everything back to the 50s just the way you remember it. Heck, I betcha Ronald Reagan jr. will run for office there some day.

12-03-2009 , 08:24 PM

#969

HomerNoonJr

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 6,161

Quote:

Originally Posted by T50_Omaha8

Uhh, the same. Any glorifying of a group based on their race is racist. Anyone who supports BHM is just as racist as someone who supports WHM. Race should not define us, and thats exactly what BHM seeks to do. Whether or not a specific group of individuals who shared the same skin color happened to be discriminated against is irrelevant to legitimizing the glorification of any people based solely on their race. All BHM does is divide us and try to persuade us that somehow our skin color should have an effect on how we view ourselves in the world.

12-03-2009 , 08:25 PM

#970

Nielsio

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 23,398

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixticator

1. the internet is your friend

Quote:

# Honor of the Confederacy and its veterans — Much of the Neo-Confederate movement is concerned with giving the proper due honor to the Confederacy itself, to the veterans of the Confederacy and Confederate veterans' cemeteries, to the various flags of the Confederacy, and to cultural Southern identity.[3] Sure, I think it's honorable to defend your life and property against invaders.
# Economics — neo-Confederates usually advocate a free market economy which engages in significantly less taxation than currently found in the United States, and which does not revolve around fiat currencies such as the United States Dollar.[4] Yep
# History — many neo-Confederates are openly critical of the presidency of Abraham Lincoln to varied degrees, and of the history of Reconstruction. Various authors have written critiques of Lincoln and the Union. Slavery is almost never defended, but it is usually denied as a primary cause of the American Civil War.[5] Critics often accuse Neo-Confederates of "revisionism" and of acting as "apologists". I think the primary cause of the war was Lincoln not allowing the South to secede. And as Lincoln was a politician interested in money and power and a huge mercantilist, and a huge racist, it seems to me that he didn't want them to secede because he wanted money and power and certainly not because he believed in equal rights for all peaceful human beings; because he didn't believe that, he was a racist.
# Culture — many neo-Confederates promote an unabashed Christian culture. They support, for example, public displays of Christianity, such as "Ten Commandments" monuments and displays of the Christian cross.[6] Almost all Neo-Confederates strongly support the right to keep and bear arms, present in both the United States Constitution and the Confederate States Constitution. Generally they oppose unmitigated illegal immigration of foreign nationals into Southern states.[7] Some Neo-Confederates view the Civil War as a conflict between a secular North and an orthodox Christian South.[8] Certain Neo-Confederates believe in a Celtic identity theory for residents of the South, with residents of the North being mostly English.[9] Not a Christian, but I support the right to defend yourself with weapons. The Christianity thing doesn't seem the core of 'neo-confederalism' though, just the proximate belief for many.
# Secession — many neo-Confederates openly advocate the resecession of the Southern states and territories which comprised the old Confederate States of America. The League of the South, for example, promotes the "independence of the Southern people" from the "American empire". [10] Most neo-Confederate groups do not seek violent revolution, but rather an orderly separation, such as was done in the division of Czechoslovakia. Many Neo-Confederate groups have prepared for what they view as a possible collapse of the federal United States into its 50 separate states, much like the Soviet Union collapsed, and believe the Confederacy can be resurrected at that time. Yep, pro peaceful secession
# The Civil Rights Movement — many neo-Confederates adopt a typical paleoconservative view of the Civil Rights Movement.[11] Ya, I don't know what this is. It's probably proximately related also.
# Antifeminism — neo-Confederates support traditional gender roles in opposition to feminism, again, much like most paleoconservatives. I don't like feminism, but I don't like traditional gender roles either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Confederate

I fail to see how 'neo-confederate' is supposed to be a bad thing, except for the things that are related by proxy.

Quote:

2. Lincoln's racism is not relevant to this thread and everybody itt concedes he was a racist. but way to try and steer the conversation off the road.

So the fact that DiLorenzo harshly critizes Lincoln for being a racist doesn't have anything to do with whether he is a racist himself? It seems very relevant to the thread.

12-03-2009 , 08:33 PM

#971

T50_Omaha8

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 5,741

Quote:

Originally Posted by HomerNoonJr

Uhh, the same. Any glorifying of a group based on their race is racist. Anyone who supports BHM is just as racist as someone who supports WHM. Race should not define us, and thats exactly what BHM seeks to do. Whether or not a specific group of individuals who shared the same skin color happened to be discriminated against is irrelevant to legitimizing the glorification of any people based solely on their race. All BHM does is divide us and try to persuade us that somehow our skin color should have an effect on how we view ourselves in the world.

I support BHM, but not WHM. I am white. I guess this makes me racist...against...whom, exactly?

FWIW, I also support the underlined strongly.

BTW, a hint: I don't support BHM because it "glorifies a group based on their race".

Last edited by T50_Omaha8; 12-03-2009 at 08:35 PM. Reason: .

12-03-2009 , 08:51 PM

#972

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

If you don't know what this is, and what it is rephrasing, you are decidedly unqualified to talk about racism ITT. Sorry.

If you can't answer simple questions, you are decidedly unqualified to talk to anyone about anything. Sorry.

12-03-2009 , 08:55 PM

#973

AlexM

ignored

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 20,655

Quote:

Originally Posted by adanthar

David Duke isn't a racist. Sure, he's a proud Anglo Saxon, but that's just his cultural heritage. By the way, why can't we have a White History Month?

Having a White History Month wouldn't balance out Black History Month, it would just be twice the racism. Treating people's accomplishments differently because of their skin color is disgusting no matter who you're doing it with.

12-03-2009 , 08:56 PM

#974

Sholar

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 6,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nielsio

I fail to see how 'neo-confederate' is supposed to be a bad thing, except for the things that are related by proxy.

Context matters. History matters.

Quote:

So the fact that DiLorenzo harshly critizes Lincoln for being a racist doesn't have anything to do with whether he is a racist himself? It seems very relevant to the thread.

Let's suppose Rothbard isn't a racist. He just race-baits for sport or for profit or to curry favor with his audience. Am I supposed to be more inclined to respect the man? His followers?

12-03-2009 , 08:57 PM

#975

HomerNoonJr

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 6,161

Quote:

Originally Posted by T50_Omaha8

Just because that's not the reason you support it doesn't mean thats not the concept you are promoting by supporting BHM. You didn't disclose why you do support BHM. I don't see how you possibly could support it without racist intentionts to show appreciation to an entire race. Do pray tell enlighten me about the reasons for your support of such an obviously racist idea.

You seem to think its important that race does not define us, but race defines BHM.

Page 39 of 150

First

19 29 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 49 59 89 139

Last

...

Page 39 of 150

First

19 29 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 49 59 89 139

Last