Mississippi governor declares April as Confederate Heritage month

jim first wrote:

If Mississippi is so awful, why do so many blacks still live there? The same goes for the rest of the south. They are all free to leave any time they wish.

Georgia resident wrote:

Um, you are aware that this is nothing new, right? It's been around for a while. And despite living on the Georgia/Alabama border, I have not seen a single TV commercial advertising it yet and it's already the middle of the month. Contrast that with the non-stop commercials reminding me it was Black History Month during February and Women's History Month in March. No reason to get your panties in a knot over it.

Odd that more companies want to support equality compared to racist war losers 😂

Merica first wrote:

Are you suggesting we celebrate people who killed US soldiers and attacked US military bases? What's next?Do we start celebrating the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor?

What a garbage spin on what I said. I don’t compare a foreign enemy with a 20 year old in the 1800s who wanted to get off the farm or fight for his state. He was just as American as the 20 year old from New York who wanted to leave the city. Just because those two Americans fought on different sides of Gettysburg doesn’t make one less human then the other.

Pretty dumb to compare that to a sneak attack by some foreigners.

You can’t escape history. To use your dumb logic we should have obliterated Germany and kept them under our thumb for what they did in WW2.

yawn wrote:

Merica first wrote:

Are you suggesting we celebrate people who killed US soldiers and attacked US military bases? What's next?Do we start celebrating the Japanese who attacked Pearl Harbor?

What a garbage spin on what I said. I don’t compare a foreign enemy with a 20 year old in the 1800s who wanted to get off the farm or fight for his state. He was just as American as the 20 year old from New York who wanted to leave the city. Just because those two Americans fought on different sides of Gettysburg doesn’t make one less human then the other.

Pretty dumb to compare that to a sneak attack by some foreigners.

You can’t escape history. To use your dumb logic we should have obliterated Germany and kept them under our thumb for what they did in WW2.

Germany has made a point of not displaying the swastika or lionizing Rommel, and foreign or native-born makes one no more or less human, but when fighting against the United States government, it makes one treasonous.

In every war that I am aware of,, people fight for misguided reasons. Whether the individual soldier thought so or not, they were fighting for the preservation of slavery. No one should’ve fought for the confederacy. It is sad that people lost their lives doing so,

In almost all wars that the United States has participated in, our opponents had a more honorable cause than that of the confederacy. No government should do anything that indicates tacit acceptance of the values of the confederacy.

yawn wrote:

Harambe wrote:

It's true! The war was over states' rights.

Namely, a state's right to allow slavery.

How quickly you dismiss the young men, and sometimes literally boys who fought for the south because of loyalty to a state or purely for the adventure of war. Should they be forgotten because you don’t like what some others stood for?

Men who fought wars should not be celebrated they should be pitied

kumquat wrote:

yawn wrote:

How quickly you dismiss the young men, and sometimes literally boys who fought for the south because of loyalty to a state or purely for the adventure of war. Should they be forgotten because you don’t like what some others stood for?

Men who fought wars should not be celebrated they should be pitied

The life you are leading today would not be possible if not for the men who fought WW2. I would like to suggest that you engage in self buggery.

I’m not going to even respond to your first two paragraphs because your third shows how misguided you are.

Speed over 60 wrote:

That butt head needs to watch the movie"Free State of Jones" It tells the true story that the Confederacy was fighting for the rich Slave owners and how his state (MS.) started Jim Crow type voting suppression. Long, but very good historical film!

Written by a liberal. Muss be factual. Humans are idiots.

Actually, people are currently fighting for misguided reasons as evidenced right here: WW3: Liberals v Conservatives. Which ever team you identify with must be right (evidence based).

macdaddy ogg yo wrote:

Georgia resident wrote:

Um, you are aware that this is nothing new, right? It's been around for a while. And despite living on the Georgia/Alabama border, I have not seen a single TV commercial advertising it yet and it's already the middle of the month. Contrast that with the non-stop commercials reminding me it was Black History Month during February and Women's History Month in March. No reason to get your panties in a knot over it.

Odd that more companies want to support equality compared to racist war losers 😂

Hilarious that many of those same companies most likely profit off of slavery in China and Africa in some way. You're being played if you actually think companies care about "eekwallity" instead of just making you feel good about buying their products.

yawn wrote:

trashcan wrote:

Germany has made a point of not displaying the swastika or lionizing Rommel, and foreign or native-born makes one no more or less human, but when fighting against the United States government, it makes one treasonous.

In every war that I am aware of,, people fight for misguided reasons. Whether the individual soldier thought so or not, they were fighting for the preservation of slavery. No one should’ve fought for the confederacy. It is sad that people lost their lives doing so,

In almost all wars that the United States has participated in, our opponents had a more honorable cause than that of the confederacy. No government should do anything that indicates tacit acceptance of the values of the confederacy.

I’m not going to even respond to your first two paragraphs because your third shows how misguided you are.

Britain— maintaining their empire

Mexico-fighting an invader into an existing country

Native Americans—fighting an invader

Spain—Fighting in U S territorial incursion

World war 1–complicated alliances

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq —fighting an imperialist invader (and preserving a failed economic strategy)

Confederacy—-fighting to preserve slavery by destroying a country

trashcan wrote:

yawn wrote:

I’m not going to even respond to your first two paragraphs because your third shows how misguided you are.

Britain— maintaining their empire

Mexico-fighting an invader into an existing country

Native Americans—fighting an invader

Spain—Fighting in U S territorial incursion

World war 1–complicated alliances

Korea, Vietnam, Iraq —fighting an imperialist invader (and preserving a failed economic strategy)

Confederacy—-fighting to preserve slavery by destroying a country

Going off your poor examples, it’s honorable for Britain to maintain an empire but bad when the US tries to have one? GTFOH.

Any real historian will tell you the Revolution was closer to a civil war then anything. But if we go with your empire non sense it is nobler to overthrow the yoke of foreign monarchy then to try and maintain it.

Mexico was fighting for territory, just as US was.

Natives couldn’t get their act together and some sold the land that their tribe said couldn’t be sold so they didn’t even know what was theirs. Your best case here, but also weak.

Spain, didn’t they blow up a ship to start this one off?

WW1 was all about land for all the European people involved. How is that more noble then helping an ally? Also, don’t forget the Lusitania and the Zimmerman telegram.

Half of Korea and half of Vietnam were on our side so how does that even count. Both sides were fighting for political influence in a region.

You really don’t know history. My dumba$$ majored in it (without thinking of the uselessness of the degree). Looks like it finally came in handy here though.

You missed the point. I am not saying our opponents in those wars were right and we were wrong (well the Native American wars and Mexico are pretty tough). What I am saying is that it is much easier to justify someone fighting for their country in those wars than to justify fighting for the confederacy.

The best justification for why someone fought for the confederacy is that they were misguided.

Btw re the Maine I have tended to be of a mind that it sank due to the coal igniting

Communism was ascendant n both Korea and Vietnam before the US arrived ( and I am sure the South Koreans are glad we did). Half is awfully generous. I am not saying that North Korean communism has worked out well. I am simply pointing out with the issues would have been at the time.

Revolution, I was trying to use the terms of the time. To my understanding, The American colonies wouldn’t have been considered part of Britain, but rather part of the empire, I don’t disagree that it functioned much like a civil war

World War 1. I agree that it was over land and power. . And fighting for land is much more noble than fighting for slavery.. The Lusitania was carrying munitions. I had admittedly forgotten about the Zimmerman telegram, although it was a proposed alliance IF the US attacked.

Mexico m: we invaded a foreign country and took its most valuable territory

Native Americans: there were plenty of times when this was just the strong taking from the weak. Most other times we came into a foreign land and demanded that they play by our rules. Because we had more power we were able to enforce that.

I guess I’m just lost on your point (problem with these chained responses). I thought you were arguing that relative to the confederate soldiers, Most of America’s enemies were fighting for a relatively more noble cause. If that is your contention, I still strongly disagree.

It was, and my first paragraph addresses that. Your response to me indicated a shift towards comparing America’s adversaries to America’s reason for fighting, so I addressed that as well.

My point again: given that slavery was both necessary and sufficient for the confederacy to form and fight the union, there is no reason for it to be given any special honor amongst the historical adversaries of the United States.

Given that it was specifically formed to continue the oppression of the ancestors of current American citizens there is a specific reason to not give the confederacy a position of honor.

Merica first wrote:

Slavery wasn't the main reason the north declared war on the south but it for sure was the main reason the south seceded.

The angle doesn’t change that their reasons were the same:

power and control not right vs wrong

jim first wrote:

If Mississippi is so awful, why do so many blacks still live there? The same goes for the rest of the south. They are all free to leave any time they wish.

Many black Mississippians have very deep ancestral roots in the state, including land inherited from grandparents, great grandparents, etc. Since Mississippi's population is 38% African American, they've also got quite a bit of political clout. (The mayor of the state capital, Jackson, is black.) The quality of life is good, or CAN be good. Given all those things, most people would rather stay here and fight idiocies like this than let themselves be forced to leave their home.

Big Robb and the late Denise LaSalle, a native Mississippian, give you a taste of the life here:

trashcan wrote:

Germany has made a point of not displaying the swastika or lionizing Rommel

Never been to Germany I guess. There is a military base named in honor of Rommel. He is not "lionized" but he is definitely highly respected. He was not a hardcore Nazi, just a General leading his army in war like any other. He had the common sense that Hitler lacked. He knew that once the Allies had a foothold in France the war was over and tried to convince Hitler to negotiate surrender shortly after the Normandy campaign in order to save Germany from total destruction. Realizing Hitler was a maniac who would never surrender he supported the July 20 plot to assassinate him. There is a reason why Rommel was not publicly executed for this; he had tremendous support of the German people and Hitler would lose a lot of support of the people if he had him executed. So he offered him cyanide and a state funeral as a war hero.

And while the swastika is illegal there, I do know of one on an American military base in Germany that is fairly prominent if you know exactly where to look. They tried to disguise it but it is still clearly there.

Let it Rupp wrote:

macdaddy ogg yo wrote:

Odd that more companies want to support equality compared to racist war losers 😂

Hilarious that many of those same companies most likely profit off of slavery in China and Africa in some way. You're being played if you actually think companies care about "eekwallity" instead of just making you feel good about buying their products.

This you?

Let it Rupp wrote:

What do black people need money for? I thought they were allowed to loot whatever they wanted because whenever they feel angry.

You’re just anonymous garbage, but you already knew that.