There's a general premise with historians of 'the nature of the times' justifies everything. It was the nature of the times for Muhammad to have a nine-year-old wife. It was the nature of the times to say one man is three/fifths of another man.
That type of logic is not acceptable when such knowledge should be easily approachable by anyone regardless of technical sophistication. Humans don't fuck children and no man is less than any other.
We hold these truths to be self-evident and not some arbitrary bullshit pose from someone making the first example of an American compromise 'for the sake of the Union,' yet another of the historian's favorite justifications. Oh, yes, it was necessary for the state of the Union.
What kind of Union is worthy of preservation when it believes one man is less than another. Here at the Rockhouse, we submit no Union which ever existed has warranted a compromise of that nature.
For example, the Aztecs believed they were a Middle American master race and they routinely sacrificed anyone unfortunate enough to be a member of another tribe. The Aztecs chopped out the heart of the sacrificial victim and they did it with a stone axe. It's said the high priests sacrificed fifty thousand in a single day and even Hitler never killed as many as that in a day, not even close.
Note: as nearly as I can tell with severely rough arithmetic is the NAZIs killed about four thousand people per day. There's no need for exquisite detail on who was the most horrifying as the only point is barbarism is not without parallel, if not so much scope, and blowing off any of it as a 'reflection of the times' is possibly a backdoor into religion insofar as they were 'savages who did not know better.' The world crawls with pedophiles now so we don't buy that logic.
Note: there will be no attempt to wrap this around to, see, this is what happens when you let those religious people get out of hand but we have observed no particular references to religious drivers behind the NAZIs. For example, a possibly germane thought is we saw over Auschwitz Arbeit Macht Free (i.e. work sets you free) rather than Gott Macht Free (i.e. God sets you free).
Cadillac Man and I spoke of this at some length last night, largely because we're such boring bastards and we enjoy talking of such things, and I don't accept it was necessary to incorporate the thinking of slave owners for the express purpose of making the Union larger, ensuring everything in the country is included, etc, etc. The objective of such a compromise is arbitrary and logically indefensible (i.e. we just wanted it).
(Ed: anything is logically defensible but you may not accept the logic)
Fair enough.
My position on such a thing is the original Union should have held the high ground, albeit a smaller chunk of it, and then worked toward a better solution (i.e. free the damn slaves) before trying to absorb the South. Conceivably that would have obviated the need for a Civil War before / after the full Union did form. That didn't happen so it seems this is pointless speculation except for the larger point of making bad compromises which has been so much the hallmark of the Democratic Party it's not even the Democratic Party anymore.
Modern Democrats don't believe that but they don't read a whole hell of a lot either. As far as we can deduce, they don't read much of anything but seem to enjoy bedtime stories quite a bit.
Therefore, the general Rockhouse premise is the Union should have started smaller and with more noble ideals than bigger is better. As history revealed, that thinking was poor and cost many, many lives through the obvious conflict of the war and the less obvious carnage of the ongoing slave trade.
It further pushes the idea teaching by example is the only way which works. If you try to do it with guns, you only end up with dead students. The first Union should have held the high and noble ground. That was why y'all left England in the first place, right?
That type of logic is not acceptable when such knowledge should be easily approachable by anyone regardless of technical sophistication. Humans don't fuck children and no man is less than any other.
We hold these truths to be self-evident and not some arbitrary bullshit pose from someone making the first example of an American compromise 'for the sake of the Union,' yet another of the historian's favorite justifications. Oh, yes, it was necessary for the state of the Union.
What kind of Union is worthy of preservation when it believes one man is less than another. Here at the Rockhouse, we submit no Union which ever existed has warranted a compromise of that nature.
For example, the Aztecs believed they were a Middle American master race and they routinely sacrificed anyone unfortunate enough to be a member of another tribe. The Aztecs chopped out the heart of the sacrificial victim and they did it with a stone axe. It's said the high priests sacrificed fifty thousand in a single day and even Hitler never killed as many as that in a day, not even close.
Note: as nearly as I can tell with severely rough arithmetic is the NAZIs killed about four thousand people per day. There's no need for exquisite detail on who was the most horrifying as the only point is barbarism is not without parallel, if not so much scope, and blowing off any of it as a 'reflection of the times' is possibly a backdoor into religion insofar as they were 'savages who did not know better.' The world crawls with pedophiles now so we don't buy that logic.
Note: there will be no attempt to wrap this around to, see, this is what happens when you let those religious people get out of hand but we have observed no particular references to religious drivers behind the NAZIs. For example, a possibly germane thought is we saw over Auschwitz Arbeit Macht Free (i.e. work sets you free) rather than Gott Macht Free (i.e. God sets you free).
Cadillac Man and I spoke of this at some length last night, largely because we're such boring bastards and we enjoy talking of such things, and I don't accept it was necessary to incorporate the thinking of slave owners for the express purpose of making the Union larger, ensuring everything in the country is included, etc, etc. The objective of such a compromise is arbitrary and logically indefensible (i.e. we just wanted it).
(Ed: anything is logically defensible but you may not accept the logic)
Fair enough.
My position on such a thing is the original Union should have held the high ground, albeit a smaller chunk of it, and then worked toward a better solution (i.e. free the damn slaves) before trying to absorb the South. Conceivably that would have obviated the need for a Civil War before / after the full Union did form. That didn't happen so it seems this is pointless speculation except for the larger point of making bad compromises which has been so much the hallmark of the Democratic Party it's not even the Democratic Party anymore.
Modern Democrats don't believe that but they don't read a whole hell of a lot either. As far as we can deduce, they don't read much of anything but seem to enjoy bedtime stories quite a bit.
Therefore, the general Rockhouse premise is the Union should have started smaller and with more noble ideals than bigger is better. As history revealed, that thinking was poor and cost many, many lives through the obvious conflict of the war and the less obvious carnage of the ongoing slave trade.
It further pushes the idea teaching by example is the only way which works. If you try to do it with guns, you only end up with dead students. The first Union should have held the high and noble ground. That was why y'all left England in the first place, right?
No comments:
Post a Comment