|
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 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 11:21 am Post subject: A new secession-related issue |
 |
|
"...It wasn�t until 1900 that Congress allowed the remains of Confederate veterans to receive the honor of burial at Arlington, and even then�here�s an irony�they were segregated in their own section of the property. The United Daughters of the Confederacy raised the money for a monument for the Confederate section, and in 1914, President Woodrow Wilson dedicated the memorial by sculptor Moses Ezekiel on the 106th anniversary of the birth of Jefferson Davis�who was, of course, the president of the Confederacy.
From then on, the White House marked Davis� birthday with a wreath for the memorial each year. During the administration of President George H.W. Bush, the date was changed to Memorial Day.
McPherson, a professor at Princeton University, is the author of the classic Civil War history Battle Cry of Freedom. He told me in an email this week that he signed the petition, sent to the White House last week, because �I don�t think it appropriate for a president to send a wreath honoring a group that tried to break up the United States�especially a president who sees himself in many ways as an heir to Abraham Lincoln.�
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-21/should-obama-honor-dixie/?cid=hp:mainpromo3
I had no idea Confederates were buried in Arlington and even less that J. Davis was getting any kind of honor from the president. Both of those startled me.
I agree with McPherson. Now that secession is back on the table, thanks to Gov. Perry, this is the right time to stop honoring Davis. It might be a good time for Obama to make a speech on the issue laying out the limits of legitimate opposition.
There's a second mini-issue: the Republican National Committee thing criticizing Obama for saying the Constitution is flawed:
http://twitter.com/RNC/status/1869456831
Of course, what Obama was talking about was slavery: "The out of context video the RNC links to contains audio from a September 6, 2001 program called "Slavery and the Constitution" on WBEZ Chicago. On the show, Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" was "Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers." In addition, the framers did not "see...it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 11:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
I don't understand your obsession with Rick, but an independent Republic of TEXAS Nation is not an original idea he came up with.
He's a good governor for us, but you're giving him too much credit.
I have to ask again. Why are you (and others) so dead set on keeping TEXAS part of the states? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I had no idea Confederates were buried in Arlington and even less that J. Davis was getting any kind of honor from the president. Both of those startled me.
|
A noticable aspect of popular American discourse about the Civil War is that the conflict is often talked about as if everyone fought on the same side. The actual divisions between the states are treated as if they were just these quaint, half-remembered annoyances that merely served as the pretext for everyone to dress up and march around with guns.
In Canada, the Plains Of Abraham is the subject of little or no public recognition, despite its being the indispensable reason that Canada is the "bilingual and bicultural" nation that Canadian nationalists love to brag about. Of course, focussing on the fact that Canada's bicultural nature was a direct result of conquest and subjugation would likely throw a monkey wrench into the national mythology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Has nothing at all to do with Texas, Mole. Ya-ta Boy simply seems to despise, hate, fear, involuntarily sneer at anyone who does not regard the American left, especially as MSNBC's Rachel and other related spokesmen articulate its politics, as her or his ideological leader in all things.
The Texas governor and others have criticized B. Obama. Note the bolded print, above. Therefore, Ya-ta Boy must smite him. The so-called secession discussion exists as convenient pretext. No more, no less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 12:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
YaTa Boy wrote:
| Quote: |
I had no idea Confederates were buried in Arlington and even less that J. Davis was getting any kind of honor from the president. Both of those startled me.
I agree with McPherson. Now that secession is back on the table, thanks to Gov. Perry, this is the right time to stop honoring Davis. It might be a good time for Obama to make a speech on the issue laying out the limits of legitimate opposition.
|
I highly doubt that Obama will take a swipe at the memory of Jefferson Davis. That would be the polar opposite of a Sister Souljah Moment. And as we all know, if you're a Democrat with perceived liberal leanings, Sister Souljah Moments are what you want. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 4:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
| I have to ask again. Why are you (and others) so dead set on keeping TEXAS part of the states? |
Because it is a valuable part of our country and losing valuable resources is something we want to avoid? What country would be keen to give up a land mass the size of Texas? Why would you even need to ask such a question, given it's obvious answer?
Perhaps a better question is why you think it would be reasonable to attempt to steal it via secession?
And before you say it, this isn't about the people of Texas; they are free to leave America at any time they wish. They're simply not free to co-opt a giant, valuable land mass on their way out of United States citizenship.
Some time ago, the Principality of Sealand went up for sale. Assuming it still is, perhaps the people of Texas who are so unhappy with their citizenship here could band together, purchase it, and move on. If it is no longer for sale, there's no reason you cannot emulate it by building your own gigantic sea platform to live upon. It would be a powerful symbol of their independent natures and resourcefulness to be able to live not just independent of the United States Government, but independent of naturally occuring landmass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
| I have to ask again. Why are you (and others) so dead set on keeping TEXAS part of the states? |
Good question. I say we give it back to Mexico (but only if the Bushes go with it).  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
I don't understand your obsession with Rick, but an independent Republic of TEXAS Nation is not an original idea he came up with.
He's a good governor for us, but you're giving him too much credit.
I have to ask again. Why are you (and others) so dead set on keeping TEXAS part of the states? |
If I had had the misfortune of being born in the US I'd be all too happy to let it go. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bacasper wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| I have to ask again. Why are you (and others) so dead set on keeping TEXAS part of the states? |
Good question. I say we give it back to Mexico (but only if the Bushes go with it). |
Actually it was imperial Spain's "New Spain." Nationalist Mexico inherited the claim but its polity and political-economy could not sustain the claim. Nationalist Mexico also lost all of Central America, which promptly fragmented into the five smaller nation-states we know today.
Newsflash: borders changed all over the western hemisphere between the late-eighteenth and mid-nineteenth centuries as old empires fell and new nation-states emerged, just as when the Ottomans fell in the Arab Middle East after the First World War.
In any case, this discussion borders on the ludicrous. If and when the Texas govt moves to secede, I trust someone will let me know... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Fri May 22, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Has nothing at all to do with Texas, Mole. Ya-ta Boy simply seems to despise, hate, fear, involuntarily sneer at anyone who does not regard the American left, especially as MSNBC's Rachel and other related spokesmen articulate its politics, as her or his ideological leader in all things.
The Texas governor and others have criticized B. Obama. Note the bolded print, above. Therefore, Ya-ta Boy must smite him. The so-called secession discussion exists as convenient pretext. No more, no less. |
Impressive. 
Last edited by lithium on Sun May 24, 2009 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| bacasper wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| I have to ask again. Why are you (and others) so dead set on keeping TEXAS part of the states? |
Good question. I say we give it back to Mexico (but only if the Bushes go with it). |
Actually it was imperial Spain's "New Spain." Nationalist Mexico inherited the claim but its polity and political-economy could not sustain the claim. |
Sorry, but Spain can't have it. I ain't givin' up Tex-Mex!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
| I have to ask again. Why are you (and others) so dead set on keeping TEXAS part of the states? |
Because it is a valuable part of our country and losing valuable resources is something we want to avoid? What country would be keen to give up a land mass the size of Texas? Why would you even need to ask such a question, given it's obvious answer?
Perhaps a better question is why you think it would be reasonable to attempt to steal it via secession?
And before you say it, this isn't about the people of Texas; they are free to leave America at any time they wish. They're simply not free to co-opt a giant, valuable land mass on their way out of United States citizenship.
|
I'm simple and naive, I know.
Do you feel the Brits deserve to have back bits and pieces of their Empire lost in revolutions and other political moves?
I'm sure the 13 colonies represent a certain amount of resources and land mass they would find useful.
Steal it. Just silliness.
The topic of secession arose due to the perception that the federal government has been and is overstepping the bounds granted it by the Constitution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
Do you feel the Brits deserve to have back bits and pieces of their Empire lost in revolutions and other political moves?
|
No, because they've recognized the independence of those places and given up claim to them. They themselves don't feel they have a right to those bits of land. It's also totally irrelevent; you asked why American citizens want to keep Texas, and I told you why. Why is it so hard to simply accept a clear, honest answer to a question you asked?
| mole wrote: |
Steal it. Just silliness.
The topic of secession arose due to the perception that the federal government has been and is overstepping the bounds granted it by the Constitution. |
No, the topic of secession arose because the state level legislators and governors of certain states are playing politics. No one with actual political power really sympathizes with you or feels the way you do. Certain demographics are just very easy to whip up into a frenzy with a few disingenous words from political circles amplified by ample Fox News coverage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mole
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Act III
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| mole wrote: |
Do you feel the Brits deserve to have back bits and pieces of their Empire lost in revolutions and other political moves?
|
No, because they've recognized the independence of those places and given up claim to them. They themselves don't feel they have a right to those bits of land. It's also totally irrelevent; you asked why American citizens want to keep Texas, and I told you why. Why is it so hard to simply accept a clear, honest answer to a question you asked?
| mole wrote: |
Steal it. Just silliness.
The topic of secession arose due to the perception that the federal government has been and is overstepping the bounds granted it by the Constitution. |
No, the topic of secession arose because the state level legislators and governors of certain states are playing politics. No one with actual political power really sympathizes with you or feels the way you do. Certain demographics are just very easy to whip up into a frenzy with a few disingenous words from political circles amplified by ample Fox News coverage. |
My bad. Didn't realize I was responding to one of the bantering debaters.
And don't worry. You, too, will recognized the independence of [TEXAS] and give up claim to [it.]
Or, hey. Seems as if you prefer a war. Bring it on.
ADDENDUM:
I gotta ask, you and what army? 
Lest you forget, Napolitano and her band of mall cops just alienated all active duty and veteran service personnel.
Gonna call in a UN peacekeeping force to keep those silly Texians in line? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 23, 2009 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mole wrote: |
| My bad. Didn't realize I was responding to one of the bantering debaters. |
Yes, in that I defend my view points with argumentation and logic, I am a debater. I understand that's not your thing, and that's cool. Thing is, if you sit on a forum disagreeing with people, but aren't engaging in debate while doing it, there's only one other thing you can be doing: trolling.
If you feel like debating in the future, that's cool, just say so. If you just want to troll, save your time, I won't be baited again. Enjoy your day, Texan. |
|
| 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
