Sick To My Stomach - Memphis City Council is Illegally Removing Historic Statue

Nothing, what's wrong with you?

I think that you continue using terms like "both sides" to describe a story that at the very least involves three. So if you say that you learned this at school or college, and also say that what you learned was true, then at least one of those things is false. Did you notice that you broke off the conversation at this point twice before over the last two days and later claimed it hadn't happened?

That doesn't answer the question.

Yes, it does. You claimed that your account of the Civil War is what you learned at college, and that your college taught you well. But your account of the Civil War is deeply ideological. So either you are wrong about that version being taught at your college, or you are wrong about your college teaching you well.

The question is whether or not you believe my account of my upbringing, not whether or not what I was taught is right or wrong.

Do you believe I am telling the truth that I was taught one thing in high school and another in college or do you think I am lying?

Of course I believe that, but that isn't all you said in that post, and not the reason why it's rated a fantasy.

better than this guy!


https://view.yahoo.com/show/saturday-night-live/clip/4954858/colonel-angus-comes-home

In North MS, not only was the Noble Lost Cause mythology as much an assumed "everybody knows" thing as why we celebrate Easter (both inside and outside the classroom) and almost universally still is, but when I was in college - in THIS century being educated to be a history teacher, I was being taught the same stuff by my college prof. I'll wager that if you go out on the street in any state of the old confederacy as well as several other red states from Kansas to Kentucky and survey people over 50 you'll find that well over 90% of them beliee that mythology over the facts.

From having grown up in that, the rationalizations are easy
The story indicates God supernaturally brought all these animals to them and likewise supernaturally flooded the earth, therefore any rational objection you might offer is easily explained by "god did it"

Also, the "proto-fox" notion is exactly what is believed, even going back to the original creation (I've literally taught this myself back in the day) because they do not deny micro-evolution, they can't lest they deny that there's more than one breed of dog, rather the claim is that God literally, as Genesis says, made every animal "after their kind" which is read to mean literally a proto-canine that over time diverged into wolf, Fox, dog, etc. The claim is that evolution from one "kind" to another is what is a lie.

http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/967

and in case you think that being 35 years old that's outdated...

http://www.bpnews.net/44205/length-of-creation-days-debated

to clarify, literally everyone I ever heard address the topic until I was well into adulthood (possibly until I started interacting online) held to the Maud Dib version of the War and that can't be the case except that what happens in the classroom supports it
*the South wasn't fighting for slavery but states rights
*most Southerners didn't own slaves os al those soldiers couldn't have ben fighting for slavery
*the North caused the war by invading when all the South wanted to do was leave in peace
*Southern boys enlisted to defend their homes and families not to fight for slavery
*Southern general were almost always fine Christian men who treated their slaves well and saw slavery as a necessary evil which they hated
*Northern general were always ungodly drunken murderous bastards
and so forth

I didn't hear so much about Evil Lincoln then as some speak now but otherwise...

After the last year, there's a part of me that wishes we had just cut their asses loose and been done with it. We could've abolish slavery in the border states and given a citizenship deal to any blacks that crossed into America much like we do with Cubans now and let the Confderate States descend into White Afghanistan...then invade it when we figured out there was oil in Texas

Then there’s no reason for the fantasy rep, since it’s not a fantasy, but a real thing that happened.

No. You cut away the rest of that sentence because you didn't want to see it, but it's there and it remains true. You are describing a fantasy and desperately trying to look away from what is wrong with it. You sound like a person saying aliens have landed in his garden, and when others point out you are hallucinating, you ask whether we doubt that you have a garden.

[/quote] The "proto-fox" notion is exactly what is believed, even going back to the original creation (I've literally taught this myself back in the day) because they do not deny micro-evolution, they can't lest they deny that there's more than one breed of dog, rather the claim is that God literally, as Genesis says, made every animal "after their kind" which is read to mean literally a proto-canine that over time diverged into wolf, Fox, dog, etc. The claim is that evolution from one "kind" to another is what is a lie.[/quote]

Breeds of dogs are pretty easy to see the variations, because they are still the same species (dog). Anyway let's assume that all the different species we see today came from the different "kinds" that could fit (and survive) on the ark for an extended period. That "micro-evolution" would still take hundreds of thousands of years at a minimum! Even for a proto-deer (one "kind" on the ark) to adapt into elk, white tail deer, moose and every other member of the deer family in north america alone would take hundreds of thousands of years. Mule deer to black tail deer are closely related so that might take a few thousand years at the quickest.
Wait, I can predict the response to that god only did the rapid adaptation thing for a few thousand years right after the ark hit dry land, then stopped it right before science discovered paleontology, biology, chemistry, etc. Yeah, that's the ticket!

I for one doubt that Federal Fuckhead has gone to college yet.

Whereas in NY we were taught that Lincoln was a great hero who freed the slaves and I believe there's some truth to the fact that, had he not been assassinated, many of the evils of Reconstruction (particularly the carpetbaggers) might have been avoided. There's also some truth to the Delusion of War, namely that "we'll put those ragtag rebels down in a couple of weeks." No one foresaw the carnage.

Same mistake was made in WWI.

What fantasy am I describing?

The sad part is that I bet dollars to donuts that Federal Farmer doesn't realize he is a walking talking billboard for Black History Month.

Seriously a third time? Ok then:

Yeah, I didn't figure out my family was Lutheran until I was in my 30s and at my uncle's funeral. It was only the minister's (I think they're called that?) collar being all renaissance like that tipped me off because we aren't really observant.

I dunno, the fact you deduced it from the minister's collar shows that you are fairly observant

If I were teaching a class on the civil war, then I would talk about slavery, prominent slaves and slave uprisings, how slaves were treated ( and yes there were benevolent slave owners), how the auctions worked, what influenced abolitionist, what were the conditions the slaves had to live in, etc, etc.

All of that were covered in my classes along you know, the actual war, military campaigns and strategies, battles. I personally was more interested in the politics than the military aspect. All of that being said, I never said the black population shouldn't be mentioned.

only in art history class.

well, that and we're Danish on that side, so it's pretty much a default once you wonder "why does that priest look like she stepped out of a Rembrandt?"...

Art history is the one where you pretty much have to be tripping to pass, right?
Or was that just art?

The phrase "benevolent slave owner" is a contradiction in terms. And historical context is no excuse.

I took art history, some of it was boring as fuck, but some was cool. I only took it because I had no other options though.

You know what I mean.

Art history is like watching paint dry while your eyes are stapled open.