"Most Whipped" Yearbook Photo Goes Awry

Prederick wrote:
SlyFrog wrote:

My point as to the intent of the passage being raised, the same response as is given for current forays into repressive regimes, religions and cultural systems, such as those found in the Middle East. "Women are often disenfranchised, are beaten and otherwise abused by men without any risk of repercussion, and may be stoned to death for having pre-marital sex. However, that's their 'culture/religion/society'. It is not our right to cast judgments or interfere. We're trying to impose our standards on them! Our morality shouldn't be their morality!"

Allright, now i'm flat-out confused. Are we giving other cultures/societies/religions a free pass now?

Yes, so long as they are not Western.

SlyFrog wrote:

My point as to the intent of the passage being raised, the same response as is given for current forays into repressive regimes, religions and cultural systems, such as those found in the Middle East. "Women are often disenfranchised, are beaten and otherwise abused by men without any risk of repercussion, and may be stoned to death for having pre-marital sex. However, that's their 'culture/religion/society'. It is not our right to cast judgments or interfere. We're trying to impose our standards on them! Our morality shouldn't be their morality!"

Prederick wrote:

Allright, now i'm flat-out confused. Are we giving other cultures/societies/religions a free pass now?

Yes, so long as they are not Western.

...wait, what?!? How in the hell did we get to Islam? WHY are we there? I don't... it....

Y'know, i'm going to do what many people smarter than me have done already and just call it quits on this one before I pull something in my brain, because i'm not making heads or tails of where this discussion is headed.

Prederick wrote:

...wait, what?!? How in the hell did we get to Islam? WHY are we there? I don't... it....

Y'know, i'm going to do what many smarter people have done before me and just call it quits on this one before I pull something.

Because you asked how people could defend degenerate practices, and I gave an example of an area where I believe it is occurring today. I am confident that in 500 years, many of the current practices of Islamic theocracies will be deemed as barbaric (or nearly so) as slavery.

I could potentially come up with examples that do not involve Islam if it makes it easier, I'd just have to think a little harder.

Pigpen, bringing the issues of the Industrial Revolution into a discussion about why the South was right... is retarded. No offense, I like you and all... but, please, give me a friggin' break.

The South was entirely ok with treating an ENTIRE ETHNICITY of people as though they were dogs. They were entirely fine with exploiting them! True, the majority of the people in the south were entirely fine with treating blacks like they were little more than pets and devices of free labor... but just because the majority of a group believes something is right, doesn't mean it IS right by ANY stretch of the imagination. Was their raping slaves ok then too? A lot of people thought that was ok. Or how bout killing them for the mistakes of the master... I'm sure that was ok too, right? Sounds a lot like how obviously the oppression of gay and lesbian rights is ok today... I mean, a lot of Americans BELIEVE it's ok, so of course it is.

Admittedly, the war was more about resources and trying to keep land they ... but has anyone faulted ANY country in history for doing that? I don't think so.

And yes, the North had problems with child labor and immigrant rights... but... who passed legislation to fix those things... oh look, THE NORTH.

Demosthenes wrote:

Pigpen, bringing the issues of the Industrial Revolution into a discussion about why the South was right... is retarded. No offense, I like you and all... but, please, give me a friggin' break.

Are you kidding? You cannot begin to understand the reasons behind and consequences of the War of Overwheening Merchants without discussing and understanding the Industrial Revolution and its impact.

It's not as though slavery alone started the war, or even that slavery was clearly the primary cause.

SlyFrog wrote:
Prederick wrote:

...wait, what?!? How in the hell did we get to Islam? WHY are we there? I don't... it....

Y'know, i'm going to do what many smarter people have done before me and just call it quits on this one before I pull something.

Because you asked how people could defend degenerate practices, and I gave an example of an area where I believe it is occurring today. I am confident that in 500 years, many of the current practices of Islamic theocracies will be deemed as barbaric (or nearly so) as slavery.

Okay. So we're agreeing everything we've listed is a degenerate practice, or do I need to re-read the last 10 posts?

Prederick wrote:
SlyFrog wrote:
Prederick wrote:

...wait, what?!? How in the hell did we get to Islam? WHY are we there? I don't... it....

Y'know, i'm going to do what many smarter people have done before me and just call it quits on this one before I pull something.

Because you asked how people could defend degenerate practices, and I gave an example of an area where I believe it is occurring today. I am confident that in 500 years, many of the current practices of Islamic theocracies will be deemed as barbaric (or nearly so) as slavery.

Okay. So we're agreeing everything we've listed is a degenerate practice, or do I need to re-read the last 10 posts?

Well yes. I think slavery is a degenerate practice. I, however, live in the West. I fully understand and can rationalize the concept of slavery as a perfectly legitimate means of economic production when I put on my "non-Western" or "non-20th/21st Century sensitivities" hat.

Actually, thinking more about it, I find the whole child labor thing rather amusing coming from Pigpen. PP, you ARE aware that children were forced to work in the South too, right? Admittedly, it was inhumane in both places... but at least children were making money in the North... I'd talk about beatings and such too for slave children... but the North didn't do a lot when it came to factory deaths at ANY level... soooooo, eh... that's too vulnerable a point to argue either side. *shrugs*

That said, while some of the resource mongering of the Industrial Revolution (and every period of time after it) definitely sparked part of the Civil War... OTHER results of the Industrial revolution don't really compare well to causes SEPARATE from those caused by the Industrial Revolution in my book. The Industrial Revolution caused both partly the Civil War and entirely the whole Child Labor problem... but comparing the South's treatment of Blacks versus the inherent problems of the Industrial Revolution WORLDWIDE (not just the Northern US), is kind of bogus sounding in my book.

Where in gods name did all of this revisionist history come from? Is it my fault??

If I asked you what the Civil War was started for and was about, it was one thing: The States right of secession. Slavery was not the driving factor, but it was an indirect factor in it. The North would have never gone to war just because of slavery. There were plently of economic as well as cultural differences that went towards it.

I thought Pigpen and Sly were kidding at first, and I cannot believe where this thread went.

And soldiers that were in an US fort just as South Carolina seceeded are not Yankees trying to invade and force their ways on you. Pulling out the Union and then declaring yourself a new country could be considered treason these days. Can you imagine if it happened today?

SlyFrog wrote:

Well yes. I think slavery is a degenerate practice. I, however, live in the West.

Yes, you live in the West. The stuff that is going on at Guantanamo, Abu Ghirab, and in Afghanistan is a WESTERN country doing this to people. That is degenerate practices as well. If you are going to criticize other people's culture look in the mirror first.

SlyFrog wrote:

Well yes. I think slavery is a degenerate practice. I, however, live in the West.

Mayfield wrote:

Yes, you live in the West. The stuff that is going on at Guantanamo, Abu Ghirab, and in Afghanistan is a WESTERN country doing this to people. That is degenerate practices as well. If you are going to criticize other people's culture look in the mirror first.

Why should I? I can criticize both. The fact that my society (although I question your first and third examples as being f*ck ups, and the second example as being a societal, cultural, or systemic problem in the West) is messing things up has nothing to do with whether another society is messed up. Where did I ever say we live in the land of lollipops and sunshine? What does that have to do with whether the Middle East is full of woman hating theocrats?

Mayfield wrote:

I thought Pigpen and Sly were kidding at first, and I cannot believe where this thread went.

Kidding about what? I'm starting to get genuinely confused now. If you are talking about slavery, then yes, I'm against it, and in all honesty, I believe the Civil War was justified (or at least the ends justified the means). I just like to use the name "War of Northern Aggression."

The entire point of all of this, for me, is that people who profess to have a "liberal" mind, don't. They instead are "liberal" in the sense of U.S. politics. A truly liberal mind would not have such an easy time respecting other cultures and viewpoints, but such a difficult time respecting other viewpoints and ideas in their own society.

A liberal mind would understand how, if we cannot criticize other cultures, religions, and societies that are non-Western because we would be *gasp* making value judgments, then we must also understand that we are making value judgments when we criticize things like slavery. If we make value judgments on slavery, we must make value judgments on the abuse of women, the oppression of religious and ethnic minorities in "fun" countries like Iran and Iraq, and the complete absence of any human or religious rights in those parts of the world. I for one cannot decry things that are wrong in the Western world, and not make similar pronouncements about the rest of the world's activity because I have some sort of fuzzy, academic love for the other and disgust for the self.

We are a hell of a lot further ahead than the bulk of the world; it's the fact that you won't get a bullet in the back of the brain here for bitching about Abu Gharib that shows this. I don't mind discussing things that can be improved, but people need to have common sense and lose the notion that what happens in this country is anywhere near the typical state of the rest of the world.

*

This thread is a total buzzkill

It has baited me though. No one who does not cause direct harm to someone else should be stoned to death regardless of "cultural mores". Its not a morality issue, its a "its not the middle ages, act like a 21st century civilized human being" issue.

If I asked you what the Civil War was started for and was about, it was one thing: The States right of secession. Slavery was not the driving factor, but it was an indirect factor in it. The North would have never gone to war just because of slavery. There were plently of economic as well as cultural differences that went towards it.

Close. Slavery was the driving factor for secession. The North would never have gone to war because of it - but the South was dragged into it because of the slavery issue, by the actions of South Carolina.

This is well documented. After all, answer me this question - why did the states want to secede in the first place? It was not a general desire to preserve the right to secede; it was the desire not to be dictated to on the issue of slavery. This was a huge economic issue as well as representative of a social one.

Without the issue of slavery, secession would never have been contemplated. There's a huge literature of revisionism that started in the 1870's and extended well into the 20th century that tries to paint the conflict as not about slavery, but if you read the material of the times, it was a huge issue, and it directly precipitated the issue of secession being raised in Congress.

Nota bene - I had relatives on both sides. The two I know about from North Carolina fought in a cavalry unit, one being killed and his brother losing a foot. Another more distantly related relative ran an artillery unit from Louisiana that participated in numerous actions, including support of Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. I'm not condemning the soldiers of the South, or even the politicians. But we should understand what happened and why, in order to get a true look at our past, as far as we can.

Robear wrote:

This is well documented. After all, answer me this question - why did the states want to secede in the first place? It was not a general desire to preserve the right to secede; it was the desire not to be dictated to on the issue of slavery. This was a huge economic issue as well as representative of a social one.

Which was a states rights issue. Do you really think that the US was going to change the Constitution to ban slavery without the Civil war? Nope, the political will was not present. It took the South to make the first move, which was take their ball and go home.

Please do recommend some reading material from both sides of the issue so I can decide otherwise, but I still believe it was all about the minority of states being dictated to by the majority, and not liking it.

All I'm saying is that, dress it up as you like it, slavery was the only issue that was regarded this seriously. Without that issue, secession would not have been needed. Slavery was the proximal issue, and secession was the mechanism to escape what we might call "the tyranny of the majority". Even in Lincoln's immediate responses to the first actions that led to the war, slavery is the underlying theme, and the very fact that he addressed Southerner's worry about their "property, peace and personal security" in the first substantive sentence of his inaugural address shows this. In the next paragraph, he states that he has no desire to interfere with the institution of slavery. Then he immediately offers a resolution that reaffirms the rights of states to control their domestic affairs and be safe from invasion; something that I read as a rejection of the border raiding that was occuring at the time. He promises to give protection to all "sections" of the country equally.

Then he addresses the question of the "delivering up of fugitives from service or labor" and quotes the Constitution where it says that such shall be returned. He notes that this is intended to deal with fugitive slaves, and then raises the issues of why there is no Federal law regarding this, how to prevent free men from being sold into slavery, and what to do if this conflicts with another state's rights.

He then riffs on the idea that the Union is perpetual by reason of no nation ever having put it's own method of demise into it's founding documents. He argues that if any state has the right to secede, the idea of creating "a more perfect Union" is violated. So he sets a limit on state's rights. He argues, indeed, that states that will secede from one Union, will secede from the next, and so secession is essentially anarchistic. With all the checks and balances protecting the minority, he sees no need for secession.

He ties up the argument, but those are the essential points. Put this in context. Lincoln, coming into power after years of controversy, states in his inaugural address that he sees no need to address any issues that are not of "special excitement, or anxiety". He then discusses various issues related to slavery, and the use of the state's rights argument to justify secession based on the differences in laws about slavery in different states.

The state's rights argument descends from the controversies over slavery. They were economic, social, cultural and religious in nature, but they were about slavery. The exercise of secession was to protect the South's institution of slavery, for various reasons; it was not a *general* assertion of state's rights over Federal, an abstract argument; it was directly related to slavery front and center.

What books to read? Just look at the speeches in Congress and by the candidates in the period of, say, 1858 to 1861 and judge for yourself. There are plenty online. Lincoln's 1861 Inaugural Address is at
http://millercenter.virginia.edu/scr...

I can honestly say it's all just good fun from the students' perspective, and yeah, I think we're really making some progress to have kids who could make this kind of picture without keeping in mind slavery and oppression. Still, there's covert racism. Everybody supresses their innermost racist thoughts because they try to abide to political correctness, and all that's left is the relatively innocuous racial profiles which political correctness isn't specific enough to catch, and which they thought were neutral or even beneficial to the minorities and the oppressed. And then there's the general tendency for people to think that racism doesn't exist anymore. Maybe there are still few distinct cases that come out on the news, but in our everyday life? "No sir, no racism in our neighborhood."

Isn't the effort of recalling all the yearbooks yet another proof of this phenomenon? Nevermind what the picture is really about, we're afraid to admit that the U.S. is still a racist country, and even more afraid to let others know about it. Nobles recalled the books for all the wrong reason. "I know it's supposed to be in fun, but there are people still having trouble with African-Americans' past and this will be offensive." Once again, I see an admittance only to past mistakes and no mentioning of the current state of affairs.

So if I can just play the devil's advocate here, and say, going against most previous poster's opinion, that it's good such a rare event has come to our attention, that we shouldn't readily pass it off as something harmless, that we evaluate it critically in an efforct to detect any signs of covert racism, and only after doing so can we really say "Yeah, it's just horse play." Some people are going to think this is dumb, and think that it's not worth all those trouble to filter everything they see in terms of racism, but I think it's a necesary exercise that works against government's effort to blind us from it. As for the pictures, keep them. They're excellent examples of how students of this gneneration grasp the concept of racism and sexism.

Could be a double post, but since this one regards a completely different sub-topic...

I don't see anything immediately wrong with the Southerners' perspective on slavery. Keep in mind, slavery has been practiced by many people in many disctinct cultures and eras. Judging from that, we can safely say that our current perspective that dictates slavery is wrong is not innate. There is nothing about slavery that goes against our innate instinct. Subjugating a set group of human beings into the purest form of servant class may seem immoral, because no sane person is willing to put himself/herself in such a situation, but fuctionalists can definitely argue that those actions are necessary to carry out a society's maximum function. The lowest class will not only provide a basic psycho-socio service to the higher classes, they are also more resilient and durable to a variety of conditions, which would greatly enhance the society's flexibility. In otherwords, there are dirty works to be done, and somebody has to do them. So just taking the broad look at slavery, it's really more about practicality than morality.

With America, it's different. I vaguely recall something about every person having equal opportunity to freedom, something, and pursuit of happiness and such. Now it's all a matter of principle. You can't keep this doctrine and condone slavery at the same time, thus promoting yourself to the divine status of ultimate hypcracy. Now it's time to "modify". But what, exactly, do we change? Considering how the doctrines are what successfully take us away from British tyranny on the logics front, so we can submit to our own, the doctrines seems indispensible. So it's slavery that we had to change. Political conflicts aside, It's really all about principle.