|Comment count is 47|
|Jeriko-1 - 2017-08-01 |
Have my stars because one of my co-workers fell for the Tangy Tangerine scam.
Also, just for fun I plugged 'Tangy Tangerine' into yahoo search engine. Jones has outsourced a legion of elves to poison search results to the point where all the top results are leading to his store/so you won't find anything negative at all about the product. I also found links to forums when all these mysterious new users would pop up and say how Tangy Tangerine did wondrous things like increase breast size. (One poster literally said this.) This was so blatant the forum regs were both annoyed and impressed by Team Jone$'s fuckery.
Which comes back to the co-worker. He's no Einstein and literally just got on the internet for the first time. So when he did a search for Tangy Tangerine. All he saw of course was results for 'how wonderful the shit was'. With all those good things said about it how bad could it be, right? :D
Fish. Meet hook.
I couldn't help myself from looking...
Third result on DuckDuckGo, behind TangyTangerine.us and the Amazon listing for it:
To be fair to these poor fools (or bots, or shills, or whatever), not all of them are rabidly defending Tangy Tangerine. However, those are probably comments put there to promote the discussion that happens as a result.
Anyhow, I appreciated a few of the posts:
"There is this idea that we treat our pets better than we treat ourselves. That's why some vets get into nutritional programs for people because we're animals too and there seems to have been better studies done on how to keep your dog functioning properly than yourself. Whereas MD's may only get one course in school on nutrition."
I'm on a parakeet, all seed diet myself. Seems legit so far: six weeks in and I am now plump, feathery and sleek, with a voice to shame a nightingale.
|John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-08-01 |
The Ken Burns Documentary on the Trump Era is going to be the centerpiece of every pledge drive.
Broadcasting is going to be a dying industry in the wasteland.
I'M PANNING OVER A PHOTOGRAPH! I'M A CINEMATOGRAPHIC GENIUS!
Probably this comment coming from me will make it very easy for you to ignore, but "No."
When you teach people history, you have have have to do it with moral detachment. If you're covering The Civil War, you can't make ethical proclamations against the south and fill your piece with nothing but reasons why they're wrong. You have to present a fair representation of their side of the story (and just saying "they were wrong" or "even though a bunch of them said this, that was a lie and they all just wanted to keep on slaving" is not that) along with the facts, or you ARE distorting history.
The entire point of trying to learn and teach people about history is giving them the information to make decisions about morality themselves, not presenting information skewed with moral decisions baked in. It's never going to get any better if you tell people how to think by distorting the facts. They have to learn how to think or else you get what we have now.
Whatever implication you're trying to make about it, it's guaranteed to be not quite that simple.
If not for Ken Burns we wouldn't have this:
MN - Burns's sins number among the following:
1) Changing the chronology in subtle ways, for example citing post-war "states rights" arguments in the first episode before Fort Sumter. Doing so VERY strongly suggests that "states rights", detached from slavery, was a motivating factor in secession.
2) Totally does NOT mention the multiple Declarations of Causes of Secession, which make it crystal clear that secession was about slavery and precious little else.
3) In discussing the Confederate Constitution, Burns mentions a couple of minor differences with the Union Constitution, but neglects the meaningful differences, i.e. a couple places where the CSA Constitution affirms that slavery will be protected in perpetuity. Again, secession was 100% about slavery.
You starting to see a trend here, where Ken Burns is trying to bury exactly how much the Civil War really was about slavery after all? He's pushing hard for the "states rights" argument, but it doesn't hold up. Hell, even in those Delcarations of Causes, traitor states bitched about loyal states refusing to up hold the Fugitive Slave Act, which WOULD be a perfectly valid exercise of "states rights" if that's what this were about.
Then there's the choice of experts. Shelby Foote is always there, on camera, with countless anecdotes about the bravery of the rebel troops and how they felt they were being invaded, all in all doing a pretty good job of making the Union look like the bad guys. For balance, though, Burns occasionally trots out some black professor lady who talks in soft platitudes about how the Civil War tested our mettle as a nation and improved us as a people. You probably noticed that I don't remember the nice lady's name ... and neither do you, and that's by design.
"When you teach people history, you have have have to do it with moral detachment. "
Consistently not doing this i why people generation after generation, with increasing regularity and severity, delude themselves into thinking "we are so much smarter now we could never make the kind of mistakes they did back then" and just walking right into traffic again, and again, and again, and again, and again.
But yeha, Ken Burns is kind of crappy, I have no issue with that. PBS in general has been pushing a a Chicago School revisionist view of social and economic history since at least the late 70s.
BTW, MN, I have no axe to grind with you, and I had no impulse to ignore you or to refuse to back up my noise. I do try to listen to conflicting points of view, and if the other guy's got better ideas than mine, I co-opt them like a big dirty cheater. Except that's not cheating, that's called "learning".
But it DOES mean that, if I've grown convinced of something, I'm gonna defend it because it's the best that's made it through a few debate cycles and I'm pretty sure it's right. In Burns's case, I find it remarkable that he could find the Sullivan Ballou letter yet somehow he never stumbled across the Declarations of Causes. Shelby Foote lamented that he didn't really know what a rebel yell sounded like and Burns found a recording, and yet Burns still didn't notice the slavery-reinforcing parts of the Confederate Constitution. I call bullshit.
I'm not really a fan of Ken Burns (I think his work is self-indulgent, personally), but I'm not sure your characterization of him as specifically trying to avoid naming slavery and the South as the cause of the civil war might not be 100% accurate. I mean, maybe you could argue the Civil War series took that slant, but Burns himself definitely is not on that wagon that I am aware of. Just recently, during all the controversy over the confederate monument removals, he was pretty open in his media appearances to say "Yeah, it was all about slavery and racism, not "economic anxiety" and whatever racist code word bullshit white people are saying it is." He was pretty clear on that.
Wherever Burns stands on the issue these days, "The Civil War" tried to minimize slavery's role in things. Maybe Burns would tell the story differently if he could do it all over, but in the meantime, "The Civil War" is considered the definitive accessible history of The War Of The South Begging For An Ass-Kicking, and Burns definitely downplayed the role of slavery in it. He couldn't excise slavery entirely, but if he could have, I get the feeling he would have.
It would be like Cenk Uygur saying that the Armenian Genocide was really more a matter of trying to identify partisans and there were a few local officials who probably overreacted, but it wasn't really a genocide because it was about politics, and while indeed a great many Armenians died die it's not like they wouldn't have died from other war-related doings. Can't entirely deny the unpleasantness, but you CAN try to reframe it so it makes the perpetrators sound less monstrous.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Well, there's no doubt that it was made for a national audience, and that necessitates a certain subtlety. But I don't think it's innaccurate. It doesn't leave out the ugly truth. The reasons for the civil war are discussed in full, and it's nearly all slaverfy: Dredd Scott, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown.
And when you say the it's out of chronology to mention states right before Sumpter, check out the wikipedia page on "States Rights"
Alien and Sedition Acts
When the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison secretly wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which provide a classic statement in support of states' rights and called on state legislatures to nullify unconstitutional laws. (The other states, however, did not follow suit and several rejected the notion that states could nullify federal law.) According to this theory, the federal union is a voluntary association of states, and if the central government goes too far each state has the right to nullify that law. As Jefferson said in the Kentucky Resolutions:
Resolved, that the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party....each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of the mode and measure of redress.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, which became part of the Principles of '98, along with the supporting Report of 1800 by Madison, became final documents of Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party. Gutzman argued that Governor Edmund Randolph designed the protest in the name of moderation. Gutzman argues that in 1798, Madison espoused states' rights to defeat national legislation that he maintained was a threat to republicanism. During 1831–33, the South Carolina Nullifiers quoted Madison in their defense of states' rights. But Madison feared that the growing support for this doctrine would undermine the union and argued that by ratifying the Constitution states had transferred their sovereignty to the federal government.
The most vociferous supporters of states' rights, such as John Randolph of Roanoke, were called "Old Republicans" into the 1820s and 1830s.
Tate (2011) undertook a literary criticism of a major book by John Taylor of Caroline, New Views of the Constitution of the United States. Tate argues it is structured as a forensic historiography modeled on the techniques of 18th-century Whig lawyers. Taylor believed that evidence from American history gave proof of state sovereignty within the union, against the arguments of nationalists such as U.S. Chief Justice John Marshall.
Another states' rights dispute occurred over the War of 1812. At the Hartford Convention of 1814–15, New England Federalists voiced opposition to President Madison's war, and discussed secession from the Union. In the end they stopped short of calls for secession, but when their report appeared at the same time as news of the great American victory at the Battle of New Orleans, the Federalists were politically ruined.
Nullification Crisis of 1832
One major and continuous strain on the union, from roughly 1820 through the Civil War, was the issue of trade and tariffs. Heavily dependent upon international trade, the almost entirely agricultural and export-oriented South imported most of its manufactured goods from Europe or obtained them from the North. The North, by contrast, had a growing domestic industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as competition. Trade barriers, especially protective tariffs, were viewed as harmful to the Southern economy, which depended on exports.
In 1828, the Congress passed protective tariffs to benefit trade in the northern states, but that were detrimental to the South. Southerners vocally expressed their tariff opposition in documents such as the South Carolina Exposition and Protest in 1828, written in response to the "Tariff of Abominations." Exposition and Protest was the work of South Carolina senator and former vice president John C. Calhoun, formerly an advocate of protective tariffs and internal improvements at federal expense.
South Carolina's Nullification Ordinance declared that both the tariff of 1828 and the tariff of 1832 were null and void within the state borders of South Carolina. This action initiated the Nullification Crisis. Passed by a state convention on November 24, 1832, it led, on December 10, to President Andrew Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, which sent a naval flotilla and a threat of sending federal troops to enforce the tariffs; Jackson authorized this under color of national authority, claiming in his 1832 Proclamation Regarding Nullification that "our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the supreme law of the land; and for greater caution adds, "that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
"States rights" AS JUSTIFICATION FOR SECESSION is a revisionist excuse. You've read the Declarations of Causes, right? It's slavery over and over. Take a drink every time they cite "slavery" and you'll need a new liver. Chug every time they bitch about the North not upholding the Fugitive Slave Act -- which again WOULD be a legitimate exercise of "states rights" if they believed in them -- and you won't live to dial 911.
John Holmes Motherfucker
In the context of the Civil War, discussing states rights without slavery is like discussing The second amendment without guns, and yes, in the 20th and probably 21st Century there have been people who try to make the Civil War about states rights more than about slavery, and, yes, that's revisionist as fuck.
But States Rights had a long history before the Civil War, and it was focused mostly in the South. The Nullification Crisis that I studied in eighth grade (and forgot until today) involved South Carolina, the first state to secede, and come on, seriously, HOW THE FUCK DO YOU INVOKE A STATE'S RIGHT TO SECEDE WITHOUT INVOKING STATE'S RIGHTS?
John Holmes Motherfucker
Here's what the wikipedia page of States Rights says about the Civil War:
Over the following decades, another central dispute over states' rights moved to the forefront. The issue of slavery polarized the union, with the Jeffersonian principles often being used by both sides—anti-slavery Northerners, and Southern slaveholders and secessionists—in debates that ultimately led to the American Civil War. Supporters of slavery often argued that one of the rights of the states was the protection of slave property wherever it went, a position endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. In contrast, opponents of slavery argued that the non-slave-states' rights were violated both by that decision and by the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850. Exactly which—and whose—states' rights were the casus belli in the Civil War remain in controversy.
States right as a rationale for defending the institution of slavery is what's in wikipedia, it's what I learned in school. States Rights history of the south makes it seem quite probable. But in spite of all that, I'm not taking the position that this is the truth. I wasn't there. I'm taking the position that a passing reference to States Rights among many more references to slavery, is not actively revisionist. Furthermore, as i said, Shelby Foote spends a lot of time admiring Abraham Lincoln, so who cares what kind of accent he has?
Take another look at what you just quoted. If anyone was making what we recognize as the "states rights" argument it was the abolitionist side, that individual states may free slaves if they so choose. The Dred Scott decision held that ownership of slaves is to be protected by federal law and no state has the right to violate it.
"HOW THE FUCK DO YOU INVOKE A STATE'S RIGHT TO SECEDE WITHOUT INVOKING STATE'S RIGHTS?"
That speaks to WHETHER states can secede. What we (or at least I) have been arguing about is WHY Southern states seceded. It was not a philosophical debate over states rights where slavery was just the most prominent issue.
Let me contrast with a more current issue to illustrate the difference. You know the lawsuit about whether cake decorators are obligated to do LGBT cakes? That lawsuit is really not about cakes, the hubbub is about the principle of refusing service to the LGBT community, and the cake is merely incidental. Now, the way Burns et al tell the tale of the Civil War, it really was about "states rights" and slavery was roughly as incidental as the gay cake ... but they're lying. Lying like rugs.
As to WHETHER states can secede, the Constitution is pretty damn clear about that. You can't get out of the Union when it gets inconvenient any more than you can just opt not to pay rent. Article I, Section 10:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."
Confederations are explicitly prohibited ... yet another point that Burns could have made, but didn't, in favor of letting Shelby Foote get away with "the Southern states wouldn't have joined the Union unless they also had the right to leave it".
John Holmes Motherfucker
>>>That speaks to WHETHER states can secede. What we (or at least I) have been arguing about is WHY Southern states seceded. It was not a philosophical debate over states rights where slavery was just the most prominent issue.
Again, the argument is that Slavery was the motivation, states rights was the rationale. A rationale is a way of getting to a positive answer to the question of "WHETHER"
If States Rights were evoked by abolitionists, that's got nothing to do with secession.
"What he said is they THOUGHT they had the right to leave it."
A very plain reading of the Constitution says they could not; confederations are even specifically mentioned as a verboten activity of states. There was no way to get that wrong.
If Donald Trump claimed in an interview that he didn't recall saying anything about building walls on our southern border, and the interviewer didn't challenge it, we'd certainly say the interviewer did a shitty job, right? Burns had some sort of obligation to say that the Constitution makes a pretty direct statement about confederations, and he opted not to. He sure found a Sam Watkins quotation for every occasion, though.
John Holmes Motherfucker
Well, I imagine the arguement was that States Rights supercedes the constitution.
I'm watching the first part of the Civil War Right now. The only discussion of States' Rights that I could find before Sumter was the Shelby Foote discussion you mentioned.
It's important that Foote precedes everything that he says about States Rights with "What the Southerner would have told you..." This makes sense to me. After all , no one is going to say that they want to kill Obamacare because the rich want a tax break, and because they want to destroy the legacy of the black president.
Besides the economic impact of Slavery, let's not forget White Supremacy. Poor white people have always been willing to resort to violence so as not to be the bottom of the barrel. Something to get the poor people into the fight.
I'm pretty sure what caught my attention was a quote from Sam Watkins' book from after the war. Maybe it wasn't in part 1, but I'll be assed if I'm going to watch the whole thing again to find it.
Could it have been a quote from "Co. Aytch: A Confederate Memoir of Civil War"? One of the Amazon reviewers says of it:
"I downloaded this book for free from Amazon on my iPad. This was a first hand account of a Southern soldier telling of the war he fought for four years. The war was never about slavery, it was about states rights under the 10th Amendment. Never once was the word slavery used in the telling of this book."
John Holmes Motherfucker
That would ordinarily seem a little harsh. I don't think Bort's dumb, but in that, at least, he may succeed in proving me wrong.
>>> Maybe it wasn't in part 1, but I'll be assed if I'm going to watch the whole thing again to find it.
What we were talking about is this:
>>>1) Changing the chronology in subtle ways, for example citing post-war "states rights" arguments in the first episode before Fort Sumter. Doing so VERY strongly suggests that "states rights", detached from slavery, was a motivating factor in secession.
So if it's not in Part 1, BEFORE FORT SUMTER, that would make you wrong.
>>> I'm pretty sure what caught my attention was a quote from Sam Watkins' book from after the war.
According to my research, "after the war" means "after Sumter."
|il fiore bel - 2017-08-01 |
I never realized how many rip-off products he sold.
|Killer Joe - 2017-08-01 |
So, AM radio.
I really wish CoastToCoast AM didn't turn into Alex Jones lite. In its heyday, I liked it better than anything Phil Hendrie did, it was like poeRadio. It started to go downhill when they began to expressly push a narrative heavy on the turmeric supplements and hysteria, but I guess that's where the money is.
Wherever you are, I hope you're raising all kinds of wombats, fishing for sharks and staying away from the black helicopters, Mel, you goddamned genius, you.
|Old_Zircon - 2017-08-01 |
Normally this would be low hanging fruit, but that distinction doesn't make as much sense anymore when the tree has fallen clean over.
|John Holmes Motherfucker - 2017-08-01 |
>>> For balance, though, Burns occasionally trots out some black professor lady who talks in soft platitudes about how the Civil War tested our mettle as a nation and improved us as a people. You probably noticed that I don't remember the nice lady's name ... and neither do you, and that's by design.
I think her name is Barbara something. I want to say Barbara Morisson, but I'm probably thinking of Toni Morrison. I'm going to look it up now.
Shelby Foote is the only historian I've EVER seen in ANY documentary, whose name I remember, except for maybe David McCullough. Partly because it's a cool name. But he's the one with the great stories, and he tells them beautifully. So he gets a lot of screen time. Barbara Fields speaks eloquently about great ideas, anf great principles, and she's got some great quotes, and I can't imagine the Documentary without her, but he's one with the anecdotes.
And I think you're overstating Foote's allegiance to the South. For example, he says that he knows of no greater example of valor than the Union Troops at (I want to say) Cold Harbor. And there's no one figure from the war who is more admired by Foote than Lincoln. Foote talks a lot about Lincoln, and so, of course does Burns.
It's true that no one mentions that the Confederate Constitution protected slavery, but Jesus Christ, man, of course it did! Maybe explicitly quoting the article would have been a good idea. You've got a valid criticism here. but I don't think they brushed over the South being pro-slavery. It's definitely mentioned.
>>Changing the chronology in subtle ways, for example citing post-war "states rights" arguments in the first episode before Fort Sumter.
So you're saying that no one was talking about "STATES RIGHTS" before Succession? That doesn't seem possible to me.
>>>Doing so VERY strongly suggests that "states rights", detached from slavery, was a motivating factor in secession.
I don't think it does. Slavery was the motivation, "States Rights" was the rationale. That seems obvious. However, slavery was not why the Union fought, at least not at first. So States Rights would have been a disproportionate part of the debate leading up to the war, as a counter to the pro-union position.
>>>The North wasn't therefore entirely grand and magnanimous -- the draft riots of NYC come prominently to mind -- but the South was wrong in every possible way.
"In EVERY possible way?"
They were wrong enough. The States Rights argument might be valid when it's not used to justify a moral atrocity. For example, marijuana legalization. But slavery? Of course not. I think the film is unambiguous in condemning slavery, but it doesn't condemn slavery over and over again for nine hours. I just don't think don't think that's necessary. Do you question that we're proceeding from the assumption that Slavery is wrong?
There is sympathy for the humanity of both sides, but I don't think Ken Burns "The Civil War" romanticizes the Southern Cause. And if you're trying to argue that it does, you need a better argument.
"Shelby Foote is the only historian I've EVER seen in ANY documentary, whose name I remember, except for maybe David McCullough. Partly because it's a cool name. But he's the one with the great stories, and he tells them beautifully. So he gets a lot of screen time. Barbara Fields speaks eloquently about great ideas, anf great principles, and she's got some great quotes, and I can't imagine the Documentary without her, but he's one with the anecdotes. "
Do you think Burns couldn't have found a historian with a Northern slant and some cool anecdotes, if he wanted to? You inadvertently illustrate my point about how Burns's "balance" favors the South.
"It's true that no one mentions that the Confederate Constitution protected slavery, but Jesus Christ, man, of course it did! Maybe explicitly quoting the article would have been a good idea. You've got a valid criticism here. but I don't think they brushed over the South being pro-slavery. It's definitely mentioned. "
THe south's allegiance to slavery is largely treated as INCIDENTAL. But when Burns is detailing the differences between the Constitutions, he describes them as nearly identical except for a few twists like a line-item veto, but completely ignores these passages:
(1) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
(1) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates [sic]; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Holy shit, those Southerners were nuts about slavery! I didn't even include the parts that are more or less the same as the US Constitution where they clarify that they're talking about slaves. Here's the thing: do ya think that any of this might merit mention if one is doing a series about the Civil War? Might it merit greater emphasis than, say, the line-item veto?
By the way, since you expect me to do your homework for you, yet you don't seem to feel Ken Burns has any obligation:
"So you're saying that no one was talking about "STATES RIGHTS" before Succession? That doesn't seem possible to me."
Yes that is EXACTLY what I'm saying. Prior to 1865, the South was entirely explicit about how it was slavery that motivated them, blessed sacred chattel slavery of negroes. There was no effort to disguise their motives or frame them as abstract questions about federal vs. state power. It was only AFTER the South's loss that their attachment to slavery was starting to look really really bad, and they reframed the whole matter to say "oh it wasn't about slavery so much as the greater question of power".
Stop here for just a minute and think about that. Think about how successful they have been at selling the lie; you can't imagine that they really were slavery-crazy fuckers, but they very much were. Any honest telling of the Civil War would make that clear; what would you make of a history of WWII that made like the Germans were just addressing issues of religious liberty?
"There is sympathy for the humanity of both sides, but I don't think Ken Burns "The Civil War" romanticizes the Southern Cause. And if you're trying to argue that it does, you need a better argument."
Well you just made it for me.
|Maggot Brain - 2017-08-01 |
MEEEEEEE AND MISTER, MISTER JONES!!! We have a scaaaaaam going oooooon♪♫
|Scrimmjob - 2017-08-01 |
I like Alex Jones, at the same time I feel really bad for anyone who takes him even slightly seriously. A lot like how I really enjoy listening to C2C AM or Ground Zero, yet feel bad for the people who buy into the conspiracy nonsense.
Yeah, Alex Jones is a born entertainer.
He's an performance artist according to his lawyers
|Scrotum H. Vainglorious - 2017-08-02 |
Wow the replies here are giving the Anita Sarkhesian posts a run for their money. Good job guys.
Actually it's about ethics and framing revisionism.
what? all i can see is a few normal posts and bort/JHM talking about ken burns and the circumstances surrounding the civil war
|dairyqueenlatifah - 2017-08-02 |
| Register or login To Post a Comment|