NationStates

Christian Confederation wrote:

Robosia wrote:Why does a US States have a holiday celebrating a traitor? General Sherman would be rolling in his grave.

I don't give a Da*n what that piece of Sh** would think, he tourched my State and sent Carpetbaggers and other curupt invadors to "Rebuild" or state.

Arcadian States and Commonwealths wrote:
General Sherman did nothing wrong,

Yawkland wrote:

Heloin wrote:Then you jumped off the logical deep end with a line of reasoning that just doesn't make sense. The Confederates are un-American, that doesn't make them not American Citizens. These two things aren't mutually exclusive even if you think they are.

Well definitions matter, and does clarity.

I do not think it is fair to say that the Confederates were un-American. Un-American means that they were not Americans, even though we both agree that they were. They cannot both be Americans and not Americans at the same time.

It is more accurate to say that the Confederates were anti-American, because Americans can be anti-American, and we have a long history of many Americans being anti-American.

And now, for as to why this should matter in regards to honoring them, the US honors tons of anti-Americans already, so it seems like an arbitrarily applied standard. If everyone who took up arms against the US government is an anti-American and a traitor, then this includes a lot of people from all over the political spectrum.

Mettaton-EX wrote:

Arcadian States and Commonwealths wrote:
General Sherman did nothing wrong,

sure he did. should have burned more slaveowners and less property that could have been seized and redistributed to former slaves

ECKU wrote:

Arcadian States and Commonwealths wrote:If it is done right it can be a good idea since he realized he was wrong and tried to fix his mistakes but we all know racists will use it as a day for a pro-CSA circle jerk while being ignorant of the fact he disavowed the Klan

"After only a year as Grand Wizard, in January 1869, faced with an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest issued KKK General Order Number One: “It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the masks and costumes of this Order be entirely abolished and destroyed.” By the end of his life, Forrest’s racial attitudes would evolve — in 1875, he advocated for the admission of blacks into law school — and he lived to fully renounce his involvement with the all-but-vanished Klan.” ~Huffington Post

Then why not celebrate that part of his life instead of the racist part? Geez, this is what I hate about the South

Heloin wrote:

Yawkland wrote:
Well definitions matter, and does clarity.

I do not think it is fair to say that the Confederates were un-American. Un-American means that they were not Americans, even though we both agree that they were. They cannot both be Americans and not Americans at the same time.

It is more accurate to say that the Confederates were anti-American, because Americans can be anti-American, and we have a long history of many Americans being anti-American.

So this whole thing is just you being pedantic. Jesus, you fucking know what people mean when they say un-American.

Heloin wrote:

And now, for as to why this should matter in regards to honoring them, the US honors tons of anti-Americans already, so it seems like an arbitrarily applied standard. If everyone who took up arms against the US government is an anti-American and a traitor, then this includes a lot of people from all over the political spectrum.

This is an easy line for Americans to draw. People who were "anti-America" and supported slavery you don't honour because they're scumbags.

Mettaton-EX wrote:

Arcadian States and Commonwealths wrote:
General Sherman did nothing wrong,

sure he did. should have burned more slaveowners and less property that could have been seized and redistributed to former slaves

Yawkland wrote:

Heloin wrote:So this whole thing is just you being pedantic. Jesus, you fucking know what people mean when they say un-American.

It's not pedantry. Un-American means that something is not American (for example the sport of cricket is un-American). Anti-American means in opposition to America, which is more accurate.

This is an easy line for Americans to draw. People who were "anti-America" and supported slavery you don't honour because they're scumbags.

Do you apply this standard to the various slave-holding Indian tribes who took up arms against the US government? By this logic we should not honor the Cherokee and Choctaw leaders as well.

Yawkland wrote:

Heloin wrote:So this whole thing is just you being pedantic. Jesus, you fucking know what people mean when they say un-American.

It's not pedantry. Un-American means that something is not American (for example the sport of cricket is un-American). Anti-American means in opposition to America, which is more accurate.

Heloin wrote:This is an easy line for Americans to draw. People who were "anti-America" and supported slavery you don't honour because they're scumbags.

Do you apply this standard to the various slave-holding Indian tribes who took up arms against the US government? By this logic we should not honor the Cherokee and Choctaw leaders as well.

Ifreann wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:They should try and motivate change within their own community-or just move to somewhere different.

So you agree that it does affect people in a meaningful way.

Not all states or cities or counties are the same. A referendum is the fairest way to get over issues like this, and if the referendum isn't in your favor then it won't matter. People's opinions aren't going to change because you forbid a holiday-it may even cause resentment and backlash onto African Americans-in the case of possibly banning Nathan Bedford Forrest day for example.

Why should people need to win a referendum before their state government respects them?

If the people in Tennessee wanted this holiday then we should abide by the majority's decision.

When was the referendum?

As long as there isn't actual discrimination, then it will just have to be something that the minority will have to deal with.

Or they can have the law repealed without a referendum.

Heloin wrote:

Yawkland wrote:
It's not pedantry. Un-American means that something is not American (for example the sport of cricket is un-American). Anti-American means in opposition to America, which is more accurate.

It's entirely pedantic.

Do you apply this standard to the various slave-holding Indian tribes who took up arms against the US government? By this logic we should not honor the Cherokee and Choctaw leaders as well.

The Natives who took up arms in order to keep owning other humans? Yes they shouldn't be honoured. You're not doing very well with these logical extremes.

ECKU wrote:

Yawkland wrote:
It's not pedantry. Un-American means that something is not American (for example the sport of cricket is un-American). Anti-American means in opposition to America, which is more accurate.



Do you apply this standard to the various slave-holding Indian tribes who took up arms against the US government? By this logic we should not honor the Cherokee and Choctaw leaders as well.

There are no statues of Indigenous slaveowners, nor are they (widely) honored.

Pere Housh Alpha wrote:

Kowani wrote:Repeal. That’s about it. Repeal the laws celebrating the Confederates.

How about we don't.

Do you have something against Robert E. Lee?

Yawkland wrote:

ECKU wrote:There are no statues of Indigenous slaveowners, nor are they (widely) honored.

There are several statues, many of them at state capitals/city halls. We have many schools, streets, and even cities named after Indians!

ECKU wrote:

Yawkland wrote:
There are several statues, many of them at state capitals/city halls. We have many schools, streets, and even cities named after Indians!

Any names after slaveowners who were Native Americans?

Kannap wrote:

Alien Overlord wrote:I've been to North Carolina-i'm fairly certain i visited a restaurant called Cracker Barrel while i was there. It was an interesting state

Unlike West Virginia

I have a love/hate relationship with Cracker Barrel.

Liriena wrote:Do it again, Uncle Billy!

Alien Overlord wrote:

The South Falls wrote:They are unequivocally traitors, which renders them un-American. There is no ambiguousness about it.

Ironically America was born from traitors to the British Crown. If we had lost, then it's likely the founding fathers would be looked down upon with far more disdain.

Alien Overlord wrote:

Ifreann wrote:So you agree that it does affect people in a meaningful way.

Why should people need to win a referendum before their state government respects them?


When was the referendum?

Or they can have the law repealed without a referendum.

I don't think it does, but i think there are people who could be easily offended by it nowadays.

Which is their right to be offended, and if they are so upset by these sort of things, then the best they can do is move away. However whether you are offended by something or not, that doesn't change your job opportunities or your ability to buy a house or support a family. A statue that you don't even have to look at or walk past or ever see, or a holiday you don't really have to celebrate doesn't affect you for longer than a day (in the case of the Holiday)-it's not going to affect your circumstances.

As long as it doesn't trail into actual discrimination, state governments do respect African Americans.

As mentioned before, you can be of color and still live a decent life without ever giving these sort of harmless things a second thought.

However using referendums for decisions like this ensures that the majority of a community is happy with a decision. No matter what decision is taken, someone is going to be unhappy-so the fairest way to go about things is to let the community sort these questions out themselves.

I'm advocating for a referendum that obviously hasn't happened yet. A referendum would clearly-mathematically determine the course of action that would result in the highest number of people within a community.

Tombradyonia wrote:

Liriena wrote:Do it again, Uncle Billy!

I really shouldn't say it but it's almost a shame the southerners didn't try to hold out for another month or two. Uncle Billy could have given Virginia the same treatment that Georgia and South Carolina got. I dare say the traitors got off light. In my opinion the entire political leadership, all the senior generals and state government leaders should have been hanged.

First American Empire wrote:

Kannap wrote:
Bring down every Confederate statue that's in the public plaza, change every school, bridge, street, etc. named after Confederate generals, take every Confederate flag off government flagpoles.

This. Also blow up Stone Mountain with a nuclear bomb. (Assuming there are no homes nearby, otherwise just blow it up with dynamite.)

Tombradyonia wrote:

Liriena wrote:Do it again, Uncle Billy!

I really shouldn't say it but it's almost a shame the southerners didn't try to hold out for another month or two. Uncle Billy could have given Virginia the same treatment that Georgia and South Carolina got. I dare say the traitors got off light. In my opinion the entire political leadership, all the senior generals and state government leaders should have been hanged.

Bear Stearns wrote:

Tombradyonia wrote:
I really shouldn't say it but it's almost a shame the southerners didn't try to hold out for another month or two. Uncle Billy could have given Virginia the same treatment that Georgia and South Carolina got. I dare say the traitors got off light. In my opinion the entire political leadership, all the senior generals and state government leaders should have been hanged.

The United States is an Anglo-Saxon democracy, not Tsarist Russia. We don't engage in that sort of barbarism.

Heloin wrote:

Bear Stearns wrote:The United States is an Anglo-Saxon democracy, not Tsarist Russia. We don't engage in that sort of barbarism.

Seeing that it put the final nail in the coffin for the Confederacy seems like it was a good idea.