GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

IMDB comments

POSTED BY: FIREFLYTHEMOVIE
UPDATED: Saturday, February 7, 2004 20:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 19008
PAGE 1 of 3

Sunday, February 1, 2004 6:32 AM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE


I'm not sure how many of you read imdb.com, but the only comment you see on the Firefly page itself right now (which, I think means it's the most recent quote that was posted) is this:

The one line description (which you see toward the top of the page under the title "User Comments") is:

B-O-R-I-N-G

If you click on the "more" tag, it takes you down to the full comment:


----------------------------------------------
Date: 9 May 2003
Summary: B-O-R-I-N-G

What utter crap. Bland & boring and a total waste of time. Most think Joss Whedon is a genius, but I think he is pretty much hit or miss. Buffy was great the first few years but went down the toilet since its move to UPN. Angel, on the other hand, is sheer brilliance. Excellent characters, excitement, fantastic action, a linked plot, deep revelations...probably the BEST show on TV now. Firefly was just a bore. Dirty westerns trying to be sci-fi don't do it for me. And the cast was just plain annoying.
-------------------------------------------

If you actually go in and read all the comments, the vast majority of them are overwhelmingly positive, but I think we need to get this comment thoroughly buried. I've already submitted my comment, but they're currently processing comments from 1/20, so it won't likely be posted for awhile.

(Edited to make it clear what was a quote from imdb, and what I actually wrote.)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 6:39 AM

SAFFY


That must have JUST happened, because I was there yesterday and didn't see it! I agree: Let's bury it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 6:41 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE


Quote:

I think we need to get this comment thoroughly buried


I don't know if this is what you wanted, but if you don't like Firefly, as your post makes it seem, then I agree that your comments should be buried deep.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 6:54 AM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE


No! I love Firefly! They weren't my comments! I was cutting and pasting, bringing that one negative comment, so prominently displayed, to the attention of fans!

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 7:00 AM

KINGOFKOINS


Quote:

What utter crap. Bland & boring and a total waste of time. Most think Joss Whedon is a genius, but I think he is pretty much hit or miss. Buffy was great the first few years but went down the toilet since its move to UPN. Angel, on the other hand, is sheer brilliance. Excellent characters, excitement, fantastic action, a linked plot, deep revelations...probably the BEST show on TV now. Firefly was just a bore. Dirty westerns trying to be sci-fi don't do it for me. And the cast was just plain annoying.




What an ass. Angel is my least favorite of the Whedon shows.

--------------------------------
It's sickening how comforting the privacy of the mind can be.
"Bible's broken; contradictions, false logistics. Doesn't make sense." - River
http://stripe.filetap.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 7:45 AM

IAMJACKSUSERNAME

Well, I'm all right. - Mal


carrowsboy's comment was made on 2003-05-09. The newest one I can see is dreamer2point2's on 2004-01-26, and the oldest on the show's debut on 2002-09-20.

Why would you want to bury it anyway? Some people don't like the show, and that's ok. Maybe they don't like westerns, maybe they don't like sci-fi, maybe they don't like its politics (like me), maybe they wanted only supernatural stuff from Mutant enemy... If someone decides to not buy the DVDs or watch reruns, based on one review on imdb, they probably wouldn't have liked the show and, say it with me, that's ok.
--
I am Jack's username
FTL Firefly? < http://jack.p5.org.uk/ftl-firefly.en.html>
"Been a long time since Patience shot me and that was due to a perfectly legitimate conflict of interest. I got no grudge." - Mal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 7:51 AM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE


Quote:

Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Why would you want to bury it anyway?



Because it doesn't come close to reflecting the general sentiment if you read through all the comments?

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 8:25 AM

FIRELILY


Quote:

Originally posted by Fireflythemovie:
Quote:

Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
Why would you want to bury it anyway?



Because it doesn't come close to reflecting the general sentiment if you read through all the comments?


Let that person have their opinion, if it doesn't reflect the general sentiment, you should be glad. If that's the only negative review and everything else is nothing but praise, I wouldn't worry about it.
EDIT: note-I haven't read the IMDb board and I don't have the time or desire to right now. So hopefully I'm not talking out of my ass with my assumption that the rest of the reviews are positive

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 8:33 AM

BLUEEYEDBROWNCOAT


I think the general thought though is that a lot of people base a decision on whether to watch a movie on a quick view of the reviews. And if the first one is so negative, they won't bother looking further to see what others think.

Many people do it this way because there are so many different movies they are researching to determine if it's worth their time.

Yes, I agree, losing one viewer shouldn't make a difference - but with Firefly, we have all relied on word of mouth, etc. And since IMDB is so widely used, myself being an avid fan, would want to see a positive review, not a negative one, reflecting the majority of views.

I don't ask for much - just Firefly back on the air once a week.... oh, and maybe world peace.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 9:37 AM

SAINT JAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by firelily:
Let that person have their opinion, if it doesn't reflect the general sentiment, you should be glad.


They can have their opinion. Just lower. I'm burrying it.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 10:00 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by IamJacksUsername:
, maybe they don't like its politics (like me),



Yeah. I was dicey about the whole "Reconstruction in Space with the Son's of the defeated South as the Heroes" thing too.

But, whatever the germinal thesis, the practical application was more obscure and less mired in the actual historical references than the notion of corporations and nation states sort of ultimatley melding into one and that being bad for folks like you and me. In a universe like that, I'd probably end up a Browncoat too.

Also, based on the actual ideals of the Confederacy versus those stated by Mal and the rest of Serenity's crew (except Jayne), I doubt the Greys would get along with Browns either.

The Alliance isn't the Union. It's just the closest analog. And not a very good one.

The idea that corporations, once they become large enough, are also inherently evil, is not just a notion comfined to scifi but, alas, is born out in RL as well.

On that score Whedon and Co. got it spot on.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 10:12 AM

MAJSON


why bury it indeed? If someone hates the show, let them. Who are we to decide what peolpe can and cannot hate? Are we that petty that we want to detroy someones opinion? I would hope not, but something tells me i'm wrong.

meh

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 11:33 AM

BC


We aren't trying to destroy someone's opinion or decide what people should or shouldn't hate. Just don't want that one review to be the first thing someone sees at IMDB.



"Didn't she shoot you one time?"
"Well yeah, she did a bit."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 4:52 PM

SAFFY


The last user comment saved is the one that is displayed prominently to visitors to the Firefly page. They don't see the other comments unless they go looking for them.

No one is trying to take anyone's voice away, for heaven's sake. That person's post will stay there for prosperity. It's just a good-natured pride thing: Knock down the other team's flag and get ourselves back on top.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, February 1, 2004 8:54 PM

JASONZZZ



How does a "May 9, 2003" comment stay at the top in imdb?
There's been 40+ posts since that one was posted and about some 100+ comments before it... Is there some sort of rating or trust system tot he reviewers? It doesn't seem like simply posting yet another comment will bury it. Maybe we need to figure out how that top post gets there before we brute force run around like "chickens with our heads cut off" fashion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Saffy:
The last user comment saved is the one that is displayed prominently to visitors to the Firefly page. They don't see the other comments unless they go looking for them.

No one is trying to take anyone's voice away, for heaven's sake. That person's post will stay there for prosperity. It's just a good-natured pride thing: Knock down the other team's flag and get ourselves back on top.




Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 3:35 AM

STEVE580


Hey, and let's not forget, the South wasn't exactly 'evil'. I mean, if it was a show that made the Nazis seem like heros, that'd be one thing; they were evil.

Make no mistake, the Civil War wasn't a war to end slavery. The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.

I'm not a southerner, by the by, nor am I one of those guys who drives a pick-up with a Rebel flag on the back. I just understand what they were fighting for, and why, and I can't say that they were wrong.
-Steve

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 4:15 AM

CROWFLYY


Went back to check that IMDB site and it seems a different review is posted.I looked through a bunch of the reviews posted and they all do seem pretty positive. I wonder if the site rotates through all the reviews and posts them randomly, because the one showing today is from Jan 8, and many have been posted since. Just a thought.

Crow

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 6:22 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Hey, and let's not forget, the South wasn't exactly 'evil'. I mean, if it was a show that made the Nazis seem like heros, that'd be one thing; they were evil.



I'm really intesested in what a society would have to do to qualify as evil in your mind.

Quote:

The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.


That's one of the most frightening things I've ever read in my life.

Quote:

I'm not a southerner, by the by, nor am I one of those guys who drives a pick-up with a Rebel flag on the back. I just understand what they were fighting for, and why, and I can't say that they were wrong.
-Steve




Then you don't have a problem with a society which was entirely based upon and fueled by the generational exploitation of human beings as livestock and labor saving devices.

The Confederay WAS evil. Any way you slice it. It was antithetical to everything the United States was and, more importantly, IS supposed to stand for.

There is no difference between the Confederacy and the Nazi regime. Aside from being about a century apart (providing the Nazis with better tools) their world veiws were essentially the same.

And to describe them as fighting for "freedom" is to completely fail to grasp history. The Articles of Confederation alone refute your assessment.

The issue was "States Rights." What right was being contested? The "right" to own and trade, rape, kill and otherwise degrade human beings.

Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.

But not by me.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 10:34 AM

SAINT JAYNE


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
It doesn't seem like simply posting yet another comment will bury it. Maybe we need to figure out how that top post gets there before we brute force run around like "chickens with our heads cut off" fashion.


I posted there. I hope you're not implying that I act thoughtlessly. A good review is still good for Firefly, reguardless of the motivation.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 11:34 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Redjack, there's no way I can say this without somehow being offensive to you, but I'll try to minimize it, ok ?

Nobody does evil just to do evil, all people think that what they are doing is the right thing to do, no matter what side of the battlefield they wind up on.

It would seriously help to actually study the history instead of blithely accepting the spoon-fed, heavily politically-correct version of it taught in most schools.

There wasn't a right or a wrong there, just two ways of life and ideals of government that clashed and turned to violence - and history, as we know it, was written by the winners, of COURSE they're going to demonize the losers, it's human nature.

PEOPLE are not evil, what people DO sometimes is.
And most of the folks who do "evil" things do not see it that way, and it might have even been the "right" thing to do in their worldview and historical context, they did not have the internet or an informed information society.

So, can we back off the hate spewing here, ok ?

-frem
diefuxdie

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 11:41 AM

HIROSTONE


This guy is going to the 'Special hell'.



-Hiro

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 12:13 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Redjack, there's no way I can say this without somehow being offensive to you, but I'll try to minimize it, ok ?

Nobody does evil just to do evil, all people think that what they are doing is the right thing to do, no matter what side of the battlefield they wind up on.



Tell that the to millions of human livestock the Confederates were willing to die and kill to keep in their generationally degraded condition.

Quote:

It would seriously help to actually study the history instead of blithely accepting the spoon-fed, heavily politically-correct version of it taught in most schools.


Yes. it would. When you you plan to do that? I cited the Articles of Confederation. What's PC about those? Or you could take any random speech by Jefferson Davis. That's just for starters.

And you can check your "I know the REAL story attitude" at the door. It's clear you don't. Or dont' care.

Quote:

There wasn't a right or a wrong there, just two ways of life and ideals of government that clashed and turned to violence - and history, as we know it, was written by the winners, of COURSE they're going to demonize the losers, it's human nature.


Soooo describing American Slavery [and the government that subsisted on it and fought to maintain it and nearly kept the country from being born in the first place over it] as it actually was-accurately– is "demonizing? Keep dreaming, kid.

There was a wrong there. And, though the war wasn't, strictly speaking, about righting it, it defintiely became an integral part. Again, there's that actual History you might want to look at before "correcting" me.

Quote:

PEOPLE are not evil, what people DO sometimes is. And most of the folks who do "evil" things do not see it that way, and it might have even been the "right" thing to do in their worldview and historical context, they did not have the internet or an informed information society.

So, can we back off the hate spewing here, ok ?



I haven't spewed any hate. I know and have cited the actual history. If you'd like a real lesson we can move this off the site. Calling the Confederacy evil is by no means Hate Speech. No more than calling Hitler an insane egomaniac with delusions of "racial purity" is either innacurate or an insult.

And, wow, if that was "minimizing" the offensiveness, what on Earth must you really think?


Yikes.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 12:53 PM

JASONZZZ



No, I didn't think posting there is thoughtless. I was asking if we know if that actually will drown that one comment by posting several hundreds of others. I was asking if we know how that particular commenting thing works since, that one comment in the middle of a sea of 150+ comments was singled out to float to the top. You can't defeat an enemy if you don't know how it operates - wildly thrashing at it, while valiant, is a complete waste of time if there is a better way of doing it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Saint Jayne:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
It doesn't seem like simply posting yet another comment will bury it. Maybe we need to figure out how that top post gets there before we brute force run around like "chickens with our heads cut off" fashion.


I posted there. I hope you're not implying that I act thoughtlessly. A good review is still good for Firefly, reguardless of the motivation.



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 1:10 PM

JASONZZZ



Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then? Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics. And let's not talk about caste systems that exist today. (Yes, in the US, we don't name it, but it's there) We use animals as labor and feed today (I am not PETA either), perhaps some hundreds of years from now, we will find out that animals can really make choices and they resented being strapped to a machine - but instead would rather run wild - we sure as hell wouldn't know it today, but will certainly be whipped for it years later without even knowing it today.

We can learn from history without beating those folks over it - because those poor sod are exactly like you and me, completely clueless that every single action we do today will be reinterpreted years from now. Learn and move on.

Think about child labor, is it think of as a bad thing today? Of course, children should have a bright and happy childhood. Running around, playing, having fun. But the concept of "childhood" certainly didn't exist until the early second half part of 20th century with industrialization in full swing. Kids were integral part of the household and workforce. Every family needed every moving limb to make a "living". Yeah, there were time to play. But all of this idle time we have for chitchat nowadays are completely nonexistent. For some reason, nowadays, we seem to rationalize that it makes sense that we need a bright, happy-happy, joy-joy childhood.


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Redjack, there's no way I can say this without somehow being offensive to you, but I'll try to minimize it, ok ?

Nobody does evil just to do evil, all people think that what they are doing is the right thing to do, no matter what side of the battlefield they wind up on.



Tell that the to millions of human livestock the Confederates were willing to die and kill to keep in their generationally degraded condition.

Quote:

It would seriously help to actually study the history instead of blithely accepting the spoon-fed, heavily politically-correct version of it taught in most schools.


Yes. it would. When you you plan to do that? I cited the Articles of Confederation. What's PC about those? Or you could take any random speech by Jefferson Davis. That's just for starters.

And you can check your "I know the REAL story attitude" at the door. It's clear you don't. Or dont' care.

Quote:

There wasn't a right or a wrong there, just two ways of life and ideals of government that clashed and turned to violence - and history, as we know it, was written by the winners, of COURSE they're going to demonize the losers, it's human nature.


Soooo describing American Slavery [and the government that subsisted on it and fought to maintain it and nearly kept the country from being born in the first place over it] as it actually was-accurately– is "demonizing? Keep dreaming, kid.

There was a wrong there. And, though the war wasn't, strictly speaking, about righting it, it defintiely became an integral part. Again, there's that actual History you might want to look at before "correcting" me.

Quote:

PEOPLE are not evil, what people DO sometimes is. And most of the folks who do "evil" things do not see it that way, and it might have even been the "right" thing to do in their worldview and historical context, they did not have the internet or an informed information society.

So, can we back off the hate spewing here, ok ?



I haven't spewed any hate. I know and have cited the actual history. If you'd like a real lesson we can move this off the site. Calling the Confederacy evil is by no means Hate Speech. No more than calling Hitler an insane egomaniac with delusions of "racial purity" is either innacurate or an insult.

And, wow, if that was "minimizing" the offensiveness, what on Earth must you really think?


Yikes.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 4:00 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then?



Yes. Britain and France had done away with the practice altogether. The American government was restricting the addition of new slave states with an eye to phasing the practice out completely and, let's not ever forget that the nation itself was almost stillborn because of the South's refusal to agree that keeping african slaves was hypocritial if you going to war over issues of Freedom. Does the phrase "Peculiar Institution" ring any bells?

No one is "revising" anything. In fact this whole "they didn't know any better back then" stuff is the real modern twist. There was an ongoing debate about the practice pretty much from its inception.

Quote:

Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics.


That's a very facile and immature construct. Slavery, previous to the inception of American Chattel Slavery, was a function of conquest and was neither generational nor based upon ethnicity.

It was the European/American addition of "racial inferiority" as a component and the mechanization of the process which differentiated American Chattel Slavery from what had gone before.

Quote:

And let's not talk about caste systems that exist today.


Oh please. There's no comparisson. None. That's like saying a guy not being able to catch a cab is the same as getting lynched or whipped to death.

Quote:

We can learn from history without beating those folks over it - because those poor sod are exactly like you and me, completely clueless that every single action we do today will be reinterpreted years from now.


Uh. Nope. Those "poor sods" were no differnt than any Nazi. They weren't ignorant. They were in willful opposition to the thrust of Western society at the time. And damned proud of it.

Quote:

Learn and move on.


Back atcha, Kiddo.

Still




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 5:18 PM

JASONZZZ



Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior". Neither of which are unique to the American culture. Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on. Every nation has their own set of scapegoats. There isn't anything new. I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm

I am not only saying that we are revising/reinterpreting what happened and casting with our own ethics is bad in a big judgemental way (if it new, it's new, I don't particularly care about that part) - and don't get me wrong, if it's wrong, it's wrong - I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong. Nothing will change today, what we do today will again be interpreted by people who don't realize that it's a time wasting exercise to keep blaming people for doing what they don't know and to keep judging and labeling them. They did something wrong by our standards - ok. So, let's not do it ourselves and move on.

Rather than saying, "those are horrible bad man/woman, let's dig up their graves and put them thru the grinder". We will never learn if we just learn them as *them*... They are as much us as we are them. B/C someday very very soon. We will be *them* too. and the cycle of blame continues, absolutely no learning whatsoever.

No really...


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Really, I think there are a lot of historical correction and reinterpretation going on as well. Yes, those are the things that happened in the past; and we surely despise and disapprove of those kinds of ideas nowadays. But were those ideas truly *bad* back then?



Yes. Britain and France had done away with the practice altogether. The American government was restricting the addition of new slave states with an eye to phasing the practice out completely and, let's not ever forget that the nation itself was almost stillborn because of the South's refusal to agree that keeping african slaves was hypocritial if you going to war over issues of Freedom. Does the phrase "Peculiar Institution" ring any bells?




No, I meant the 4000 thousand years before that. Why does everyone think History itself began with the American Revolution? There is a huge long track record for slavery (not justifing it, not "oh, they did it, so it's ok", just saying that there has been a huge long history of people doing exactly that without recognizing that it was wrong.)

Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:


No one is "revising" anything. In fact this whole "they didn't know any better back then" stuff is the real modern twist. There was an ongoing debate about the practice pretty much from its inception.

Quote:

Let's face it, I am not necessarily a revisionist or do I think it's ok to excuse them, nor do I think we should do those things today (or at all). Clearly, every single civilization had slaves in the past (some still do today), it's a matter of capital and economics.


That's a very facile and immature construct. Slavery, previous to the inception of American Chattel Slavery, was a function of conquest and was neither generational nor based upon ethnicity.

It was the European/American addition of "racial inferiority" as a component and the mechanization of the process which differentiated American Chattel Slavery from what had gone before.




hmmm... I don't think the Americans invented racial inferiority on top of Slavery either. Also, "racial inferiority" as a concept was definitely not limited to Africans as slaves either. The target for inferiority spanned a wide range and the focus rolled over from the Irish, to the Italians, to the Filipinos, Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, what have you. In every case, it was the threat of economy and new voter ship that drove the designation for inferiority race. For a brief period during the reconstruction, there were white slaves that was actually of a lower *caste* than the free black men.

Quote:




Quote:

And let's not talk about caste systems that exist today.


Oh please. There's no comparisson. None. That's like saying a guy not being able to catch a cab is the same as getting lynched or whipped to death.




No, but the guy surely got lynched or whipped for either trying to think that he could be a cab driver or running off and marrying the cab drive though.

Quote:




Quote:

We can learn from history without beating those folks over it - because those poor sod are exactly like you and me, completely clueless that every single action we do today will be reinterpreted years from now.


Uh. Nope. Those "poor sods" were no differnt than any Nazi. They weren't ignorant. They were in willful opposition to the thrust of Western society at the time. And damned proud of it.

Quote:

Learn and move on.





Let's not give the Nazis too much credit. Those guys did a lot of bad things, but we always float them to the top b/c of advertisement. The "Rape of Nanking" by the Japanese Imperialists - though they don't have a fancy name to label them like "The Nazis" did a far more horrific crime at a much more horrible rate in a much shorter amount of time. If you thought the final solution was "efficient" - the Japanese was the ultimate killing machine during that period.

Quote:


Back atcha, Kiddo.

Still




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 5:20 PM

JASONZZZ



That's a good thought too. And probably a much fairer system than "the latest get to the top" deal.

Quote:

Originally posted by Crowflyy:
Went back to check that IMDB site and it seems a different review is posted.I looked through a bunch of the reviews posted and they all do seem pretty positive. I wonder if the site rotates through all the reviews and posts them randomly, because the one showing today is from Jan 8, and many have been posted since. Just a thought.

Crow



Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 5:48 PM

FIREFLY0HELPED0ME0PASS0THE0BAR


I just want to say to all those people who told me that Firefly was a good series...you were WRONG...it is a GREAT series. I am studying for the NY bar, and it has gotten me this far...unfortunately, I have no more episodes to watch.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 5:53 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior".




Not at all. They are part of the same evil. You can't discuss the one without coming to the other in short order. Well. You can try but people will tend to notice.

Quote:

Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on.


Well, isn't that a comfortable fiction? Not every group even adhered to the concept of Race until Europeans introduced it across the globe. Indeed, not every group adhered AFTER they had it inflicted upon them. This is partly because it has no basis in biology but is merely a social construct. It's not something that ALL human societies came up with independantly and, in fact, most of our time on Earth, we've done without it.

This is a carved in stone fact. Don't take my word for it. Delve.

Quote:

I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm


It's accurate. The concept of "race" didn't even exist until the Renaissance. Tribes aren't analogs for race.

Quote:

I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong.


Crap. Many of us are loads better. We have their disgusting example as another signpost of what not to do and where not to go. Your moral relativist pose is another facile dodge and allows you to avoid having to put your feet down on this.

If we- and by we I mean intelligent people who get their history from someplace other than Hollywood distillations– weren't any better there'd be something wrong with us. Humans survive by learning from past mistakes.

Quote:

and the cycle of blame continues, absolutely no learning whatsoever.


"The cycle of blame." Wow.

Well. Never let a few facts get in the way of cartoon dogma.

Quote:

No, I meant the 4000 thousand years before that. Why does everyone think History itself began with the American Revolution?


I don't think that "everyone" does. I don't and never implied otherwise. I'm talking about the U.S. because that's the history FIREFLY supposedly mined for its motifs.

The continuity of slavery no more connects to what happened here than the history of conquest leads inevitably to German gas chambers. The latter motivations were different in both cases. So different, in fact, as to have created something new.

Hence the shock normal humans feel when comparing the two.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 5:54 PM

RKLENSETH


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Hey, and let's not forget, the South wasn't exactly 'evil'. I mean, if it was a show that made the Nazis seem like heros, that'd be one thing; they were evil.



I'm really intesested in what a society would have to do to qualify as evil in your mind.

Quote:

The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.


That's one of the most frightening things I've ever read in my life.

Quote:

I'm not a southerner, by the by, nor am I one of those guys who drives a pick-up with a Rebel flag on the back. I just understand what they were fighting for, and why, and I can't say that they were wrong.
-Steve




Then you don't have a problem with a society which was entirely based upon and fueled by the generational exploitation of human beings as livestock and labor saving devices.

The Confederay WAS evil. Any way you slice it. It was antithetical to everything the United States was and, more importantly, IS supposed to stand for.

There is no difference between the Confederacy and the Nazi regime. Aside from being about a century apart (providing the Nazis with better tools) their world veiws were essentially the same.

And to describe them as fighting for "freedom" is to completely fail to grasp history. The Articles of Confederation alone refute your assessment.

The issue was "States Rights." What right was being contested? The "right" to own and trade, rape, kill and otherwise degrade human beings.

Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.

But not by me.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax



I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights. Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought. Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves. Usually the wealthy and wealthy middle class Confederates owned slaves and most of them were able to get enough of an education to be high ranking officers. I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time. And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army. There were alot more issues involved in the American Civil War than just slavery and slavery should never bury the other issues. I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery. In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellion and that was done to hurt the South's economy but lost Lincoln a lot of support in the North which led to the draft and then later the draft riots, some violent (ie. New York City as seen in 'Gangs of New York' at the end'). There were still slave states that did not leave the Union and join the Confederacy. In fact, Kentucky even joined the Union after at first declaring themselves neutral.

And with that, I would urge you all to study American Civil War history. After picking up many books written by American Civil War scholars you will learn that the issues and the war itself wasn't as black and white as you were taught in school. There were heroes and villians on both sides and each side had its own good points and evil.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 5:56 PM

RKLENSETH


Quote:

Originally posted by Firefly0helped0me0pass0the0bar:
I just want to say to all those people who told me that Firefly was a good series...you were WRONG...it is a GREAT series. I am studying for the NY bar, and it has gotten me this far...unfortunately, I have no more episodes to watch.



Maybe you can find something to sue FOX over as far as Firefly....

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, February 2, 2004 6:11 PM

REDJACK


Quote:


I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights.



I covered that. Stopping at the phrase "States Rights" allows for a linguistic grey area which does not, in fact, exist.

Quote:

Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought.


Name them. And then describe how the removal of the economic base- Chattel Slavery- didn't directly affect them.

Quote:

Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves.


Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you don't agree that people should be allowed to. Clearly the low caste whites were too stupid to realise that their own situations weren't too far above those of the blacks whose bondage they were willing to kill and die to maintain. Either that or they just agreed.

Quote:

I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time.


Making them either liars or hypocrites or both. Bravo, gentlemen.

Quote:

And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army.


Shouldn't have seceded then, I guess. Declaring war tends to make people shoot at you.

Quote:

I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery.


No reminder necessary. You're absolutely right. But to discuss the Civil War and its ramifications without placing Slavery dead center is to miss the issue completely. Either willfully or through ignorance.

Quote:

In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellion and that was done to hurt the South's economy but lost Lincoln a lot of support in the North which led to the draft and then later the draft riots, some violent (ie. New York City as seen in 'Gangs of New York' at the end').

There were heroes and villians on both sides and each side had its own good points and evil.



I grant you that there were villians on both sides. I defy you to name one good thing about the Confederacy which wasn't supported entirely on the backs of enslaved human beings.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 1:58 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Make no mistake, the Civil War wasn't a war to end slavery. The southerners just didn't like the direction the government was headed towards: a society where freedom is forgotten, where the ideas of our founding fathers are past. Looking at our nation today, it seems their fears were not wrong.
-Steve



I can, because I read the actual articles of Secession. Sadly, the reason why the South rebelled, according to the Southerners at the time, was to pre-empt the Federal Government, (led by a political party that had formed out of the anti-slavery movement) from outlawing slavery.

Look, I got at least two ancestors that fought for the south. One died in a Union POW camp of smallpox. But all the talk about state's rights and such, was just to hide the fact that they were fighting for the preservation of slavery.

At the time of the Revolution, and when the Constitution was written, an accomidation with the slave holding south was required. But slavery was and still is, fundamentally contrary to the American Ideal as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. Maybe the war was what was needed to correct such a grave hypocracy.

There is a lot of flowery prose in those Southern Declaration of Secession, but as one example, South Carolina's first complaint is that the Northern states are not returning escaped slaves and those aiding and abetting them. For a war that was not about slavery, this is completely at odds, especially so when you consider this is their first complaint, from the first state to secede.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 2:25 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Yeah. Them poor Rebs was wicked misunderstood.

But not by me.



But I think you are ignoring a very important event. Note the various others are arguing about how the war was NOT about slavery. They are trying to harken back to the founding fathers, and the concepts of individual liberty. Even in the face of government opposition.

But in making the argument they are, they are recognizing that slavery was a fundamental hypocracy in America's founding. That slavery was, and still is, an evil that should be stamped out. What was disagreed about at this stage of the game was how exactly to convert the economy of the south into a free system, without doing so much damage that you would end up with rebellion and loss of life that both sides were trying to avoid. (However imperfectly)

What makes a person, or a system evil is what it does, and what the consequences of those actions are. And in that respect, I think everyone is agreeing that slavery was evil, for the effects it created on the slaves first and foremost, but also in the denial of freedom required by the slave holders to maintain the slave system.

[It had been noted elsewhere that most of the pre-Civil War gun control regulations came from the South, in order to prevent slave rebellions. And those southern courts had decided in favor of such anti-second amendment legislation, because they did not want to get killed.]

Most folks, myself included, hate to think that our ancestors died in a less than noble pursuit. So fictions about the true causes of the war constantly get floated about. But in recognizing the simple fact that they are agreeing with you that slavery was evil, I think is itself a victory.

Besides which, todays southern rebel ain't all that much like his 19th century forebearers. He may take a more watchful eye toward Washington, and it has been noted that southerns are over represented in the US military.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 6:22 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:


I would just like to point out that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war weren't fighting to keep slavery but for what they considered State's Rights.

I covered that. Stopping at the phrase "States Rights" allows for a linguistic grey area which does not, in fact, exist..



Would that be the same "grey area" that the Union's "freedom for slaves" gave them when they invaded the South to keep control of the South? The same "grey area" they used to justify their actions when states in the North passed legislature making it illegal for freed slaves to move into their states?

Quote:

Slavery was always an issue but it has always somehow buried the rest of the issues for why the war fought.

Name them. And then describe how the removal of the economic base- Chattel Slavery- didn't directly affect them..



I think anyone with a soul can say that slavery is wrong, and that it deserved to be ended, but do the ends justify the means? Guess they do if you are the victor and write the history books. Funny that the North, who purchased those slave w/ rum and sold them in the South, South America, and the Caribbean, who passed laws to keep blacks out of their states, whose officers held slaves more than 3 years past the Emancipation Proclomation were so concerned w/ freeing the very people they helped to enslave.

Quote:

Another thing was that most of the Confederate soldiers that fought in the war never owned a slave, would never own a slave, and had come from farms they worked themselves.

Just because you can't afford something doesn't mean you don't agree that people should be allowed to. Clearly the low caste whites were too stupid to realise that their own situations weren't too far above those of the blacks whose bondage they were willing to kill and die to maintain. Either that or they just agreed.



So you have proof that these "low caste stupid" whites were in favor of slavery and that is what they fought for during the War? I sure would be interested in seeing those facts.

Quote:

I would also like to point out that a lot of the Confederacy's greatest Generals were also against the institution of slavery but saw the infringement of the State's Rights as a greater and more deadlier evil than slavery at the time.

Making them either liars or hypocrites or both. Bravo, gentlemen..



So, a man who, years before the war, frees all of his slaves, then takes up his sword to defend his state and his fellow countrymen from an armed invader is a liar or hypocrite?

By that logic, you can sign up all the Founding Fathers, and me and nearly everyone I know. I would defend my state against any invader. There are ways to resolve differences without armed violence.

Quote:

And many Confederates fought because there homes were being invaded by what they considered a foreign army.

Shouldn't have seceded then, I guess. Declaring war tends to make people shoot at you..



Sounds pretty much like what I am sure England & King George said about the colonies. Guess the only difference here really is that England lost, so they did not get to villianize their opponent.

Quote:

I would also like to remind you all that the Union fought the war to 'Preserve the Union' not end slavery.

No reminder necessary. You're absolutely right. But to discuss the Civil War and its ramifications without placing Slavery dead center is to miss the issue completely. Either willfully or through ignorance.



Nobody is saying that slavery was not an issue, only that it was not the pivotal one. The North and Lincoln fought to bring the South back into the Union, not free slaves. The Emancipation Proclomation and slavery were not the rally cry until 1863, two years after the war started. Lincoln and Washington were more interested in revenues than any race in bondage.

Quote:

In fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the States that were in rebellion and that was done to hurt the South's economy but lost Lincoln a lot of support in the North which led to the draft and then later the draft riots, some violent (ie. New York City as seen in 'Gangs of New York' at the end').

There were heroes and villians on both sides and each side had its own good points and evil.

I grant you that there were villians on both sides. I defy you to name one good thing about the Confederacy which wasn't supported entirely on the backs of enslaved human beings..



As far as the economy is concerned, yes, it was agrarian, which unfortunately was harvested with slave labor.

As I have proposed before, Washington could have worked w/ Southern leaders to find an alternative to slave labor and avoided the War if slaves were their only concern.

The slave trade and the profits from said trade, established wealth for most of the prominent families in New England before it was outlawed in the mid 1840s. The trade continued illegaly, still sponsored by New England businesses and individuals, though in secret. Those profits allowed for the building of many of the great industries in the North before, during, and after the War.

It seems neither side can claim any great accomplishments without the direct or indirect use of slaves.

Slavery is a shame to be carried by both the North, and the South. Neither can lay the blame completely at the doorstep of the other. Both are responsible and guilty of that part of history.


"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 6:26 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:

Ok, now we've switched arguments from plain slavery to "racially inferior".




Not at all. They are part of the same evil. You can't discuss the one without coming to the other in short order. Well. You can try but people will tend to notice.




hmmm... doesn't matter to me. But I think you had pointed out earlier that they were different things... They are both excuses for economic judgements at the *ruling* level - and taken as factual judgements by the *sheeps* - then again further exploited at the top. Bummer. Unless we all get smart and learn how us sheeps are always being led around and exploited, we will never get out of this mudball.

Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:


Quote:

Every "race" has a favorite "others" to pick on.


Well, isn't that a comfortable fiction? Not every group even adhered to the concept of Race until Europeans introduced it across the globe. Indeed, not every group adhered AFTER they had it inflicted upon them. This is partly because it has no basis in biology but is merely a social construct. It's not something that ALL human societies came up with independantly and, in fact, most of our time on Earth, we've done without it.

This is a carved in stone fact. Don't take my word for it. Delve.




Alright, I wanna learn show me. Let's not talk about "race" (I did quote it, meaning that it was a concept, meaning that every group of people had some concept of us; whether it's invented biologically or not) Every group had their favorites "others" to pick on. *They* speak differently. *They* wear different clothese. *They * don't use spoons and forks. *They* wear funny and unnecessary decorations. Oh, and *They* don't believe in our God. Let's slaughter them. *They* don't fit to eat or work with us. How often has that happened? These are not recent or renaissance inventions. I suggest that we had people who thought differently and started writing these things down in that aspect rather than "We are the righteous and we were triumphant over evil and we casted those bottom dwellers back to the hell that they deserve". Instead we started to recoginize that those base instincts of ours (not to hate, but to classify things into different buckets according to traits, and to fear the unknown and new) have always been exploited by the upper echelon to promote their economic cause.


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:


Quote:

I don't disagree that Americans brand of slavery took a twist in the populate media. But to say that all types of slavery aren't racially motivated prior to the new World is .... hmmmm


It's accurate. The concept of "race" didn't even exist until the Renaissance. Tribes aren't analogs for race.




No "tribes" are not "race" exactly. But it is the same type of invented concept that a people would use to call the "us" and further to keep the "them" away from "us". If there is an "us", then we can go and fight, enslave, and kill of the "them". Oh and conveniently take over their water sources, their land, their wives, and all of their possessions - there's no more them, so why not use what they had (Unless, of course, if it represented their "evil", then we will have to burn it in a big pyre and dance around it chanting and stuff)

Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:


Quote:

I am saying that we are no better Joes than any of those slobs as far as knowing what is right and wrong.


Crap. Many of us are loads better. We have their disgusting example as another signpost of what not to do and where not to go. Your moral relativist pose is another facile dodge and allows you to avoid having to put your feet down on this.

If we- and by we I mean intelligent people who get their history from someplace other than Hollywood distillations– weren't any better there'd be something wrong with us. Humans survive by learning from past mistakes.




Well... Good for you. I'd bet that they thought they were much better than the rest of the lot too. Great of them to rise out of the muck. I congratulate thee. (don't mind if I step around the dripping sarcasm)

IAC, if we can use their buoy to remind us of who we are and step around those foibles of ours, Great! I would be careful to think that somehow we have improved ourselves biologically and genetically to avoid those problems.

Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:


Quote:

and the cycle of blame continues, absolutely no learning whatsoever.


"The cycle of blame." Wow.

Well. Never let a few facts get in the way of cartoon dogma.




"cartoon dogma" aside. Never underestimate the use of complete far flung hyperbole to increase the extreme sense of dramatics.

Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:


Quote:

No, I meant the 4000 thousand years before that. Why does everyone think History itself began with the American Revolution?


I don't think that "everyone" does. I don't and never implied otherwise. I'm talking about the U.S. because that's the history FIREFLY supposedly mined for its motifs.




Just keep seeing it. I celebrate Columbus day just like everyone else. It's here to stay. We can call it whatever we want and I will still raise a pint if it will get me a day off from spending it with the rest of the chums at work. America *is* the world's Greatest Superpower, so why not start off history with the American Revolution. But I digress.

Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:


The continuity of slavery no more connects to what happened here than the history of conquest leads inevitably to German gas chambers. The latter motivations were different in both cases. So different, in fact, as to have created something new.

Hence the shock normal humans feel when comparing the two.

The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax



"The Price of Knowledge is Knowing" - I quite agree... Knowing that we are biological animals who rely on our base instinct to classify and label things (by traits, properties, behaviours) to survive *and* to fear the unknown and new; unfortunately, those instincts are oftened turned and exploited into mass histeria and for the upper echelon's economic gain. Their xenophobia and our fear lead us to do those horrible things.

We are still them. We haven't changed biologically. But I absolutely agree with you. Knowing is that much better.

Like Fireflyfans.net?
Haken needs a new development system. Donate.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=5&t=3283

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 7:01 AM

RKLENSETH


Well, as you all have proven, the American Civil War is all gray and there isn't black and white for either side.

Slavery is wrong. I am also a Unionist or would have been back in those days.

But not everyone in the South were fighting for slavery or against the Union. There were many more issues. Many of these men were fighting to defend their homes from what they considered a foreign army. We have to remember at this time that These United States (it didn't become the The United States until after the war) resembled more of what we see in the European Union today. Many people in American didn't call themselves Americans but Virginians or New Yorkers. Much of the South was against the strong central government and wanted to keep it sort of what we see the European Union like today. Lincoln was very vocal in his opinion in having a strong central government as well as his party. That is why the South seceded when Lincoln won the Electorial College for President (Lincoln lost the popular vote just as Bush did in 2000) and that is why they seceded because they saw no way to protect their State's Rights or State's Sovereignty with those that controlled the Federal Government. Then it came to the point where Lincoln would not surrender Fort Sumter over to South Carolina and the South saw this as an infringement of their sovereignty and fired on Fort Sumter. The North saw this as an act of war against the Union and the destruction of the Union. And then it goes on from there with Lincoln calling up voluteers to quell the South and then Virginia and the last of the other states seceded from the Union.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:04 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:

But I think you are ignoring a very important event. Note the various others are arguing about how the war was NOT about slavery. They are trying to harken back to the founding fathers, and the concepts of individual liberty. Even in the face of government opposition.



This is a joke.

1) The founding fathers were a bunch of hypocrites. Well, most. Adams and a few others got it right.

The issue of hypocrisy vis a vis slavery was raised at the Continental Congress and was shot down by the southerns states who refused to be part of a union if it required them to free their slaves. Fact. Not disputed.

2) You are proposing that the southern states, whose economy and society was completely supported by slavery and which had enjoyed that support for centuries, was going to willingly "phase it out" if only the North could provide them with a plan?

Pathetic.

And not in line with the facts.

Re: RKLENSETH
The "grey area" only exists because so many Americans subsequent to the event want to soft pedal the evil that was done by other Americans with whom they apparently sympathize more than with the other Americans who were treated like livestock and worse.

Quote:

But in making the argument they are, they are recognizing that slavery was a fundamental hypocracy in America's founding.


You might be. I'm not seeing that anywhere else.

Quote:

That slavery was, and still is, an evil that should be stamped out.


Slavery in the rest of the world is not germain to this discussion and is only invoked to minimize the culpability of those who participaited in it here.

Remember: No other country in the world has a founding document that asserts the fundamental value of an individual human as an intrinsic condition of existance.

Note to the founders: Don't talk the talk if you're not prepared to get called on it when you don't walk the walk.

Quote:

What was disagreed about at this stage of the game was how exactly to convert the economy of the south into a free system, without doing so much damage that you would end up with rebellion and loss of life that both sides were trying to avoid. (However imperfectly)


That is just a load of crap. The Union was limiting the expansion of slavery into th new states, effectively bottling the southern economy with an eye to shutting it down.

It would have been perfectly reasonable under the model some of you are presenting for Lincoln to simply let the practice continue as people saw fit locally.

Quote:

What makes a person, or a system evil is what it does, and what the consequences of those actions are. And in that respect, I think everyone is agreeing that slavery was evil, for the effects it created on the slaves first and foremost, but also in the denial of freedom required by the slave holders to maintain the slave system.


The slave holders deserved the same fate as Nazi war criminals post WW2. No more. No less. What they got was Andrew Johnson re-establishing the original paradigm as best he could under the circumstances. This gave us another century of Jim Crow and violent suppression of a significant portion of the American populace a la South African Apartheid.

The problem of the former slaveholders would best have been solved with bullets. No. Ropes would do just as well and would have been cheaper.

Quote:

Most folks, myself included, hate to think that our ancestors died in a less than noble pursuit.


That's sad for you. But those people were scum. Get over it. Suck it up like a man (or woman). Look to the modern Germans and how they've come to grips with their ignoble past.

Quote:

So fictions about the true causes of the war constantly get floated about.


As we are seeing here. It's really sad. And not a little frightening, I have to say. Mostly it's just really really disappointing.

Quote:

But in recognizing the simple fact that they are agreeing with you that slavery was evil, I think is itself a victory.


Yay me.

Quote:

Besides which, todays southern rebel ain't all that much like his 19th century forebearers. He may take a more watchful eye toward Washington, and it has been noted that southerns are over represented in the US military.


Hey, if it walks like a duck...



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:13 AM

RKLENSETH


Want to know what human livestock was really like then read a little about Irish History both in Ireland under the English and in America when the Irish fled their homeland.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:16 AM

RKLENSETH


You all might also want to know that Nathan Fillion's ancestor is Jubal Early, a famous Civil War Confederate General. Just pointing that out because this dicussion has turned into the Civil War and all.

My ancestor is Thomas Francis Meagher, a famous exiled Irish rebel turned Union General that built the Irish Brigade that fought for the Union during the Civil War.

Oh, and play Cantr II at www.cantr.net.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:30 AM

REDJACK


deleted dupilcate post

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:30 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by rklenseth:
Want to know what human livestock was really like then read a little about Irish History both in Ireland under the English and in America when the Irish fled their homeland.



I'm quite familiar with the Brits brutal treatment of the Irish. I consider it on the same level as that of American slavery. I think Michael Collins was hero and patriot. Gerry Adams too.

But to say that it was somehow worse is just ridiculous.

Actually you don't say it. You just imply it.

What happened to the Irish in America is just the story of 19th Century immigrants. Ask the Italians what happened to them. Or the Chinese. Immigrants get the short end. The new guy gets the crap beat out of him. Ugly but, hey, nobody ASKED you to make the trip. Wait a couple generations and you'll be part of the establishment. One day you'll be in the White House.

Tell me again how that's worse or even on par with the experience of Africans/African descended Americans.

Oh, wait. You can't.

You know. 'Cause it's not.



The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 8:37 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Redjack wrote:

Quote:

That's sad for you. But those people were scum. Get over it. Suck it up like a man (or woman). Look to the modern Germans and how they've come to grips with their ignoble past.


Pretty broad generalization calling all Southerners who fought in the War scum. Sounds like bigotry to me, or perhaps just revisionism at it's most venomous.

Perhaps we are not the ones to get over it.


"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 9:21 AM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:

Pretty broad generalization calling all Southerners who fought in the War scum. Sounds like bigotry to me, or perhaps just revisionism at it's most venomous.



All Southerners who fought for the South.

Bigotry would be if I met modern day southerners and held them accountable for the actions of their anscestors. I don't.

Holding those anscestors accountable for their own behaviour is not bigotry. It's knowing how to read. And being adecent human being.

Quote:

Perhaps we are not the ones to get over it.



No. It's you.


The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 9:41 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
All Southerners who fought for the South.

Bigotry would be if I met modern day southerners and held them accountable for the actions of their anscestors. I don't.

Holding those anscestors accountable for their own behaviour is not bigotry. It's knowing how to read. And being adecent human being.

No. It's you.



Perhaps prejudiced is a better word than bigoted, though I would say your opinions border on bigoted.

Damning everyone who fought for the South, and labeling them as "scum" when you have no idea why they fought is just plain narrow minded and does more to defeat your arguements than anything I or anyone else could say in response. It shows that you are biased and not willing to extend the same courtesy that the rest of us are to those that fought for the North.

I hold my ancestors "accountable" for nothing but defending their homes and way of life from an armed aggressor that invaded their state. Not one of my ancestors owned slaves, so I would laugh if you try to argue that they fought to keep slavery as an institution.

And, reading your last few posts, it definitely you.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 9:41 AM

REKKA2


You can't fault someone for trying to defend what was considered the norms for their time, no matter how those norms would be considered in modern light. Study of the past has shown us that secession wasnt even widely supported by the people...you condemn the many for the faults of a few. The real issue in the south was the right for each state to set its own rules...slavery was brought into the spotlight later in the war as a politcal move for support as well as enabling blacks to be enlisted in the North. I'm not saying I support slavery, but you must look at history within its context.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, February 3, 2004 12:01 PM

REDJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by BrownCoat1:
Perhaps prejudiced is a better word than bigoted, though I would say your opinions border on bigoted.

Damning everyone who fought for the South, and labeling them as "scum" when you have no idea why they fought is just plain narrow minded and does more to defeat your arguements than anything I or anyone else could say in response.



They damned themselves by joining up. I have nothing to do with that.

I know the actual history. The details. Not the propaganda of either side. I cite the actual history. I draw the obvious objective conclusions. I draw (or refute) analogies so the kids in the back can keep up.

It's not these pearls that keep me from "winning" the argument. There's no debate among people who actually know the material.

The fault is in the local pork.

Quote:

It shows that you are biased and not willing to extend the same courtesy that the rest of us are to those that fought for the North.


The Confederacy was a bankrupt endeavour fom day one. Morally and, it must be said, socio-economically. The instant that new states were proscribed from being able to own slaves, the writing was on the wall.

The words of Davis and Calhoun, to name but two, damn The Confederates forever in the annals of history. Just as Mein Kamf damns Adolf Hitler and his idiot followers. In precisely the same way as a matter of fact.

You can bob and weave all you like but the facts sit there unblemished and uncompromising. Whether you "agree" with them or not. That's what facts are.

Quote:

I hold my ancestors "accountable" for nothing but defending their homes and way of life from an armed aggressor that invaded their state.


LOL. "Way of Life." "States Rights." "Extend the same courtesy."

What, was there a sale at Euphemisms R Us?

I guess it's no coincidence that the Confederate uniform was grey after all.

Quote:

Not one of my ancestors owned slaves, so I would laugh if you try to argue that they fought to keep slavery as an institution.


Well. Apparently ignorance is not only bliss but euphoria as well.

Bottom line. They had a choice. Union or Rebs. If they chose Rebs without reading the fine print (which, of course we know they must have unless they were conscripts) they get tarred with the same brush as their fellows.

Sorry if that's agrieving but, you know, not everything is shiny.




The Price of Knowledge is Knowing.
Audrid Dax

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 1:47 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:

Originally posted by Drakon:

But I think you are ignoring a very important event. Note the various others are arguing about how the war was NOT about slavery. They are trying to harken back to the founding fathers, and the concepts of individual liberty. Even in the face of government opposition.



This is a joke.



Please read what I wrote again. Yes, most of the founding fathers were slave owners, and yes, the south refused to join the union unless slavery was kept. But you missed the point I was trying to make.

You've won that argument. No one has even attempted to argue that slavery was a good thing or anything like that. Which is why the argument is now about "other causes" which to some are the "real causes" of the split. They are trying to distance themselves and the South from that issue, because they agree with you that slavery was wrong.

Now, what exactly is your purpose here? To gibbet the dead? Look, we already understand what bastards they were, especially the ones with statutes built to them. So that seems kind of pointless, especially given the fact they are dead.

If your purpose is to persuade, then I am afraid your present tactics aren't going to work. The reason why slavery survived as long as it did in the South, after the Declaration of Independence, is that southern slaver owners did not percieve their slaves as "human", as something less than human. What your present rather strident tone and style are doing, is giving your opponents an idea that YOU don't see them as "human" That you see them as moral inferiors, which as a persuasive technique does not work well. You want to lecture and preach, but that is not going to persuade an audience, especially if they see in you a lack of decorum, respect, or civility.

Especially if you are agruing that slavery was evil, which they already know.

Quote:


Slavery in the rest of the world is not germain to this discussion and is only invoked to minimize the culpability of those who participaited in it here.



Two points: 1) It is germain, in that slavery was a common practice through much of recorded history, throughout the world. To say that the southerners were doing something particularly evil, without noting the context, or the fact of what occured earlier, does not seem to make sense. You seem to be trying to argue that southern slave owners did see their slaves as people and still treated them like chattel, or that their view was unique in the world. When nothing could be further from the truth.

2) The problem as has been pointed out before is one of perception. To a lot of folks, even to this day, individuals in other countries are still considered "others" or not quite human. It is a perception that while you and most of us fight against, still persists elsewhere. Sometimes even in our own enlightened arenas. One of the reasons why about 1 million Africans die each year of malaria, because DDT is "too harmful" to use to control the spread of the disease.

The perceptions of others is germain. If you had been raised all your life to think of certain individuals with unique characteristics as subhuman, you are going to go along with it till something changes your mind. If you are always doing what had always been done, you are not going to see the problem.


Quote:


Remember: No other country in the world has a founding document that asserts the fundamental value of an individual human as an intrinsic condition of existance.

Note to the founders: Don't talk the talk if you're not prepared to get called on it when you don't walk the walk.



You are demanding perfection in humans, and rationality, that does not exist, even in this day and age. Personally, I am glad they were hypocrits back them. Even if it did cost us a civil war. Without that hypocracy, think where we would be today?


Quote:


That is just a load of crap. The Union was limiting the expansion of slavery into th new states, effectively bottling the southern economy with an eye to shutting it down.

It would have been perfectly reasonable under the model some of you are presenting for Lincoln to simply let the practice continue as people saw fit locally.



Yes, even to Lincoln, survival of the Union was his paramount thing. Think about it for a moment.

You cannot change people's mind through force. If someone chooses to disagree with you, you can try to persuade, or you can put a gun to their head. Persuasion may fail, but force certainly will fail.

So Lincoln's initial strategy was to let slavery rot, to change it slowly. Wars are risky things, and a lot of stuff gets broken, including people. If the Union failed on the battlefield, then not only would the slaves have been freed, but the United States would cease to be a nation. And all that talk about individual rights would get blown off as simply a failed experiment, proving that all peasants need some form of aristocracy.

Follow it out and think about how such declaration of individual rights would have suffered if the Union were dissolved. Which is why Lincoln was willing to allow slavery, no matter how much he disliked it.

A government that does not exist anymore is incapable of ensuring the rights of its citizens, regardless of whether they were slaves or not.

Quote:

The slave holders deserved the same fate as Nazi war criminals post WW2. No more. No less. What they got was Andrew Jackson re-establishing the original paradigm as best he could under the circumstances. This gave us another century of Jim Crow and violent suppression of a significant portion of the American populace a la South African Apartheid.

The problem of the former slaveholders would best have been solved with bullets. No. Ropes would do just as well and would have been cheaper.



Again, war is a risky thing. And all those slave owners you demonize, or see as less than human, were returned to American citizenship. Which means they had rights under the law, and one of those rights was a prohibition against "ex post facto" laws. Meaning even if you wanted to lynch every slave owner in the south, you would not have the legal means to do so, based solely on the fact they owned slaves. You cannot punish a man legally if his actions were legal at the time he was doing it.

After the war, and the huge number of dead on both sides, there was no will to lynch everyone responsible. Which is probably a good thing as it did shorten the war, and give the South a chance to surrender. Think a moment about this.

The reason why we obey the Geneva convention is because we want others to know that if they surrender, they are not going to be strung up, or slaughtered. That they will get 3 hots and a cot for the duration and then returned home as safe and sound as we can manage. If an opponent thought that surrender meant getting strung up, he is less likely to give in. He will fight harder, and more death and destruction will result. Not a good option.

Besides which, and this is a very important point. All the slave owners are DEAD. All of the former slaves are dead. The war ended almost 140 years ago. So demanding their lynching at this stage is pretty pointless. Also decrying decisions made back then as again, it was 140 years ago.

Quote:

That's sad for you. But those people were scum. Get over it. Suck it up like a man (or woman). Look to the modern Germans and how they've come to grips with their ignoble past.



Again you need to reread what you are responding to. I have gotten over it. Some folks have not, and are dealing with it the best way they can. Demanding they listen to you, especially in the tone you are using, well, that don't sound like its gonna work.

Those 'scum' were also loving fathers and husbands. To a large extent, they thought they were doing what at the time, they thought was the right thing. On both sides. They did not have the advantage of historical perspective the way you and I did. And still had holdovers from the former civilizations that had colonized this continent.

In your refusal to see them all as "scum" you are in effect committing the same offense you are going on about.

Quote:

So fictions about the true causes of the war constantly get floated about.


As we are seeing here. It's really sad. And not a little frightening, I have to say. Mostly it's just really really disappointing.

Quote:


Quote:

Besides which, todays southern rebel ain't all that much like his 19th century forebearers. He may take a more watchful eye toward Washington, and it has been noted that southerns are over represented in the US military.


Hey, if it walks like a duck...



That is just it. They don't walk like ducks. Many of them walk like US Marines. They are just as American as you are, possibly even more so, as they are putting their lives on the line for all our safty. Your over generalization and insensitivity to their predicament is not going to be effective at convincing them of the rightness of your cause. Your inability to realize that as flawed as they were, southerners were just as human as you are, works against you.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 1:55 AM

DRAKON


Quote:

Originally posted by Rekka2:
You can't fault someone for trying to defend what was considered the norms for their time, no matter how those norms would be considered in modern light. Study of the past has shown us that secession wasnt even widely supported by the people...you condemn the many for the faults of a few. The real issue in the south was the right for each state to set its own rules...slavery was brought into the spotlight later in the war as a politcal move for support as well as enabling blacks to be enlisted in the North. I'm not saying I support slavery, but you must look at history within its context.



Very well said.

"Wash, where is my damn spaceship?"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 5:12 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:


They damned themselves by joining up. I have nothing to do with that.

I know the actual history. The details. Not the propaganda of either side. I cite the actual history. I draw the obvious objective conclusions. I draw (or refute) analogies so the kids in the back can keep up.

It's not these pearls that keep me from "winning" the argument. There's no debate among people who actually know the material.

The fault is in the local pork.



So you must be special then, since you and you alone know the "details" and not the "propoganda". How is it that all the "details" and not the propoganda or revised histories of both sides do no color your judgement? Seems w/ your view of the South and those who fought for her your judgement is definitely colored prejudced by something. Must be a real burden to be the only person to know the "truth", especially since historians on both sides must be wrong.

No debate amongst those who know the "material". What material is that? It is laughable to say there is no debate. All things are debated, especially this War and the events leading up to, during and following the War. Maybe you don't get out much.

Local "pork"? I won't even acknowledge that little foolishness w/ a comment.

Quote:

The Confederacy was a bankrupt endeavour fom day one. Morally and, it must be said, socio-economically. The instant that new states were proscribed from being able to own slaves, the writing was on the wall.

The words of Davis and Calhoun, to name but two, damn The Confederates forever in the annals of history. Just as Mein Kamf damns Adolf Hitler and his idiot followers. In precisely the same way as a matter of fact.

You can bob and weave all you like but the facts sit there unblemished and uncompromising. Whether you "agree" with them or not. That's what facts are.



Bob and weave? I surely don't remember doing that at any point. I do like how you avoid the facts that the North used slavery as a justification, and that the Northern states made it illegal for blacks to live in their states. Those are facts. Ignore them all you want, they won't change, despite your perception on the matter.

Quote:

LOL. "Way of Life." "States Rights." "Extend the same courtesy."

What, was there a sale at Euphemisms R Us?

I guess it's no coincidence that the Confederate uniform was grey after all.



The only thing laughable here is your transparent arguements and lack of sources for your "details".

The Confederate uniform may have been gray, but at least they did not wrap themselves in hypocrisy as the North, Lincoln, and the Federalist government did and has done. Freedom and equality indeed. LOL Ask the Native Americans Polk and Lincoln hung what they think of Federalist justice and equality.

Quote:

Well. Apparently ignorance is not only bliss but euphoria as well.

Bottom line. They had a choice. Union or Rebs. If they chose Rebs without reading the fine print (which, of course we know they must have unless they were conscripts) they get tarred with the same brush as their fellows.

Sorry if that's agrieving but, you know, not everything is shiny.



If ignorance is bliss than you must be living in a land of rapture.

This last arguement of "Tarred with the same brush" is as flawed as the rest of your arguements. Really nice how it, like others were backed with nothing but your personal opinion, and no facts.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it seems your lacks the enlightenment of many others on this subject.

Drakon at least can cite sources for his arguements and is a worthy debate adversary. Come back when you can cite these "details" of yours and are willing to argue fact instead of your personal insight, or lack thereof.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL