this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2023
285 points (98.3% liked)
pissposting
1108 readers
2 users here now
Piss tier memes, lower than shitposts. Brain damaging stuff.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know why the artist would depict Lincoln in hell, seems undeserved.
Lincoln said blacks would never be equal to whites, that he'd rather ship blacks back to Africa, and so on. Bottom line freeing slaves was more about northern whites not wanting blacks in their back yard anymore and the north couldn't compete economically with slave labor.
Yeah, Lincoln wasn't the completely perfect hero he's portrayed to be.
But the artist I imagine doesn't know that and is trying to say the others are as good as Lincoln maybe? Just a guess.
Never heard this before, do you have a source?
Yes. I'll come back to this when I'm not working and do a new reply with them. Bottom line it'll be several books.
I feel like the first one I read some of this in was "Lies My Teacher Told Me " by James W. Loewen.
I'll look through my resources later, maybe later today or this weekend. I know it's a pain but it's a lot of books to go through and I don't really catalog them well for questions like this but I'm happy to share!
Cool, thank you
Not really challenging the statement, but I wonder where the line should be. Like it is easy to tell kids myths about the founding fathers and other people in history, and I suppose it does make for a good starting point for someone who does not have much context around anything, and still developing their brain. At some point people just want to hold on to those myths rather than learn the context or nuance of what actually happened.
Fair point. I'm no judge for what is right for others. I'm not even sure what I've decided is right for me is right. I do have a problem when the past has been glossed over the make terrible actions seem not so.
I'm reading The Nutmeg's Curse right now and I'm wondering how many Dutch people know their countrymen slaughtered a people and successfully committed genocide in the 1600s?
Here are the books, when I make notes I don't keep track of where out of the book I got it and unless I'm reading business books I don't keep which book I got it from since I'm just reading for me. But I tried to put them in order of where it mostly came from to least came from.
Stamped from the Beginning by Dr. Ibram X. Kendi
How to be an Antiracist by Dr. Ibram X. Kendi
So You Want to Talk About Race by Ijeoma Oluo
When They Call You a Terrorist by Patrisse Cullors, Asha Bandele
Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents by Isabel Wilkerson
How the Word Is Passed by Clint Smith
Thank you! I like reading about history that I didn't learn in school, and there's a lot of it.
I'd love to hear what you think as you read through some of this. Only a few people I know have read all of these and I often wonder if the conclusions I've come to even make sense.
You may also want to know about John Brown if you are interested in that time period.
That was like, the whole reason the Union won though. People just can't compete with machines when it comes to production. Combine that with an effective blockade, and the Confederate states could neither build or receive the means to wage a war.
https://www.nps.gov/articles/industry-and-economy-during-the-civil-war.htm
The resources disagree for sure, I'm not an expert enough to say which is right. The primary purpose for my comment was to help show that plenty of resources show that the North didn't do this to be altruistic. Like most things it's more complicated than that.
I would agree that the Union states did not engage in warfare due to altruism. I don't think any country starts a war with another to make things better there. The idea that the southern states had a stronger economy is simply not true. It sounded like some "War of Northern aggression/Lost cause" DoC propaganda. I wasn't sure, but I figured I better speak up.
I appreciate your input, one article isn't enough to convince me just like one book isn't. But you've opened up a train of thought I'll want to explore further for sure.
Well, just consider in general, the Union was fielding mostly "American made" equipment, like Springfield rifles, while the CSA was using imported firearms like the Enfield. Confederate Uniforms were much more basic, most of the time just being a Gray coat, and the remaining equipment was frequently provisioned by the soldier themselves, meanwhile the Union could afford to equip their soldiers with a consistent Uniform. In the battle between the Monitor and the Merrimack, the Union Monitor was a purpose built Ironclad warship, and the Merrimack was a refit, essentially a regular ship with a bunch of iron plating slapped on it. Off the top of my head, those are some pretty compelling, well-known examples that show the difference in economies and production capabilities.
I hear you, but I don't think that's the lens of the time prior to the war. Going back to the books it looks like my simplified sentence mischaracterized and oversimplify what was going on. Northern industry was struggling to move into the South and replace slave labor, to again oversimplify due to initial CapEx and supplanting one caste system for another.
So we're making different arguments and talking past one another to an extent.
The North's problem was more like Chiquita banana's problem with Guatemala.
Well, you see, he's also a Republican and would definitely agree with this table of garbage people
Republicans were the liberal party when Lincoln was President
Yes, I know. Is joke!