|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 6:46 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Kuros was right when he said that regarding the Civil War, history "has for too long been written by losers." |
I'd say that the most influential first-hand accounts that have shaped our nation's view of the Civil War have been Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (North & South), E.P. Alexander's Fighting for the Confederacy (South), and The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (North). Other important works were Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Jubal Early's letters (Both Southerners).
In more modern times, It basically begins with Douglass Southall Freeman's biography of Lee and his Lee's Lieutenant's which served as a history of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's Lieutenant's is still well-regarded for its analysis of military leadership (Southern). Then it goes into the works of Bruce Catton (Northern). Finally I'd say the living triumvirate of James M. McPherson, Stephen W. Sears (Northerners), and Gary Gallagher (Southerner) for more scholarly works, and the late Shelby Foote and of course, Ken Burns for more popular perceptions.
The "Lost Cause" mythology has at times waxed and waned. I certainly think that when JFC Fuller and Bruce Catton helped to rehabilitate U.S. Grant's reputation that that saw a much needed rebalancing. It's so hard to separate the Lost Cause myths from reality in certain cases. I do feel that for serious students of the Civil War, that most well-regarded works are balanced between North and South in their views. E.P. Alexander's work is probably my favorite as the author, a former Confederate General with the Army of Northern Virginia, explicitly set out to create a dispassionate history and analysis of the conflict and was unsparing in his criticism of officer's blunders on both sides.
But there is a certain element of truth that Southerners were perhaps successful in at least having significant influence over the narrative and resulting mythology of the conflict. |
The above is an attempt to sound like scholarly semantics, but it is a patchwork of plagiarized passages.
A portion of it is lifted from the following...
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=hst_theses |
Dude, I own and have read most of those books. Do you?
There's nothing plagiarized about what I wrote. It is pretty generic commentary, but that doesn't make it plagiarized. I'm saying the same thing as everyone else because that's the way it is. If you are a moderate-serious fan if the Civil War, those are the people you end up reading. Just the same as tracing sci-fi film history from La Voyage de la Lune to Metropolis to 2001. It's the same old same old, but that doesn't make it plagiarized.
Even if it is, what I was saying was so generic in Civil War circles, its like accusing someone of plagiarism for saying "Goya was a revolutionary artist whose work can be viewed as being centuries ahead of its time". Or "Operation Barbarossa was a catastrophic blunder that marked the end of the Third Reich". Someone else has probably written those words elsewhere. But the thing is, pretty much everyone knows this and it's just passing on information. Also, this is like, an internet forum. Sorry everything isn't properly formatted and cited.  This isn't an assignment or a work of journalism dude. I don't gain anything by basically putting together a 'Best of' list of books and Civil War authors and saying why their works are famous, which is pretty much all I was doing. That and giving a very generic opinion and timeline of influence.
Anyways, since you seem to be such an expert on the topic as well, care to discuss Lee's Lieutenants or maybe Catton's Grant Takes Command? Or Alexander' works? Who's history of Gettysburg do you prefer? Sears? Trudeau? Coddington? Any of Gallagher's essay collections you enjoy? Do you think Fuller assessed Lee and Grant's character correctly and its impact on their respective commands? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
guavashake
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2015 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Kuros was right when he said that regarding the Civil War, history "has for too long been written by losers." |
I'd say that the most influential first-hand accounts that have shaped our nation's view of the Civil War have been Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (North & South), E.P. Alexander's Fighting for the Confederacy (South), and The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (North). Other important works were Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Jubal Early's letters (Both Southerners).
In more modern times, It basically begins with Douglass Southall Freeman's biography of Lee and his Lee's Lieutenant's which served as a history of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's Lieutenant's is still well-regarded for its analysis of military leadership (Southern). Then it goes into the works of Bruce Catton (Northern). Finally I'd say the living triumvirate of James M. McPherson, Stephen W. Sears (Northerners), and Gary Gallagher (Southerner) for more scholarly works, and the late Shelby Foote and of course, Ken Burns for more popular perceptions.
The "Lost Cause" mythology has at times waxed and waned. I certainly think that when JFC Fuller and Bruce Catton helped to rehabilitate U.S. Grant's reputation that that saw a much needed rebalancing. It's so hard to separate the Lost Cause myths from reality in certain cases. I do feel that for serious students of the Civil War, that most well-regarded works are balanced between North and South in their views. E.P. Alexander's work is probably my favorite as the author, a former Confederate General with the Army of Northern Virginia, explicitly set out to create a dispassionate history and analysis of the conflict and was unsparing in his criticism of officer's blunders on both sides.
But there is a certain element of truth that Southerners were perhaps successful in at least having significant influence over the narrative and resulting mythology of the conflict. |
The above is an attempt to sound like scholarly semantics, but it is a patchwork of plagiarized passages.
A portion of it is lifted from the following...
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=hst_theses |
I own and have read most of those books.
I'm saying the same thing as everyone else because that's the way it is.
Someone else has probably written those words elsewhere.
But the thing is, it's just passing on information.
Also, this is like, an internet forum.
Sorry... |
I see. You have read most of the books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Kuros was right when he said that regarding the Civil War, history "has for too long been written by losers." |
I'd say that the most influential first-hand accounts that have shaped our nation's view of the Civil War have been Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (North & South), E.P. Alexander's Fighting for the Confederacy (South), and The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (North). Other important works were Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Jubal Early's letters (Both Southerners).
In more modern times, It basically begins with Douglass Southall Freeman's biography of Lee and his Lee's Lieutenant's which served as a history of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's Lieutenant's is still well-regarded for its analysis of military leadership (Southern). Then it goes into the works of Bruce Catton (Northern). Finally I'd say the living triumvirate of James M. McPherson, Stephen W. Sears (Northerners), and Gary Gallagher (Southerner) for more scholarly works, and the late Shelby Foote and of course, Ken Burns for more popular perceptions.
The "Lost Cause" mythology has at times waxed and waned. I certainly think that when JFC Fuller and Bruce Catton helped to rehabilitate U.S. Grant's reputation that that saw a much needed rebalancing. It's so hard to separate the Lost Cause myths from reality in certain cases. I do feel that for serious students of the Civil War, that most well-regarded works are balanced between North and South in their views. E.P. Alexander's work is probably my favorite as the author, a former Confederate General with the Army of Northern Virginia, explicitly set out to create a dispassionate history and analysis of the conflict and was unsparing in his criticism of officer's blunders on both sides.
But there is a certain element of truth that Southerners were perhaps successful in at least having significant influence over the narrative and resulting mythology of the conflict. |
The above is an attempt to sound like scholarly semantics, but it is a patchwork of plagiarized passages.
A portion of it is lifted from the following...
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=hst_theses |
I own and have read most of those books.
I'm saying the same thing as everyone else because that's the way it is.
Someone else has probably written those words elsewhere.
But the thing is, it's just passing on information.
Also, this is like, an internet forum.
Sorry... |
I see. You have read most of the books. |
Yes, I haven't read every Civil War book out there. I haven't read the complete Battles and Leaders because a lot of what is written there is regularly cited in other works. Same with Early's Letters and Davis' Rise and Fall. Early's Letters and Davis' work deal more with the Confederate cause and nation and also have elements of being an apologia for their actions during the war. My interest is more towards the military campaigns.
Saying the same thing as someone else isn't bad if what they are saying is true. What do you expect? A 100 page thesis on the subject? What I'm saying is as about as common and acknowledged as citing the narrative of the "Minuteman winning the American Revolution" vs. Contributions by the French as part of wider global colonial struggle between major European powers. The fact that its the same thing as in other sources doesn't mean it is plagiarized or untrue. Accuse me of saying the same old, same old, fine. I'd agree. Nothing revolutionary or really original, but then that wasn't the point. It was just to give an overview of popular works that have been influential in shaping Civil War history and to say that the South hasn't completely dominated the narrative and mythology of the Civil War, as Grant's rehabilitation demonstrates.
Anyways, your article didn't talk about scholarly and historical works, but rather the influence of popular culture in regards to the Civil War narrative. Your article is citing Gone with the Wind, The Dukes of Hazzard, and X-Men. I'm talking about first-hand accounts and memoirs, works of military analysis that are still taught at military schools, and works of historical writing and scholarship that influence those who have an active interest in the Civil War. X-Men isn't really part of that canon. Now, there's nothing wrong with examining such influences, but that's not really what's being cited here. The article does make sure to reference popular works such as The Killer Angels and Confederates in the Attic, which have a more well-regarded following amongst serious Civil War enthusiasts, and does include some sources from well-regarded academics like Gallagher, but I don't really see how that applies to what I wrote.
Do you have anything to actually add or are you just looking at what I'm doing wrong? Is there anything I said that was actually wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 28, 2015 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| C'mon guys, we know that Steelrails is a total Civil War nerd. This isn't news. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2016 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Most people do not associate anti-communist rhetoric with slavism.
And yet . . .
https://newrepublic.com/article/133132/whos-afraid-communism
| Quote: |
Anti-communism has been a powerful force within American politics and culture for over 150 years. In their book The American Slave Coast, Ned and Constance Sublette date its inauguration to the 1850 Nashville convention on Southern secession, when Langdon Cheves, former Speaker of the House and South Carolina congressman, denounced abolitionists as communists:
| Quote: |
| What we call the rights of man, or the admission of great masses to the power of self-government, has brought into action the minds of persons utterly unqualified to judge of the subject practically, who have generated the wildest theories…. This agitation has recently reached the United States…, and has brought under its delusions the subject of African slavery in the Southern States. It is of the family of communism, it is the doctrine of Proudhon, that property is a crime. |
Cheves’s speech, the Sublettes write, was no fluke: “Proslavery writers formulated the first generation of American anticommunist rhetoric.” Cheves and co. weren’t wrong: Communists (including Karl Marx) really did want to destroy slavery, but patriotic American history books don’t have room for left-wing internationalism. Anyone involved in creating one of those textbooks grew up in a time when Marxists were the Bad Guys and people who questioned that got in trouble. |
Also, the Soviets won WWII, but that is another topic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CentralCali
Joined: 17 May 2007
|
| Posted: Sun May 01, 2016 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Plain Meaning wrote: |
| Also, the Soviets won WWII, but that is another topic. |
Well, the USSR certainly did not win that war alone; they had the help of the rest of the Allies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trueblue
Joined: 15 Jun 2014
Location: In between the lines
|
| Posted: Mon May 02, 2016 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| guavashake wrote: |
| Steelrails wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Kuros was right when he said that regarding the Civil War, history "has for too long been written by losers." |
I'd say that the most influential first-hand accounts that have shaped our nation's view of the Civil War have been Battles and Leaders of the Civil War (North & South), E.P. Alexander's Fighting for the Confederacy (South), and The Personal Memoirs of U.S. Grant (North). Other important works were Jefferson Davis' Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government and Jubal Early's letters (Both Southerners).
In more modern times, It basically begins with Douglass Southall Freeman's biography of Lee and his Lee's Lieutenant's which served as a history of the Army of Northern Virginia. Lee's Lieutenant's is still well-regarded for its analysis of military leadership (Southern). Then it goes into the works of Bruce Catton (Northern). Finally I'd say the living triumvirate of James M. McPherson, Stephen W. Sears (Northerners), and Gary Gallagher (Southerner) for more scholarly works, and the late Shelby Foote and of course, Ken Burns for more popular perceptions.
The "Lost Cause" mythology has at times waxed and waned. I certainly think that when JFC Fuller and Bruce Catton helped to rehabilitate U.S. Grant's reputation that that saw a much needed rebalancing. It's so hard to separate the Lost Cause myths from reality in certain cases. I do feel that for serious students of the Civil War, that most well-regarded works are balanced between North and South in their views. E.P. Alexander's work is probably my favorite as the author, a former Confederate General with the Army of Northern Virginia, explicitly set out to create a dispassionate history and analysis of the conflict and was unsparing in his criticism of officer's blunders on both sides.
But there is a certain element of truth that Southerners were perhaps successful in at least having significant influence over the narrative and resulting mythology of the conflict. |
The above is an attempt to sound like scholarly semantics, but it is a patchwork of plagiarized passages.
A portion of it is lifted from the following...
http://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=hst_theses |
I own and have read most of those books.
I'm saying the same thing as everyone else because that's the way it is.
Someone else has probably written those words elsewhere.
But the thing is, it's just passing on information.
Also, this is like, an internet forum.
Sorry... |
I see. You have read most of the books. |
Yes, I haven't read every Civil War book out there. I haven't read the complete Battles and Leaders because a lot of what is written there is regularly cited in other works. Same with Early's Letters and Davis' Rise and Fall. Early's Letters and Davis' work deal more with the Confederate cause and nation and also have elements of being an apologia for their actions during the war. My interest is more towards the military campaigns.
Saying the same thing as someone else isn't bad if what they are saying is true. What do you expect? A 100 page thesis on the subject? What I'm saying is as about as common and acknowledged as citing the narrative of the "Minuteman winning the American Revolution" vs. Contributions by the French as part of wider global colonial struggle between major European powers. The fact that its the same thing as in other sources doesn't mean it is plagiarized or untrue. Accuse me of saying the same old, same old, fine. I'd agree. Nothing revolutionary or really original, but then that wasn't the point. It was just to give an overview of popular works that have been influential in shaping Civil War history and to say that the South hasn't completely dominated the narrative and mythology of the Civil War, as Grant's rehabilitation demonstrates.
Anyways, your article didn't talk about scholarly and historical works, but rather the influence of popular culture in regards to the Civil War narrative. Your article is citing Gone with the Wind, The Dukes of Hazzard, and X-Men. I'm talking about first-hand accounts and memoirs, works of military analysis that are still taught at military schools, and works of historical writing and scholarship that influence those who have an active interest in the Civil War. X-Men isn't really part of that canon. Now, there's nothing wrong with examining such influences, but that's not really what's being cited here. The article does make sure to reference popular works such as The Killer Angels and Confederates in the Attic, which have a more well-regarded following amongst serious Civil War enthusiasts, and does include some sources from well-regarded academics like Gallagher, but I don't really see how that applies to what I wrote.
Do you have anything to actually add or are you just looking at what I'm doing wrong? Is there anything I said that was actually wrong? |
I am going to have to give this one to SR.
Too bad nobody mentions Stout. He has done some excellent work in this field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Why is it even a debate to get rid of the monuments.
Its absurd. As a British friend told me once "So, these southern Americans are proud to be American and simultaneously proud they tried to secede fro America and wish they had been successful?" Yeah, its sounds that stupid.
We should no more be proud of that and honor as Germans would Nazi era accomplishments/heroes or Russia of Stalin or Santa Domingo of Columbus. Its asinine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goat
Joined: 23 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Sun May 14, 2017 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
Why is it even a debate to get rid of the monuments.
Its absurd. As a British friend told me once "So, these southern Americans are proud to be American and simultaneously proud they tried to secede fro America and wish they had been successful?" Yeah, its sounds that stupid.
We should no more be proud of that and honor as Germans would Nazi era accomplishments/heroes or Russia of Stalin or Santa Domingo of Columbus. Its asinine. |
The Southerners wanted to secede and be the Confederate States of America. The southern states would have been like South Korea and the northern states would have been like North Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 16, 2017 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Right, the ultimate causes behind the Civil War were very simple. The governments of the states which formed the Confederacy were very direct and honest about their reasons for secession, and those reasons were almost entirely based upon slavery. It's only modern Americans who seek to support the Confederacy while simultaneously insisting that they oppose slavery who are forced to resort to rhetorical gymnastics on this matter.
Here are some excerpts from the actual documents of succession:
| Georgia wrote: |
The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
...
But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union |
| Mississippi wrote: |
| Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. |
| South Carolina wrote: |
| But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. |
| Texas wrote: |
She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.
...
The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article [the fugitive slave clause] of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof |
These were slaver-dominated governments seceding from the union based upon the perceived interests of slavers. Careful readers will notice an especial irony in these secession documents: modern apologists for the Confederacy like to insist it was fighting for "State's Rights," but one of the primary complaints was that the Northern States exercised their own "state's rights" and outlawed slavery in their territories. |
Just going to quote this in response to goat. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2017 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mitch Landrieu's Speech in New Orleans
| Quote: |
| irst erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy. It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots. These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for. |
| Quote: |
| Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy. He said in his now famous ‘cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s “cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Change the Racist Mascot of LSU!
| Quote: |
Louisiana State University named their mascot the Tigers, and they named it during the height of Jim Crow South. This was a time when black men feared for their lives, and were treated as sub human. This symbol is the most prevalent confederate symbol in the United States.
These powerful white males choose the Tiger as a symbol to honor a confederate regiment called Louisiana's Tigers. They were known for their propensity for violence on and off the battle field. They were just as violent to the black slaves they owned, and later even more violent once those slaves were set free.
It is incredibly insulting for any African American to have to attend to a school that honors confederate militantism. It is already hard enough to be black at LSU, and these symbols must be changed. We must speak truth to power, and continue to march toward justice. That day is coming, the day when every symbol of white oppression is torn down. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 13, 2017 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More Confederacy Monuments Come Down
| Quote: |
Across the United States, the statues are starting to topple, the streets renamed, the memorials removed. These visible inscriptions of white supremacy into the American landscape are being erased.
In New Orleans, Mayor Mitch Landrieu recently hauled down three public monuments to the Confederacy and to white supremacy. “These statues were a part of … terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone’s lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city,” he explained. In Kentucky, the mayor of Lexington responded to Charlottesville by accelerating his efforts to move statues of two Confederate leaders from the courthouse lawn to a public park. This was the rising tide of change that the Charlottesville rally hoped to stem.
As of August 2016, there were still more than 1,500 public commemorations of the Confederacy, even excluding the battlefields and cemeteries: 718 monuments and statutes still stood, and 109 public schools, 80 counties and cities, and 10 U.S. military bases bore the names of Lee, Jefferson Davis, and other Confederate icons, according to a tally by the Southern Poverty Law Center. More than 200 of these were in Virginia alone.
And one sits in the center of Charlottesville. |
White Supremacy claimed another life in an attack on Charlottesville counter-protestors this weekend. Bring all the treasonous and hateful monuments down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
