China, Japan, The Yasukuni Shrine, And The Confederate Flag

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by Shannon Tiezzi via The Diplomat,

On Wednesday, the United Nations Security Council held an open debate on the theme of “war, its lesson, and the search for a permanent peace.” Under-Secretary General for Political Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, addressing the Security Council, laid out the core of the problem: “As we have seen repeatedly, fighting that ends without reconciliation – especially fighting inside States – is fighting that can, and often does, resume.” In the concept paper for the debate, Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein of Jordan wrote that the UN could play a role in “forging a deeper reconciliation among ex-combatants … based on an agreed or shared narrative, a shared memory, of a troubled past.” A common interpretation of history, Zeid believes, helps smooth tensions between former enemies.

To those following the tensions between Japan and China (as well as South Korea), the implications are obvious.  As my colleague Ankit wrote, the UN debate became a stage for China, South Korea, and North Korea to criticize Japan’s handling of history. While the fighting between these nations ended almost 70 years ago, the process of reconciliation remains incomplete. The “deeper reconciliation” Zeid described, one based on “a shared memory of a troubled past,” has not yet emerged.

China and South Korea do have a “shared memory,” as shown by their comments during the UN debate. The problem, in their eyes, is that Japan “remembers” thing differently. When calling on Japan to “face up to history” or “admit mistakes,” as Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying did this week, what they really mean is that Japan should accept without reservation China and South Korea’s version of history.

Here’s the problem with that approach: it’s inevitable that each country will view its past from a more sympathetic (though not necessarily approving) perspective. Generally, each country acknowledges (more or less) that mistakes were made, but no one else understands better how those mistakes happened — the mitigating factors that humanize the decision-makers. For example, Chinese citizens, in general, have a much rosier idea of Mao Zedong’s rule than non-Chinese; they know he made mistakes but will often claim that Mao did the best he could with the historical circumstances he faced.

The current tensions in Northeast Asia have another analogue: the conflicted legacy of the U.S. Civil War. As in the Northeast Asia dispute, the major issue is how to appropriately remember the war — especially the Confederates, who fought on behalf of slave-owning states.

For example, is it appropriate for Richmond, Virginia, the former capital of the Confederacy, to have a statue of famed Confederate general Robert E. Lee in the heart of the city; for high schools in the South to be named after Lee and other Confederate generals, or even after the Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy, who was arrested (but never tried) for treason? And the ultimate symbolic issue, the subject of a televised debate on Newshour a few years ago — is it acceptable for Southerners (who may or may not have had ancestors fighting in the war) to fly the Confederate flag?

To many, the answer is obviously no — the Confederacy stands for slavery and all the horrors that went along with it. It symbolizes not only the oppression of an entire race, but the treason of splitting the country and provoking civil war. To fly such a flag is to intentionally celebrate those who caused untold pain and suffering to hundreds of thousands of Africans and African Americans.

To many others, though, the answer is just as obviously yes — while slavery was a terrible mistake, the Confederate soldiers were simply fighting to defend their homeland and deserve to be honored for their sacrifice. Under this line of thinking, the Confederate flag can be divested of its ties to slavery and simply honored as a symbol of Southern culture and heritage. Flying the flag has nothing to do with slavery; it symbolizes Southern pride.

In a similar way, some Japanese would argue that Yasukuni can be divested of its ties to war criminals and Japanese imperialism. In both cases, the problem is not so much a denial  of history (although extremists in both Japan and the American South have fringe theories alleviating their countrymen of all blame) but a unique interpretation of history by the average person that allows him or her to reject the mistakes of the past without rejecting national or regional pride. It’s easy to  frown upon this as Orwellian “doublethink,” but it’s common to all nations, races, and peoples. Judging it in others is easy; rooting it out in ourselves is another matter.

For those who shake their heads at how a 70-year old conflict is still riling up Northeast Asia, look at the U.S. 150 years later, and how it still hasn’t sorted out the legacy of the nation’s bloodiest war. Reconciliation doesn’t happen naturally with the passage of time. The shared memories and understandings that lead to reconciliation have to be nurtured by all sides of the conflict, and that takes both time and dedicated effort.

“Leaders need to set the example, not just in ceasing war-time rhetoric and ending the intentional promotion of grievances, but also by deeds of genuine cooperation and honest examinations of their own roles in conflict,” Feltman said at the UN debate. This clearly lays the burden of reconciliation on both sides. Not only do past aggressors need to honestly examine their roles in the conflict, but past victims must end the practice of parading their grievances. It’s tough to say which is more difficult, owning up to historical wrongs or letting them go. But both are equally necessary for the sort of reconciliation Northeast Asia needs.

That absolutely doesn’t mean that African Americans should embrace the Confederate legacy, or that Chinese and Koreans should accept Japanese politicians visiting Yasukuni. It does mean, though, that accusations and finger-pointing about past wrongs are not going to lead to present reconciliation. Indulging in such tactics doesn’t provide moral high ground; it shows an unwillingness to actually make things better.

Instead, solving the problem will take an honest conversation, not about history per se but about historical interpretations, and acknowledging of their power to wound even decades later. Right now, it’s impossible to imagine that conversation happening on an official diplomatic level, but it can just as easily take place elsewhere — in academia, or even in the comments section of articles like this one.

0
Your rating: None
 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Fri, 01/31/2014 - 22:19 | 4390340 Hulk
Hulk's picture

WTF ???

Fri, 01/31/2014 - 22:25 | 4390361 National Blessing
National Blessing's picture

I live in Northeast Asia.  Abe's a maniac.  He dreams of empire.  Word.

Fri, 01/31/2014 - 22:35 | 4390382 AlaricBalth
AlaricBalth's picture

"In the last analysis our only claim to victory is that if we win the war we shall tell fewer lies about it than our adversaries. The really frightening thing about totalitarianism is not that it commits ‘atrocities’ but that it attacks the concept of objective truth; it claims to control the past as well as the future."
George Orwell
History is Written By the Winners

http://alexpeak.com/twr/hiwbtw/

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 00:50 | 4390616 Stackers
Stackers's picture

China and Japan can't reconcile because they are two different cultures with 1,000 years of fighting.

For the record there was no US civil war. There was a coup d'état by the Federal Gov against half of the States changing it from the United States of America to the United State of America

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 01:57 | 4390729 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Right now, it’s impossible to imagine that conversation happening on an official diplomatic level

Diplomatic level?? Better trying there than on zh - home to an endless stream of brain dead, dirt poor inbred morons who are bound to shit themselves at any mention of the confederate flag in less than glowing terms. 

The new zh fucking-with-the-clientele strategy? Tyler gets the inbreds drooling over Obama all day and then has a guest poster throw cold water in their faces at night. 'Tis a cruel world! 

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 09:45 | 4391048 TheTmfreak
TheTmfreak's picture

"StopLoss: ... except the blazen hatred of the confederate flag.."

I actually disagree with that characterization of the argument. While I do think the post is mildly empty, I will say that there is some truth to the fact that without reconcillation nothing gets solved. If anything it gets deeply engrained and worsened. The "North South" thing is still QUITE alive, I can assure you that. Although interestingly enough it has more aptly manifested less into borders and geographical areas and more with individuals (except in certain states). Interestingly enough the tide is definitely swinging more in the less/no federal government than the other way around. At least in my experiences...

I've now seen environmentalist wackjobs give up on their love for government solutions (as an example). Thats gotta say something.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:40 | 4391215 Doña K
Doña K's picture

To better your odds in a no win situation, move south of the Mason Dixon line.

Sun, 02/02/2014 - 00:43 | 4392888 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Half a million men died fighting over slavery and "states rights".  It's a little more involved than environmentalism. There are some simple truths that people need to accept.

The south was wrong in defending the supposed right of the state to violate the rights of the individual.

The north was right to fight against that.  The lesser of two evils is that the north had to violate states rights to protect individual rights.

The slaves and slave owners are all dead now.  There is nobody alive who harmed anyone else (who would also have to be dead anyway).  There are no paybacks or bribes to be had now.  It is history.  Both sides fought hard but this time the winner was the correct side.  Both sides need to accept this.  Both sides need to wake up and realize we have bigger fish to fry than which dead people did what to whatever other dead people 150 years ago.  They need to figure out that what is important is who is doing what to them right now.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 10:29 | 4391110 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Better trying there than on zh - home to an endless stream of brain dead, dirt poor inbred morons who are bound to shit themselves at any mention of the confederate flag in less than glowing terms."

Troll much?

As a "brain dead, dirt poor, inbred moron", please entertain me with your insights on why the US government finally said nolle prosequi in the case of Jefferson Davis for "his treason" against it. And please don't say Johnson's amnesty, as that was meant to extricate it from the box Davis put it in at trial, not him from his box.

Then we can move on to the "diplomacy" of Reconstruction and the effects of that carpetbagging horror on "our reconciliation" and on why the South stayed, in your words..."dirt poor".

You're up, Mr.Suisse.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:02 | 4391165 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

The author of this article clearly knows only what he/she was taught in the public schools and perhaps the revisionist universities. 

The assumption by the ill-educated is always that the common Confederate soldier fought "for" slavery, which is like saying the average Wehrmacht soldier in WW2 fought "for" the Holocaust.  Any examination of actual history shows how false those assumtions are.  Slavery WAS a component of the Confederacy, but only one of many that differentiated it from Yankeeland. 

The US Constitution granted limited power to the "federal" government, certainly did not prohibit member states from leaving, and most certainly did not authorize the scum sucking pig Lincoln to invade a sovereign foreign nation on her border, the Confederacy, anymore than it authorized him to invade Canada.  Virginia's written ratification of the Constitution includes a specific clause reserving her right to leave should she so choose.  Her membership in the "United States" was accepted with this proviso, so the moment Lincoln invaded Virginia he richly deserved the fate which awaited him.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:48 | 4391226 Chief Kessler
Chief Kessler's picture

We would have freed the slaves....eventually, no really, we were going to free them next year but then we figured out we'd have to do the work ourselves, or need immigrants who are not like us, scary, so we kept the slavery thing going, how'd that work out for y'all, still enjoying our legacy? I mean nice hospitality? Y'all come back

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 14:05 | 4391468 Slave
Slave's picture

If you really believe such obvious propaganda, what are you doing here?

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 15:23 | 4391605 stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

slavery was a gigantic sinkhole of lose.  why have slaves when you could pay freemen a wage and then have them go back to their hovels.  the problem was the ultra rich empowered slave-owners with the political clout kept the slavery issue in the forefront, small farm-owners could care less, they did not have the money for slaves and used the nearly universal concept of having huge families with lots of sons to work their land.  

 

because of events in haiti, and a number of plots uncovered or stopped that advocated wholesale slaughter of whites, the citizens of the south were concerned for their safety.  20% of the population were slaves and if they revolted as in haiti you would not be safe if your skin was white.  

 

in most cases, rabid abolitionist help to establish these plans.

 

with or without the civil war, slaves would have been freed.  the sharecrop system and other economic paradigm were direct evidence of some sort of plan.  if it had been manifested without a war the south would have had many more resources to allocate toward this transformation.

 

abraham lincoln planned to load all slaves onto boats and take them back to africa.  some plan.  slaves had been a part of our country since its founding, how would they possibly have lived if shipped back to some backward jungle.  slavery had been a part of human history for thousands of years and it was not just an institution set about to enslave black africans.  someone else on this thread brought up a point that the us congress could have outlawed slavery in all states, giving financial restitution to their owners.

 

then the owners of the land could employ the freed slaves according to their skills. i know this sounds trite, but it was a transformation that was going to take place civil war or not.  being a sharecropper in the period of reconstructon was probably more precarious and brutal than slavery if the truth were the object of a rational discussion of the issue of slavery, since sharecroppers were both black and white the history of this nasty era are mostly ignored.

 

history is nasty and brutal,  if you do the slightest digging around in it.

 

so when i remember my ancestors that fought the union i don't attach the nasty institution and brutal existance of humanity to their memory.  i remember that they defended their state, their family, and their property against a lawless and tyrannical government that invaded them to subjugate them, and i am very very proud that they did, and that against all odds and the loss of everything that they held dear,they charged the guns on malvern hill,  they stood in the sunken road at antietam, they overran hazel grove at chancellorsville,  they routed the federals at gettysburg and drove them onto cemetery hill.  they held off a corp of the union army all by themselves at the wilderness,  they drove hancocks troops out of the bloody angle at spotsylvania and held out for 20 hours, and they fired the last shots of the war at appomattox with bryan grimes in command. ramseur was killed in the valley.

sorry for the trip down memory lane, but they were usually outnumbered at leat 4 to 1, with inadequate food and equipment, hundreds of miles from home, cold and starving some of the time, but they held within them that men should not be subservient to government and should defend themselves against it like their fathers and grandfathers did against the british.

 

i hope if the time comes many of us here can find within us that seed of honor, of character, of total willful sacrifice to fight off the chains that attempt to bind us all, of all colors for i fear that time is coming.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 15:29 | 4391624 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

slavery was a gigantic sinkhole of lose. why have slaves when you could pay freemen a wage and then have them go back to their hovels.
_______________________________________________________________________

Rewriting history. 'American' past time.

'Americans' did not want to work certain jobs (sounds familiar?) When paid, they left and sometimes escaped to live with the Indians.

'Americans' needed a captive population that could not flee. One of the reasons they took negroes as slaves (after trying the Indians who could flee to their tribes)

For 'americans' to get the possibility of paying freemen, 'americans' had to be ready to endure the pits of the work their slaves made.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 16:33 | 4391733 stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

rewriting history, first educate yourself in the history of europe, middle east, etc.  then use logic and rational to come to a conclusion, refrain from personal bias and use hard objective observations of both sides of a source.

 

emotion has no place in the interpretation of history.

 

that is why liberalism as it has manifested itself in todays world are the revisionist and not the other way around.

 

logic is not emotion, so educate yourself and have an intelligent discorse, or just make post on a thread that reveal your limitations.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 16:47 | 4391754 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Ladies and gentlemen, presenting a fine example of the deep irrationality contained within the human brain:

so when i remember my ancestors that fought the union i don't attach the nasty institution and brutal existance of humanity to their memory.  i remember that they defended their state, their family, and their property against a lawless and tyrannical government that invaded them to subjugate them, and i am very very proud that they did, and that against all odds and the loss of everything that they held dear

And then this happened:

use logic and rational to come to a conclusion, refrain from personal bias and use hard objective observations of both sides of a source.

* Slow clap * For an impressive ability to completely contradict oneself within two comments, you get the gold star!

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 18:06 | 4391921 stormsailor
stormsailor's picture

what are you blathering on about. when you equate an answer about one question with the answer to a completely different and dissassociate topic into a contradiction it only shows your trolling and shilling ability, a shallow attempt to twist logic like a pretzel to prove some idiotic conception of contradiction.  

 

i bet what came first, the chicken or the egg makes you have nosebleeds.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 19:08 | 4392092 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

when you equate an answer about one question with the answer to a completely different and dissassociate topic into a contradiction

Right, writing a completley one-sided opinion based on personal bias and then complaining about others doing exactly that (within the same thread!) is totally unrelated lol

Sun, 02/02/2014 - 12:41 | 4393474 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Rewriting history. 'American' past time.

All too true. American citizen history rewritement is mere hobbyist dabblings, minor league stuff. Will never measure up to the masterful creations of accredited experts like AnAnonymous. He was awarded a ChD* in creative history for his antichronic thesis on the sinking of Easter Island by George Washington and King Henry VIII in 1276.

American citizenism unproficiency in this field will always be lacking in grip when compared to such intrinsicate specialisty.

 

*Doctor of Charlatanry

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:09 | 4391262 machineh
machineh's picture

'Flying the [Confederate] flag has nothing to do with slavery; it symbolizes Southern pride.'

Utterly patronizing ... like claiming that Obama 'symbolizes African-American pride.'

What the Confederate flag symbolizes is political sovereignty and the right to secede from an oppressive central government, which has demonstrated its willingness to slaughter without limit to prevent its human livestock from escaping its grasp.

 

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:11 | 4391266 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Spot on.

"The assumption by the ill-educated is always that the common Confederate soldier fought "for" slavery, which is like saying the average Wehrmacht soldier in WW2 fought "for" the Holocaust."

I know mine didn't. He fought because his home state was invaded, rose to the rank of sergent, wounded, was busted down for AWOL (left to guide his nephew through another state) and was back in it until captured around Petersburg.

A contractural arrangement entered into voluntarily by two or more parties (in this case the individual states and a central government) is only as good as all parties willingness to keep to the terms of the contract. From the seed of 3/5ths of a person compromise at inception (proposed by two yankees, shocking I know...lol) through the trade war-like attack on southern ports (Tariff Act of 1828 to protect northern business) it was brewing for a long time.

But yeah, according to Swissy up top, the South is filled with "inbred, dirt poor, morons" who apparently can't read or comprehend what they have read (outside of government indoctrination camps, er um, public schools & universities) and its why having a fanatically, paranoid, tyrannical, federal government spying, lawmaking, mandating, restricting & taxing the living shit out of anything that is left moving is just really all in our own best interests...as a people and a society.

Its for our own good you see, cuz, Obama or some shit.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 15:06 | 4391576 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"The assumption by the ill-educated is always that the common Confederate soldier fought "for" slavery, which is like saying the average Wehrmacht soldier in WW2 fought "for" the Holocaust."

Uh no, it is not like that at all. 

I know mine didn't. He fought because his home state was invaded, rose to the rank of sergent, wounded, was busted down for AWOL (left to guide his nephew through another state) and was back in it until captured around Petersburg.

Yeah, I'm sure if we looked at each soldier who fought in the civil war we could find a multitude of reasons for why they were in it. Same goes with any war. Gawddamn..

the South is filled with "inbred, dirt poor, morons" who apparently can't read or comprehend what they have read 

No, just some folks who have a 'special' reverence for the confederate flag and pretend that the civil war was not about slavery and then rant about black people destroying America... These people are probably 10-- 15% of the American population and 50% of zh commentators.  

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 18:00 | 4391902 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Ok, since you prefer to reply to a comment I made to someone else (while choosing to disregard my direct comment to you) I can assume you don't know WTF you're talking about, historically.

But I'm gonna lay something on you thats probably going to distress you quite a bit, the "battle flag" (which is what you seem to have a major problem with) has as much to do with regional identity as it does with the war. There are families of black Southerners too ya know and they don't look at it through the foggy propaganda glasses that you do.

So tell me, ace, if the war was "mostly about" slavery...explain the text of the Emancipation Proclamation, concentrating especially on where (geographically) Lincoln would allow slavery to continue.

Where it would continue is where the Union armies were currently in control, wasn't it?

Awww shucks, Lincoln, the Great Emancipator, had issued a paper, eagerly read but rarely understood by "dirt poor, moronic, inbreds" living half way around the world, in Switzerland ;-)

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 19:17 | 4392077 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

 

So tell me, ace, if the war was "mostly about" slavery...explain the text of the Emancipation Proclamation, concentrating especially on where (geographically) Lincoln would allow slavery to continue.

Where it would continue is where the Union armies were currently in control, wasn't it?

Total straw-man. Where did I bring up Lincoln or the emancipation proclamation? The northerners get a relatively free pass, sure, but that’s irrelevant to my comments on the confederate lovers. 

Lincoln had other motives, but one of the primary motivators for the confederate states was slave ownership.

Taking your nazi example from elsewhere, would be equally ridiculous for people flying the nazi flag today to say it's only about representing freedom / independence from evil banker oppressors, nothing to do with anti-semitism man!! How dare you even claim such a thing!

 

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 19:32 | 4392135 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Strawman, reeeeelly?

"No, just some folks who have a 'special' reverence for the confederate flag and pretend that the civil war was not about slavery and then rant about black people destroying America."

You've attempted to build enough strawmen about blacks on this thread to go into business selling them to the useful white "progressive" idiots on the streets of NYC, Boston & San Fran. Where did I (or anyone here) say "black people" are destroying America?

You've not factually countered one thing thats been said, so cling to whatever strawmen you care to construct about the magnificent, saintly and virtuous acts of the US federal government & its NE business interests (and foreign governments before even that) bringing slavery to these shores.

Just don't expect me to buy them from you and hang it around the South's neck.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 19:53 | 4392188 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"No, just some folks who have a 'special' reverence for the confederate flag and pretend that the civil war was not about slavery and then rant about black people destroying America."

You've attempted to build enough strawmen about blacks on this thread to go into business selling them to the useful white "progressive" idiots on the streets of NYC, Boston & San Fran. Where did I (or anyone here) say "black people" are destroying America?

You inferred something incorrect so I clarified who my comments were directed at. Others on this exact thread have referenced black folks as a meance and do so frequently on zh - don't know why racist morons always feign innocence. 

so cling to whatever strawmen you care to construct about the magnificent, saintly and virtuous acts of the US federal government & its NE business interests 

Nope, never said any of this. The argument you are trying to construct - and is common with this subject - is to divert away from one set of assholes by pointing out that others are also assholes. Let's say for point of argument that Lincoln was a pro-slave tyrant - doesn't change shit about the confederates being pro-slavery.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 21:30 | 4392402 nmewn
nmewn's picture

"You inferred something incorrect so I clarified who my comments were directed at."

I inferred nothing that was incorrect. You copied a quote that I was responding to from SWR about Wermacht/Southern equivalency, which is preposterous. 

"Let's say for point of argument that Lincoln was a pro-slave tyrant - doesn't change shit about the confederates being pro-slavery."

Lets say, for a point of argument (because this is actually what happened) that the US government set up an unsustainable economic & political system that benefited it and its cronies and everything was fine until the South realized the trap it was in and withdrew from it. Lincoln didn't give a damn about blacks, he said so on more than one occasion, so that strawdog won't hunt either. If he had to destroy half of "the Union" in order to "save it" he was willing to do it...and he did it, which certainly qualifies him as a tyrant.

Now, how you get to 50% of ZH commenters are "racist" (apparently because they are Southern in your high brow estimation?) is still a little beyond my "dirt poor, inbred, moronic" comprehension when only a small minority of "confederates" actually owned slaves. My kin had large families in order to work their fields.

And I've always wanted ask (now that I've got your attention) what is your occupation...in Switzerland?

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 22:44 | 4392620 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

the South is filled with "inbred, dirt poor, morons" who apparently can't read or comprehend what they have read 

Not to beat a dead horse, but this inference was wrong. 

Lets say, for a point of argument…

You go on to restate my point more elaborately, don’t see what it adds. 

Now, how you get to 50% of ZH commenters are "racist" (apparently because they are Southern in your high brow estimation?) 

I doubt 50% of ZH commenters are southern - not to suggest all southerns are racist either, I know you’re sensitive on this. 

only a small minority of "confederates" actually owned slaves

…but did a majority support the right to owning slaves?

And I've always wanted ask (now that I've got your attention) what is your occupation...

I flip burgers at McDonalds.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 13:27 | 4391394 DirkDiggler11
DirkDiggler11's picture

Leave it to a Virginian from the capital of the Confederacy to actually know their history surrounding the War of Northern Aggression and the coalition of states called the United States at that time. Well spoken SW.

Also mark my words that you have not seen the last of the "Southern Cross". Those who stand against the growing monster and power grabbing sons a bitches know as the federal government will once again fight under the colors of the South before the time comes for me to leave this earth.

There are very few in the US that have not only the weaponry but the ammunition to oppose the "Dept of Homeland Security" or whatever Jack-boot govt thugs and their millions if not billions of rounds of ammo stored to be used against their own citizens. Most, although not all, of the few prepared for this fight happen to live in the South.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 15:24 | 4391611 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The assumption by the ill-educated is always that the common Confederate soldier fought "for" slavery, which is like saying the average Wehrmacht soldier in WW2 fought "for" the Holocaust. Any examination of actual history shows how false those assumtions are. Slavery WAS a component of the Confederacy, but only one of many that differentiated it from Yankeeland.
_________________________________________________

You have to give in to 'americans': their will to avoid facing the fact this is an 'american' world, that the world stage is where it is because of their efforts drives them to back off from no manipulation.

The status of slavery compared to the status of the holocaust? Really? With nothing less than any examination of actual history?

The common 'american' who fought on the side of the confederates was well aware of slavery as it was perpetuated by his society. As it was known that 'americans' claimed that human beings had unalienable rights (which forced 'americans' to keep the face to claim that negroes were not human beings)

That is the historical situation. People were not ignorant of slavery as it was practised in the US. And people knew the 'american' creed.

The german soldier had knowledge of the holocaust? The common soldier? during the war?

That is the kind of gross manipulation 'americans' are willing to get into. That is where 'americanism' leads people who adopt it.

Funnily enough, 'americans' on this site like to picture themselves as tough people who can take the state of the world as it is, who do not need lies to sleep well at nights.
That is another 'american' truth as brought by 'american' truthers.

They cant even take the fact that 'americanism' rymes with slavery. So they have to claim that the confederates ignore slavery as the german soldier ignored the holocaust.

Welcome to an 'american' world.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 18:44 | 4392019 SWRichmond
SWRichmond's picture

I think I see the point you were trying to make but you have totally missed mine on several levels.  

no doubt the common Confederate soldier new of the existence of slavery as it had existed as long as he could remember in the area where he lived.  no doubt some of them accepted it as normal and no doubt at least some saw it for what it was.  there is also no doubt in my mind that the average Confederate soldier did not have defense of the institution of slavery in his mind when he marched of the battle, not ever.  

I do not accept your assertion that the common Wehrmacht soldier did not know of the camps and the rounding up of the undesirables, of their movement on trains.  Their being rounded up and shot shot when transport was not available.  I am equally sure that most if not all would deny knowledge.  perhaps this last is hopeful but I also do not believe that the common Wehrmacht soldier marched off to  battle in defense of the Holocaust

whether or not Americanism rhymes with slavery frankly remains to be seen.  I have for decades consideredthe modern so-called democracies to be advanced new-model plantations were the slaves believe they're free.  

and you can blame me for that because I haven't been able to fix that yet either.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 20:32 | 4392296 corndog
corndog's picture

I agree.  Spoon fed public school info in action here.  5% of the Southern population even had slaves. So it's ridiculous to say that the other 95% fought for slavery. 

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:01 | 4391252 booboo
booboo's picture

James Col(e)ostomy bag: Why don't you edjukate us'in poor southern toofless hicks on the cause of the Civil War, (the souths unwillingness to be the tax collector for the Feds, ie, Morrill Tariff)  the Great Emmancipator Abe, his true thought about the African Slave issue (he supported the Fugitive Slave Act) and to what lengths he went to insure that his detractors (including federal judges) in the north were silenced (or do we need to go there since it is common knowledge to even the dumbest of carpet baggers). Do tell? or do you have just enough government supplied misinformation to make a fool of yourself....again.

Sun, 02/02/2014 - 00:50 | 4392894 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

I think this is maybe a first.  I kind of agree with your sentiment.  I'm tired of both the knuckle-draggers and the the-Jews-did-every-bad-thing-in-history types.  These people are upset about the Federal Gov't defending individual rights instead of states rights during the civil war (that's what it boils down to boys and girls).  In their next post they will say that Obama or the bankers are tyrants.  There's a word, starts with an "h"...

Maybe this place is infected with disinformation spreading trolls who play it mostly one way but use one or two arguments to open the door to .gov being .daddy.

Sun, 02/02/2014 - 09:34 | 4393218 someoneelse
someoneelse's picture

Except that ol' Honest Abe wasn't so honest about his motives: he wasn't waging war for individual rights versus states rights, he was waging war for Federal supremacy over the states -- the individual rights argument helped the medicine go down in Yankeeland.

Sun, 02/02/2014 - 12:58 | 4393507 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

That could be claimed if the north actually started the shooting but they didn't.  The south started it.  Lincoln responded.  When attacked it is appropriate to respond in spades and if you are going to fight you need to fight to win.  The single most immoral thing about war is losing. 

 

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 11:13 | 4390977 daemon
daemon's picture

" China and Japan can't reconcile because they are two different cultures with 1,000 years of fighting. "

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "different cultures" .

And after all, it seems that the warring states in China shared more or less the same culture. In Japan, that were apparently "states" with more or less the same culture, that kept fighting each other incessantly, between the 15th and 17th century. 

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:00 | 4391251 Chief Kessler
Chief Kessler's picture

Dear Sirs,

Please cancel my subscription to Redneck CircleJerk Illustrated. The following commentary below should be ample evidence for a full refund.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:10 | 4391264 booboo
booboo's picture

Here we go again, always wanting someone else to do your job, cancel your own damn subscription you lazy fuck.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 13:13 | 4391372 ConfederateH
ConfederateH's picture

Then why do you subscribe?  Could it be that you prefer the redneck circle jerk over the phony worship of that MLK pervert and fraud?

Many slaves preferred their condition before Abe, who proved his wisdom when he tried to send all the blacks back to Africa where they belong.

Abe "freed" the "slaves" (who had been sold to the southern plantation owbers by their neighboring tribes) so they could become slaves on the Federal Government plantation. 

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 15:33 | 4391629 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Africa is a large place.

Indo Europeans populationg 'America' wont want to return even when knowing where they come.

And negroes should have returned to Africa as they belonged there?

'American', 'american'...

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 20:55 | 4392334 akak
akak's picture

 

Africa is a large place.

The natural resources of which rapacious Chinese Citizenism is blobbing-up en masse even as we speak.

But hey, the 21st century is the century of Chinese Citizenism, right?

To the victurds belong the spoileds.

Sun, 02/02/2014 - 12:56 | 4393512 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Another lesson served for the delusionals on this board but the first projects of Chineses in Africa is construction of roads and roadsides.

Cannot posture surprise when the completion of these interests are compatible with the Chinese citizenish situation. Go figure.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:01 | 4391254 nooyawka
nooyawka's picture

There IS NOT a thousand year history of war between China and Japan. The Chinese have never, ever initiated a war against Japan. The Mongols conquered China and tried to conquer Japan also, but the kamikaze (divine wind) stopped them (twice). The Japanese fought China in the 20th century, but never, ever before then.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:50 | 4391345 Vlad Tepid
Vlad Tepid's picture

Well, except for the FIRST Sino-Japanese war of 1895...but I guess they don't teach that one in schools anymore.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 12:07 | 4391260 Whiner
Whiner's picture

Actually, it was from " These United States" to "the USA", but you got the point. Abraham Lincon, a bloody abolitionist despot.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 16:16 | 4391704 markovchainey
markovchainey's picture

Correction:  Abraham Lincoln, a bloody racist despot.

Sun, 02/02/2014 - 00:36 | 4392879 TheReplacement
TheReplacement's picture

Nothing to add about Japan and China except enemies tend to remain enemies until one or the other is defeated conclusively by the other.

----------------------

On the Civil War

Would you argue that individual rights are outweighed by states rights?

The US Gov't was wrong to violate states rights.

States were wrong to violate individual rights.

The US Gov't was right to secure the rights of individuals from the depredations of other individuals under the protection of the states (even if poorly executed).

If individual rights are more important than states rights then the southern states owe us all a huge apology.  First they were willing to see half a million men cut down in the prime of their lives for the right of a few to own and abuse many others simply because they were different.  Besides actively resisting granting individual rights to all, equally, even after losing the war and surrendering, they perpetuate the myth of states rights and coup conspiracies even to this day.  They (the southern states) are the very reason states rights were so justifiably gutted.  You idiots (yelling back in history too)!  You couldn't pick a valid issue on which to defend states rights?  You sure didn't do it during Vietnam.  You didn't do it when the Federal Reserve came into being in 1913 either.  STFU when you want to say something about the Civil War.  I just gave you the super quick version.  Most people know enough to completely discredit you and others like you when you spout your nonsense. 

Back to today

The Federal Gov't is rotten.  The Mil-Ind complex is rotten.  The banks are rotten.  The corporations are rotten.  Lawyers and judges are rotten.  The national government (effectively all of the above) is out of control.  We desperately need states rights now.  Don't go and blow it again by dragging the completely invalid idea that the state has the right to disregard individual rights.  Anyone who does that is a fool and deserves their own personal defeat.

Fri, 01/31/2014 - 23:38 | 4390497 Stoploss
Stoploss's picture

I certainly hope ZH did not pay for this post..

An empty post, except the blazen hatred of the confederate flag..

 

Typical.  The blacks have constructed their own prison, in which they will dwell forever...

They simply cannot exist without it, or the constant spread of misery. Their own worst enemy.

Sat, 02/01/2014 - 00:37 | 4390598 fonestar
fonestar's picture

fonestar loves the stars and bars... it's a perennial symbol of rebellion.  The social engineering libtards don't hate that flag because of anything to do with slavery, they hate it because it serves as a reminder that if we don't like our government we can tear it down and build our own.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!