Sundays in the South mean...
The Chain of Parks Art Festival, one of the biggest in the Southeast. Some wonderful artists displayed their wares.
Columns like Gerald Ensley's "Fly your Confederate flag; just don't ask me to salute it" is inspiring on days like this. Mark Hinson's entry in "For Amusement Purposes Only" this week is heartwarming and funny. I love this town.
Time to give props to Scott. This story is well-written, if elongated, and I think a bigger point is overlooked (or maybe, since the point is much more serious, underlooked). These extreme Islamic extremist terrorists hate anyone who isn't them, even Danes who draw some stupid cartoons. Liberals who criticize American because we have "fascist leaders" and "only have the freedom between Coke and Pepsi" and all this bullshit are more full of shit than our commander in chief, and that's saying something. Not to imply he speaks for all liberals or the entire far-left, but David Cross once said "if the terrorists really hated freedom then the Netherlands would be fuckin' DUST, man." Now that possibility is closer than ever. To reluctantly borrow from Bush, the terrorists kind of do "hate freedom" or, really, anyone who isn't them or doesn't conform strictly to their standards of living. In that way, they are no better than Nazis or the Klu Klux Klan.
5 Comments:
Wow, all this attention I'm getting. Thank you. I guess what really bothered me more than anything was that Americans seemed so willing to give in.
The Civil War was much, much deeper than slavery. It was ultimately a difference in lifestyle — the slower, laid back South versus the faster, hustle-bustle of the North — that led to the secession, and slavery was merely a catalyst (the only right they could claim as a state right). Tensions were growing from Northern lawmakers and influentials dictating the country's future, and the South felt poorly represented. I'm somewhat appalled this article is either a) misquoting, or b) found the least educated Civil War professors in Florida. The abolitionist movement had deep-seeded racist intent itself: Northerners didn't want blacks in the new territories. Lincoln only made abolition a goal when he realized the South's right to freedom — like the colonies in 1776 — entitled other countries to intervene on their behalf. The North would lose. So to call the Civil War a war over slavery is not only inaccurate, it is irresponsible. A terrible, terrible article.
um...
huh?
An intellegent response, you ask? Well, I'd love to:
First off, it took me a second to realize just what you were talking about. I'm assuming you're speaking of Ensley's column.
Slavery was, and still is, just as economic as it was social in the form of "lifestyle." Blatantly saying "slavery" as the answer to "why did we fight the Civil War?" is perfectly fine, though "tariffs" might be the right-brained, economists' answer. To assume the South's slavery and the North's abolitionism is ideological, though, certainly isn't the entire story.
Oh, and I don't know who you are, but thanks for readin'.
Got here via Metacritic.
Post a Comment
<< Home