8 Ole Miss Recruits stay home to avoid KKK rally

Sorry, I didn't realize Ole Miss was a state school. Tax supported institutions do have a higher obligation to be inclusive, non-discriminatory, and accessible, though I still wouldn't classify the mascot and song as discriminatory. Despite LakeErie's protestations to the contrary.

Imisswally, I think that means people have a right to their opinion, and to speak or print it, BUT that we've got no right to compel our neighbor to change his opinion, nor does anyone owe us a mic, a cable show, or a weekly opinion column. Even if your ideas have merit, persuasion and the means thereof are your own responsibility.

And I agree with TSIP4LIFE.


In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Very informed response. I really thought this thread would die off. But, as long as it is academic:

I encourage you to view D.W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation after reading C. Vann Woodward. Then relate Kenneth Stampp and his view of the causes to the progressive historians. Throwing out the "revisionist" tag unwittingly ignores that there have been several changes in theory and accepted view points since the war ended. Whig interpretations of the war are different from that of people like yourself that view economic factors as more important. Contemporary abolitionist (what we would probably call liberals today) viewed slavery as the single most reprehensible aspect of American society. Which view is wrong? Which is right?

To end by saying that history is being re-written ignores that every reading of history relies on another's interpretation. Today, in Japan, there is an overt effort to ignore the country's role in attacking the United States. This has been the case since WWII ended. Would you consider a move by Japanese scholars to include Japanese atrocities in Korea and China as well as the attack on Pearl Harbor as "revisionist"? For the oldest generation of Japanese it certainly would be.

Without revisionism we lose the role of women in Colonial History, Blacks in the American West and the fact that Columbus might have had a negative impact on natives in the Caribbean. We accept things as truth now that were once ignored. George Washington more than likely did not chop down a cherry tree and it is unlikely the stories of Daniel Boone's exploits are legitimate.

I don't deny that there was political wrangling over tariff's and such prior to the Civil War, but to claim that the institution of slavery was not the basic moral dilemma facing the country at the time ignores the vast majority of historians from any point of view.

Once again, just what was the "way of life" Southerners were trying to defend? What was the Great Compromise all about? Was the Dred Scott case simply a resistance to the redistribution of wealth?
 
people then had their own compartmentalized concerns. current day Americans can view the situation as very simple, extremely complicated, or various points in the middle .. one legitimate point is that the American white man literally gutted himself from 1861-65. that's a longtime to "butcher" one another .. one way that I show recognition and reverence is to remind people about the very real physical toil these people went through. It ain't pc, but so what! "pc" is the opposite of intellectual pursuit. not saying there's not a certain wisdom to it(like what one writes on a football recruiting board), but I might understand if I had been born, in Texas in 1844, I would've been in the Rebel army having to march to extreme exhaustion and sickness, and fight all over the South(not much fighting on Northern soil, boys) .. it's beyond "ok" to show reverence for the Southern soldier, it's just as important as showing reverence for the suffering of an African boy, man, girl or woman, being sold to a Slaver by a black African chieftan, or any other black African treating their own people like cattle.
 
Certainly history must be gleaned, as even contemporary sources will interpret and record the events with their own bias. Understood. By revisionist history I merely mean scrubbing/censoring/sanitizing away historical facts and sources that do not support one's opinion, with the intention of painting a biased picture. The myths about the Civil War are greater in sum than the truths, in my opinion. I'm no scholar, just very interested in freedom.

Painting all those who sympathize with the CSA cause with such a broad brush is wrong. Read some more about the antebellum south; the cultural, economic, and social variances with the north were profound and unmistakable. The division was far more than just slave vs non-slave, they were in many ways like two different countries...before secession. I try to be color blind, and I'd like to think I would have been an abolitionist calling for the end of evil institution of slavery during the time of the War of Northern Aggression
wink.gif
after the mold of Lysander Spooner or <gasp!> Robert E Lee.

In a very real sense, perception is reality. And Ole Miss might be compelled to capitulate due to the massive public ignorance that exists about this subject. But it's still sad to me. I certainly can't hold it against the recruits, who like myself are vict..er, I mean, products of our public school system.
 
Excellent posts. I did not learn about nullification and the Corwin amendment until I went to UT. Two years ago, I asked 11 high school seniors to give the primary reason for WWII in Europe. Four of the eleven responded that the war in Europe was due to the Holocaust. The simplifying of history in public schools is abhorrent.
 
My UT history professor described the average northern as someone who "welcomed a market economy but wanted to restrain the individualism and disorder it created by enforcing cultural and moral values derived from Puritan tradition."

He then described the average southerner as "free thinkers, backwoods farmers, and those of all classes... one thing these groups had in common was a desire to be left alone, free of restrictions on their freedom to think and behave as they liked."

One group established a "government: of the people, by the people, for the people." One group made sure that government "perished from the earth," after an invasion.

Both groups condoned the terrible act of slavery. The leader of one group wanted to ship all African Americans out of America to Liberia.

Neither the north nor the south were Nazis. I just find it interesting that of the two the South is the one that is accused of being Nazis.

On a side note, I am a proud Mississippi Choctaw American Indian. The NCAA tried to make Mississippi College change its mascot from the Choctaw. After much protest from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, Mississippi College was allowed to retain its Choctaw mascot. I never understand the campaign to remove American Indians as mascots. First let me say that just because one American Indian or American Indian Tribe wants to remove an American Indian mascot DOESN'T MEAN WE ALL FEEL THE SAME WAY. I have also never understood how someone with NO American Indian connection can be offended by an American Indian mascot. Last I would like to say my American Indian great great grandmother married my great great grandfather a white confederate soldier (a confederate soldier taking part in an interracial marriage
eek.gif
). My full-blooded Choctaw great great great grandfather fought for the confederacy and I don't appreciate it when people call my American Indian great great grandfather a Nazi.

Fun Fact: A jewish man, Judah P. Benjamin, served as confederate secretary of state, secretary of war and attorney general.
 
You know you've won the day when a guy pulls out the ol' slippery slope "can't say Christmas anymore" beef.

Some people hold on tight to warm little fictions, thinking they are memories. It's what brings conservatism, an otherwise necessary and intelligent outlook, down.

Lake Erie with the win
 
What Nick said.

And Bear, you persist with the idea that Northern and Southern companies were in direct competition with each other. That is patently untrue. Completely different economies. And the North benefited greatly from slave labor, with cheap cotton going straight to the looms of struggling Northern textiles, and ships heavy laden with Southern raw goods headed out of Boston and New York ports. The sole reason slavery was not favored in the industrial and (relatively) heavily-populated Northern states is there was a shortage of jobs and the white working class did not want to compete with slave (or free black) labor.

The major source of North-South friction arose from the fledgling Northern industries' need of support from a strong federal government in the form of tariffs, loopholes, and regulations, in order to thrive. (British goods were often cheaper and better quality than US goods.) The South contrariwise was not dependent on federal government policy to succeed (with the notable exception of fugitive slave laws and such like), and usually suffered from any federal govt meddling. The South thusly regarded Northern industrialist lobbying and central economic planning with contempt. In short, the South merely wanted to be left alone, and there was tremendous philosophical opposition to a strong federal govt, such as Lincoln represented.

And yes, I'll admit that the southern agricultural economy was integrally connected with slave labor, and they vehemently supported their "right" to it. If that's all you're saying, you'll get no argument from me. However, if anyone wants to argue that the abolitionist movement was mainstream, OR that there was a consensus among northern interests to rid the deep South of slavery, you've got a tough row to hoe. Too many people benefited from the practice economically.

And I'll thrown in a token Ole Miss reference here, just out of deference to the OP.
wink.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top