You might be right, I just don’t particularly care about some notion like “Northerners might actually have been just as racist on the inside, but didn’t do nearly as many bad things because it didn’t benefit them as much”. Possible, but unprovable and, in my mind, irrelevant.
Actually, he’s right about that. Under the terminology of the time, “Irish” was considered a separate race. So were a lot of what we’d consider “ethnicities” or even “nationalities” today. Race is a social construct, and society has constructed different races at different points in history.
Okay, I’ll buy that.
The second part of the claim still fails, as the history of anti-Irish bigotry is discussed openly and often here. It isn’t in any way denied or hidden.
We don’t hide it behind claims that “the South did it too!” while sporting “Northern Pride” bumper stickers.
Nor is it celebrated with a flag flying at Northern state capitol buildings, which would be more analogous to the issue brought up in the OP.
I always thought the “losers” wrote the history of the Civil War. When you look at who has had the greater impact on historical writing, the literature of the Civil War, and popular memory, white southerners from Margaret Mitchell to William Faulkner to Shelby Foote have tended to dominate the scene.
One Republican member of the South Carolina Assembly has authored 25 amendments to the “take down the flag” bill. Including one which calls for the US flag to be flown over the Capitol building upside down.
South Carolina, kicking and screaming, one in particular mentioned above, crying like a spoiled racist baby, votes to take the piece of shit down.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/09/us-usa-confederate-idUSKCN0PG1KQ20150709
36 to 3 in the Senate, 94 to 20 in the House – the state wasn’t kicking and screaming. The state went along with it by a very handy majority.
The minority, yeah, was kicking, screaming, publishing the usual death threats, and demanding secession. But give the state credit: the representatives of the people voted the right way.
Then why wouldn’t France have entered the war with Mexico as their proxy? Or at least use Mexico to diplomatically recognize the CSA?
Warning. You know you can’t accuse another poster of lying.
Don’t do it again.
IIRC France didn’t want to recognize the Confederacy unless Britain did too, and in general the European attitude was “Y’all secure your independence (by actually beating the Yankees, or at least demonstrating you can) and we’ll recognize you” and the Confederate attitude was “If you recognize us and maybe help us out, then we can secure our independence!”
French intervention in Mexico took place about the same time as our Civil War (though the actual Second Mexican Empire wasn’t formally established until 1864). Once the U.S. had finished off the Confederacy, the U.S. government started making it clear that it wouldn’t put up with France mucking around in Mexico setting up new monarchist governments with Austrian noblemen on their thrones here in our hemisphere, dammit; the French withdrew, and a few years later the Second Mexican Empire collapsed and Maximilian was overthrown and executed. (Obviously the Mexicans themselves also had quite a bit to do with the failure of the French intervention/Second Mexican Empire.)
I did not intend to condemn the entire State. The state senate acted as they should have without hesitation. The state house made a mockery of decency by virtue of the length in time that the session took. House Republicans, most of them, anyway, were on the right side of things in the end.
Kicking and screaming may be harsh descriptors, but SC politicians sure didn’t fucking volunteer to take that flag down, it took the massacre of 9 human souls to demonstrate what everyone already knew about that flag’s message.
Well, almost. What each chamber of the state legislature should have done was unanimously approve removing that rag.
I’ve read some of Emperor Maximilian’s travel journals, writ before he became Emperor: he was weirdly — for the time — obsessed with a horror of slavery.
Much like the Emperor of Brazil, Pedro, who later managed to abolish it there. And was almost immediately deposed for that by his foes the oligarchs.
More to the point, we don’t have a bunch of government buildings flying flags that celebrate the history of Irish oppression, and Irish oppression no longer exists today in any meaningful sense.
You couldn’t get the Eugene City Council to unanimously approve taking down the flag. 90-24 will do.
blacks are more enslaved today than in 1860. Whites had to use guns and whips to control them then, now all we need are foodstamps / WIC cards.
Why do you think that 140-something years after the Emancipation Proclamation we are still talking about racism?
Because it’s still around…
Yep.
I know. Of course there’s no way that every one of those politicians would’ve done the moral thing; but, that’s what they should’ve done.
This post is like sticking a picture of a cat on a cat.
Also, due to the lack of a word for ethnic bigotry, people tend to use “racist” to include that now. And it makes sense–you’re sorta treating them like a race that is inferior to you. I mean, the definition of race is a group of people identified as distinct from other groups because of supposed physical or genetic traits shared by the group.