IMDB comments by Fireflythemovie

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

IMDB comments

POSTED BY: FIREFLYTHEMOVIE
UPDATED: Saturday, February 7, 2004 20:28
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 19189
PAGE 3 of 3

Saturday, February 7, 2004 2:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
Quote:
Originally posted by rklenseth:
I'm quite familiar with the Brits brutal treatment of the Irish. I consider it on the same level as that of American slavery. I think Michael Collins was hero and patriot. Gerry Adams too.

was going to stay out of this argument, then this crops up. Heck, argue away on historical treatment, but on what basis do you support the use of the word "hero" and "Gerry Adams" in the same sentence? Enquiring minds would love to know

"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 4:40 PM

FIREFLYTHEMOVIE

Wow, I don't read for a few days, and look where this goes...

Anyway, I'm not a history expert, but I have to argue with one point:

Quote:
Originally posted by Drakon:
To a lot of folks, even to this day, individuals in other countries are still considered "others" or not quite human. It is a perception that while you and most of us fight against, still persists elsewhere. Sometimes even in our own enlightened arenas. One of the reasons why about 1 million Africans die each year of malaria, because DDT is "too harmful" to use to control the spread of the disease.

I do know something about public health, and there's no reason to use DDT, really ever. Malaria was pretty much wiped out in this country before DDT was invented. How'd they do it? They provided and installed screens on everyone's windows. (If you want an epidemiological explanation for why this works, I'll provide it, but it's fairly involved.) Far safer, and cheaper in the long run. Also, DDT isn't very effective anymore, given that they used it so much for so long that all the mosquitos developed resistance to it.

The other safe and effective method to reduce (although not eliminate) malaria is to try to eliminate standing water during the dry season, where the mosquito eggs are.

This is not to say that people don't still look down on the "other", but not allowing people to use DDT is hardly evidence for the argument.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 7, 2004 8:28 PM

BOURNE

This is quite late, I know, but I've been a little busy in RL....

Quote:
Originally posted by Redjack:
I don't know what I've said or what position I've taken which would, as you put it, "bring out the troll" in you...

No fault of yours, I guess: I was just in the mood to nit-pick. Hey, some people juggle geese!

Quote:
You summed up with a statement implying that there was some moral parity between the North and the South in this conflict.

That is your INFERENCE, not my IMPLICATION.
One of the rhetorical obstacles you're throwing up is the blanket characterizations of "North and South". Makes for a catchy miniseries title, but is of little use in distinguishing between the actions, beliefs and principles of individuals and groups. Which was the intent of my contribution. As I tried to explain at some length, not everyone fought for the same reasons on either side. I also made it clear that a person's fundamental apathy does not absolve one of allowing evil to flourish. The most obvious, immediate application of such reasoning in this discussion is to the Southerners who – by default – signed up to kill people in order to preserve the institution of slavery. I propose that such moral turpitude was (and is) more widespread than the Southern States. More on this in a bit.

Quote:
With the Confederacy, the opposite is true. Horrible, insane, morally bankrupt speechs were used to whip up the appropriate sentiment in the masses, to make them ready for war. Had those masses not agreed, there would have been no war. You can't plant in unfertile ground.

True that. And the ground was probably just as fertile in the North – there just wasn't enough “planting” going on. Keep reading.

Quote:
But simple arithmatic tells us that the number of true beleivers must have far far outweighed the number of reluctant fighters.

Your reasoning here is worse than your spelling; arithmetic doesn't apply b/c we're talking about mental states and group dynamics.

Quote:
And, even among those reluctant fighters, the number of those who disagreed with their government on issues of Slavery and Union must have been even smaller.

How do we know? Because the South was outgunned and outmanned from the beginning, yet they kept the war going til the wheels fell off.

You are making huge assumptions about the source and nature of morale amongst the respective forces that are unsupportable. I could just as easily – without resorting to “arithmetic” - speculate that the Confederacy had a “home field advantage” as most engagements were fought in the Southern States. Or that a force that perceives itself as the defender, the underdog, or whatever, may be fighting with more murderous resolve, desperation, etc. Maybe even better strategic leadership, though I don't know enough about the individual engagements to say this for sure. Still plenty of possibilities, though.

And, once AGAIN, you are engaging in the logical fallacy of oversimplification. The “South” you are referring to was the Confederacy, made up of “indians” and “chiefs”, if I may be permitted an un-PC comparison. The “chiefs”, small in number and including the politicians and “businessmen” more than the generals and such, are more likely to have felt strongly about slavery than the “indians”. While their doing as told is bad, too, they probably cared no more about slavery than most of the “indians” they fought.

And herein is the point:

I don't believe the majority of Northerers were any less racist than the majority of Souherners (referring here to an irrational but stubborn belief in blacks' inferiority/savagery/etc). If you doubt this, you haven't read as much primary historical material as you claim. That being said, let's play “what if”. What if this this same Northern majority been subjected to the “Horrible, insane, morally bankrupt speechs” you referred to? Would they have responded differently? I know: if a frog had wings...point is, though, this goes beyond math. If you're sure the answer is “no”, then you are blinding yourself to a very real possibility, and a greater danger to society than any single, horrific human rights issue. And that's the basic selfishness and short-sighted-ness of human nature. The Northern masses weren't morally superior so much as fortunate that their moral bankruptcy remained hidden as they just happened to respond to the right rallying call. Deep down, I think, people realize this and resent their Southern forefathers being branded as ESPECIALLY heinous. Had slavery continued, MOST people north of the vaunted Mason-Dixon line wouldn't have given a shit. There were, in fact, “sundown” towns aplenty in the North, too, surviving appallingly well into the 20th century. It came from the same hazy, grey, hollow place inside Northerner and Southerner alike. And I don't think we're rid of it yet.

Quote:
Again, if this stings, I'm sorry. I honestly am. It's not me. It's the math.

(sigh) Would ya stop with the “math” thing, already? THAT'S what makes me flinch: bad metaphors, and worse logic.

Quote:
Consider: unlike its grand child, Nazi Germany, the Confederacy was not a Totalitarian state. There was no Rebel Gestapo running around killing or torturing the voices of dissent. There were no voices of dissent and no threat towards them had they spoken up. Those who disagreed simply rode North and joined the army of the United States of America.

Got yerself a time machine, have you? Is this more analysis of primary sources, or just another series of assumptions on your part? Here's a newsflash, historian: the KKK as an “official” organization may have post-dated the War, but the people who comprised its numbers probably didn't think or act much different BEFORE the War. And were they headed by Joe Dirt-farmer? Or was it the Sheriff, the Mayor, etc? How do you know abolitionist sympathizers, or even those SUSPECTED of it, weren't threatened, beaten up, or gifted with a burning cross in the antebellum years? Because, no doubt, there would've been conscientious observers running around, recording for all posterity each such occurrence, right? So obviously, no climate of fear could possibly exist...

Quote:
You ended your post with the sentiment that there was enough indecent behaviour to go around,

Not overt behaviour so much as predisposition.

Quote:
implying a sort of moral equivalence between the two factions.

Not between their respective CAUSES, just their respective CHARACTERS (see above).

Quote:
Again, I'm sorry. I get what you're saying but that dog just won't hunt.

No, you don't get it. Hopefully you will this time, though.

Quote:
The Northern states were only slightly less attrocious to their black citizens than those in the South. The war could have been avoided had Lincoln simply conceded certain points.

So YOU are conceding some Northerner atrocities, then? But somehow, their fundamental decency made them stop short of supporting slavery...Once again, I ask that you remove the minority of rallying, bullying “fat cats” from the social “equation” (if the pseudo-mathematics help this go down easier), and THEN imagine the difference between the populations. Is one inherently more likely to respond to a threat to slavery? Does one, in short, CARE more than the other?

Quote:
But, again, according to the men themselves at the time, there was a primary issue at the heart of this thing. All the spinning in the world won't change that.

Glad to hear it. Wasn't planning on spinning anything.

Quote:
It's an awful thing to have to grapple with that and I can see why most who trace their lineage back to the losers are either unwilling or unable to do so, especially when the grappling means accepting that great great grandpa was a right bastard. I do understand. I really do.

As I suggested above, I think people have a harder time accepting that, deep down, he was MORE of a bastard than the average guy north of the line.

Quote:
But I'm not sympathetic.

Haven't seen many asking for sympathy here, just even-handedness(see above).

Quote:
Because they were, in empirical fact, The Bad Guys, and great great grandpa was, almost certainly, a right bastard.

Most people are “right bastards” on the inside, mate, they just never get their chance to show it...

(ADDED IN EDIT) God, I sounded like such a prick this time! Sorry, RJ, please just ignore the idiotic snipes...

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE