Guns, Guns Guns

MAD-4A wrote:

Daryl wrote:My comment about the declaration not including slaves or women was more about pointing out that the US founders meant very different things in their writing than a modern reader might appreciate; and thus That may apply to other parts of the documents.

This is true, but you can't scorn them for that - they didn't come up with that attitude - it was handed down from 10's of 1000s of years, since before the beginning of homo-sapiens, we have only recently (in living memory) developed a social stigma against racism. Where do you think Orcs, Ogres and Elves come from? Past down from wars between Homo-sapiens (Elves) Vs. Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal - or Orcs/Ogres) through oral history. The lines blurred through kidnapping, slavery & "forced mating" mixing the gene pool. Ogres do still exist (Sylvester Stallone - not the best example but best on short notice Vs. Emilia Clarke)

Actually, as I understand racism (and race-based slavery) as we understand it today is a relatively modern phenomenon.

Donnachaidh wrote:He completely ignored the industrialization that was already beginning in the North that the South hadn't even begun. A lot of of the reason the South lost was because the North had more men and could better equip them (due to industrialization). Without the ability to overwhelm the South with manufacturing, the North wouldn't have won; the average soldier for the South was way more effective in combat than the average soldier for the North (especially during the early stages of the war).

I did not "ignore" it. Northern industrialization was not producing wealth at that time, as explained, the Rum factories were running out of customers (with fewer & fewer slave ships purchasing their goods) and were converting to textiles but were unable to elbow their way into the foreign (or southern)markets due to the English textile industry holding a near monopoly & HQ southern cotton going there. The Northern industrial revolution actually got its push with the war. As for manpower, the north did not have the overwhelming superiority alluded to, though they did have some early advantage due to the number of unemployed immigrants in Boston & NY at the start of the war. The overwhelming numbers were from actually Germany and France, who were able to be recruited into the northern ports when the south was blockaded, a result of so-many former US ships siding with the north (and all the former northern slave ship crews looking for work).

Donnachaidh wrote:Also he has come right up to the edge of claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery.

I didn't? oh, an oversight. the issue of slavery was one issue of many which pushed the south to succession. the main one was tariffs (as stated earlier) on cotton to force the south to sale to the north instead of England. Slavery just has the dubious distinction of being the last straw, which is what everyone remembers.

Donnachaidh wrote:Also don't mistake Lincoln's positions, he flat out said that if he could win the war without freeing a slave he would and he was an advocate for sending all blacks to Africa (not back to where they actually came from, just back to the continent) to just get rid of the issue.

Quite right, though his plan was to send them to South America, take over a small section no-one (except local indigs of-course) was using and dump them all off there as a new "black" colony.

Eyal wrote:Actually, as I understand racism (and race-based slavery) as we understand it today is a relatively modern phenomenon.

not at all - it just became more & more pronounced as the various races became more mobile & intermixing became more prominent. a 12th century Viking would be just as racist as a 19th century peasant they just had little to no exposure to non-white people (not unlike a poor person in an all white town in 1920s rural Idaho) they may know of black people (for example) existing but never met one their whole life. Even the American Indians were racist "pale face". And against each other, several tribe names that were recorded were actually remarks from another tribe that was asked who they are,
such as:
Apalachicola - "People Of The Other Side"
Apalachee & Cherokee - "People Of Different Speech" (Creek Word)
Mohawk - "Man Eater" (Abenaki Word)
Pima - "I Don't Know" (Papago Word)
Chipwyan - "Pointed Skins" (Cree Word)
Yuki - "Stranger" (Wintun Word)
Chontal - "Stranger" (Nahuatl Word)
Comanche - "Anyone Who Wants To Fight Me All The Time" (Ute Word)
Apache - "Enemy" (Zuni Word)
The Aztecs were notorious for kidnapping and brutal sacrifices of members of surrounding "non-Aztec" tribes.
I saw a documentary which stated one tribes name (can't remember which) - actually means "them" or "not us" in another tribes language but couldn't find that listed - depends on the source - but the points the same - racism is the "natural" state (fear of the unknown/different) - but that just means that
non-racism is the "civilized" state.

MAD-4A wrote:... racism is the "natural" state (fear of the unknown/different) - but that just means that
non-racism is the "civilized" state.

"Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we are put in this world to rise above." -- Katherine Hepburn as Rosie in "The African Queen"

dscott8 wrote:"Nature, Mr. Allnutt, is what we are put in this world to rise above." -- Katherine Hepburn as Rosie in "The African Queen"

good quote

Eyal wrote:
Actually, as I understand racism (and race-based slavery) as we understand it today is a relatively modern phenomenon.

That is probably correct yes.

WE and THEM separation is a common group psychology thing, but basing it on proclaimed "race" is more a thing of the last few hundred years.

Prejudice against specific people were not uncommon, but against specific groups of people based solely on looks, rare.

MAD-4A wrote:This is true, but you can't scorn them for that - they didn't come up with that attitude - it was handed down from 10's of 1000s of years, since before the beginning of homo-sapiens, we have only recently (in living memory) developed a social stigma against racism. Where do you think Orcs, Ogres and Elves come from? Past down from wars between Homo-sapiens (Elves) Vs. Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal - or Orcs/Ogres) through oral history. The lines blurred through kidnapping, slavery & "forced mating" mixing the gene pool. Ogres do still exist (Sylvester Stallone - not the best example but best on short notice Vs. Emilia Clarke)

Seriously...

a 12th century Viking would be just as racist as a 19th century peasant they just had little to no exposure to non-white people (not unlike a poor person in an all white town in 1920s rural Idaho) they may know of black people (for example) existing but never met one their whole life.

Yes, because that would work so well when they travelled south(or far east) to trade...

Hmm, lets see, if you look at accounts from Arabs, Asians and Africans about Vikings, are they in any way depicted as racist(as in automatically prejudiced against those looking different) against them?

Oh right, the answer is NO. In fact the answer is more likely the specific opposite.

As that was one of several reasons why Vikings were highly regarded as mercenaries, especially by the Arabs, they had no trouble getting along with anyone and didn´t break contracts once entered.

The Aztecs were notorious for kidnapping and brutal sacrifices of members of surrounding "non-Aztec" tribes.
I saw a documentary which stated one tribes name (can't remember which) - actually means "them" or "not us" in another tribes language but couldn't find that listed - depends on the source - but the points the same - racism is the "natural" state (fear of the unknown/different) - but that just means that
non-racism is the "civilized" state.

There is a major difference between group psychology in general and racism specifically.

Tenshinai wrote:

Eyal wrote:
Actually, as I understand racism (and race-based slavery) as we understand it today is a relatively modern phenomenon.

That is probably correct yes.

WE and THEM separation is a common group psychology thing, but basing it on proclaimed "race" is more a thing of the last few hundred years.

Prejudice against specific people were not uncommon, but against specific groups of people based solely on looks, rare.

I've always maintained that if the human race can somehow divide people up into two groups via something real, or imagined, then they'll be right dicks to each other.
Be it race, religion, or football team.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

This newspaper article has a good summary on "The blue eyed experiment".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/0 ... =Australia

You can google more but basically there have been a number of experiments from Oprah to 8 year old school students, where people were segregated by eye colour, and the blue eyed members were then discriminated against. The results were so dramatic that unless participants were extensively debriefed it caused problems later on. The blue eyed ones behaved like resentful victims, and the others behaved like racists.

If no one has a gun but the gunman, no one can fight back, and no one can stop the gunman from killing people.

From:

http://conservativetribune.com/obama-gu ... 2015-10-04

There used to be a tradition, (too often violated in practice) of the Christian Knight - a defender of the weak, loyal, a fighter against the evil ones, etc. Look at the knights of the round table legends.

Note that productive work requires defenders in our present world, otherwise the crooks and thugs take over. Those with the weapons and the knowledge of how to use them tend to determine who gets defended, whether the people, or the big shots.