Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

I admit I get too angry when people yell at me.

It would PROBABLY work better if I just calmly unpacked my weird posts. I just feel so isolated...

(@Neo: Not wanting to press the point, but I've been looking for "April Fool is racist" references, given it clashed with what I already thought I knew. Closest I've come is loose association between blackface (not necessarily racist) Morris Dancing being a springtime (only proximate to 1st/4th) tradition. Even going into Poisson d'Avril and other non-anglocentric varieties, I can't see obvious way you were heading. But I probably misread, hence why no reply before.)

It is possibly false... But April Fools is related to the tradition of pulling pranks on people who celebrate New Years on April 1st instead of January 1st.

Given I only heard it once, it might be fictitious... and sorry I kept meaning to respond to you, I just never got around to it (and got derailed a bit)

[Max™]

I kinda headcanon it that you were raised by wolves, hence the random diversions to different subjects and strange method of interacting with these hairless apes they call hyoo-manz.

[Starver]

It is possibly false...

Yeah, that's a tenuous one. Even if fundamentally true, it seems a post hoc explanation (given that it isn't even post hoc ergo proctor hoc), It's better than the Boskin answer (that was an April Fool's hoax itself), but likely still comes from a 'springtime fever' tradition of post-scarcity/post-hardship mutual social bonding within a community.

Still, it's an interesting thing to speculate upon. Even if likely unanswerable with any certainty. (I was wondering if the US tradition had got tied up with colonial matters, however, in ways I was unfamiliar. Like the way you took Guising/Mumming and made it into the phenomenon that so recently has come back to us.)

[Neonivek]

I kinda headcanon it that you were raised by wolves, hence the random diversions to different subjects and strange method of interacting with these hairless apes they call hyoo-manz.

I guess I could try a bit harder to make easier to understand posts... I should have "Advanced post week"

[Dorsidwarf]

I find neo irritating because he rapidly bounces between outlandish claims with little evidence backed up by throwing out ludicrous strawmen personally. It makes it very hard to actually consider his views in a positive light, especially due to ththe fact that what he means isn't often exactly what he posts.

[wobbly]

Maaaaaybe my point has something to do with the fact that even though the south was "Whipped back in line" they are still treated as if they are an enemy and still treated as though they were completely conquered and consistently kept down in terms of trying to redevelop their culture... AND considered the equivalent of Nazis.

That maybe through absurdum I am saying: "Hey, maybe you should just finish the job." in a sarcastic tone.

& thats liable to continue as long as the southern culture continues to still have a decent chunk of something that is culturally that ugly. Unfair or not I have little sympathy here: put a good effort in to fixing these problems, or creating something else the south can be proud of, otherwise expect to be seen that way.

The reputation is there because of still existing issues. Everywhere has a history of doing crap stuff, places that have good reputation have it because they dealt with the worst of their shit.

[Neonivek]

I doubt anything the south could do would be good enough or be seen in a positive light.

[wobbly]

I doubt anything the south could do would be good enough or be seen in a positive light.

Nah, there's pretty much an infinite no. of things it could do that would be seen in a positive light.
Should I clarify that statement or should I just play the same game you do, Neo?

[Neonivek]

I doubt anything the south could do would be good enough or be seen in a positive light.

Nah, there's pretty much an infinite no. of things it could do that would be seen in a positive light.
Should I clarify that statement or should I just play the same game you do, Neo?

Why? You are being quite clear, I am not sure even what you are referring to.

You are giving a vague opinion not meant to be specific.

[wobbly]

I doubt anything the south could do would be good enough or be seen in a positive light.

Nah, there's pretty much an infinite no. of things it could do that would be seen in a positive light.
Should I clarify that statement or should I just play the same game you do, Neo?

Why? You are being quite clear, I am not sure even what you are referring to.

Rofl. gotta pay that it's due.

[misko27]

I, on the other hand, would like to remind everyone about the difference between talking to people and talking at people. It's possible to talk without complaining about people's personality.

I doubt anything the south could do would be good enough or be seen in a positive light.

I think part of it is that the South got off relatively easy. Sure the war itself was horrible and bloody (so are all wars) but the Radical Republicans who wanted to go all Treaty-of-Versailles on the south didn't get their way. And despite this relative forgiveness, Confederate nationalism (which is really the right word for it in my opinion: if you are implying that there is a distinct southern heritage that was embodied in the Confederacy much more closely than in the United States, that's essentially a nationalism centered on the Confederacy), still remained strong and influential for a very long time.

[Playergamer]

"Relatively easy"

not like the entire economy was destroyed and entire cities burned to the ground.

And I'd like to point out that the official casus belli for the Civil War was the shelling of Fort Sumter, not secession.

[Neonivek]

Honestly I feel like I am just sort of dancing in a circle because I wrack my mind but I can't really see a solution, or at least a practical one that is different than what we are currently doing... Maybe it just needs more time. (referring to fixing relationships with the south without, in the same breath, inviting racism).

*Ninjaed*

[EnigmaticHat]

"Relatively easy"

not like the entire economy was destroyed and entire cities burned to the ground.

And I'd like to point out that the official casus belli for the Civil War was the shelling of Fort Sumter, not secession.

The occupation didn't go as planned because of Lincoln's VP taking over.  The intent was go a few years with the south under military rule and forcefully integrate the freed slaves.  Instead southern generals and soldiers were given amnesty almost immediately, the Southern states were re-added to congress with no fuss, and southern cops were given autonomy.  Hence sharecropping, vote suppression and the KKK.

That interpretation treats the confederacy as a separate nation rather than rebels in a civil war.  The north didn't have or need a reason to start the war because they didn't start the war; the southern rebels did by being rebels.

[misko27]

"Relatively easy"

not like the entire economy was destroyed and entire cities burned to the ground.

I think part of it is that the South got off relatively easy. Sure the war itself was horrible and bloody (so are all wars) but the Radical Republicans who wanted to go all Treaty-of-Versailles on the south didn't get their way. And despite this relative forgiveness, Confederate nationalism (which is really the right word for it in my opinion: if you are implying that there is a distinct southern heritage that was embodied in the Confederacy much more closely than in the United States, that's essentially a nationalism centered on the Confederacy), still remained strong and influential for a very long time.

I specifically went out of my way to address this ahead of time and I still get hit for it.

Yes, the war was and remained the bloodiest war in American history. But wars are like that. All wars are terrible. But so are some peaces, and the peace the Confederacy got was fairly mild all things considered. Yes, the period after is called the Reconstruction, but it was Reconstruction, not, you know, leaving the South for dead or imposing a brand new order from on high. I mean given that the Radical Republicans in Congress were 1 vote shy of removing a President from office for preventing them from going to town on the South, I feel safe it calling it "relatively soft/easy/mild." Consider the alternatives...