not aimed at creating controversy reads "The seed of disunion was planted when
he
first Negro reached America". Seriously, next time a member of the Woke Brigad

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.


* SLMR 2.1a * Patriotism is always the last refuge for the scoundrel.

---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Wed Oct 19 2022 08:46 am

not aimed at creating controversy reads "The seed of disunion was planted when
he
first Negro reached America". Seriously, next time a member of the Woke Brigad

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

* SLMR 2.1a * Patriotism is always the last refuge for the scoundrel.

---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

I think that is not the angle Griffin was pursuing with this movie.

Seriously, when the movie was accused of being racist and biased as fuck, his defense
was: "but this film is neutral. We cast Lincoln in a good light and there are two good
niggas".

Suuuure, Griffin. That argument is gonna fly... XD

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Ogg on Wed Oct 19 2022 05:11 am

Re: The Birth of a Nation (1915)
By: Ogg to Arelor on Tue Oct 18 2022 10:23 pm

Hello Arelor!

** On Tuesday 18.10.22 - 17:46, Arelor wrote to All:

[...] nazism overdose. People who can look past the KKK
propaganda might extract a lot of value out of this film.

I didn't realize that "The Klan also culturally appropriated
the Spanish capirote hood."

i thought they wore the hood because they were supposed to be ghosts of fall

I thought they wore masks to conceal their indentities and look inimidating. Who wants to be identified while lynching and burning down churches and
houses? If a suspect is picked up, he can deny it unless he had features a mask couldn't conceal, plus he could claim he never seen his fellow
clansman's faces.

---
þ Synchronet þ The Cave BBS - Since 1992 - cavebbs.homeip.net

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Dumas Walker to ARELOR on Wed Oct 19 2022 08:46 am

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.
If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to leave, they had valid reasons.
Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Moondog to MRO on Wed Oct 19 2022 08:09 pm

i thought they wore the hood because they were supposed to be ghosts of fall

I thought they wore masks to conceal their indentities and look inimidating. Who wants to be identified while lynching and burning down churches and houses? If a suspect is picked up, he can deny it unless he had features a mask couldn't conceal, plus he could claim he never seen his fellow clansman's faces.

yeah that is why they wore it.

here's some stuff on the ghost thing

https://thereconstructionera.com/were-the-ku-klux-ghosts-of-confederate-soldiers-mississippi-1868/

POSTED INKU KLUX KLAN, WHITE SUPREMACY, WHITE SUPREMACY APOLOGETICS, WHITE TERROR
Were the Ku Klux Ghosts of Confederate Soldiers? Mississippi 1868
AUTHOR:PATRICK YOUNG PUBLISHED DATE:NOVEMBER 20, 2019 2 COMMENTSON WERE THE KU KLUX GHOSTS OF CONFEDERATE SOLDIERS? MISSISSIPPI 1868

This article announces the arrival of the KKK in Grenada, Miss. through the mockery of a black preacher. In the article "Uncle Ike" (older African American men were often called "Uncle" by whites), describes the Klansmen as akin to the ghosts of Confederate soldiers. Klansmen often pretended to be the ghosts of dead Confederates, claiming that "superstitious negroes" feared them as ghostly apparitions. Of course, it is more likely that they were feared because they were armed white supremacists with homicidal proclivities and military training in the Confederate armies.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.
If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to l
ve, they had valid reasons.
Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

You are correct, it certainly was not, but it is the one that got a lot of attention and stirred emotions and sentiments much more than any other.


* SLMR 2.1a * Dragon riders make good first impressions.

---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Wed Oct 19 2022 09:03 pm

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.
If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to leave, they had valid reasons. Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

Slavery was the root cause. The "declarations of secession" danced around the topic, because they knew they were on the wrong side of history. Over the course of 150 years, organizations like "The United Daughters of the Confederacy" pushed hard to re-write and re-define the Civil War.

I've lived in Wisconsin my whole life, and I remember our sections on The Civil War in history classes, most confederate generals were made out to be heroes. The books talked about how great these men were. Union generals were often just footnotes. Now, some of that is for good reason, as Lincoln went through A LOT of Generals-in-Chief before finally landing on Grant in 1864.

Sherman was champing at the bit, Grant sent him south to burn everything while he tied Lee up in Virginia.

"Gettysburg" is one of my favorite films, and it HEAVILY favors the confederate story. Even after Lee orders thousands of men to their deaths, he gets to be the sympathetic hero, by apologizing to returning soldiers and saying "it's all my fault". This is apocryphal. No one has ever been able to corroborate it. Lee never published any memoirs.

The saying goes "History is written by the victors" but in this case, that's not quite accurate. Many children's history textbooks are written to conform to southern states rules, and a lot of things slip in there that wind up being taught in schools all throughout the country. The narrative became that the Civil War was over "states rights" and, while techinically true, the "rights" the south attempted to secede over, was due to the inevitable collapse of their economic system which was based on owning other human beings.

DaiTengu

... Civil servants are neither civil nor servile.

---
þ Synchronet þ War Ensemble BBS - The sport is war, total war - warensemble.com

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: DaiTengu to MRO on Fri Oct 21 2022 11:40 am

If you look at the declairations of secession from the states that wanted to leave, they had valid reasons. Slavery played a part, but it wasn't the only reason.

Slavery was the root cause. The "declarations of secession" danced around the topic, because they knew they were on the wrong side of history. Over

it was one of the causes, but not the root cause.
like everything, it was about money and the lack of consideration and protection these states were getting. for example, they had a huge problem with bandits and the govt wouldn't lift a finger to help.

the topic, because they knew they were on the wrong side of history. Over the course of 150 years, organizations like "The United Daughters of the

they didnt really feel like they were on the wrong side of history. slavery and other things like indentured servatude were just the way they did things.

I've lived in Wisconsin my whole life, and I remember our sections on The Civil War in history classes, most confederate generals were made out to be heroes. The books talked about how great these men were. Union generals were often just footnotes. Now, some of that is for good reason, as Lincoln went through A LOT of Generals-in-Chief before finally landing on Grant in 1864.

i'm a big fan of history and i have about 3 years of tech college history courses that i took after highschool. never have i seen a book in public school or anywhere else that glorified confederate generals as heros.

Confeds had some great battles, real interesting ones, but never did i see them portrayed as anything other than total losers in the wrong.

back then none of these people were good. Most of them weren't really champions against slavery. Whitey always has a motive and it's power and money.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

MRO wrote to Dumas Walker <=-

If you consider that most early blacks arrived as slaves, and the issue of slavery was a contributor to the Civil War, that quote has truth to it.

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.

Of course you do.


-+- Brightening your day. -Bex <3

... Because we all share this planet earth, we have to learn to live in harmony

--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
þ Synchronet þ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Wed Oct 19 2022 09:03 pm

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.

I think it was Lincoln himself who said that his main goal was to unify the USA and that he would take any flag that furthered that goal. If removal of slavery had not been an useful flag, he would not have used it. If the imposition of slavery had been a good flag to gather his people around, he would have used it. I don't remember the exact quite but the idea was just that one.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken

---
þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: Arelor to MRO on Sat Nov 05 2022 09:59 am

Re: The Birth of a Nation (19
By: MRO to Dumas Walker on Wed Oct 19 2022 09:03 pm

I think slavery as a contributer to civil war was a red herring.

I think it was Lincoln himself who said that his main goal was to unify the USA and that he would take any flag that furthered that goal. If removal of slavery had not been an useful flag, he would not have used it. If the imposition of slavery had been a good flag to gather his people around, he would have used it. I don't remember the exact quite but the idea was just that one.

the unifier was the war. the north won against the state.

each state drew up a declaration with reasons of why they were succeeding.
they didn't say 'because you are stopping slavery'. they had some really good points.

I did phrase that wrong. i should have said MAIN contributer. It certainly was a factor; the southern states not getting the support and respect they needed from the federal govt was the driving reason the southern states wanted to leave.

---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::